Slashdot Mirror


Text-Messaging Behind the Wheel

theodp writes "TIME interviews 21-year-old Taylor Leming, creator of the 600-member Facebook group I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet! While Alaska and Louisiana just became the latest states to pass laws banning text-messaging behind the wheel, Virginia resident Leming is still happily texting away while driving despite some near-accidents. 'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor."

517 comments

  1. Darwin by j_sp_r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it important to text that you'll be there in 5 minutes anyway? You can also wait 5 minutes.

    And I hope when he crashes and kills himself he doesn't take others with him. Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

    1. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      God: Where are you?

      Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.

      CRASH!! BANG!!

      Makes sense to me.

    2. Re:Darwin by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 5, Funny

      God: Where are you?

      Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.

      CRASH!! BANG!!


      God: That didn't seem like 5 minutes to me.

    3. Re:Darwin by Daengbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

      My taxi driver the other day was obsessed with his nav system while driving me home -- He was playing solitaire on it. If I had been able to communicate with him, I would have cursed him out.

    4. Re:Darwin by gemada · · Score: 5, Funny

      The best example yet of this occurred here in Canada. A teenage girl was driving her parents' minivan and got into an accident while texting her boyfriend.....and here is the kicker....HE WAS IN THE BACK SEAT!

    5. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

      Don't forget another common distraction: interacting with actual living humans in your vehicle. There should be a law banning passenger seats.

    6. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I haven't got an ArseFace account, but can someone that has log into his group and give him the righteous abuse that the silly little fucker deserves?

    7. Re:Darwin by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      God: Where are you?

      Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.

      CRASH!! BANG!!


      God: That didn't seem like 5 minutes to me.


      Idiot: I didn't die immediately!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    8. Re:Darwin by cyberwench · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet, barely anyone gives a second thought to tuning their radio while driving or talking to a passenger while driving - both things that are shown to create just as much of a distraction.

      I don't think there's anyone out there who never ever deals with distractions while driving. Having a sandwich, drinking something, changing tracks on a CD, driving while not having enough sleep... everyone does it on one level or another. All of it is dangerous, but the only thing that seems to get people keyed up is cell phone use. Can anyone explain to me why?

      --
      ~ Leilah
    9. Re:Darwin by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who use their phones while driving don't grasp how dangerous it is.

      I'll tune my radio on the road, but only when I'm in a clear patch when nothing is happening at the moment. I also take as little time as possible to do so; all of my favorite stations are programmed into buttons, so it just takes a moment, and doesn't take much attention.

      The same is true with my passengers. When the driving gets tough, I will stop talking to them, often in mid-sentence.

      But people who use cell phones on the road don't seem to understand these ideas. They will frequently place the cell phone first, driving second. They won't interrupt their conversation for a difficult section of driving, they won't try to minimize their conversation, and to compound it all they frequently have only one hand free for actual driving, which means less steering control and poor or nonexistent use of turn signals.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    10. Re:Darwin by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 3, Funny

      it took him 10 seconds to decide if he wanted to send the text message. linky

    11. Re:Darwin by danocorno · · Score: 1

      Text is a noun, not a verb.

    12. Re:Darwin by mpe · · Score: 1

      God: Where are you?
      Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.
      CRASH!! BANG!!

      God: So you'll be going to "the other place" then...

    13. Re:Darwin by brownsteve · · Score: 5, Funny

      The girl's name is Taylor Leming. This cannot be a coincidence.

    14. Re:Darwin by Stickerboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >And yet, barely anyone gives a second thought to tuning their radio while driving or talking to a passenger while driving - both things that are shown to create just as much of a distraction.

      I don't think there's anyone out there who never ever deals with distractions while driving. Having a sandwich, drinking something, changing tracks on a CD, driving while not having enough sleep... everyone does it on one level or another. All of it is dangerous, but the only thing that seems to get people keyed up is cell phone use. Can anyone explain to me why?

      Mostly because it's the bigger idiots that try to text message while driving. There seems to be a tiered system of stupidity while driving. On one level there's the eating a sandwich or sucking on a soda pop or leaning over to tune the radio. On a higher level of idiocy, there's the people reading a newspaper, doing makeup, driving without your seatbelt, and texting or calling on a cell phone.

      Unlike talking to a passenger, who should have a nominal idea of what's going on in traffic, the person on the other end of a call has no sense of when they should shut up or avoid bringing up issues requiring heavy thought. I have no problem with someone making an essential short call when it's safe to say, "Hey Dave, the meeting is canceled today. See you", and then hanging up. It's just that most people who I actually see talking on their cellphones in traffic aren't that bright, and continue to natter on forever while they're swerving and stomping on their brakes.

      The title of the Facebook group says it all about the people who text message while driving. "Haven't died, yet!" Congratulations... you win the dumb luck award? Soon to turn into another Award?

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    15. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ahh, an AC idiot who thinks he is smart because he uses the continuum fallacy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

      Living humans can stop talking when distractions are present. It is much less dangerous. But, if you were not an idiot, you would know this already.

    16. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      possibly my favourite /. comment ever.

    17. Re:Darwin by Perf · · Score: 1

      Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

      Fortunately, the days of old the Philcos with 287 knobs (of which only 2 work) is long past.
      Yes! No more simultaneous adjusting the rf gain, regenerative gain, tuning, audio gain.
      Don't you just hate it when you hit a bump and have to readjust the catwhisker on your crystal set?

      Well no more!!!

      Today's modern cars come with push button radios.
      Yes, that's right folks!
      A radio that tunes to a new station at the press of a button.

      Some engineers predict that in the future, we will have radios that can automatically search for the next station with just the press of a button.

      And then there are people who, while doing nothing more than driving, crash into people. Perhaps the addition of a clutch pedal or turn signal overtaxes their mind.

    18. Re:Darwin by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      haha, thanks for posting as an AC :(
      Now it looks like I'm trying to game the moderation system.

    19. Re:Darwin by socsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    20. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Having a sandwich, drinking something, changing tracks on a CD, driving while not having enough sleep... everyone does it on one level or another. All of it is dangerous, but the only thing that seems to get people keyed up is cell phone use. Can anyone explain to me why?

      I, for one, do not do any of that. I don't eat in the car. I don't listen to CDs in the car. And I always get a good night's sleep, because that's important to me.

      Do people really do all this other crap while driving? If so, then I'm really scared!

      Empirically, I sure don't notice any of this happening. At least once a week, some jerk tries to run me over while talking on a cell phone. I can't remember anybody ever nearly hitting me while holding a sandwich, or reaching for the radio. I'm sure it must happen *sometimes*, but it's certainly not ubiquitous like Driving While Chatting is.

    21. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, sorry.

    22. Re:Darwin by pembo13 · · Score: 1
      Why?
      • There's only one radio station that I like, if it changes its by a passenger, or by myself before I start my drive to work
      • My SO can tell you that I hate talking in the car
      • I darn well don't have sandwiches in the car
      • My car doesn't have a CD player
      • And I am chronically tired, but I am also lazy, so if I am too tired to drive, I am most likely in bed
      • When I got my first car in the USA, I purchased a bluetooth headset over a week before I met with the car dealer

      I am not against cellphone use, I am against holding the phone while you drive. Also, men should just just keep all talking to a minimum when driving. Men's brains just aren't for that kind of multitasking

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    23. Re:Darwin by Drakonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because to use your cell-phone for texting, you must look AWAY FROM THE ROAD and at a small screen to read texts.

      When you're talking to a passenger, yeah, you're distracted, but talking and listening does not require that you take your eyes off the road. Nor does adjusting the radio, once you're used to using it.

    24. Re:Darwin by bhtooefr · · Score: 2

      OK, seriously, I need a source for this shit.

      That's just slightly too hard to believe.

    25. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is why (just picked the first relevant example from 30 seconds' Googling):

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080602/lf_nm_life/driving_cellphone_dc

      Almor also explained that when applied to the visual task of driving, the results show that simply using hand-free devices are not very helpful.

      "This isn't getting through to many legislators," he said, adding that with driving talking on the phone is also different from talking to someone in the car.

      "When you have someone sitting next to you they are acting as an extra set of eyes, something that a remote person can't alert you to."

      The person on the other end of the phone can't see what's going on, and won't know when they need to shut up. Additionally, it takes more brain power to decipher speech coming over a crappy digital connection than when it is coming from somebody who's right there, so the distraction is actually far greater.

    26. Re:Darwin by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Why is it important to text that you'll be there in 5 minutes anyway? You can also wait 5 minutes.

      For some reason, there is a large segment of American Society which is responsible for us being the most productive nation in the world. Somehow this drive to be successful overrides the need for personal safety and happiness. 60 hour work weeks, working on weekends, 24/7 enslavement to work through their Blackberry.

      I've never known what causes this behavior since I'm content enough to be a slacker. Its just annoying that our society is now starting to view this as expected behavior.

      I suppose in the eyes of a corporation, a few dead employees is a small price to pay as long as everyone is chatting 24/7 regardless of the safety issues.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    27. Re:Darwin by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pedant is also a noun.

    28. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God: That didn't seem like 5 minutes to me. Go back and do it over!

    29. Re:Darwin by Thomasje · · Score: 1

      Just because people don't get "keyed up" over eating, drinking, talking to a passenger while negotiating busy traffic, changing tracks on a CD, etc., doesn't mean those activities are any less dangerous than the ones they do worry about. It just means they don't get it yet.
      Heck, I've had a couple of almost-accidents while fiddling with the radio or rummaging through a bag for that bottle of water. Guess what: I got the message, counted my blessings that those almost-accidents were just that (no thanks to me, all thanks to the other drivers who were alert enough to avoid me, and nice enough not to beat me up at the next rest stop)... And I just don't do that kind of stuff any more.

    30. Re:Darwin by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      i hate you all! j/k

    31. Re:Darwin by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Text used to be a noun, now it's used both interchangeably as a verb and a noun. So many words in modern English are starting to be used like this. A lot of them are caused by the internet to take on dual usages. The one that annoys me the most is the world Google. My dad, 62 years old, used that world the other day mean look something up.

      Is there a term for dual usage words like this?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    32. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cell phone use is incredibly widespread, and the amount of time it distracts people is higher than other things. It takes 5 seconds to change the radio station, 20 seconds to put in a new cd, and so on. Compare that to talking on the cell phone for 20 minutes. Also, a good driver who needs to do other things won't do them if the situation is particularly dangerous or requires more concentration. With a cell phone, people just keep talking until they get into an accident

    33. Re:Darwin by Gewalt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      6 billion years didn't seem like a week either.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    34. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because using a cellphone restricts you to just one hand on the wheel/gearstick...

      At least with the other stuff (like talking to someone) you have your hands free to deal with any surprise situations...

    35. Re:Darwin by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People who tune their radios while driving don't grasp how dangerous it is.

      Seriously, your post comes off as a bit condescending. "Other people who do something seemingly safe are too stupid to realize that it's dangerous. But when I do something seemingly safe, it's because I'm smart enough to know that it actually is safe!"

      That's fantastic that you only do it when you're on a barren straightaway and only press one button. Phone talkers who only phone while on straightaways and only press one button to do it (speed dial) can make exactly the same argument. Guess what? It's still dangerous. Changing the radio station while driving is dangerous. Period.

    36. Re:Darwin by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      And yet, barely anyone gives a second thought to tuning their radio while driving or talking to a passenger while driving - both things that are shown to create just as much of a distraction.

      You young-uns. Back in the late 70's/early 80's, there was an explosion in the car audio market. A slew of components from EQ's, amps, cross-overs, speakers, and decks were flooding audio shops. And the prices were coming down on decks with cassette players.

      There was out-cry back then about the danger of people being distracted with finding cassettes, fast forwarding and rewinding, any playing with the knobs.

      In the 90's when car stereos with CD players became common, there was outcry about people swapping CD's and not paying attention to the road.

      Today, every time I start my car, I have to "agree" to pay attention to the road while driving because my vehicle has an on-dash read-out (car stats, GPS, etc).

      When I used to be on the road alot, I say people applying make-up, reading the news paper, eating lunch, checking a computer--pretty much doing anything other than driving.

      People get too comfortable and don't expect the accident to happen to them. When it does, they are shocked.

    37. Re:Darwin by karnal · · Score: 1

      So is picking your nose, but hey, that's not going to stop anyone real soon now is it?

      --
      Karnal
    38. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction:

      God: Where are you?
      Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.
      [2 mins later.]
      CRASH!! BANG!!
      God: Sorry, couldn't wait.

    39. Re:Darwin by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      Because to use your cell-phone for texting, you must look AWAY FROM THE ROAD and at a small screen to read texts.

      Not necessarily; I can type text messages without looking at the screen. That said, it still does not make texting while driving less dangerous.

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    40. Re:Darwin by fugue · · Score: 1

      Of course, the person he takes out is also more likely than chance to be sending a text message.

      Tangential query: when two SUVs crash, are the occupants more likely to die than when two cars crash?

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    41. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't create as much distraction to talk to a passenger or tune the radio. When you're texting you have to *look* at a friggin' screen for several seconds, that's way more dangerous than even talking on the phone without a hands-free kit. Don't say stupid things just because you don't want to feel bad when texting and driving.

      Please, let me know when you're driving in my area so I know to avoid you.

      And by the way, RTFL.

      "Do you think texting while driving is a problem?

      Yes. Unfortunately, people still do it. I still do it. Sometimes it just seems easier to text "Be there in 5" instead of calling.

      [...]

      Would you support a text-and-drive ban?

      It would be a hard rule to enforce, as a cop cannot necessarily see someone texting while driving. I would support it, however, because I consider myself to be a pretty good law follower and would feel pretty horrible if something happened because of me breaking a law."

    42. Re:Darwin by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why couldn't you SMS him? Did you at least try to ask him for a phone number? After all, he's right there.

    43. Re:Darwin by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't want to discourage you from being a skeptic. By all means, be a skeptic. ;^) But did you even read what he said? He said, "Canadians". ;^p

    44. Re:Darwin by skiingyac · · Score: 1

      I suppose in the eyes of a corporation, a few dead customers is a small price to pay as long as everyone is chatting 24/7 regardless of the safety issues.


      Fixed that for you.

      $0.10 if the driver texts to say they are 5 minutes late vs $0.00 if the driver just shows up 5 minutes late and says sorry in person.

    45. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, I CAN explain it...
      While most people might be holding a conversation with a passenger, they still can and will check over their shoulder and use a turn signal while driving...with a cell phone GLUED to the side of their head, and BOTH HANDS occupied with driving and texting or holding that phone to their head, they DO NOT USE a turn signal NOR do they check over their shoulder as they change lanes on top of me...
      I also installed a 140db horn that I use at least 2 times a day in my 60 miles of commuting...for people who don't use turn signals or check to see if they are clear for a lane change...
      The whole thing has to do with MULTI-TASKING... you only have 2 hands, and if one is on the wheel, the other on a phone or sandwich, which hand will you use to turn on the turn signal?
      If you have a phone to your head, how will you turn your head to check over your shoulder for a clear spot to change lanes?
      THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE DOING WHILE BEHIND THE WHEEL OF YOUR CAR, THAN PAYING ATTENTION TO DRIVING...THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ANYTHING ELSE...IT IS ONLY NEGLIGENCE AND STUPIDITY.

    46. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, reading the wiki article, that doesn't seem to apply to the AC's post unless you were adding people or distractions. The AC was comparing two different distractions (texting and people being physically present) which does not really apply.

    47. Re:Darwin by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know what else is dangerous? Driving.

      I'm not saying that I'm safe while other people are not. I'm saying that there are things you can do to limit your distraction and reduce the danger of the activity. The problem is that people who talk on cell phones while driving by and large do not do these things. Some of them do, and are thereby reasonably safe, and I have no problem with them.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    48. Re:Darwin by TheLink · · Score: 1

      In my experience many people can't even drive when being distracted by other vehicles ;).

      Examples:
      If a car approaches them from behind rapidly, they panic and do really stupid stuff.
      Or they just finally notice that there's a slow truck in front of them, and proceed to do something stupid.

      Anyway, I think many people can drive safely while talking on the phone or doing stuff. It's a matter of practice. Cops drive while talking with other people, F1 drivers do too.

      It's just like some people can learn how to juggle or some other skill of coordination.

      HOWEVER, when you learn how to juggle if you make a mistake, usually people don't get killed or maimed, and they practice with safe stuff first (e.g. balls and not knives). I bet most people don't practice talking on a phone or texting while driving under controlled and safe conditions. And most people (including myself) aren't that good at driving in the first place.

      If people are going to insist on doing such stuff, perhaps there should be a driving test which requires that people be able to drive while talking with someone on the phone (e.g. being made to solve simple math questions in a certain amount of time and answer basic trivia stuff). It might involve driving simulators etc.

      Lastly, talking on a phone should be a lot easier than sending a text message (which involves a lot more buttons and remembering T9 or whatever). I find it quite easy to just stop talking to other people when the driving situation starts to require more concentration ( and why not just chuck the phone if you suddenly really need both hands on the wheel - having a cheap phone helps :) ).

      --
    49. Re:Darwin by mstahl · · Score: 1

      One of the differences is that when you're talking with a passenger who's in your car, they can see the road conditions and know when to shut up if there's a particularly dangerous traffic situation that they know requires your attention. The person on the other end of the cell phone doesn't know that and will just keep on talking.

    50. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why is it important to text that you'll be there in 5 minutes anyway? You can also wait 5 minutes.

      Well gee, let's see: maybe you are meeting some people who have been waiting on you and may leave you if you don't let them know you'll be there in a couple minutes? I am sure I can think of hundreds of reasons why you would want to send such a text message. What a stupid criticism.

      Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

      Oh please. Driving is a dangerous activity, period. Yet somehow people manage to arrive safely at their destinations in most cases. I guess if you're a retard or clumsy geek who's totally incapable of doing two things at once you might want to refrain from tuning the radio, etc. while driving through rush hour traffic. The rest of us get along just fine texting, calling, etc while driving, especially out on the open highway with little traffic. Hell, I've been known to send text messages while riding a fucking motorcycle, and here I am, still alive and breathing.

      I wish people like you would quit trying to be everybody else's mommy.

    51. Re:Darwin by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But people who use cell phones on the road don't seem to understand these ideas. They will frequently place the cell phone first, driving second.

      Sorry, but that is nonsense.

      Using your mobile (cell)phone whilst driving is illegal over here, because our Orwellian government passed a law against it. I don't think it's sensible. Before that, I did talk on a phone whilst driving and you know what? I was able to put the mobile phone SECOND and driving FIRST. What makes you think that the class of drivers who are unable to prioritize tasks properly are limited exclusively to those using a mobile phone whilst driving?

    52. Re:Darwin by dhalgren · · Score: 1

      Press Scan then. By your argument we shouldn't have climate controls, cruise control, or anything else with a user interface in the cab beyond the bare minimum required the pilot the vehicle. The difference is in the amount of distraction and the amount of time it takes to complete a task. Changing a radio station takes less time and mental engagement than text messaging.

      Driving is dangerous. Period.

    53. Re:Darwin by heteromonomer · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I'd give him a +10. And that Taylor girl... epitomizes the pride stupid people have.

    54. Re:Darwin by Glug · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's anyone out there who never ever deals with distractions while driving. Having a sandwich, drinking something, changing tracks on a CD, driving while not having enough sleep... everyone does it on one level or another. All of it is dangerous, but the only thing that seems to get people keyed up is cell phone use. Can anyone explain to me why?

      Certainly. It has to do with the level of concentration that the extraneous task takes away from your driving. The attention required to roll your window up to reduce the amount of wind in your car as you enter the freeway or to take a sip of coffee is far less than the attention that would be required to watch an episode of your favorite TV show or to read a passage of a really good book while driving. The latter activities are called "escapes", and for good reason. They are very powerful distractions for your attention.

      Having a conversation on the phone falls somewhere between the two extremes - but it is close enough to the latter extreme to cause measurable distraction and accidents. Texting is considerably worse than having a phone conversation while driving.

      There is a marked difference between having a conversation with someone who is inside the car with you and someone who is on the phone with you. The person in the car is aware of the same things you are, and will tend to shut their yap when the semitruck next to you covers your windshield with mist. The person on the other end of the phone will be oblivious to your immediate need to temporarily shift your attention from the conversation to your inability to see, and they will keep yakking, which, unless you drop the phone, will continue to consume your attention.

    55. Re:Darwin by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What makes you think that the class of drivers who are unable to prioritize tasks properly are limited exclusively to those using a mobile phone whilst driving?

      Absolutely nothing at all! There are plenty of worthless drivers out there, both with and without cell phones.

      However, most people using cell phones on the road will be this worthless sort. Why? Well, first, because most drivers are this worthless sort, period. Secondly, because people like you and I will generally make short calls out of necessity, whereas this worthless sort of driver will make constant long calls. Thus the odds are extremely high that any given driver on a cell phone is a worthless moron who can't prioritize.

      Yes, there are people who can do it responsibly, but they make up a vanishingly small proportion of the population.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    56. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And guess what? You got your sig right. You Are a moron. Texting while driving is dangerous. Were you trying to be cool by claiming you don't see the phone while texting? What's your point?

    57. Re:Darwin by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Not all at the same time, but yes.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    58. Re:Darwin by Fjandr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Phone talkers who only phone while on straightaways and only press one button to do it (speed dial) can make exactly the same argument. Guess what? It's still dangerous. Changing the radio station while driving is dangerous. Period.

      Talking on the phone engages your attention for a continuous period of time. A half-second to push a button != several minutes of distraction. Not saying the momentary distraction is not dangerous, but it does not even come close to approaching the level of danger that talking on the phone while driving presents.

      Text messaging is even worse though, since it requires the concentration to produce the text mentally (much more thought intensive than speaking naturally) and some form of error correction (or worse, watching your phone constantly as you enter text). Sadly, these people don't always have one-party crashes. If they only killed themselves in car crashes, I'd be fine with it.

    59. Re:Darwin by foniksonik · · Score: 0, Redundant

      took him 5 minutes to die...

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    60. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1

      It's just that most people who I actually see talking on their cellphones in traffic aren't that bright, and continue to natter on forever while they're swerving and stomping on their brakes.

      So in other words, it's not even about cell phones at all, it's about idiot drivers. Idiot drivers are idiots regardless if they are using a cell phone or not. Instead of ranting and raving about cell phones, why don't you (and other anti-cell phone nazis) attack the root of the problem instead? How about demanding tougher, more stringent and more frequent driving exams? How about demanding the police quit writing bullshit speeding tickets and instead concentrate on ticketing people for tailgating, putting along in the passing lane, swerving through traffic, and other things that idiots do?

    61. Re:Darwin by brendank310 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I've been in cars with people texting, calling people on their phones, and fiddling with the radio; all of those bother me a little. I don't feel very unsafe however. What really gets me, is when I'm driving on a highway, and I have to sneeze. Repeated sneezing is easily more dangerous. Write to your local congress representative and have them outlaw sneezing while driving.

    62. Re:Darwin by Slacksoft · · Score: 1

      The reason radios were put into cars is to cause a bit of distraction. It's kind of the same reason why there are not a lot of really long straight roads. If roads stay long and straight we eventually lose our reaction time as we become less and less concerned with being prepared for deviations in the path. Most roads curve, turn, or keep some angle so that we're forced to be reactive to the change. Radio is another way to help keep our focus to the road on long trips. The reason everyone becomes disgruntled with cell phones is that they're not located in a centralized place. When you're texting your phone could be in your lap, seat, resting on the steering wheel, or between your legs. There is no fixed location. It requires more mental faculties to determine the exactly location of the buttons are on the phone, whether you've typed the right one, and to be able to navigate the sometimes overly obtuse menu functionality of the phone. Radios tend to be in a fix location on the center of the console. This does not change for the most part. This is figured into the design of the vehicles for max efficiency. To a lesser extent the passenger is in a fixed location as well, and talking to them does not give reason to deviate your typical driving actions.

    63. Re:Darwin by prockcore · · Score: 1

      they'll shut up when you suddenly yell "holy shit!"

    64. Re:Darwin by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Slightly higher because of the higher chance of rolling over. Otherwise, it's about the same as two cars of the same size. Also assume the same level of crash protection engineering. Newer vehicles have much better crash protection than older ones.

    65. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh no!

    66. Re:Darwin by Rhys · · Score: 1

      Not to mention passengers often help avert accidents, so even if they cause some by distracting the driver, there's at least some savings in having them there. I don't know which effect is stronger though. Anecdotal evidence from my life suggests the aversion is stronger.

      Think of the site as a resource though. New hire? Search it. Probability of a hit is low, but if you get one, be worried about their responsibility and judgment.

      --
      Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
    67. Re:Darwin by mstahl · · Score: 1

      Sometimes there's not enough time for that. You have to be proactive about your concentration in the car as a driver and for the benefit of the drive when you're ridin' shotgun.

    68. Re:Darwin by steve90 · · Score: 1

      It is more dangerous because the radio does not expect a response from you. Also if you are talking to someone in the passenger seat they can see when you may need to break off and concentrate on driving and won't bother you for an answer.

    69. Re:Darwin by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      People who tune their radios while driving don't grasp how dangerous it is.

      As someone who has been in an accident with 4 totaled cars that wouldn't have happened if somebody hadn't tuned his radio (no, not me) - I can attest to that.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    70. Re:Darwin by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that people are very bad at judging how well they drive and how distracted they are by other activities. You think you are driving safely while texting etc. Maybe, but probably not. You're probably a hazard just waiting to cause an accident.

    71. Re:Darwin by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      I can drink a soda and watch the road.
      I can eat a sandwich and watch the road.
      I can change the station and volume on my radio without looking at it.

      If you can text someone without looking at your phone - bravo, you're better than the 99% of the other morons out there.

      If you can't text without looking at your phone - don't! Keep your fucking eyes on the road when you're driving - my wife and kids might be in that car ahead of you. Cause them harm while doing something stupid like that, and I'll hunt you down.

    72. Re:Darwin by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Actually, talking to your passenger is usually a fairly good thing. It keeps you alert and awake. The passenger is also usually smart enough to know to shut up when you're changing lanes or making a turn.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    73. Re:Darwin by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Here, here. Years ago I was hit and my vehicle totalled by a guy who looked down to adjust his radio. The next thing he knew, he was in my lane. One point that this makes is that people shouldn't adjust their radio if they have to look away from the road to do it. Wait, or ask a passenger to do it. The other is that controls should be better designed. There is a lot of variation in how easy controls are for the driver to use and in particular whether they require the driver to look away from the road. This should be an important design consideration.

    74. Re:Darwin by ericspinder · · Score: 1

      While I love the game, some might even know that a Lemming is a real animal, with a strong herd mentality; which btw isn't quite as suicidal as reported.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    75. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes people don't wait.
      Anyway, cars should be driving by them self, so people can do other stuff.

    76. Re:Darwin by kesuki · · Score: 1

      you think text messaging is bad... there is this project in the twin cities to reduce traffic accidents... and this one volunteer caught a person CHANGING A BABY AT A RED LIGHT.

      now text messaging doesn't seems so bad, compared to people who are pulling on their pants, or changing a baby's diaper, or you know putting on makeup, but it just drives me nuts, wtf is wrong with those people... if you don't have enough time to drive 30 minutes to your work every day move closer, get to bed sooner, or just get a loud annoying alarm that is really loud but nowhere in your bedroom so you can't click it off...

    77. Re:Darwin by kesuki · · Score: 1

      "But people who use cell phones on the road don't seem to understand these ideas."

      and they never will, all the better if we can get a cheap, mass producible auto driving program for cars, computers don't make mistakes, i'd much rather live in a city where computer controlled cars can flock together with millimeters between cars to reduce drag and save fuel while still being able to get them to run 100 mph, and allow the highway department to spend less money on lanes..

      humans could never slam on the breaks within a millisecond, but computers can turn the breaks on and off hundreds of times a second already, through ABS systems.

      yeah yeah, what could possibly go wrong with computer controlled cars, tons of things, but at least the challenge is nothing more than engineering. with human drivers you have everything from drunks, to drug abusers, to just plain idiots trying to change a BABY while driving!

    78. Re:Darwin by fullgandoo · · Score: 1

      Only to read an incoming text.
      For out going, I know kids who can do it from their pant pockets without EVER looking at the screen. Unbelievable as it sounds, I've seen it done pretty accurately.

    79. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because to use your cell-phone for texting, you must look AWAY FROM THE ROAD and at a small screen to read texts."

      I use orca screen reader, you insensitive clod!

    80. Re:Darwin by Drakonik · · Score: 1

      So? You still need to look away from the road. And accidents don't take several minutes to happen. They happen in an instant. Looking away to read an incoming text, even if it's just five seconds, is about four and 3/4 seconds longer than you need to slam into the driver in front of you if they make a sudden stop.

    81. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my passengers always shut up when I say "hold on, leap of faith time"

    82. Re:Darwin by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's true, and that's why I no longer listen to the radio while I'm driving.

      Even if you're leaving the radio on the same station you're still not out of the clear. So, I opt to not listen at all. It's unfortunate that shy of banning radios from the car at all, there's no way to keep people from doing it.

      Personally, I'm glad to live in a state where texting and in a couple of days cell phones without headsets are banned from cars. I just wish they'd up it to a primary offense and ban other risky activities as well.

    83. Re:Darwin by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Nice trolling there. In most jurisdictions there is no fine for talking on a cellphone or it's a secondary offense. I'm not aware of a single jurisdiction where it is a primary offense.

      What you seem to not understand is that the same group of people that feels entitled to speed is a huge subset of the people that don't drive safely. What's more faster speeds making things like reaction time, tire grip and general skills that much more important. Failing to get it right at higher speeds is more and more dangerous as things progress.

      At least around here, all those things are illegal, it's just that, surprisingly enough, those are a lot harder to catch due to the fact that they are much shorter events than speeding typically is.

    84. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound like a douche.

    85. Re:Darwin by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Text messaging is particularly dangerous because your eyes, attention, and hand are focused on it. My favorites are the idiots who claim "I can text without looking at the phone so it's safe." First off, even if you can, you don't. Second, you have entire conversations through text messages while you are driving, and I am fairly confident that you are looking at your phone to read the incoming side of those conversations.

      Don't text and drive. Don't accept text messages from people who are driving. Tell your friends that you will not be friends with them if they continue driving intexticated. Steal and destroy their phones or car keys. Do whatever it takes to keep these truly idiotic losers, who probably suck at driving even when entirely focused on it, off of the roads.

    86. Re:Darwin by Nosferatu+Alucard · · Score: 1
      I text while I drive all the time, but I follow similar rules. If I've got a passenger who is familiar with my friend and my phone, I hand them my phone and they text for me. I never text in situations that involve merging, turning, or low speeds where stopping is more likely. I also drive a manual, so that increases when I cannot text.

      My life comes before my phone, I've dropped my phone with no regard when I suddenly hit a patch of bad traffic. I picked it up when it was appropriate and apologized to the person. I get quiet when I am in traffic that involves concentration, and when I do text, I don't look down. I hold the phone by the wheel with traffic in the background. This way, my hand is already by the wheel should I need to drop the phone and grab it, and I don't have a delay in switching my viewing plane. It helps to know the keypad and all it's shortcuts too.

      It does annoy me that there are drivers who put their phone before their driving, I've seen it, and I've taken their phones as passengers to make them focus. It's cheaper than dying.

    87. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand the situation involved. Many others simply do not comprehend the dangers of careening along in a metal box at 60mph and what the laws of physics say must happen if you are forced to stop in under a second.

    88. Re:Darwin by jsiren · · Score: 1

      I've had a couple of close calls when some living humans kept talking at the wrong time, so I don't think the continuum fallacy necessarily applies here: living humans can be a dangerous distraction, although maybe a lesser one than electronic devices. Talking to a human being rarely commands your full attention or requires you to take your eyes off the traffic, although some people have habits to the contrary.

      Also, taking directions from a passenger who isn't good at giving instructions isn't very healthy either. Once I asked a backseat passenger the simple question "go straight or turn right?" and got the answer "that way." Twice. In the same intersection. The third time produced the right answer, but at the very last possible moment.

      I've had a couple of unfortunate encounters with well-meaning relatives pushing instructions into my ear in a situation where I simply cannot listen, such as a five-way street crossing with no traffic lights and odd yield rules that nobody follows anyway. The simple request "just a second, please, I need to watch the traffic" produced a load of huffing and puffing and a sermon to the tone "if you don't want me in your car, just say so, I'll take a cab next time."

      --
      Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    89. Re:Darwin by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you know what you're doing, and it's sad how rare this kind of behavior is.

      It would be great to have a study which takes this sort of thing into account. You hear things like "adjusting the radio is as dangerous as talking on a cell phone", with no qualifications. I'm sure if you're staring at the radio and twiddling the dial then it's worse, but that's certainly not what I do. And I'm sure that you and I are much safer than the average person while talking on the phone in the car, due to being willing to stop the conversation when needed.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    90. Re:Darwin by jsiren · · Score: 1

      Depends on the radio. If I had to wind a knob (a really old radio) or fiddle with a touchscreen (something I'd never buy) I wouldn't tune a radio while driving. However, I have a remote control on the steering column that allows me to adjust the volume and change stations or CD tracks without looking or taking my hands off the wheel. Newer cars (mine is a 1999 model) have buttons on the steering wheel for the same purpose.

      In my opinion every control that is to be used while driving must have good tactile feedback and be placed so that it can be used without looking, or with a quick glance at most. Anything else distracts way too much.

      I rarely eat or drink while driving, partly because I drive a stick shift, which takes two hands to operate, but mostly because it's very distracting and makes a mess in the car. I do sometimes talk on the phone, using it in speaker mode.

      --
      Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    91. Re:Darwin by MiKM · · Score: 1

      As far as tuning the radio goes, many new cars these days come with buttons on the steering wheel that let you change the station/CD track/volume without looking down or taking your hand off the wheel.

    92. Re:Darwin by ady1 · · Score: 1

      I have a much better idea (other than wishing death for him)

      1. Design an additional driving test (optional) with the measurement of responses while texting/talking.
      2. Issue a sticker to people who pass this test and allow them cellphone usage.

    93. Re:Darwin by ady1 · · Score: 1

      >>People who use their phones while driving don't grasp how dangerous it is.

      The first human who walked out of a cave didnt' know how dangerous it was either. Life is dangerous, deal with it. If you are so scared of dying then the best thing to do is to live in the basement with a tinfoil hat.

      Humans evolve. They learn to do new things most of which would seem dangerous to anyone who haven't done this before.

      A lot of people, including myself know and understand how dangerous a lot of things are, yet we chose to do such things. Why? because its human nature.

      For example: Wiring your home with electric wires would seem so dangerous to a person from teh 17th century. Oh the danger of having electric wires run througout your house. Also using a fast moving vehicle would also seem very dangerous to anyone from that era. Yet we take all those dangers for a little convenience.

      Like it or not, Humans take risks and will continue to do so regardless of how some paranoids feel.

    94. Re:Darwin by robwdaddy · · Score: 1

      They are all more distracting than simply staring ahead, but you'd have to be a fool to think they are all equally distracting. Phone calls and texting are the worst. Eating is a few notches down, but eating a messy sandwich can be a problem for sure. Changing tracks or volume on a CD can almost always be done without looking - most new cars have the controls on your steering wheel, so once you get used to it you can do it without looking. Drinking something while driving - I'd have to say is way down on the distraction list. Talking on a cell hurts the driver in two ways - first the driver is thinking primarily about what the other person is saying and not the road and potential hazards ahead - second - the drivers range of motion of what they can see goes from unlimited to a narrow view straight ahead. I ride a bike to work every day and have to gauge whether or not I can count on someone to stop at a red light as I cross in front of them. If they're on a cell, I have to assume they don't see me and act accordingly. Normally people are surprisingly courteous if they not "cellphone impaired". They will notice me coming at them from the side and I can make eye contact to make sure they know I'm coming across. I'd say 1 cell user in 20 would crane their neck to see someone coming at them from the side. It's not their fault, really, holding a cell to your ear is not a comfortable position. Texting while driving - unless you can do this one-handed without looking, is idiotic at best, and criminal at worst. I don't care how good you think you can multitask, you simply can't drive as well. I would say if your text is an important one, just wait for the next light to fire one off. If you're on the highway pull over a hit an exit. But we all know most texts are not that important don't we, the same as most cell convo's. Ok that's it for me /end rant

    95. Re:Darwin by wonnage · · Score: 1

      Because when a dumb shit like you fucks up while texting âoecul8er!! :D :D" and crashes into someone, some innocent bystander gets wrecked for no reason. Nobody gives a shit about you, you can go drive off a cliff for all we care.

    96. Re:Darwin by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      And yet, barely anyone gives a second thought to tuning their radio while driving or talking to a passenger while driving - both things that are shown to create just as much of a distraction.

      I've heard this before and although I haven't gone to much effort to look for the data it's based on, I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. It seems completely counter-intuitive to me.

      I can talk to passengers at the same time as I watch the road, steer the car, etc. I can reach down to tune the radio at the same time as I watch the road, and I have at least one free hand to steer the car. If necessary, the other hand can leave the radio and return very quickly. (Some cars I've driven even have all the important radio controls on the steering wheel.) Granted that I might need to briefly glance at the radio to check I have the right control, but I can do this quickly when I know there's a relatively safe area in front of me, using the same rationale I might use when I need to look back to check a blind spot, etc.

      Maybe some people are better at it than I am, but if I have to write a text message while driving, I have to take my attention off the road for significantly longer periods of time, and they're more frequent. I have to remove my hands from controlling the car, and fumble around with tiny keys on my phone which haven't been designed for non-visual use. Furthermore, I have to frequently look at the phone display to make sure the letters I thought I was entering were actually entered, because my phone requires that I wait a short amount of time after each letter before keying in the next one. I can't always hold my phone with one hand when I'm doing this, because it's been designed in such a way that it might slip out of my hand when using the keypad if I don't anchor it on something besides my hand that's doing the dialing.

      As I indicated earlier, this is all completely subjective and anecdotal. But why exactly is text messaging supposedly no worse than tuning the radio or talking to passengers in the car. As far as I can tell all three require some degree of attention, but text messaging requires a much larger degree of physical manipulation and lengthy visual attention, both of which I think add up to a very bad combination with driving.

    97. Re:Darwin by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I hate dickheads who text while driving I just ignore txt messages, if it was important they would call.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    98. Re:Darwin by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Typing out a text message is much more distracting because it takes so much longer than skipping the track on the CD player or turning the heat up etc.

    99. Re:Darwin by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      But that makes no sense, because that one speed dial button is followed by a cellphone conversion, and not to mention how much worse text messaging is. Changing the radio station is much less dangerous because it takes so little time, reducing you chances of something happening while you're distracted. Come on, it's not rocket science.

    100. Re:Darwin by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Talking on the phone while driving isn't always dangerous it depends entirely on the driver.

      I know plenty of people who can use the phone no problem but despite this I also see ALLOT of people swerving all over the road while on the phone.

      Some people can do it but allot can't

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    101. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Language evolves and changes over time. Get used to it.

    102. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general I agree, but the seatbelt is seriously misplaced in your listing. Everything else listed is a distraction which requires use of the eyes to properly process, whereas wearing or not wearing seatbelt requires no thought or additional action. Further, while wearing or not wearing a seatbelt will affect the survivability for the person in the event of a crash, the wearing or not of a seatbelt does not correlate with getting into an accident.

    103. Re:Darwin by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Wow, hit a nerve or something? I'm all for doing something about idiot drivers, and banning cell phones is one thing that should be done about it, as cell phones is the number one reason I've seen for idiotic driving around here. Right now, the cops can't do anything about someone just driving with their cell phone glued to their ear, unless they happen to catch them doing something reckless or illegal at that moment. If cell phone use were banned when driving, then the cop could pull the person over and ticket them.

    104. Re:Darwin by HJED · · Score: 1

      texting is visual for much longer than any thing else listed here

      --
      null
    105. Re:Darwin by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I've been driving for 35yrs, I stopped using the mobile in the car not longer after I got a mobile because (depending on the conversation content and lenght) it does distract the drivers attention. Sure you can "put another task second" but that doesn't not stop it from being another task. Frankly I am glad they fine self righteous idiots because it means they are less likely to crash into me whilst concentrating on the phone.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    106. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1

      You're probably a hazard just waiting to cause an accident.

      I guess I've been "a hazard just waiting to cause an accident" for 8 years then, since that's how long I've been driving while texting, talking, fiddling with the radio, etc without having an accident.

    107. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Nice trolling there.

      That wasn't a troll.

      What you seem to not understand is that the same group of people that feels entitled to speed is a huge subset of the people that don't drive safely.

      There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Just because bad drivers are statistically more likely to speed doesn't mean that speeding means a person is a bad driver. From my experience, some of the shittiest and stupidest drivers on the road are also some of the slowest.

      What's more faster speeds making things like reaction time, tire grip and general skills that much more important.

      And what's your point? So if I have good reaction, good tires (and good suspension/brakes) and good skills, then it's OK if I speed along with everybody else? Sounds about right to me.

    108. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Because when a dumb shit like you fucks up while texting âoecul8er!! :D :D" and crashes into someone, some innocent bystander gets wrecked for no reason.

      Hey, if you're such a shitty driver that you can't handle doing two things at once, then maybe texting while driving is not for you. I don't have a problem with it, and I take precautions to ensure that I'm not distracted from what's going on around me. And here I am, accident free, after many years of driving while "distracted."

      Nobody gives a shit about you, you can go drive off a cliff for all we care.

      And nobody really gives a shit about your opinion either, least of all me, but hey that didn't stop you from posting it did it?

    109. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1

      If cell phone use were banned when driving, then the cop could pull the person over and ticket them.

      Yeah, and if wearing a seat belt while driving were banned, then the cops could pull over seat belt users over and ticket them, too. Seriously, what point were you trying to make? There are plenty of people who use cell phones safely while driving, myself included. I recognize and respect the power of an automobile to kill, so you can bet I am always cautious and drive defensively at all times. Just because there are RETARDS out there (most of them teenage chicks and soccer moms) using cell phones does not mean that cell phone use while driving should be banned. Hell, why not ban automobiles in general since some people use them to do stupid things?

    110. Re:Darwin by belmolis · · Score: 1

      That's quite possible. A long period without an accident doesn't mean that you are a safe driver. Accidents result from a combination of circumstances that may occur very rarely. You can be a poor driver and yet go through life unscathed because you have the luck not to encounter the situations in which your poor driving will cause an accident. You can also be a good driver and have a lot of accidents because you are unlucky and encounter a lot of situations in which even a good driver will have an accident.

      Although probably not so relevant to things like texting, another interfering factor is that some kinds of poor driving are more likely to cause OTHER drivers to have accidents than the poor driver himself. This is true, for example, of very aggressive drivers, who are more likely to panic other drivers and cause them to have accidents than to have one themselves.

    111. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mind talking on a cell phone. Its the Texting that is reckless..

    112. Re:Darwin by thewebdude · · Score: 1

      Last March, A 16 year-old girl T-boned a parked off-duty cop while texting. In the middle of the block. In broad daylight. On a school day.

    113. Re:Darwin by DiamondMX · · Score: 1

      Your response of course was, "How about *this* time?"

    114. Re:Darwin by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      There is no comparison between the simple act of changing a radio stations and attempting to use a hand held mobile phone whilst attempt to formulate a message with as few characters as possible, a task that obviously takes a lot of hand eye coordination as well as concentration. Changing radio stations on a car radio is no more distracting than changing gears in a manual, or activating the windscreen wipers etc.

      People text when they want to send a simple one way message with out an immediate reply, something that could be effectively replaced by more widespread use of voice mail a practice that would be far safer.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    115. Re:Darwin by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Text is a noun, not a verb.

      Welcome into the English language. Any noun gets turned into a verb, adjective, whatever else that's not a noun, verb or adjective, and it's been like this for a while.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    116. Re:Darwin by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Driving and calling (even hands free), texting, or doing anything else (tuning the radio, setting up your nav system) for that matter is just dangerous.

      I suppose you're going to add reading signs, passing, looking in your rear view mirror and checking your speedometer to that list?

      Let's get real, driving requires being aware and multi-tasking. Perhaps you have a problem with that, but I don't.

      I'll agree that texting is probably one of the things that we shouldn't be doing, but tuning the radio or talking hands-free is something that I am completely capable of doing without sacrificing concentration on the road.

    117. Re:Darwin by tyldis · · Score: 1

      The fact that you have never had an accident doesn't mean you are not a traffic hazard. It could be that other drivers are more alert and managing to avert the potencial accidents.

    118. Re:Darwin by MonkWB · · Score: 1

      God: Where are you? Idiot: Be there in 5 mins. CRASH!! BANG!! God: That didn't seem like 5 minutes to me. Thats what she said! No one at slashdot will get my humor.

    119. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, I was wondering why nobody pointed this out. Texting and talking are two entirely different things; some people can drive and talk, but almost no one can drive and text without looking at it. And even if they can, surely imagining the keypad in your head as you push the button interferes with your visual processing ability.

    120. Re:Darwin by AuraBattlerV · · Score: 1

      God forbid, they should be Americans. She'd have texted him while the boyfriend was riding shotgun.

    121. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, you didn't read his post. He specifically said that it didn't make texting while driving any less dangerous, he just said that it's possible to text without looking at the screen.

    122. Re:Darwin by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

      Actually, talking to your passenger is usually a fairly good thing. It keeps you alert and awake. The passenger is also usually smart enough to know to shut up when you're changing lanes or making a turn.

      Another thing that a passenger can do for a driver is act as another pair of eyes. When I'm in someone's front passenger seat, I very much see myself as "co-pilot" and try to spot hazards that the driver might have missed because they're easier to see from my side of the car.

    123. Re:Darwin by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cell phones impair driving, and that's why cops should be able to pull anyone on the phone and behind the wheel. They take your attention away from the road, reduce your reaction times, and usually tie up one hand. You may think you are some kind of amazing driver who can do both at once, but like everyone else who says the same thing, you're not. That's my point.

    124. Re:Darwin by msromike · · Score: 1

      By that logic then having a conversation with a passenger, eating, or drinking a soda is just dangerous also. What about listening to books on tape? When will this state of fear lunacy end?

      Life is not a risk free proposition. Neither is living in close proximity to many other humans. Danger is not black or white. How dangerous is the real question. Is it so dangerous to drive and eat at the same time that we need to outlaw drive through lines at fast food resteraunts. I don't think so.

      How much freedom do you want to give up in order to be safe? And I use the term safe in the most pejorative manner.

    125. Re:Darwin by msromike · · Score: 1

      You sound like you are safer than some people but not quite as safe as others. I would say you are a safe enough driver bordering on the verge of being too safe.

      When people leave your car do they ever say "geeze, what's with him?" That is a helpful gauge of where you fall on the safe driving continuum.

      In my line of work I occasionally run into people that are fixated on "too much" of something. Sometimes it is washing their hands other times it is checking to see if the door is locked. If it becomes too big of a problem sometimes an SSRI can help.

    126. Re:Darwin by msromike · · Score: 1

      Heh, I thought you were serious for a minute. I get it. What makes it funny is the fact that no normal person would suggest that radios be banned from automobiles.

    127. Re:Darwin by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I've watched a girl compose a text message without taking her eyes off the road. She handed her phone to me (in the passenger seat) to proof-read it for her before sending. It was a little disturbing.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    128. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1

      You may think you are some kind of amazing driver who can do both at once, but like everyone else who says the same thing, you're not.

      Oh really? So I'm absolutely not able to do both at once, then. If that's the case, then how can you explain that I have been doing it for years with no accidents? Blind luck? What about the many hundreds of thousands of other people who do the same thing, many of which have also had not any accidents?

      They take your attention away from the road, reduce your reaction times, and usually tie up one hand

      So do about a billion other activities enjoyed by 99.9% of the drivers in America while behind the wheel. Should the cops pull over and ticket EVERYBODY in America? Hell, I find that just having passengers in the car is a lot more distracting to my driving than texting on a cell phone. Should passengers in vehicles be banned? Where do you draw the line?

    129. Re:Darwin by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a term for words that have two meanings. They are called homonyms or homographs, although the verb form that I propose for the process of turning a word into a homonym is "to stairwayize" it.

    130. Re:Darwin by shiftless · · Score: 1

      That's quite possible. A long period without an accident doesn't mean that you are a safe driver. Accidents result from a combination of circumstances that may occur very rarely.

      That's probably true. So the question is, what are the chances of having an accident when keeping both hands on the wheel, paying very close attention to the road, and driving defensively? Now, how much do the chances increase when talking on a cell phone? Texting? Talking to a passenger? Eating? Fiddling with the radio? Reaching for something on the floorboard or back seat? Etc. Just a guess, but I would imagine that all of the above activities increase the risk of an accident in average circumstances, and I would also guess that cell phone usage is by far not the riskiest and most distracting thing that people do when behind the wheel.

      It seems that cell phones are just a scapegoat for the real problem of idiot drivers. We already have laws in place to solve this problem-- the offense is called driving while distracted. Yet how many of these tickets are written compared to more common bullshit tickets like seat belt violations, speeding (5-10 over), etc? Very few, because speeding/seat belt tickets are easier and more profitable. Now you see the root cause of the problem: tickets are, for the most part, a means of revenue generation masquerading under the guise of improving safety. Solve that problem, and you'll simultaneously solve a LOT of other problems, including idiot drivers.

      You can be a poor driver and yet go through life unscathed because you have the luck not to encounter the situations in which your poor driving will cause an accident. You can also be a good driver and have a lot of accidents because you are unlucky and encounter a lot of situations in which even a good driver will have an accident.

      My gut tells me that while this may be true over a short term, over the long term it's just the opposite. A "bad" driver may go a long time between accidents but will (should) have more accidents over his driving career than a "good" driver.

      Although probably not so relevant to things like texting, another interfering factor is that some kinds of poor driving are more likely to cause OTHER drivers to have accidents than the poor driver himself. This is true, for example, of very aggressive drivers, who are more likely to panic other drivers and cause them to have accidents than to have one themselves.

      I'd agree with this. I don't have any statistics, but anecdotally, many times when I see somebody driving like a complete idiot on the road, they have a handicapped tag. By driving like an idiot, I mean doing stupid shit like coming to a COMPLETE STOP at the beginning of a merge lane, driving 45 when everybody else is doing 75, pulling right out in front of speeding traffic and then driving slow as hell, etc. I don't mean to imply it's because the person is handicapped, but the vast majority of handicapped tags are owned by elderly drivers. They are a serious safety problem and I've seen a lot of accidents almost happen because of them.

    131. Re:Darwin by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You sound like you are safer than some people but not quite as safe as others.

      What an amusingly pointless thing to say. The odds are only about one in three billion that I am the safest person in the world, or the least safe person in the world. This statement is therefore essentially meaningless.

      I would say you are a safe enough driver bordering on the verge of being too safe.

      "Too safe" is another meaningless phrase. Unless your goal is danger, there is no such thing as "too safe". Of course safety is always a tradeoff, and it's possible to emphasize safety to the extent that your other goals are no longer being reached, but in that case, you're not being "too safe", you're being too slow, too expensive, not learning enough, etc. So what is the real problem, here?

      When people leave your car do they ever say "geeze, what's with him?"

      Nope. People don't really comment on my driving at all.

      That is a helpful gauge of where you fall on the safe driving continuum.

      In my line of work I occasionally run into people that are fixated on "too much" of something. Sometimes it is washing their hands other times it is checking to see if the door is locked. If it becomes too big of a problem sometimes an SSRI can help.

      The idea that you're recommending mental health medication as a remedy for my willingness to interrupt conversations with passengers while merging into traffic or otherwise performing tricky, mentally-taxing maneuvers is amusing but also completely insane. Maybe you should consider drugs.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    132. Re:Darwin by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Oh really? So I'm absolutely not able to do both at once, then. If that's the case, then how can you explain that I have been doing it for years with no accidents? Blind luck? What about the many hundreds of thousands of other people who do the same thing, many of which have also had not any accidents?

      Blind luck, combined with other people watching out for your stupid ass. As dangerous as cell phone drivers are, I've only ever had one crash with one, because I pay attention to my surroundings, and if I see someone with a phone glued to their ear I take note. As such, I've avoided many accidents where a cell phone driver starts drifting into my lane, or pulls out in front of me, or whatever, because I knew that they were more likely to do just that. Most of these people seem so oblivious to what they are doing that they probably don't even realize what they just did and how dangerous it was. If I was on a cell phone myself, I'm sure I would have been too distracted myself to avoid many of these accidents. The one crash I did end up in I was rearended at a stoplight (I was already stopped) by some lady talking on her cellphone, and didn't notice that cars were stopped ahead of her until too late. I saw her coming, but there wasn't anything I could do about it.

      So do about a billion other activities enjoyed by 99.9% of the drivers in America while behind the wheel. Should the cops pull over and ticket EVERYBODY in America? Hell, I find that just having passengers in the car is a lot more distracting to my driving than texting on a cell phone. Should passengers in vehicles be banned? Where do you draw the line?

      I'm sick of the "Well other things are also done while behind the wheel so therefore it's OK to talk on my cell phone" argument. It's bullshit. I don't know where to draw the line either, but something that is as distracting and impairing as cell phones should be banned, no question. Like I said, it's the number one cause I see out there for idiotic driving.

    133. Re:Darwin by msromike · · Score: 1

      Well it was mostly tongue in cheek but since you took it so literally let's focus on the real issue. Inappropriate levels of fear about assuming normal amounts of risk and responsibility is a societal problem that I am trying to identify for the reader.

      "Too safe" is not a meaningless phrase. Whether or not they agree with me, most people can infer the meaning of the main point of my previous post. To clarify, something is "too safe" when the cost benefit analysis shows that attaining a certain "level of safety" is unreasonable. In regards to your statement, is is incorrect. There are levels of risk that stratify the continuum of safety. Certain risk levels will be considered "safe" by some and not by others.

      Since the purpose of this forum is to entertain and inform, I would like to say that the level of safety that you desire would be considered not cost effective in terms of the level of sacrifice made in resources and loss of individual freedom.

      Being too literal is another sign suggestive of the compulsive behavior I alluded to previously. In this case another sign of overly concrete thinking is the inability of being able to see that a certain activity might not hold the same "level of danger" for all who undertake it.

      On my 80 minute commute from work I like to use the time to catch up with friends and family by telephone. Three quarters of the driving is done on Interstate highways in rural Colorado. I pass a car once every 5 or 10 minutes during peak times. Using the phone during this drive is not a hindrance in any way. I have a Bluetooth phone with voice activated dialing not because it is safer but because I want one.

      So to sum it up you are more fearful when you drive than I am. Because you are not as confident in your driving abilities you wisely choose to limit yourself more than the average driver does. Let's just leave it at that for now.

    134. Re:Darwin by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      So to sum it up you are more fearful when you drive than I am.

      I was going to write this big long rebuttal to your post, but I'll just summarize instead:

      Fuck you. Get bent.

      You don't know anything about me except what I told you. I never said anything about my level of fear or my level of confidence. I am extremely confident in my driving, and I'm not afraid of it. You presume to know that about which you know absolutely nothing. It's impossible to have anything like a worthwhile conversation with someone who has an attitude like yours. So just fuck off and go away.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    135. Re:Darwin by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Pshaw! Looking away from the road while driving is not the least bit unsafe. I've seen countless movies and tv shows where a character is driving and looks away from the road for tens of seconds (or even minutes!) at a time whilst having a conversation with someone in the passenger seat. And they NEVER have accidents. If it's on tv it must be true, right?

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    136. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what else is dangerous? Driving.

      And are you suggest that if a person is doing something dangerous already, then doing other dangerous things at the same time is ok?

    137. Re:Darwin by digitrev · · Score: 1

      My brother got his new car trashed when some idiot ran a red light and T-boned the driver side of my brother's car (luckily, just behind the driver's seat) because he was texting someone. The kicker? The kid's mom showed up and tried to convince my brother to let the kid leave before the cops showed up. Some people...

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    138. Re:Darwin by digitrev · · Score: 1

      You might not notice it happening, but I certainly have. In fact, my one accident has been because of my stupidity involving food. I had taken a second to look down and grab a piece of chicken while I was braking, and, well, let's just say I didn't quite brake fast enough. I rear-ended the people in front of me (going at like 5 km/h, but still an accident). It turned out okay for me, because they got their repairs done for free (and my damage was minimal), but it's certainly taught me something about eating and driving. At the very least, doing so where your decisions are very important. I still do eat while driving, but only on very specific streets (ones I personally know have very low traffic), at red lights, and never while braking or accelerating. Once bitten twice shy, they say.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    139. Re:Darwin by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      A passenger can be a second pair of eyes, which is where the danger lies - the eyes. Anything that forces you to take your eyes off the road is dangerous (including the passenger who is watching the scenery insttead of helping you watch the road and saying "oh look - ponies!").

      I think if they're going to make any "distracted driving" laws they should outlaw those flashing, message-changing signs. Their whole purpose is to distract morotists!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    140. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are retardly stupid.

      Why not enforce drunk driving laws and consequences on these people as well as "texting while driving has been cited as a likely factor in fatal accidents from coast to coast"..

    141. Re:Darwin by gemada · · Score: 1

      It was on CBC radio sometime last year. that is all i remember.

  2. Idiot by jrothwell97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    despite some near-accidents

    Enough said.

    Also, just because someone hasn't had an accident in the past, it doesn't mean they won't have an accident in the future.

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    1. Re:Idiot by iPodUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. If they've already had near accidents then it's just a matter of time until something bad happens. And so help me if they crash into me...

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's how many insurance factors play out - the law of averages says that the longer you go without an accident the more likely you are to have one.

      I have a spotless record going back 18 years and I'm paying for it because the numbers say I'm due for a claim.

      Obligatory: fuckers.

    3. Re:Idiot by tonycheese · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did ANY of you actually RTFA (including the person who submitted it???)? Clearly, the group was created as a joke and she said in the article that she supports the law even if it would be hard to enforce. She says that although she does do it sometimes, she realizes it's stupid and dangerous and would follow the law if it were to become one.

    4. Re:Idiot by jrothwell97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But surely if she considers it irresponsible, she shouldn't do it, EVEN if it is not specifically illegal?

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    5. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems from the page that she was serious at first, and just added that disclaimer later to cover her ass.

    6. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. People like her are the reason why religion exists. Let me explain. Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal." The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.

    7. Re:Idiot by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Also, just because someone hasn't had an accident in the past, it doesn't mean they won't have an accident in the future.

      Or, as the financial types like to say... Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:Idiot by JustinOpinion · · Score: 1

      The group is called "I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!"

      Seems like the police should keep an eye on people who suddenly leave the group. :)

    9. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Did ANY of you actually RTFA "

      You must be new here.

    10. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about this for a moment. She created the group when she was 16 and had just gotten a driver's license. Now, most people who had just gotten a driver's license that I knew were incredibly naive about responsible driving and the ramifications of being distracted. Do you honestly believe that she was heavily advocating that people shouldn't be text messaging while driving? Or is it more likely she was thinking "I don't see what the big deal is?" I know where my money is going. It's possible that she's wised up a bit since creating the group, but I can assure you that she wasn't thinking about safety when she first created it.

    11. Re:Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'd like to follow you, or anyone else, around for a day and count the things you do that are irresponsible yet legal that you do despite the dangerous aspects.

    12. Re:Idiot by kirbysuperstar · · Score: 3, Funny

      But surely if she considers it irresponsible, she shouldn't do it, EVEN if it is not specifically illegal?

      Bit of a case of "do as I say, not as I do". And don't call me Shirley.

    13. Re:Idiot by CA_Jim · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did read the article. She started it as a joke, but still she continues to text and drive, despite near accidents. If she really thought it was stupid and dangerous, she wouldn't continue to do it. Having several near accidents should have been a wakeup call to her to modify her driving, but it hasn't. I suspect that she is the kind of person who will only learn the hard way, either by accident or by sudden increase in insurance due to traffic violations.

    14. Re:Idiot by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Do we need a specific law stating that every single idiotic thing is illegal?

      Isn't that where the "reckless driving" law comes in play?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    15. Re:Idiot by wk633 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I would support [a law], however, because I consider myself to be a pretty good law follower and would feel pretty horrible if something happened because of me breaking a law."

      Yeah, because something bad happening because you do something you know if fucking stupid would be ok.

      What, she'd only feel bad if she killed someone while doing something 'against the law'?

      Idiot.

    16. Re:Idiot by mpe · · Score: 1

      Clearly, the group was created as a joke

      If people want to do something dangerous which involves risking only their own lives then by all means make a joke about it. But this is something which endangers bystanders. Wonder if a group for "people who like to fire guns in random directions, but havn't hit anyone yet" would likewise be considered a joke.

    17. Re:Idiot by jmcnaught · · Score: 1

      We should just ban cars. Or make the speed limit in the cities 35 km/h (if you're healthy, you can easily maintain this speed on a good bicycle.) Cell phones are cool though. I can text while walking, but I can't text while riding my bike. And even if I did hit someone on my bike, the worst that's going to happen is some bruises.

      That people drive cars at all (or text while driving even when they know it's dangerous) just confirms for me that most people are selfish, stupid slobs.

      Cars make cities suck: bad smelling, nerve wracking, sprawled all over the place. Who the hell actually likes parking lots?

      Which is not to mention that cars are KILLING THE FUTURE. If you drive a car and have kids, you are fucking your kids over real good. And when your grand kids ask through their face masks "Why didn't you stop driving?" answering "We didn't know" will be a lie.

    18. Re:Idiot by mpe · · Score: 1

      Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal."

      It's not specifically illegal. Though it might already be illegal in the sense that a driver should be giving as much attention as they can to driving. Rather than having to enumerate all possible stupid actions drivers could possibly take as "illegal". What would be needed is one law along the lines of "driving without paying due attention or when voluntarily incapacitated".

      The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.

      Getting such people off the roads is more a matter of "public safety" than anything else.

    19. Re:Idiot by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      What, she'd only feel bad if she killed someone while doing something 'against the law'?

      To a certain degree I can understand this. If you truely think it's unsafe, I still say its on you. If you're uncertain but the state says it is okay, a lot of people will go ahead and do it since they can pass the buck.

      Just think about all the white collar dug addict soccer mom types that can't live a day without one of the 10 pills they take, all of which severely augment their state of mind and do long term harm to their body. Ask them what they think about someone who occasionally smokes weed and you'll see what I'm saying.

      Social acceptance often stems from legality and is all the differnce in the world in swaying a lot of people on what they will or won't do.

      Personally I try to avoid the cellphone entirely but if I get a call I feel I should answer I throw it on speaker. I've dicked with my nav system more than a few times that I probably shouldn't, but I usually try to wait for a red light or a clear road.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    20. Re:Idiot by mpe · · Score: 1

      The group is called "I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!"
      Seems like the police should keep an eye on people who suddenly leave the group. :)


      It might be better for the police to keep an eye on the group members. So as to take them off the road before they crash into innocent bystanders. Since it's hard to ensure that they will crash only into inanimate objects.

    21. Re:Idiot by mpe · · Score: 1

      Think about this for a moment. She created the group when she was 16 and had just gotten a driver's license.

      This is very young for allowing people to be driving on the public roads, even if they are legally emancipated...

    22. Re:Idiot by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      Just think about all the white collar dug addict soccer mom types that can't live a day without one of the 10 pills they take, all of which severely augment their state of mind and do long term harm to their body. Ask them what they think about someone who occasionally smokes weed and you'll see what I'm saying.

      OMG, when did you meet my boss' wife? The bitch is a fucking Percocet addict who sleeps until two in the afternoon every day and she goes to five different drug dealers, M.D. to get her fix. Of course she thinks that pot smokers are degenerates and should be put in jail for life.

    23. Re:Idiot by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Also, just because someone hasn't had an accident in the past, it doesn't mean they won't have an accident in the future.

      And that's how many insurance factors play out - the law of averages says that the longer you go without an accident the more likely you are to have one.

      You seem to think you're agreeing here. But in fact, what he/she said not only *doesn't* imply what you say. It actually implies the complete opposite!

      Think about it. He basically said that her not having an accident was random good luck. Assuming that this was truly the case, then her previous good luck would *have no effect* on whether she was lucky the next time (or by implication, whether she was unlucky).

      Put it this way. If I toss a fair coin, and get the unlikely- but possible- fifty heads in a row, this has no effect on what the result of the next toss will be. The odds on getting heads or tails on that fifty-first toss are still exactly even, same as they would be on the first toss. The human tendency to believe otherwise in such cases is known as the gambler's fallacy.

      Now here's the important part. If past good luck doesn't imply- and can't predict- whether she'll be lucky next time, it also can't say whether she'll be *unlucky* and have an accident next time!

      The odds of tossing a coin and getting heads/tails are 50/50, and always remain so, independently. Doesn't matter how often you do it, there's no "memory" that would "favour" later tosses after (say) a long run of heads averaging that out.

      Short version- your assertion that "the law of averages says that the longer you go without an accident the more likely you are to have one" is wrong.

      Well, actually, if you want to be really pedantic, you could argue the following, but it doesn't really apply to this case, and it's unlikely that the insurance industry would use it:-

      IF you know that the average is a fixed value, or if *your* chances of having an accident (or living longer, or whatever) are likely to have a knock-on effect on someone else then you may be correct. (This differs from the coin tossing above, because each coin toss was an independent event, which isn't the case here).

      But even then- on the overall country/worldwide scale that insurance companies operate on, they would only be concerned with your individual effect on the overall picture- and that would be insignificant, like worrying about an apple's gravitational effect on the earth.

      I have a spotless record going back 18 years and I'm paying for it because the numbers say I'm due for a claim.

      Do you know for a fact that this is how the insurance companies do their numbers? I'm asking this because, although they may be amoral fuckers who'll do anything to tip the odds in their favour (and to weasel out of a claim), I don't see how it would benefit *them* to use incorrect mathematical models for their own purposes. They would want to know the correct answer- if only for their own benefit.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    24. Re:Idiot by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

      You want to live in a society without cars.

      Good luck hauling anything from anywhere to anywhere else in a reasonable amount of time. Hope your workplace has a shower/change room/cleanup area too, since I wouldn't want to be stuck in an office for 8 hours with hundreds of people sweating like mad because of their hour-long bikeride to work.

      Unless you intend to keep public transportation open. Then I'm all for that. Good luck convincing any automotive company to go along with this though... since they'll be pushing as hard as they humanly can to keep those giant gas-guzzlers on the road.

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
    25. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did ANY of you actually RTFA (including the person who submitted it???)? Clearly, the group was created as a joke and she said in the article that she supports the law even if it would be hard to enforce. She says that although she does do it sometimes, she realizes it's stupid and dangerous and would follow the law if it were to become one.

      Somehow I don't think that the people she could run into someday will find it funny.

    26. Re:Idiot by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.

      I don't know, potentially crashing into cars, people, objets, etc., being responsible for thousands of dollars in damage and causing themselves or others to be seriously injured or killed, being fined, losing their driver's license and being sent to jail seem like pretty serious consequences to me.

      Somehow I doubt handing out tickets will curb the behavior.

    27. Re:Idiot by andy.ruddock · · Score: 1

      What would be needed is one law along the lines of "driving without paying due attention or when voluntarily incapacitated".

      Well, the UK has "driving without due care and attention". I'm sure most other countries have an equivalent.

      --
      God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
    28. Re:Idiot by skiingyac · · Score: 2, Informative

      A lot states have laws like this. In DE, my wife got rear-ended (lightly) by some teenager when coming to a stop at a red light in good weather (she was not the first car to stop and didn't brake hard or anything), and his explanation was basically "sorry, I didn't see you".

      The trooper gave him a ticket for "inattentive driving". It didn't matter whether he was texting, eating, or whatever else (he claimed he wasn't doing anything), because he obviously wasn't paying attention to what he was doing. I'm sure it didn't help him that his insurance card was expired, it was a weekend, and my wife was pregnant, but the necessary laws do exist.

      The problem is enforcement is hard until they hit somebody.

    29. Re:Idiot by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Yep. People like her are the reason why religion exists. Let me explain. Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal." The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.

      So wait... people are only religious because it isn't illegal to be religious? Um, right. And as for your other point - making said religion illegal has worked so wonderfully in the past. Are you actually nuts or do you just like eating them?

    30. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait... people are only religious because it isn't illegal to be religious? Um, right. And as for your other point - making said religion illegal has worked so wonderfully in the past. Are you actually nuts or do you just like eating them?

      Wow, you completely missed the point. People are religious because a set of "laws" have been given to them that state that they will be punished (oh noes, eternal damnation!) for doing things that most people with common sense can see that they shouldn't do in the first place (kill, steal, lie, etc). And I never said that religion should be made illegal. I'm merely pointing out that she simply doesn't have the moral imperative to change her actions on her own. She basically will need to be "forced" to do them ("God will send you to hell if you do these things!"). Driving while texting is but just one example of her inability to take responsibility for her own actions. I can assure you that this behaviour extends to other aspects of her life.

    31. Re:Idiot by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      despite some near-accidents

      Enough said.

      Also, just because someone hasn't had an accident in the past, it doesn't mean they won't have an accident in the future.

      Having been a tow truck driver, managed one of the largest companies in So Cal, I can honestly point out something even MORE blatant here.

      He might have had a few close calls, and not been in any accidents himself, BUT HOW MANY HAS THAT FUCK CAUSED?

      Hoping there aren't any families without Mom / Dad / Child because of him and his assinine, selfish, self centered friends.

      --Toll_Free

    32. Re:Idiot by mpe · · Score: 1

      A lot states have laws like this. In DE, my wife got rear-ended (lightly) by some teenager when coming to a stop at a red light in good weather (she was not the first car to stop and didn't brake hard or anything), and his explanation was basically "sorry, I didn't see you".

      Driving into the back on another car typically means that they arn't paying attention or are too close. Even if they couldn't see the traffic light cars have at least two red lights at the back which come on as soon as the brake is operated.

      The problem is enforcement is hard until they hit somebody.

      The way you enforce is by having police patrols.

    33. Re:Idiot by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they passed laws specifically against mobile phone use so they could give way harsher punishments for accidents using a mobile phone, to satisfy some whinging people. You can actually get longer in prison for an accident whilst using a mobile phone than accidental DEATH by driving.

    34. Re:Idiot by mpe · · Score: 1

      Having several near accidents should have been a wakeup call to her to modify her driving, but it hasn't. I suspect that she is the kind of person who will only learn the hard way, either by accident

      Hopefully if she does hit another car she will cause no serious injuries to the people in it and it will be a police car :)

    35. Re:Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you could come to similar numbers by looking at yourself. I'm sure we're all guilty of this, even if not aware of it.

    36. Re:Idiot by skiingyac · · Score: 1

      The way you enforce is by having police patrols.

      I agree. I think police should drive on the roads looking for people being stupid and breaking any number of laws, instead of sitting there holding a radar gun and only being able to catch people who both speed AND don't notice them.

      My point is we don't need new laws all the time to say you can't fiddle with the new gadget of the month while you're driving. It is already illegal, the enforcement is the problem.

      I was recently in China and I was on highways for a few hours. I saw exactly ZERO people driving like idiots. The speed limits are reasonable, frequently posted, and they are separate for each lane. There are video cameras and radar monitoring everywhere. If you drive one MPH above the speed limit or do one slightly stupid thing, you WILL get a ticket. So, people drive like they should.

    37. Re:Idiot by Stormx2 · · Score: 1

      What? That's all very well if it didn't affect anyone else, but it does. Lapses in concentration can and do cause injuries and death. On your own property, do whatever the fuck you like in your car. But other people use public roads, so your actions affect more than just yourself.

    38. Re:Idiot by kesuki · · Score: 1

      he was making an analogy, 'idiots who drive and text because it's not illegal are why there is religion'

      though shalt not text whilest driving, so said the prophet kesuki. all who text whilst driving shall be forced to shiver endlessly in the first layer of hell* to contemplate the emptiness of their actions.

      * == in Buddhism, the first layer of hell is a cold, cold wasteland for those unable to gain enough enlightenment to be born again, but not bad enough for the worst layers of hell.

    39. Re:Idiot by Slippy. · · Score: 1

      What would be needed is one law along the lines of "driving without paying due attention or when voluntarily incapacitated".

      There are plenty enough of these. There's one for "unsafe driving" here.

      But this is just lazy logic. If it was that easy, we'd all have the same Google rule: Don't be evil! And that would be enough.

      Our world isn't ideal. There are *always* bad/avergage/good workers. A vague law requires interpretation by the enforcers. What's evil? Some people think being gay is evil. How do you measure inattentive? No loitering - I've always disliked that one.

      Laws are a balancing act and need to be written so hands aren't tied, but the limits are still tight enough to keep abuse in check.

      --
      -- Life is good. Tastes like chicken.
    40. Re:Idiot by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I don't get your idea about religion. In my experience, religions are usually on the side of compassion and not harming others, so it's often a reason not to do something bad, even if there is no law against it. Anything else is you putting in your own idea of what religion is, which may be far from what others get from it.

    41. Re:Idiot by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Where do you get your food from?

      Since you are opposed to road transportation,
      You better not be buying it from a store while your at it you better get of the internet aswell after all the people who installed it drove to the work site.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    42. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet I'm the one who's frequently called amoral by religious people (despite adhering closer to their own "rules" and "mores" than many of them) simply because I don't buy into their belief system.

    43. Re:Idiot by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should stop treating all people who affiliate themselves with religion as being the same?

    44. Re:Idiot by jmcnaught · · Score: 1

      I would love it if we could ban cars, but setting the speed limit at 35 km/h is good enough for me.

      The reason you would have to ride for so long to get to work is because of cars. Without cars, our cities wouldn't be so spread out. Without a car, you would live closer to work.

      I'm also all for public transportation too. Even car sharing programs are cool, where you have access to a car for when you've got to cart stuff around. But driving cars everywhere? For minor conveniences, we're destroying the ecosystem AND painting ourselves into a corner, energy wise. The price of gas is getting to expensive for the economy to function normally, and we don't have anything to replace it in time.

      If the speed limit for cars were 35 km/h, it would remove the incentive to drive a car everywhere. Bikes would be just as fast, or faster when you consider the short cuts that bikes can take.

      Also, I ride my bike to work. I don't need a shower before I get there... I need 10 minutes to cool down then I'm good to go. It might sound like that 10 minutes would add up over a year, but it's nothing compared to the extra hours I would have to work to be able to afford a car. I read once that Ivan Illich added up all the cost and determined that the average North American worker could work one day less per week and maintain their lifestyle if they gave up driving. Looking at it that way, cars add an extra 8 hours a week to a person's transportation time. Hardly efficient at all.

    45. Re:Idiot by jmcnaught · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't read my comment all that well... I said I would like to ban cars, but what I really wrote about is reducing the speed limit in cities.

      You do raise a good point though. Our food comes from way too far away. I do my best to buy local food, but it's sometimes ridiculous how much more local food costs than food from halfway around the globe. Why do we do things this way? What are humans even doing living in places where they can't grow food nearby?

      We'll undoubtedly continue global trade for quite some time, but there's a big difference between using fossil fuels to bring a train full of food to a city versus everybody in the city using cars to get everywhere they need to go.

      People even drive to the gym so they can ride stationary bikes! It's madness!

    46. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you've never broken the speed limit.

    47. Re:Idiot by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      People even drive to the gym so they can ride stationary bikes! It's madness!

      The other day I whent to McDonalds and the drive thru was packed and moving at about 1 inch an hour while the counter was desserted.

      It's mad to think people would rather sit in their cars buring fuel instead of taking a 15foot walk.

      I'll confess,
      I was in the drive thru too.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    48. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without a car, you would live closer to work.

      Super. My girlfriend works somewhere else, so do I have to quit or does she? Trying to break a lease every time either of us changes jobs is also going to be exciting.

      I don't need a shower before I get there... I need 10 minutes to cool down

      Ten minutes just to recover but you think you never broke a sweat? I'm offended on behalf of your coworkers.

    49. Re:Idiot by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      despite some near-accidents

      Enough said.

      Also, just because someone hasn't had an accident in the past, it doesn't mean they won't have an accident in the future.

      Boris Johnston, Conservative MP and now Mayor of the City of London said once (in response to the introduction of a law requiring booster seats (and the use of seatbelts) for children in cars: "I never had a booster seat when I was a child and it never did me any harm" I see no point in arguing with a statement like that...

    50. Re:Idiot by digitrev · · Score: 1

      Actually, the gambler's fallacy is sometimes actually right, in a sense. If all you know is that it's come up heads 50 times in a row, you're actually smarter to bet on it being heads, because, unless you know that it's a fair coin, the odds are that it's actually a biased coin. So gambler's intuitively know that something is up when you get "rare" sequences of events, but are making the wrong decision.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    51. Re:Idiot by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      That's why we have road signs. To decrease the probability that such genetic slush will kill themselves with another human, instead favouring removing them from the gene pool with a sign reading "Sign not in use".

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  3. Kids these days by iPodUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't believe these people! What's so "fun" about text messages? Why the aversion to real communication? I'd much rather talk to someone than exchange emoticons while risking the lives of those on the road around me.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Kids these days by Wister285 · · Score: 1

      I don't view texting as fun. I view it as a way of communicating when I don't need or want to have a conversation. Some things don't need a phone call.

      Person 1: "You coming tonight?"
      Person 2: "No."
      Person 1: "Going to be fun, eh?"
      Person 2: "Yeah..."

      *awkward pause*

      Person 1: "Um, okay, bye."
      Person 2: "Yeah, bye."

    2. Re:Kids these days by jrothwell97 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In my experience, this is how people carry out such short conversations.

      Party 'B': Hello, B speaking.
      Party 'A': Hello, it's me.
      Party 'B': Hello, A.
      Party 'A': Whereabouts are you?
      Party 'B': I'm just walking past the music shop opposite the church. Where are you?
      Party 'A':I'm walking past the hotel. I'll meet you at the swimming pool.
      Party 'B': OK, see you later. Goodbye.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    3. Re:Kids these days by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      What's so "fun" about text messages?
      I agree. I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.
      I have no "text plan" on my phone, so incoming texts that I didn't ask to receive cost me 15 cents. Outgoing don't cost me anything because I don't do them. I don't have time. Life is too short for text messaging. Call up, get your conversation done and move on.
      Maybe it's just nostalgia for the days when all we had was the telegraph.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Kids these days by lilmunkysguy · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean that everyone has to share your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own idea of what's fun. I'd much rather text someone a short message than spend time on the phone, and the majority of my family is the same way.

    5. Re:Kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we'll wait till the accidents pile up and then make it a law. What's next? A ban on putting makeup on, on your way to the office? A ban on flashing me (a truck driver, well i play one in chat sessions anyway) on a two lane blacktop?

      By the time the law passes we'll have this gizmo from Japan (or China) that will sense how close you are to the car in front of you and the airbag beats you senseless for texting during THAT dangerous approach.

    6. Re:Kids these days by Yosho · · Score: 5, Informative

      I agree. I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.
      I have no "text plan" on my phone, so incoming texts that I didn't ask to receive cost me 15 cents. Outgoing don't cost me anything because I don't do them. I don't have time. Life is too short for text messaging. Call up, get your conversation done and move on.

      As you honestly don't seem to understand the use of text messages, I'll explain why I find them useful: for communicating small amounts of information that don't require conversation, and out of respect for the other person's time.

      Let's face it, most people don't want to be interrupted whenever they're doing something. You might be out shopping for groceries, visiting a friend's house, or eating a restaurant, and you probably have your phone with you in case there's an emergency and/or you need to call somebody, but you don't want somebody to call you and suddenly want to have a conversation. Heck, at least in those situations you can talk if you want to; you can't exactly answer your phone and have a conversation at all if, say, you're watching a presentation at work, or if you're already on the phone with somebody else.

      When you get a text message, rather than answering your phone immediately, you can view it at your leisure, and it only takes a second of your time to read it. I can tell my girlfriend, "working late tonight, I'll be home in an hour," or my D&D buddies, "On my way, be there 30 minutes," or a couple of my coworkers, "Meet for lunch at Rudy's BBQ", and it only takes ten seconds of my time and effectively none of theirs. I can even send the same message to half a dozen people at once, and that's much faster than calling half a dozen people and repeating the same conversation every time. If, for some reason, they need to answer the message, they can also do so without disturbing any people around them who don't want to listen to somebody chatting on their cell phone.

      Does that make more sense? Yes, text messages are a horribly inefficient way of having a conversation, but they're not for conversing, they're for disseminating information.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    7. Re:Kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, this is how people carry out such short conversations.

      Party 'B': Hello, B speaking.

      Party 'A': Hello, it's me.

      Party 'B': Hello, A.

      Party 'A': Whereabouts are you?

      Party 'B': I'm just walking past the music shop opposite the church. Where are you?

      Party 'A':I'm walking past the hotel. I'll meet you at the swimming pool.

      Party 'B': OK, see you later. Goodbye.
       

      I think it's more like

      Party 'B': Y0, B 5pk1ng.
      Party 'A': J4.
      Party 'B': H41.
      Party 'A': wher r u
      Party 'B': N3ar the muz4k shop. u?
      Party 'A': 1'm w41k1ng p457 7h3 h0731. talk 2 u in the p00l.
      Party 'B': ok.

    8. Re:Kids these days by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Grandparent's problem happens when neither party is willing to take control of the conversation. If you want to make a quick call, you must be willing to take control. Say what you need to say, hear what you need to hear, and then tell the other person that you need to go.

      Most of the people I communicate with either don't know how to read text messages or don't like them, so it's not an option in most cases anyway. Text messaging is also godawful expensive, so I just don't see the point unless you're in an environment where you literally cannot speak or hear.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    9. Re:Kids these days by mpe · · Score: 1

      I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.

      At least with the latter you get a proper keyboard as an input device...

    10. Re:Kids these days by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      Except that typing all that will take WAY more time and effort than just calling them and taking the ~20 seconds it would take to have that conversation vocally.

      My personal philosophy is that if your message needs a reply more than one word, you'd better not send me a text message. I have way better things to do with my time than talk with my thumbs.

    11. Re:Kids these days by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

      So very, very true. If only kids nowadays thought as much. I've seen some kids texting back and forth for HOURS. Like come on... just CALL them! You've both wasted several hours of your time... in that time, you could have called, arranged a place to meet even, and physically gone and spoke directly to eachother in person!

      Kids nowadays. Bah.

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
    12. Re:Kids these days by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      No, in that instance, the conversation would consist of people shouting "I'll kn1f3 u!"

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    13. Re:Kids these days by mpe · · Score: 1

      I can't believe these people! What's so "fun" about text messages? Why the aversion to real communication?

      The "fun" isn't really the issue here.

      I'd much rather talk to someone than exchange emoticons while risking the lives of those on the road around me.

      If people can't responsibly operate their vehicles, which includes paying attention to what's happening outside, then their "operator's permit" should be withdrawn (or not issued in the first place). Things are not helped by overloading the document in question with all sorts of stuff like being a building entry pass, alcoholic beverages purchase card, bank card, even passport.

    14. Re:Kids these days by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      I can tell my girlfriend, "working late tonight, I'll be home in an hour," or my D&D buddies, "On my way, be there 30 minutes," or a couple of my coworkers, "Meet for lunch at Rudy's BBQ", and it only takes ten seconds of my time and effectively none of theirs. I can even send the same message to half a dozen people at once, and that's much faster than calling half a dozen people and repeating the same conversation every time. If, for some reason, they need to answer the message, they can also do so without disturbing any people around them who don't want to listen to somebody chatting on their cell phone.

      Does that make more sense? Yes, text messages are a horribly inefficient way of having a conversation, but they're not for conversing, they're for disseminating information.

      I was going to say that if you play D n D, you don't have a girlfriend, so quite lying.

      Then you talked about Rudy's. Rudy's in the Galleria? :)

      --Toll_Free

    15. Re:Kids these days by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Assuming that the other person is immediately available. Text messages are often a lot faster than vocal conversations, especially ones that don't require a reply. Maybe you just suck at texting.

    16. Re:Kids these days by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      I do suck at texting (because I find it loathsome and inefficient), but you might have missed this part of my post:

      My personal philosophy is that if your message needs a reply more than one word, you'd better not send me a text message.

      Which, I hope, implies that a message that does not need a reply is a good candidate for texting.

    17. Re:Kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.

      I have no "text plan" on my phone, so incoming texts that I didn't ask to receive cost me 15 cents. Outgoing don't cost me anything because I don't do them. I don't have time. Life is too short for text messaging. Call up, get your conversation done and move on.

      Text messages are a datagram. Don't expect an ACK.

    18. Re:Kids these days by kesuki · · Score: 1

      my cell phone has an a-z layout keypad next to the normal phone buttons, (actually smaller buttons around them) i keep screwing up o with q, but other than that an a-z keypad is pretty easy to use.

      oh and hey, my phone can learn voice commands, if i train it a bit. but it's not full speech recognition, more like an auto dial that learns 10 or so phrases.

    19. Re:Kids these days by L0rdJedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since I wasn't logged in at the time, here's my post again:

      As you honestly don't seem to understand the use of text messages, I'll explain why I find them useful: for communicating small amounts of information that don't require conversation, and out of respect for the other person's time.

      Let's face it, most people don't want to be interrupted whenever they're doing something. You might be out shopping for groceries, visiting a friend's house, or eating a restaurant, and you probably have your phone with you in case there's an emergency and/or you need to call somebody, but you don't want somebody to call you and suddenly want to have a conversation. Heck, at least in those situations you can talk if you want to; you can't exactly answer your phone and have a conversation at all if, say, you're watching a presentation at work, or if you're already on the phone with somebody else.

      Ever heard of voicemail? If I'm somewhere where I can't answer the phone and I get a call, I simply let it go to voicemail. If it's that damn important, leave a short message. If the voicemail notifier goes off, I excuse myself and check it. Otherwise, I figure I can call them back later.

      If I ever get a text message asking me a simple question while I'm in the grocery store, I would probably be 1) pissed because it just cost me $0.15 and 2) pick up the phone and call the person back. Pick up your damn phone and call. I will decide if your call is important enough at that time to take. If it's not and I'm really busy, it can go to voicemail. Most people have enough sense to realize that if it's really important, they'll either leave a voicemail or they'll call back right away a second time.

      When you get a text message, rather than answering your phone immediately, you can view it at your leisure, and it only takes a second of your time to read it.

      Who says I have to answer my phone at all, even when a call comes in? Again, that's what voicemail is for. If I decide your call is important or I'm not doing something important, I'll answer. Otherwise, go to voicemail. And that one second is one second more than I want to not be looking at the road.

      I can tell my girlfriend, "working late tonight, I'll be home in an hour," or my D&D buddies, "On my way, be there 30 minutes," or a couple of my coworkers, "Meet for lunch at Rudy's BBQ", and it only takes ten seconds of my time and effectively none of theirs. I can even send the same message to half a dozen people at once, and that's much faster than calling half a dozen people and repeating the same conversation every time. If, for some reason, they need to answer the message, they can also do so without disturbing any people around them who don't want to listen to somebody chatting on their cell phone.

      Ten seconds that you're not paying attention to what you're doing. With all the groups you mentioned, you should be able to call one person and let them know and then they can tell everyone else. Sure, it takes a little longer, but if you've got a bluetooth headset with voice dialing, at least you'll be looking at the road and not your damn phone.

      YWhy even text 5 or 10 people if they're all waiting in the same place? That makes even less sense then a short, 1 min phone call to tell one person "Be there in 5 mins". If that one person can't let everyone else know, then maybe they're just retarded.

      Does that make more sense? Yes, text messages are a horribly inefficient way of having a conversation, but they're not for conversing, they're for disseminating information.

      Yes, and we all know that everybody uses every piece of technology exactly the way it was always intended to be used. In short, no, it doesn't make more sense.

    20. Re:Kids these days by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      That's a loooong handshake. I'd start "Hey, where are you?"

    21. Re:Kids these days by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      I saw no reference to texting while driving. He was simply pointing out that they're not for conversations, but for a quick message.

      I'd always prefer a text to a phone call if it's just a one line phone call.

    22. Re:Kids these days by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of voicemail? If I'm somewhere where I can't answer the phone and I get a call, I simply let it go to voicemail. If it's that damn important, leave a short message. If the voicemail notifier goes off, I excuse myself and check it. Otherwise, I figure I can call them back later.

      Doing that still involves me chatting on my phone in public, and checking your voicemail take significantly longer than reading a message -- you'll have to tell your phone to connect, wait a few seconds for it to do so, wait a few seconds to get through the menu, and then wait a few more seconds to read the message. And, if I have to leave any important information like a phone number or address, you'll probably have to go back and listen to it again so that you can write it down.

      1) pissed because it just cost me $0.15

      1) It's not my fault you're using a crappy carrier that charges you exorbitant amounts for text messages.

      and 2) pick up the phone and call the person back.

      2) Thus, stopping in the middle of the aisle in the store so you can chat on your cell phone. Good job annoying everybody around you.

      I will decide if your call is important enough at that time to take.

      No, the point is that you don't know whether my call is important or not before you've answered it. I could be calling to tell you know the latest sports scores, or I could be calling to tell you that your mother was shot and is in the hospital, and you won't know until you've taken the time to check your voicemail, which takes just as long as it would have to answer the phone in the first place.

      And that one second is one second more than I want to not be looking at the road.

      Where did I say anything about the road?

      Ten seconds that you're not paying attention to what you're doing. With all the groups you mentioned, you should be able to call one person and let them know and then they can tell everyone else. Sure, it takes a little longer, but if you've got a bluetooth headset with voice dialing, at least you'll be looking at the road and not your damn phone.

      Again, where did I say anything about the road? If you talk or text while you're driving, you're an idiot.

      Why even text 5 or 10 people if they're all waiting in the same place? That makes even less sense then a short, 1 min phone call to tell one person "Be there in 5 mins". If that one person can't let everyone else know, then maybe they're just retarded.

      Why are you assuming they're all in the same place? The whole point of my example of messaging multiple people at once so is that you could tell them all to gather somewhere, regardless of where they are. If you call somebody and tell them to tell all of the others, you're not doing anything more efficiently, you're just passing the work to somebody else.

      Yes, and we all know that everybody uses every piece of technology exactly the way it was always intended to be used. In short, no, it doesn't make more sense.

      It seems to me mostly like you're just being hostile towards something you don't understand because you don't want to understand.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    23. Re:Kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course you meant "OMW, 30min", much more efficient. Ya, txtng is way btr for shrt convs. Peeps tht dnt txt thnk its for convs. Teens w/qwerty boards might thk dif.

      omgwtfbbq

      PIR!(parents in room)

    24. Re:Kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, sending a text message still produces an audible tone from most recipient's phone (and, if you are a really lucky Verizon customer, an annoying and persistent reminder tone), thereby producing the very interruption you sought to avoid by not calling. (And if your response to that assertion is "just turn off the reminder tone", you clearly haven't owned a Verizon phone, which possesses one of the most user-hostile GUI's ever devised by sadistic mad scientists)

      An, no, their not for conversing, but some people seem to enjoy using them for that very function, thereby producing a never-ending stream of audible interruptions with the hapless recipient unable to make a graceful exit by hinting with their tone of voice that it is time to shut up and go away now.

      Worse, texting is not always free to the recipient, so the whimsical musings of the bored messenger often cost their captive audience money.

      Here's a thought: If it isn't important enough to call, maybe it simply isn't important.

    25. Re:Kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, sending a text message still produces an audible tone from most recipient's phone

      So turn your phone on vibrate, or ask the person who's bothering you to do so.

      And if your response to that assertion is "just turn off the reminder tone", you clearly haven't owned a Verizon phone, which possesses one of the most user-hostile GUI's ever devised by sadistic mad scientists

      Get a different provider. Verizon sucks, it's not my fault you chose poorly.

      Worse, texting is not always free to the recipient, so the whimsical musings of the bored messenger often cost their captive audience money.

      Again, not my fault you chose a crappy provider that charges you for text messages. Besides, I presume that somebody in your situation would let the other party know that text messages aren't free for you before you have an extended conversation.

      Here's a thought: If it isn't important enough to call, maybe it simply isn't important.

      Here's a thought: maybe you're not important, and your opinions are not universal truths.

    26. Re:Kids these days by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Yes, text messages are a horribly inefficient way of having a conversation, but they're not for conversing, they're for disseminating information.

      While you seem intelligent enough to see that and use them that way, your experience does not agree with the most avid users.

      • Teenagers use texting to send their buddies private messages that their parents can't hear, say, in the car. This naturally leads to conversations.
      • Like it or not, even adults regularly use texting for conversations. Important conversations, even.
      • I have watched avid texters be entirely focused on their text conversations, ignoring the world around them, to their own detriment. This includes safety while driving as well as having poor table manners and halting in-progress conversations with them to send messages that are frankly not important. It's rude and it's been done to me time and time again -- and I am intentionally excusing and excluding actually important messages/phone calls.

      I'm not really arguing with your usage of texting, I'm just saying it doesn't match up with the crazy texters that I know. Having said that, if I ask someone not to send me text messages because I am too cheap to blow $60/yr on unlimited texting, I expect them to respect my request.

      If anyone is interested, I've found the best response to combating people who ignore my request is to simply call the person back and have a conversation.

      $0.02USD,
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  4. Why such a specific law? by thewils · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention". This covers everything from texting to putting on your make-up. No need to mention everything specifically. No need to create new laws for new technology.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:Why such a specific law? by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      The law in the UK covers 'reckless' driving 'without due care and attention'. However, the problem there is to clarify what 'due care and attention' is. Some think that they can still provide due care and attention with a handheld phone call - or eating a cream cake while they're driving.

      Then again, maybe natural selection is a good thing.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    2. Re:Why such a specific law? by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention".

      Too vague ... one person's "due care and attention" is anothers recklessness.

      Besides, banning texting for the driver while on a highway is a no-brainer ... because obviously people with no brains think they can do it "despite a few near-accidents."

      I finally bought a bluetooth earpiece when the laws changed, even though my cell already has speaker-phone capability, so it already was "hands-free"; after a couple of weeks, I now wish I had bought it sooner. (Hint - buy a good-quality one with noise and echo cancellation - you don't want to sound like you're talking in a garbage can).

    3. Re:Why such a specific law? by deadmongrel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with non-specific laws is that its open to interpretation. Also we can get rid of all specific laws and have one law: "do no evil".
      Your definition of evil may be different from mine.

      Also, most states have laws against careless operation of vehicles already.

    4. Re:Why such a specific law? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      I have been involved in two accidents (in nearly 30 years of driving).

      On the first occasion, the idiot that drove into the back of me (I was stopped) was drunk, on the second, the woman was on the mobile.

      To me (and I'm not a 'hanging around' sort of driver), phone use is as bad as drink driving.

      I'd rather that they not naturally select themselves and their germ line out of existence on my rear bumper, thankyou :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    5. Re:Why such a specific law? by ozbon · · Score: 1

      Then again, maybe natural selection is a good thing.

      With idiots like this, there's no 'maybe' about it.

      My issue is more with the people they take with them. Sure, if some idiot wants to send a text message and ends up getting intimate with a brick wall, or some other inanimate object, fine. It's when they whack into the car coming the other way, and take out the occupants of that vehicle as well that I get annoyed.

      There's nothing Darwinian about collateral damage.

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    6. Re:Why such a specific law? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they are likely to kill someone else (especially pedestrians) rather than themselves.

    7. Re:Why such a specific law? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention".
      People are not clever enough to work out on their own what new technologies are incompatible with driving. You either have to make a law or put forth a lot of money on "awareness" campaigns. Laws are cheaper.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:Why such a specific law? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Because there aren't enough lawyers to go around. Won't you think of the poor lawyers?!

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    9. Re:Why such a specific law? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention". This covers everything from texting to putting on your make-up. No need to mention everything specifically. No need to create new laws for new technology.

      Well, I tend to consider eating and talking perfectly reasonable to do while driving. Thus, my definition of due care and attention includes those things. Other people would naturally disagree with me. So, if I argue I was complying with the law by having a paper towel in my lap so I could drop my food at a moment's notice and dedicate myself fully to driving if there was a change in circumstance... But, the cop takes a hard line approach and says any eating while you drive is failing to use due care... Well, that probably doesn't play out well for me even if I believed I was complying perfectly with the law. Some degree of vagueness if correct in a law, because it should cover a range of situations. OTOH, a clear law prevents annoying cops from applying it to anybody they think isn't absolutely perfect.

    10. Re:Why such a specific law? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I was using a wired headset years ago, long before Bluetooth came out, but I agree: spend the money and get a half-decent model. Make sure your phone has good Bluetooth support as well, I had one phone that had an annoying and near-continuous crackling no matter what headset I paired with it.

      I don't know why some people never figure out that, when they pick up their cell phone and jam it onto the side of their heads, they might as well be driving drunk so far as the rest of us are concerned. It's remarkable how oblivious they are to their aberrant driving.

      To the next person that says, "That may be true for most people, but I'm special, my brain lets me handle having a phone stuck in my ear and still drive perfectly" I will say this: you're wrong. Don't believe me? Tell you what: have a friend follow you down the highway for a few miles while you're talking on your phone to someone else. Ideally, have them videotape you while you're doing it.

      Once you've done that, make an honest assessment of your behavior and come back and tell us how well you were driving. You'll wonder if it was really you behind the wheel. Besides, I've heard the same crap from people that tell me, "Oh, sure, I've had a few drinks, but I drive better drunk than most people do sober." No, you don't. You may think you do, but that's the alcohol talking. To the rest of us you're a public menace. Driving is dangerous enough without having to share the road with drunken fools and cellphone-wielding passholes.

      It all comes down to this: either we self-regulate ourselves to behave safely while driving, or the government will do it for us. Contrary to popular belief, living in a free society does not mean you get to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it. There are always limits placed on individual behavior, for the good of ourselves and others. The only question is whether we are willing to take a little responsibility here and use the technology wisely, or keep killing each other and give the government an excuse to come down on us even harder. It doesn't take much anymore for some posturing politician to pass yet another unConstitutional law. Our choice.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:Why such a specific law? by op12 · · Score: 1

      The fact that you're using a headset doesn't make a major difference in the effect on your driving...it's how involved you are in the conversation and how much priority you give it that causes you to have a slower response time. Not having a second hand on the wheel isn't anywhere near as important as being able to focus on the road when you need to, and some conversations require too much thought to provide enough focus.

    12. Re:Why such a specific law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only is it possible, it's probably the case that a law to that effect exists in your state. For example, in Virginia

      Va. Code 46.2-852. Reckless driving; general rule.

      Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving.

      The fun of a recursive definition of reckless driving aside, the law allows you to be charged for reckless driving for any behavior that endangers others. The advantage of passing a specific law about cell phone texting while driving is that then the state doesn't have to prove that the specific texting incident put a person or property in danger, which saves lots of time in trials.

    13. Re:Why such a specific law? by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      WE have something like that, and it was too vague, so we added specifics, like passing traffic by weaving between lanes. As you say, the're value of a specific law for both parties: the burden of proof is lower, and the citizen can now know what the limits are, rather than something vague.

    14. Re:Why such a specific law? by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

      The problem is, those not paying attention and getting into an accident will still be "limp" so to speak during the accident. The poor bastard they hit will (if paying attention) likely see it coming, tense up, and thusly suffer severely more damage. Sorta like how a drunk driver typically manages to suffer less damage than anyone else when in a car accident.

      Thus, the stupid (or drunk) are 'naturally selecting' everyone else out.

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
    15. Re:Why such a specific law? by thewils · · Score: 1

      The problem with having to be so specific with a law is that it doesn't cover every situation. Is driving while playing chess on the front seat with a passenger illegal? It damn well should be, without specifically having to mention "chess". If you are having a heated argument with a passenger and don't give _all_ your attention to your driving then you are driving without due care and attention and if a policeman sees you doing this he should be able to write you a summons/give you a ticket/whatever.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    16. Re:Why such a specific law? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      well, if you'd just agree to me as absolute dictator of the world, 'do no evil' would be clear and concise, and we'd execute anyone who needed it without having to pass a law first.

      oh and, the price of gas under my regime will be free! i just behead enough people to make biodiesel if we don't have enough oil wells, simple, cheap, easy! don't worry, only infidels will be beheaded, if some obscure place like africa runs out of infidels, denying my absolute supreme power as absolute dictator of the world, we'll just move to other weak, powerless nations until there are no more infidels in weak powerless nations, and then we'll move to the infidels elsewhere, don't worry there will always be food and jobs under my regime, and entertainment will all be good, i have a very good idea of how to manage a few billion people, and how to make slave labor in infidel nations allow cheap, renewable green energy so that everyone can have cars and laptops and entertainment. and of course, environmental protection is much easier when heads roll for violations.

      the problem is, if when i die you might not get such a benevolent or talented dictator, with enough paranoia to behead anyone who might try to usurp the throne... the plus side, is i'm only 30, so you won't have to worry for 30-50 years.

      i realize, absolute dictators often have difficulty managing large nations, but the thing is not all men have the intuition needed to predict what needs to be done, and where, and some are total control freaks worried about the press, etc. if you look at the classic roman empire, instead of at hitler's books, you'd understand what people need most is entertainment, food, and creature comforts to keep them content, not news of your greatness and glory...

      just look at what happened to America when the elected officials tried to stop beer, compare that to Jesus turning water into wine.

      yup, people need happy pills, not censored news.

    17. Re:Why such a specific law? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Why not simply have a law where you must drive with "due care and attention". This covers everything from texting to putting on your make-up. No need to mention everything specifically. No need to create new laws for new technology.

      "Every participant in public traffic must act such that nobody is harmed or jeopardized, or impeded more than unavoidable."

      Paragraph 1 of German traffic code.

    18. Re:Why such a specific law? by digitrev · · Score: 1

      True, but most people look at lists and think of them as exhaustive, not a list of examples.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
  5. Nothing to see here, move along? by papna · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting issue to discuss, but TFA seems to have virtually no content.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here, move along? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Does it matter?
      Most /.ers are unaware of TFA's existance.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  6. Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What a moron!

    exting away while driving despite some near-accidents. 'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor

    With a bluetooth headset, I say the person's name, my cellphone dials the number, I say what I have to say, and never have to fumble around with the phone.

    Any bets on how long before this guy gets his darwin?

    1. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, as scientists have repeatedly told us, this is no better than talking on your phone with no headset.

    2. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      And, as scientists have repeatedly told us, this is no better than talking on your phone with no headset.

      ... are you really going to claim that texting no more dangerous than talking on the phone?

      Also, with the right earpiece, you no longer have to use the phone to dial, to answer, or to hang up. You no longer have to hold or even look at the phone at any point, so you can keep your hands on the wheel, and your eyes on the road.

      Compare that to texting ...

    3. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by ozbon · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you'd RTFA, you'd know that "this guy" is actually a girl.

      TIME's Sarah N. Lynch contacted the group's founder, Taylor Leming, 21, of Round Hill, Va., who submitted her responses via e-mail

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    4. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by AmaranthineNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I think you missed his point, which was that driving with a headset has been shown in studies to be no less dangerous than driving with a phone in your hand while you are talking to people. The "hands-free" wasn't the problem, the problem was that being on a phone and carrying on a conversation is distracting, whether you're holding it up to your ear or not.

      I'd like to see a study done on whether talking to somebody in the passenger seat is just as dangerous as talking on the phone (handsfree or not) while driving. Because if it is just as dangerous to talk to a passenger, then really they can either ban talking in cars (imagine the outcry) or stop passing laws against doing other stuff in cars (talking on a cell phone). Although the texting thing is definitely a no-brainer.

    5. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      I read the article afterwords; it doesn't change anything wrt the stupidity involved. She admits not only to nearly causing accidents, but the picture clearly shows that she's not looking at the road.

    6. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      The article was about text messaging while driving a car, as opposed to just calling the person. I'm glad you agree that texting is a no-brainer :-)

      As for the distraction of talking on the phone, most people can't even drive properly when they have NO "distractions."

      For them, a cellphone, or anything else, is going to diminish their already-lousy driving.

      How about a ban on cell-phone use for anyone who has less than, say, 5 years driving experience, *any* demerit points, or was responsible for accident within the last decade? That would snare most of the less competent, less experienced, and more "accident-prone."

    7. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you quit doing other shit and just drive? I think it's really funny how everybody seems to think that cellphones are a problem - except for them, as if they have some special powers or something. Get off the phone and fucking drive.

    8. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      How about a ban on cell-phone use for anyone who has less than, say, 5 years driving experience, *any* demerit points, or was responsible for accident within the last decade?

      How do you plan to enforce this? Are the police going to look for people on the phone, and then run every single license plate to see if they fall within the "banned" category? What about cars owned by more than one person, or being driven by a friend?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    9. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by MaerD · · Score: 1

      TIME's Sarah N. Lynch contacted the group's founder, Taylor Leming, 21, of Round Hill, Va., who submitted her responses via e-mail

      Either that's a typo or my eyes just aren't working today. I keep reading her last name as "Lemming" Either way, heading mindlessly to certain death, indeed.

      --
      I put on my robe and wizard hat..
    10. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you think about it for a couple of minutes, we can pretty much automate the process at this point. Roadside detectors that can tell if your cell phone is doing more than just exchanging "I'm here" info wth the local cell tower, plus license-plate readers.

      Of course, if there's more than 1 occupant in the car, the system won't work ... so I can see an increase in sales of blow-up dolls. Wait a sec, this is slashdot ... the average slashdotter probably already has a pneumatically-challenged friend.

    11. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, well that changes everything.

    12. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      "Any bets on how long before this guy gets his darwin?"

      The sad thing is that it will probably be the other party that gets his darwin.

    13. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      It fails with more than one person in the car, it fails if more than one person owns the car, it fails if someone who doesn't own the car is driving it. In short, it fails.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    14. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      But it succeeds most of the time ... most of the time, most cars only have one occupant.

      However, since we're expected to see gasoline prices pas $5/gallon this winter, that too will change ...

      ... at which point, why not let the passenger make the call?

    15. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      Submitted her response via email.

      Yeah, via email, on her Blackberry, while driving.

      Stupid b17ch.

      --Toll_Free

    16. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by kesuki · · Score: 1

      just to illustrate the issue, here's why 'hands free' is dangerous, man A calls buddy B, buddy b is being a little too nice, asking how man a is holding out, trying to be sly, man a starts interrogating buddy b, and buddy b lets it slip that stranger 3 was fucking man a's wife/girlfriend, and posted a video on generic porn site, where buddy b saw it... then man a, looses it, and hits semi d, and then buddy b commits suicide a week later because he let man a find out while he was driving.

      in this example 2 people died, with a hands free headset due to the nature of the information changing hands.

      this would be like broadcasting hg wells the war of the worlds, for the first time over radio, and people getting into accidents looking to see if the ufo's were going to death beam their cars.

      there are some things people just shouldn't learn while trying to drive a car. with a cell phone, they can.

    17. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an urban legend - like those "X number of people die in their sleep from nightmares" stats ... -how did they know they were having a nightmare? Leave a note?

      Besides, one data point is irrelevant. You could use that same anecdote to show that porn is dangerous, or that video cameras should be banned, or that semis should not be allowed to share the road with regular traffic, or that the internet is a killer.

    18. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by kesuki · · Score: 1

      the example was fictitious to illustrate the point -- bad data can cause unexpected mood swings, result in worse driving, or pull all the drivers attention away from driving. it doesn't have to be as extreme as in my example to kill, what would you do if your wife called and told you you hit the power ball jackpot of 127 million while you were driving 75 MPH in heavy post work traffic that is almost fender to fender?

      it could happen, that's like the mantra of powerball.

    19. Re:Get a phone and bluetooth headset by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      what would you do if your wife called and told you you hit the power ball jackpot of 127 million while you were driving 75 MPH in heavy post work traffic that is almost fender to fender

      It wouldn't matter, because I would either be dreaming or in an alternate universe, since I'm (a) not married, and (b) "heavy post-work traffic" doesn't do 75mph - more like zero-20mph, and (c) I don't drive 75mph except in emergencies and (d) we don't have powerball loteries here :-)

  7. Voice Recognition by KrunchTime · · Score: 1

    I'd like a phone that would let me talk my text messages in and read the response to me.

    1. Re:Voice Recognition by jrothwell97 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In that case, how long would it be since I get a text reading

      Hello deer, I'm on the mane road and will be hone in to innits.

      And in that case, WTF is wrong with just making a phone call?

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    2. Re:Voice Recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case WTF is wrong with knocking on the front door in two minutes.

    3. Re:Voice Recognition by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      And in that case, WTF is wrong with just making a phone call?

      That's a joke, son.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Voice Recognition by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      With some people, once they have you talking they think it's time to tell a story... for 10 minutes. Texting prevents this type of thing from happening. You get in, get the info you need and get out.

      Phone call:

      A) Hey, I'll be home in 5 min.

      B( OK, let me tell you all about my day.....

      A) (10 minutes later) ... yeah I've been in the driveway for 5 minutes while you've been talking.

      Text:

      A) I'll be home in 5

      B) OK

      *done*

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    5. Re:Voice Recognition by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      Then why not plan ahead and make the phone call ten, or even fifteen, minutes before arriving?

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    6. Re:Voice Recognition by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Of course, there's the alternative:

      (5 minutes later)
      A) I'm home!

      Was that so fucking hard?

    7. Re:Voice Recognition by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Depends... what happens if you were to not arrive home? 5 minutes go by, then 10 then 20... when do you call/text to say "uhh running late" or do you just ignore the other person waiting for you.... who may have been hoping to get dinner started or to reheat something for you or light the candles, run the shower or any number of romantic gestures?

      My wife loves to know when I'll be home and traffic can be very unpredictable. I don't really know if I'm going to be home soon until about 5 minutes away.

      I can send a text message while waiting at the offramp light... takes about 5 seconds.

      A conversation on the other hand can go for minutes without even getting to the important part.

      Kind of like /. posts.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    8. Re:Voice Recognition by Cederic · · Score: 1


      You get your wife used to you getting home when you arrive. It'll help her to have her own life, instead of making her time subservient to your own.

      One day you wont ring and she'll panic. Congrats.

    9. Re:Voice Recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She wants to know where you are plus or minus three hundred seconds? What, is she afraid you might stop for half a lap dance on the way home? Is there a bomb on the coffee table waiting for you to sprint in and clip the right wire just in time?

    10. Re:Voice Recognition by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      uh, she works at a Law firm, Legal Secretary and has quite a life all on her own. She's just not a typical modern American woman... she enjoys doing nice things for people (including her husband)...

      She bakes cookies for my work, sends flowers when someone has an accident, organizes extended family holiday events, while being pregnant with our second child.

      She doesn't panic when I don't call ahead, she just lets me know what I missed out on...

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  8. I think you meant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "B their in 5". HTH. HAND.

  9. Moron by smolloy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I hope her first accident, the one that teaches her how dumb and selfish this is, only injures/kills her and no one else.

    I also hope her insurance company reads time.com.

    1. Re:Moron by owlstead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You learn or you die, you cannot combine the two. Anyway, I hope she crashes and just seriously damages the car, with the insurance company not paying out. There is no reason to wish her harm just because she (at 21 years old) makes some stupid mistakes.

    2. Re:Moron by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      I hope her first accident, the one that teaches her how dumb and selfish this is, only injures/kills her and no one else.

      I also hope her insurance company reads time.com.

      I suppose the sort of attitudes that cause people to intensionaly do any unsafe things driving (texting, street racing, whatever) often come from not being old enough to have learned first hand how a few milliseconds can pertinently screw up so many lives.

      That being said, I've been run off the road by cell users who are way more than old enough to know better.

    3. Re:Moron by mrbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That last part is actually a very good point. With employers checking up on prospective hires' Facebook profiles, I don't find it a stretch to think that insurance companies would do the same thing. Here's hoping they quadruple the rates of everyone in that group.

    4. Re:Moron by AmaranthineNight · · Score: 1

      I hope the next time you wish ill on somebody because of a slashdot summary you go ahead and RTFA first.

      She knows text messaging while driving is dangerous and doesn't do it often, she fully supports a law against it, and has said she'd follow that law if it were passed. But no, let's get right on hoping a 21 year old woman gets into an accident and gets hurt, that will make things better.

    5. Re:Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      21 is not a child, she's an adult. If she doesn't have any common sense by now, she'll never have it.

    6. Re:Moron by smolloy · · Score: 1
      I had RTFA.

      It impressed me that she said she'd change her behaviour if a law were passed, but it annoyed me that she knows this is dangerous, but continues to do it any way. Her and her like are putting me and my family/friends at risk for very little apparent gain, and that kinda pisses me off. Admitting that something you do while driving is dangerous, while still doing it, is just like admitting to driving drunk.

      How about I soften my tone, and only hope that she wrecks her car (and comes out completely unscathed) without hurting anyone else?

    7. Re:Moron by AmaranthineNight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I won't jump down your throat either, considering that it annoys me that she'd "feel horrible if something happened because she broke a law" but not, apparently, if she does something she admits is entirely stupid. In any case, I wouldn't mind if she totaled her car and insurance didn't pay so long as she didn't get hurt, you don't learn lessons when you're dead.

    8. Re:Moron by mpe · · Score: 1

      That last part is actually a very good point. With employers checking up on prospective hires' Facebook profiles, I don't find it a stretch to think that insurance companies would do the same thing. Here's hoping they quadruple the rates of everyone in that group.

      Upping the rates might result in these idiots driving uninsured. It would be more responsible of insurance companies to provide "third party only" insurance here.

    9. Re:Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you DO clean up the gene pool, so it's not so bad.

    10. Re:Moron by ari_j · · Score: 1

      You're right. Let's just hope that she is somehow, miraculously I might say, more responsible in her reproductive habits than in driving.

    11. Re:Moron by fermion · · Score: 1
      Honesty, I have no problem with people, in particular kids, doing stupid shit. We all did it. In most cases something non critcal/fatal will happen and they will correct the behavior, or they will grow out of it. It is like drunk driving. Many people do it a couple times, usually a few DUIs or near misses will cure the behavior. Sometimes they kill someone, and the sad this about this is that murder charges are not pushed often enough. Sometimes they off themselves, which, sad as it may be, is what happens in the real world. Sometimes, like a famous man everyone in the world knows, they never learn and never have any remorse, and continue to engage in inappropriate activities into their 40's, when any sane or intelligent person would have learned otherwise.

      What I do have problem with, is vis a vis the above example, everyone just talks about the good ol' boys/girls, and look the other way.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    12. Re:Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually before wishing harm unto a 21 year old girl RTFA. She is certainly not condoning texting in the car.

      From the facebook group: "this group is for people who are willing to laugh at the stupidity of texting while driving! it is dangerous! please remember that! if it offends you in anyway, i apologize, but hey, don't join!"

      Seems like the editors of Slashdot tries to spin an article again and you fell for it. Kind of make you look dumb.

    13. Re:Moron by smolloy · · Score: 1
      Actually, AC troll, if you'd read the thread following my original post, you'd have seen that I *did* RTFA.

      Now who looks dumb?

    14. Re:Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You learn or you die, you cannot combine the two.

      Unless there's an afterlife. And if there is, I assure you that there's a special place in hell for texting drivers. That will teach her.

  10. risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the more one engages in a potentially risky activity, the more likely it is they will suffer negative results.

  11. As has often be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the really effective way to make people drive more careful is to replace the airbag in all cars with a big pointy spike aimed at the driver's head.

    1. Re:As has often be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the really effective way to make people drive more careful is to replace the airbag in all cars with a big pointy spike aimed at the driver's head.

      thats gotta be candidate for my sig lol

    2. Re:As has often be said by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      But what if some idiot rams into your car, with airbag/pointy spike fitted, in a car which has no airbag/pointy spike fitted? It would reverse the process of natural selection entirely, interfering with evolution. Which would be very dangerous.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    3. Re:As has often be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The effective way to make driving more safe is to make cars drive themselves. If all cars were autonomously controlled by some central computer, GPS, etc, the roads would be safer, faster, and more enjoyable for everyone. We certainly have the tech to do this, but I can't see it ever happening :(

    4. Re:As has often be said by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      That's actually not too far off from the "Naked Streets" movement, where removing traffic signs, signals, sidewalks and road paint force people to actually pay attention and think while driving, significantly reducing traffic and collisions: see video at http://www.maniacworld.com/no-street-lights-mean-fewer-accidents.html

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:As has often be said by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      But then you get the dickheads with GPS who will happily drive off a cliff if its suggested as a short cut.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    6. Re:As has often be said by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      they drive off a cliff? Unless they kill someone on the road with them, I fail to see a problem.

  12. Why a law? by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure people are dumb. But how can anyone be so mind-boggling stupid that they would think that texting while driving is a good idea? I mean, why not just go to the next step and drive blindfolded? There shouldn't even need to be a law because no one should be dumb enough to do this. But I guess I have too much faith in humanity.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Why a law? by Captain+Murdock · · Score: 1

      Either you're older than the current generation that's been raised on text messages or you're naive for some reason. This happens all the time among people I know. (I'm 20.) I've actually did it a few times myself before I realized what a stupid move it is. It's like reading a book while driving, you can't look at two things at once.

    2. Re:Why a law? by Spatial · · Score: 1

      But I guess I have too much faith in humanity.

      These days it seems like any amount is too much.

    3. Re:Why a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rtfa

    4. Re:Why a law? by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      Why a law? That one is easy! It's not for the sake of the idiot texting while driving. It's to protect the rest of the drivers on the road from this idiot. It provides another reason for the cop to pull him over if he does not have another reason. (Yes a good cop can always find a reason to make a stop but why burden him?) Furthermore, if he crashes injuring others, it provides another reason for locking him up.

    5. Re:Why a law? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Legislating behaviour is a way of outsourcing morality and common sense to the state, freeing up citizens' time for, say football and complaining about gas prices.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    6. Re:Why a law? by thepuppydog26 · · Score: 1

      I'm part of this text-message generation, but yeesh, I've never texted while driving or even considered it! Then again, it could be the whole, "driving my mom's car, really don't want to damage it" situation..

    7. Re:Why a law? by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ever been stuck in traffic for 30 minutes on a freeway, going 2 MPH?

      You can read a book, eat a burger and write out a 2 page email with absolutely no concern for the cars around you.... there's no where to go and nobody can go fast enough to even dent your car much less cause an accident.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    8. Re:Why a law? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      i live in the back woods. the worst i've ever seen is a bridge being out with no signs, and no turn offs for 30 miles, having to back 30 miles to get to the right road that goes where you meant to be is pretty annoying, but the only time i've seen a mile of backed up traffic is behind a john deer on a 2-lane highway that has 'tractor' warning signs on the highway itself.

  13. Just because person X hasn't had an accident... by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

    ...it doesn't mean that you're not more likely to have one while operating any device that takes your eyes off the road.

    Mobile phones are still so new that proper statistics don't really exist. (Ever here in Finland, where most in my generation had a mobile in high school, pre Y2K.) But I still don't think it can ever be safer to drive while doing anything else at the same time.

    Sometimes it makes the most sense to simply find a place to pull over for a moment, if you really need to do something which will take your attention off the road. As for calling, there's this thing called a "hands free device" which works pretty darn well these days...

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  14. Great Idea... by deadmongrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am starting another group:
      "I am drunk While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!"

    It sucks that we have to make laws to compensate for commonsense.

    1. Re:Great Idea... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Too bad your group will be so popular.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. It's not easier, it's harder! by Coopjust · · Score: 1

    How can it be easier? A voice call distracts you for a few seconds, tops- with speeddial, voice dialing, and other options, it takes little to no time.

    Even if you're texting proficient, you still have to look at the screen to check your output multiple times, distracting you from the road.

    While I'm normally a person that is against the "nanny state", idiots who get distracted while driving are not only a danger to themselves, they are a danger to every other person around them.

    1. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by Coopjust · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, I recognize that you do have to continually think about your conversation during a voice call, but you at least have the ability to keep your eyes on the road...

    2. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by AmaranthineNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know people who text without looking (Why would you need to check your output? It's close enough to what you meant) and if the text message in response isn't important, like in the case of texting "be home in 5", it requires lifting up your phone for a couple of seconds and hitting send. Calling could definitely be more distracting depending on how proficient you are at text messaging vs. carrying on a phone conversation.

    3. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by lilmunkysguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you still have to look at the screen to check your output multiple times, distracting you from the road.

      Like flipping through the radio stations? Here here! Let's call all radio station flippers names and ban radio station flipping!
      Honestly, the cell phone, or the texting, isn't the problem. There are times when it is perfectly safe to text (long empty roads on the way to the coast, for example). As someone above said, the rule should be that you "drive with due care and attention." Banning a particular technology because your view can't apply it in a safe way doesn't seem to be the right answer.

    4. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      A voice call distracts you for a few seconds, tops- with speeddial, voice dialing, and other options, it takes little to no time.
      See, I wouldn't have any problem with texting while driving if people would maintain proper distance. Let's say a text message takes 10 seconds to enter (conservative I know), then you need to have your normal 2 seconds plus the additional 10 seconds of space between you and the next driver. At highway speeds, that's about 1500 feet.
      Let's not forget about separation from people in the lanes next to you either. You should be sure there is no one at all in any of the other lanes within 1500 feet of you or on the shoulder, coming the other way or driving along the access road in case you really lose it bad when you lose control of the vehicle.
      If you can maintain those distances reliably while texting, then text away. At least I know you won't kill anybody ELSE that way.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, doesn't work that way. You seem to be claiming that if you give everyone a wide berth, you could close your eyes for 10 full seconds at highway speeds without danger. Stupid.

    6. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to be claiming that if you give everyone a wide berth, you could close your eyes for 10 full seconds at highway speeds without danger. Stupid.
      Without danger to others, yes. Without danger to themselves, no. I don't care what people do to themselves as long as they don't hurt other people.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Long empty roads only appear empty. There are even safer places to text in the car: Stopped at the side of the road or parked in a lot.
      BTW, did you know driving instructors _do_ frown heavily on touching the radio while in motion?

    8. Re:It's not easier, it's harder! by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      It's not harmless to others, though. You can't know that the brakes of the car 1500 feet ahead won't lock up, or that a hobo won't appear on the shoulder, or that your car won't veer hard enough on a crack in the road to jump the median, or any of a thousand other things. The key to safe driving is preparedness for unexpected emergency situations, almost all of which can appear within 10 seconds unforeseeably.

      --
      ResidntGeek
  16. Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would like to make organ donation compulsory for these people. At least they can be of some use after they crash.

    1. Re:Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would like to make organ donation compulsory for these people. At least they can be of some use after they crash.

      I like the idea of compulsory organ donation, but why wait until after they crash, when the organs might get damaged?

    2. Re:Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 1

      Good idea! Let's get 'em while they are fresh!

    3. Re:Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as long as they're not donating their brains.

    4. Re:Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! by LynxofCP · · Score: 1

      I'm really not sure that's a good idea either. With the possibility that Cellular Memory is more than just superstition, the stupidity might indeed be contagious. Either way, I'm not sure we should take the chance...

    5. Re:Make Organ Donor Mandatory for These Idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent may be referring to the other organs still intact after the accident.

  17. Stop killing people by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've lost two people in pointless car crashes.

    Please use your goddamn head and pay attention to the goddamn road.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:Stop killing people by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as non-pointless car crashes?

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:Stop killing people by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as non-pointless car crashes?

      NASCAR. Why else would you watch it?

    3. Re:Stop killing people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you checked with the front desk or lost and found?

  18. This is what happens by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when society looks down on physical violence. A solid punch to the chin and that guy may see the error of his ways.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:This is what happens by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      It's generally considered socially unacceptable for dudes to clock girls, but I suppose in this case we can make an exception.

  19. Darwin Award here we come by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We can all remember this thread when the asshat wins a Darwin Award. I've been near clipped many times by people fumbling with their phones. Usually they are gabbing, but more and more it's young kids texting. Youth tends to think it's invincible anyways.

    They even reference 'near accidents'. All it takes is for one other person around you to also have a lapse of attention to turn that 'near accident' into a real accident.

    If you need to say 'be there in 5' then pull over, or just make them wait 5 minutes. Duh.

    1. Re:Darwin Award here we come by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      I love the adrenalin rush of people engrosed in thier text messaging stepping out onto the road in front of me whilst I'm driving with out even looking. So when we add a driver to this equation it becomes an unexpected feature of mobile phones to cull swaths of the population destined to become footnotes in the darwin awards.

      And I bet the last thing that would go through thier minds is "eval - no, dubl - no, dual - no, duck - no, fuck - yes" SPLAT

      Shiv, I just knew that predictive text could be a force for good in the world.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Darwin Award here we come by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      oh, forgot to mention, I'm sure that it's not lost on anyone here that she is a leming

      we can only hope, eh?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Darwin Award here we come by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      The Darwin Award rules state that the asshat must cause his own demise.

      Unfortunately when it comes to accidents caused by self-impaired driving, the victim is often not the asshat driver but an innocent bystander who would otherwise be looking forward to decades of fulfilling life. This disqualifies the asshat from the Darwin Award.

    4. Re:Darwin Award here we come by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Unless the asshat runs into a tree while texting. Bingo! We have a winner!

    5. Re:Darwin Award here we come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin Awards frown on doing things that will take others with you.

  20. Re:rampant idiocy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, you're joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually tried that. Sigh.

  21. Here's A Challenge For The Statisticians... by DieByWire · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given that at some point the rate of new members signing up will equal the rate that existing members die, calculate the maximum number of members of 'I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!'

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    1. Re:Here's A Challenge For The Statisticians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll need to periodically ping the accounts of members of the group, just to make sure they haven't gotten the Darwin yet, leaving a ghost profile and membership.

    2. Re:Here's A Challenge For The Statisticians... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there is a much lower rate of "I give up, you retards won't listen to a word of common sense!" people leaving the group, having joined it for the sole purpose of telling the legitimate members "You retards are going to kill babies!" The same phenomenon occurs with the groups in support of boycotting gasoline for a day or boycotting one retailer of gasoline in order to force gas prices down.

    3. Re:Here's A Challenge For The Statisticians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's not enough information to estimate that.

    4. Re:Here's A Challenge For The Statisticians... by JaffaKREE · · Score: 1

      If one of the group members DOES get killed while texting and driving, are the others compelled to remove him/her posthumously ?

  22. Don't make me hurt you... by astralan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's thrilling to think of driving south on I-95 in the left lane and see someone driving five feet behind me staring at a phone than my bumper. Isn't that how road-rage gets started? It's more than an accident waiting to happen.

    1. Re:Don't make me hurt you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's enough to make you wish horns were directional.

    2. Re:Don't make me hurt you... by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're in the wrong lane...

    3. Re:Don't make me hurt you... by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will shoot those fuckers who text while driving.

    4. Re:Don't make me hurt you... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      that's why you get yourself a nice vintage 1970's 1980's boat of a car. you see someone texting, you can slam on your breaks crush their pathetic little car, laugh all the way home and then get a crock lawyer to sue them for your whiplash because they were too busy texting to pay attention to your break lights.

    5. Re:Don't make me hurt you... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      you must have missed it, the supreme court overturned a handgun ban in DC, they've for the first time ever upheld the right to bear arms.

      http://www.mercurynews.com/southbaybaseball/ci_9712109

      so just cap those mofos handguns are legal, do the world a favor.

    6. Re:Don't make me hurt you... by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I carry a gun in my vehicle at all times. In the event that someone crashes into me due to texting, applying makeup, or generally being an asshole who thinks that being the 90,001st car in line instead of the 90,003rd will get him to his destination substantially earlier, I will shoot him and claim self-defense, on the grounds that he was attempting to murder me with his vehicle.

    7. Re:Don't make me hurt you... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      I also often find that the people who are sticking close behind while driving are not speeding or in a hurry, as they don't pass when I make way, instead they are just using the one in front to keep their car sort of in line while doing something else. I'd rather have some idiot speeding but concentrating behind me.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  23. Get robbed by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just because you haven't crashed doesn't mean the extra few seconds it takes you to catch on to what's going on around you doesn't irritate the shit out of everyone else on the road an cause roadrage.

    Don't get mad when I smash out your car window with a tire iron and take your phone at a green light, if you were paying attention it wouldn't have happened.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  24. Stop Texting and Drive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I ride a Motorcycle, and I can truly say that I am sick and tired of almost being hit by idiots that are text messaging or chatting on their cell phones...
    I have seen people read books, news papers, work papers, shave, eat cereal out of a bowl, put on makeup, etc...and texting or talking on the cell both rank up there with "extremely stupid" behaviors while behind the wheel...
    The next person who nearly hits me ... well, I am building an EMP cannon, it should have an effective range of about 20 feet, and should be able to destroy small electronics, possibly an ECU...

    1. Re:Stop Texting and Drive... by kesuki · · Score: 3, Funny

      http://www.dhbolton.com/articles/diy-emp-generator.html

      the site suggests making the entire device DIY, but i think finding a nice titanium alloy tube that is extremely thin, and extremely strong, to propel a shotgun/handgun round pushing a magnet through EMP coils would be easier, and would launch a much stronger, larger EMP shockwave... the ignition chamber can be thick iron, just the tube needs to be extremely thin and long enough, to create the EMP wave. the coils are going to be a real expensive part, because tightly wound coils cost a lot to make. if you doubt me, just consider the development cost of magnetic containment fusion devices... they're in the millions, for conventional magnetic devices, and tens of millions for superconductive super magnetic coils.

      besides, i somehow doubt a nail would create enough electrical charge pushed through coils no matter how thin or however tightly wound to create a large enough EMP to kill a cell phone..

  25. HUGE group... by youthoftoday · · Score: 1

    600? In facebook-land that's a relatively small group...

    --
    -1 not first post
    1. Re:HUGE group... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      It was bigger before :P

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  26. Thats funny by dissy · · Score: 1

    Virginia resident Leming is still happily texting away while driving despite some near-accidents. 'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor."

    Thats funny, I was just thinking how sometimes it just seems easier to ignore the traffic lights and stop signs. I mean, I get to where I am going so much faster! And haven't had an accident yet, which is of course 100% proof that I never will. /sarcasm

    What a selfish _dangerous_ jerk

    All I can hope for is she only wraps herself around a tree or lamp post, and not another car or pedestrian.

    1. Re:Thats funny by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      All I can hope for is she only wraps herself around a tree or lamp post, and not another car or pedestrian.

      Hey! I'm a tree hugger! What if I'm hugging the tree she hits? You insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Thats funny by dissy · · Score: 1

      All I can hope for is she only wraps herself around a tree or lamp post, and not another car or pedestrian.

      Hey! I'm a tree hugger! What if I'm hugging the tree she hits? You insensitive clod!

      I have to say I'm pretty comfortable with that too ;}

    3. Re:Thats funny by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      HEY! Calling you an insensitive clod is insensitive to insensitive clods!

  27. What has news come to? by OpenSourceNut · · Score: 1

    600 members.. wow.. that's a lot.. and TIME is interviewing him

    By the way.. What's with the new logo?

    --
    I'm now in Poland: http://williamwnek
  28. if God wanted you to text while driving by swschrad · · Score: 1

    there would be a screen instead of a speedometer, and the steering wheel would have a keyboard.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:if God wanted you to text while driving by AmaranthineNight · · Score: 1

      Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  29. Darwin award inc. by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

    Darwin, is that you?

    --
    Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
  30. 6 died by OpenSourceNut · · Score: 1

    Actually the group is only 594 people.. 6 must have crashed Maybe while surfing TIME.com from their iPhone

    --
    I'm now in Poland: http://williamwnek
  31. Hey Taylor, out of the gene pool! by Max+von+H. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I nearly got killed a few years ago by a "distracted" driver who was happily chatting on his cell phone while running a traffic light. It took me over a year to recover and be able to work again and I'll feel the secondary effects of this accident for the rest of my life (definitely NOT a nice thing, trust me).

    In most European countries, using a cell phone while driving is considered impaired driving and you basically face the same consequences as if you were drunk in case of an accident, meaning your insurance will happily run away from you and you'll be declared responsible for the accident even if it's not initially your fault.

    I'm looking forward to the day it'll be the same here in Ontario as a lot of people don't seem to be able to distract themselves from their crackberries while driving. Maybe a $1000 ticket and a license suspension will teach them a lesson before they get to injure or kill someone.

    I for one hope this moron eliminates himself from the human gene pool without injuring or killing someone first.

    --
    -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
    1. Re:Hey Taylor, out of the gene pool! by mostlyouttolunch · · Score: 1

      The situation here in Norway is when an accident result in injury, the police handles the case. It is rutine to check with the telecoms if the driver were using the phone at all at the time. No handsfree set present gives the insurance companies a good reason to reduce their costs - texting will be expensive anyway. May these people miss all others when they go.

      --
      This line is intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Hey Taylor, out of the gene pool! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Maybe a $1000 ticket and a license suspension

      So, what does that mean in the US? Like, you can't drive for 1 hour?

    3. Re:Hey Taylor, out of the gene pool! by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't get it. It's a two ton vehicle someone is operating. I don't get how anyone can consider it safe to do other things while operating a two-ton "death machine". Distractions should be kept to a minimum.

    4. Re:Hey Taylor, out of the gene pool! by Max+von+H. · · Score: 1

      Maybe a $1000 ticket and a license suspension

      So, what does that mean in the US? Like, you can't drive for 1 hour?

      I'd say make it like in Europe: 3 months suspension for a first offence, 6 months for the second, 1 year for the third and then void the license altogether with a 3 years driving ban after that (after which you'd have to pass the exam and start as a new driver).

      --
      -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
  32. More likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Sometimes it just seems easier to text 'Be there in 5' instead of calling,' explains Taylor."

    Followed by "Mr. Taylor kills family of 5, 5 minutes from home" News at 11.

  33. Fucking right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I am generally against violence, there are some people who are just begging for a good ass kicking. Clearly this person is one of them.

  34. not dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm posting this wile drivi

  35. I play russian roulette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I haven't got shot yet!

  36. Before you all cry "Idiot!"... by ettlz · · Score: 1

    ...and I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment — texting behind the wheel is a symptom of dick-headdery — remember that this is a group on Facebook, OK?

  37. Membership by maxume · · Score: 1

    Do they make people quit once they have been in a crash while texting?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  38. jc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to use any device behind the wheel is a distraction .
    eventually there luck will run out

  39. TIME? by strabes · · Score: 1

    Wow, TIME Magazine must be running short on good content. They interviewed the creator of a 600-member facebook group? There's more members in the National Chipotle Day group. Come on.

    --
    Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
  40. It already is illegal by Beached · · Score: 1

    In most places they have laws against not paying attention while drive. Negligence behind the wheel is not a charge you want.

    Either way, if you kill someone because you you where typing that Bobby was DUI after he was AAK and you professed that you DUNA but then you saw someone and said DURS and tried to give her DWPKOTL all while driving 120km/hr you will most likely be charged.

    No need for new laws just charge people with the existing ones. Then someone will text you WTFGDA.

    --
    ---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
  41. How hard is it to pull over? by i+love+pineapples · · Score: 1

    I, too, prefer to text over calling for quick messages. But, in the (rare) instances when I feel the need to text while driving, I just pull off the road. At the very least, I wait until I'm at a stop light-- and if the light changes before I can send the message, I toss my phone to the side and proceed to the next place I can pull over. What could possibly be so urgent that it needs to be sent while the vehicle is in motion?

  42. Oh hey by kjzk · · Score: 0

    Oh dear lord why is this story posted on /.?

  43. We Need Better Voice Recognition by forrie · · Score: 1

    I've been guilty of this. Tapping out one word, watching traffic, then another. Dangerous mix, and I know one day I'll not be so lucky.

    What we need is better voice recognition so we can speak our answers - that's the lesser evil ;-)

  44. But... by VirexEye · · Score: 1

    how am I going to communicate with people while riding my motorcycle now?!

  45. I'm sure it will be a great comfort... by johannesg · · Score: 1

    ...to the spouse, children, parents, and other loved ones that their son/daughter/husband/wife/father/mother was killed by a texting driver who had never actually killed anyone before, but only had been in near-accidents.

  46. Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

    Just outlaw automatic transmissions. It's hard to do other crap while driving when you need both hands and both feet most of the time. People just might start paying attention to heir driving.

    =Smidge=

    1. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You drastically overestimate the driving population. Forcing people into a manual transmission car will merely result in them letting go of the steering wheel to shift, or if they're particularly conscientious, using their cell phone hand to temporarily stabilize the wheel while they shift with their free hand.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by mousse-man · · Score: 1

      Then they should simply not issue them a DL in the first instance. Are people already so badly impaired in the US? When I learnt driving, there wasn't an option to have an 'automatic-only' driving license for cars, so I learned how to drive a stick-shift vehicle.

    3. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by maxume · · Score: 1

      The distinction isn't noted anywhere on licenses.

      I think the idea is that the educational time is better spent understanding the rules and procedures of driving, rather than the operational characteristics of a decreasing percentage of vehicles (I didn't learn to drive a stick until I was 26, 10 years after I started driving).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they won't know how, I said that they will deliberately take stupid actions so that they can stay on the phone. There's a big difference.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    5. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Zen · · Score: 1

      Where do you drive that you constantly need to shift? I have only ever driving stick, and I live in Chicago and drive through traffic jams at least twice a week. I still can make a call (on my earpiece since it's illegal to not use handsfree in Chicago). If you need all of your attention and all of your skill to keep a car on the road, you shouldn't be driving. Nothing against you personally. I just don't understand how people think that nobody is capable of multitasking - see my post further down.

    6. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been talking on the phone while driving a stick for years. Sometimes it's a little inconvenient to shift gears, but when on the open road late at night, what else are you going to do to pass the time.

    7. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I just hold the wheel with my knees and use no hands. With manual gear box I only have one hand available so I have to put the drink down when I eat.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    8. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Yes, we are badly impaired, you are amazingly superior, and if only we could see the error of our ways and live just like you, everything would be perfect.

      Happy now?

    9. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      At the time of posting I thought Slashdotters would be more familiar with the term "Tongue in Cheek"...

      I suppose I should have known better.
      =Smidge=

    10. Re:Outlaw automatic transmissions! by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      There is no position so outrageous that you cannot find a sincere advocate for it on the internet.

      Simply posting something ridiculous or stupid is not enough to identify your post as being tongue in cheek. People will simply assume that you are ridiculous or stupid, as it's the more likely alternative.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  47. How hard is it to read the fucking article by davmoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A number of comments here have asked questions like "how hard is it to pull over" or "why not just call them". Here's another one...

    Why not RTFA and discover that its a joke group and its creator is not trying to condone texting while driving.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:How hard is it to read the fucking article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be a joke group -- would someone like this just happen to have the last name Leming ~lemming ?

    2. Re:How hard is it to read the fucking article by gwniobombux · · Score: 1
      I did RTFA, how about this quote:

      My friends and I were laughing about how we sometimes text and ldrive, and how we know it's dangerous and have nearly rear-ended people because of it.

      Note, this is not funny. And, if you actually had RTFA, you might have understood that comments along the lines of "how hard is it to pull over", etc are still valid. She pretty much condones it btw, all she says is that she's unable to stop herself from doing it unless it is illegal.

      So, how hard is it to RTFA?

    3. Re:How hard is it to read the fucking article by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Because that would require following a link!

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:How hard is it to read the fucking article by Katalyst23 · · Score: 1

      While she's certainly not condoning it, she's not condemning it either. By making a Facebook group she's turning it into a joke, and it's obvious that she and her friends talk about it in an offhand manner. Also, she still texts while driving.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down!
  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Guys who text message (or use cell phones)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while driving should be nailed to a wall by their balls. And if Taylor is a female, she should be nailed by whatever is equally painful. Sheesh.

    1. Re:Guys who text message (or use cell phones)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And her parents picking Taylor out of the Wal-Mart book of names.

  50. Lemming by mambru · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one to have read Lemming instead of Leming. I guess the suicidal traits were already obvious to his parents when they chose the name.

    I'm just hoping for a cool videogame!

  51. Already illegal in the UK by cliffski · · Score: 1

    As I recall, this is already illegal countrywide in the UK.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  52. They should rename this facebook group by mousse-man · · Score: 1

    ...to "I want to have my arse caned in Changi prison like there's no tomorrow".

    Using the phone behind the wheel is one thing. However, texting, however, distracts much more and takes your eyes off the road.

    Those Asians, while having some problems with human rights, have found some working measures with completely braindead idiots - and caning for repeat traffic offenders is one of them, especially when causing an accident (with other persons involved, we're talking about "causing grievous injunry", and that's, to my knowledge, caning and jail).

    Oh, yeah, one more hint - just using the phone while behind the wheel for the first time will set you back 1500 SGD, which is about 1200 US-$.

  53. or in this case, an open hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0

  54. ook by pak9rabid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    between shit like this and the countless pictures I've seen of girls on facebook taking pictures of themselves while they're driving, remind me again why auto insurance is higher for males?

  55. Do you need laws to be careful? by Kidbro · · Score: 1

    Many people have commented on how stupid this behavior is, and a few seem to have RTFA and realised that the group is a joke. The girl in the article claims that she supports a law against texting while driving, something she has my respect for.

    However, her reason for supporting the law is "I [...] would feel pretty horrible if something happened because of me breaking a law."

    What The Fuck?

    Have people so completely lost fate in their own ability to deduce what's right and wrong that they need laws to tell them what is OK and not. Would you not feel bad if something happened because you were just careless, as opposed to breaking the law?

    Laws are there to make your life easier. They are not a fucking replacement for good judgement.

  56. Calvin by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Funny

    Text used to be a noun, now it's used both interchangeably as a verb and a noun. So many words in modern English are starting to be used like this.

    Verbing weirds language.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:Calvin by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      The billboards for Jobing.com confuse and anger me. Don't we already have a word for jobing that works well?

    2. Re:Calvin by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      The billboards for Jobing.com confuse and anger me. Don't we already have a word for jobing that works well?

      Sorry, but the word just doesn't job well!

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  57. Cognitive load by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 5, Informative

    the only thing that seems to get people keyed up is cell phone use. Can anyone explain to me why?

    Higher cognitive load.

    Carrying on a conversation is more mentally taxing than turning a radio dial, and isn't as interruptable, since you're only in control of half of it. See, for example, this research:

    "the Carnegie Mellon study, for the first time, used brain imaging to document that listening alone reduces by 37 percent the amount of brain activity associated with driving. This can cause drivers to weave out of their lane, based on the performance of subjects using a driving simulator."

    1. Re:Cognitive load by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem isn't the cell phone. It isn't the radio. It's the fact that the majority of driving does not require a lot of concentration. It has a low cognitive load. Thus drivers have a lot of free attention that needs to be channeled into something: listening to the radio, talking on the phone, etc. Otherwise they get bored and sleepy. That's why a lot of highways have rumble strips on along the side.

      The problem occurs when driving suddenly requires a lot more concentration/attention than we have to give it. If we can't shift mental gears fast enough to act to avoid a situation, we crash.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Cognitive load by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      If you get bored or sleepy because you are driving in a plain stretch of road, you have a problem. Perhaps you don't get enough sleep, perhaps it's some undiagnosed mental disorder, but it shouldn't happen. People need to treat driving like pilots do flying, not as another form of walking.

    3. Re:Cognitive load by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I live 50 miles from Walmart and with gas prices as high as they are I can only go about once a month. If I did not have music for the drive I wouldn't feel safe on a road that is miles upon miles of fog and redwoods.

    4. Re:Cognitive load by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Well, these rules are fuzzy, and therefore exceptions tend to creep in. I'm more talking about the overworked, regular drivers who drive when they shouldn't because being cautious upsets their personal schedule.

    5. Re:Cognitive load by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      In other words, cell phone usage compromises peak load, not average load?

      --
      Fnord.
    6. Re:Cognitive load by tgv · · Score: 1

      Brain imaging, huh? With one of those nice, big, expensive MRI scanners? All it tells you that the BOLD response in a certain area reduces. This is not always associated with less "attention" or "processing". It is well known that if you repeat a picture, a word or a sound (correct term: stimulus), the BOLD response decreases while reaction time is faster. By that account you could conclude that listening improves reaction time.

      The truth is that we know very little about the meaning of the BOLD response. While they might inform us about theories about brain structure, BOLD responses should not be taken as evidence for a theory of behaviour.

    7. Re:Cognitive load by Katalyst23 · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever gotten bored after 5+ hours of driving on the thruway? Everything looks the same, and there's really nothing to focus your attention on if there's no traffic and you've set your cruise control.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down!
  58. learn to message without seeing the phone by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

    I, and many people I know, can text message using one hand without seeing the phone at all while driving. The distraction is far far less. People should learn to do that if they really really have to text.

    --
    If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
  59. Overly specific by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

    Y'see... laws like this are just getting to the point of ridiculous. They're extremely specific, so someone caught video-messaging while driving will get away, while a text-messager would be fined.

    Oh, if only society as a whole weren't as dumb as gravel. Then we could just have a law saying "don't be stupid" and be done with it.

    --
    Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
  60. Uh, no by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    How many people tune their radio more than once? I mean, really, this comparison is just silly. The majority of us set our stations early on and rarely go back and change it. Combined with on wheel controls you can flip through your channels and CDs without ever moving your eye. If you don't have enough coordination to do that then why are you driving?

    Talking with someone in the car isn't the same as texting. I bet many drivers out there are quite capable of keeping their eyes on the road while chatting with someone in their car, I doubt the same could be said about texting. Plus texting requires at least one hand to do, something talking doesn't (Well unless your one of those people who flag down planes while talking or look like your swatting spider webs). There isn't a real comparison.

    You could compare talking on the phone to talking to others in your car. Texting is just to interactive to not be a distraction from driving.

    The use of phones in cars, for voice or texting, really needs to be limited if not prohibited. If anything prohibited on some roads or at certain times where any distraction isn't going to help - like rush hour.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  61. Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I drive a motorcycle in NYC, which is already really dangerous even when people are running only one machine, their car. It's even worse now that people are in their SUVs, sealed from the rest of the world and throwing their weight around in traffic - especially when they're not really NYC residents, but drive those trucks mostly in the suburbs where there's room for them to drive like fools. It's even worse than that with them talking to their phones pressed to their heads, distracted by what's in their hands rather than concentrating with their hands on the wheel. The worst are the SUV drivers with phones in their hands, and of course the very worst are the ones with both hands on a phone, looking at it while they text someone. It's totally insane, though they don't care since they feel like their giant truck will protect them in a collision.

    A month ago, one of these assholes cut me off downtown, almost driving me into a parked car (except I'm a very good driver, so I barely recovered to save my life). They raced to the next red light, which was only a block away anyway. I drove up next to their window and waved at them. I wanted to tell them to watch out, as most of them just aren't aware of motorcycles at all, which don't register in their vision like cars do. They were busy texting someone, as they'd clearly been while they cut me off, and they ignored me. So I knocked on their window. They ignored me. I knocked harder, angrily now. They glanced up at me, obviously having seen me the entire time, and waved one hand, mockingly making an "oh, I'm scared" face (even though I wasn't threatening them or anything). They laughed silently inside their big truck, and bent back down to resume texting.

    So I bashed off their side rearview mirror. I ripped it from the truck, and smashed at their truck over and over again while they watched in shock.

    Then I drove away and got lost among NYC's millions of other cars. Fixing that mirror's got to cost hundreds of dollars and days off the road. If only I could have smashed their window and grabbed their phone, I'd call to check in on how it's going. Maybe next time. If they haven't learned to just shut up and drive already.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      You have a pair men only dream to have.

    2. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      If only I could have smashed their window and grabbed their phone, I'd call to check in on how it's going.

      Easy fix - get brass knuckle implants in your driving gloves.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    3. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      So I bashed off their side rearview mirror. I ripped it from the truck, and smashed at their truck over and over again while they watched in shock.

      Not condoning what they did, as it was of course wrong to drive around not paying attention, but what you did wasn't any better, actually worse, since it was intentional.

      Try that with me ( or a lot of other people ) and you will find your self dead on the road from a gunshot wound. How do i know you wont try to attack me personally after you started tearing pieces of my car off? Its called self defense.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by pomegranatesix · · Score: 1

      Y'know, while I can't condone messing with someone else's car, this also kinda makes me want to say, "GOOD FOR YOU, MAN! GOOD FOR YOU!"

      I can't even count how many times I've been cut off by soccer-moms in giant SUVs yapping away on their cellphones, or dodging and weaving through traffic trying to get to their next destination with a phone glued to their head. It's like they don't see me in my small sports coupe - it must be even worse for motorcyclists. I avoid taking long, extended calls while driving, and never text. If it's important's enough, I figure they can call me.

      Honestly, people like the facebook founder make me ashamed to be 21 and of their generation. It's not unlike (automobile) racing - street racing has the potential to hurt others on the road and cause property damage to yourself and others. Responsible drivers keep it on the track... if you hurt another driver, well, he knew what he was getting into by getting on a race track. Can't say that about public roads.

    5. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many motorcyclists have the advice to always assume that you are invisible to other drivers. I make a slightly different assumption when I'm on my bike. I assume that every other driver is aware of my presence but actively trying to kill me. It's a lot easier to remain vigilant when you are being hunted rather than simply ignored.

      I'm glad you survived that asshole and, while I can't advise anything unlawful, if I were in charge of your insurance company I would gladly indemnify you for any claims that result from what you did, lower your rates to thank you for making the roads safer for other motorcyclists, and keep the other driver's insurance company embroiled in legal battles long enough to drive up his/her (you used "their" consistently) rates.

      One time, near Sturgis, SD, the week before the big rally, I was on my bike on a road with two lanes in each direction and no median strip, just a turn lane. I was behind about three or four Harley owners (I won't call them "riders" as a matter of principle) in the left lane. They were passing a minivan in the right lane, slowly and safely. The minivan suddenly, without using its signal (please, people, use your signal even when you think nobody is around to see it - chances are that you just aren't aware of the people who need to see it most), moved into the left lane. Two of the bikers were past it but one was next to it and, being less experienced, barely managed to wobble his way around and in front of the van.

      I decided to at least let the minivan driver know that the world was upset with him, so I sped up into the right lane (after checking that it was clear, of course, and with correct use of my directional signal), pulled up alongside the van, and looked inside the passenger window to see two men, aged in their mid-50's. I knocked on the window while maintaining my position next to the van until they were both looking at me, flipped them off until they both comprehended, and then sped up to get the hell away from their vehicle of mass destruction.

      Everyone, pay attention: Motorcyclists are highly vulnerable to the mistakes that you are too self-centered to care about making. Even a helmet and full leather body coverage can't save a life against being run into oncoming traffic, a guard rail, or the bottom side of your tires. They will be polite and courteous to you as long as you do the same for them. This includes crotch rocketeers, BMW road warriors, Goldwing tourists, and Harley biker dudes. There are exceptions, like the morons you see popping wheelies with their unhelmeted girlfriends on back or wearing flip flops, shorts, and nothing else as they cruise along the road (hint: your body doesn't care if your skin is one inch left of center or one hundred feet), but by and large a little bit of awareness on your part will make the world a better place.

    6. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Try cutting me off and I will smash your mirror. Threaten me with a gun and I'll take it from you and shoot you with it. That's self defense of me from you, who almost killed me with your car.

      The way you know I won't attack you personally is that you don't drive me into the rage that merely destroys your car.

      If you don't believe it, ask the cab driver who almost hit my wife in a crosswalk over the Winter.

      You talk tough. Real tough. You're just another coward with a gun. A gun someone like me will use on you if you're generous enough to bring it to a fight that you start but won't finish.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I do assume that every car is a lethal threat, and allow them no space to get away with killing me. I'm clocking every single moving object out there on the road. That's one reason I'm ready to pounce when they attack. Either just steering to safety, or getting in their face when there's a safe chance to do it.

      I just hope they tell everyone they know about the "maniac who attacked them", though I doubt they'll admit how they brought it down on their head. But so long as word gets out that bikers will indeed mess you up, maybe people will be more aware of bikers on the road. If that's a product of these little catastrophes, then my hyperreaction won't just be justified tactically in the moment, but will have a larger effect.

      I like the risks of driving a bike. I don't like when people nearly kill me, but I do like venting righteous rage on them, especially when it really blows their mind because it destroys their ideas of where their own safety boundaries are. Life is full of little indignities over which we can't make a big stink, but every once in a while some serious conflict justifies really blowing a gasket, and getting it all out. Very theraputic. And, if people don't flirt with the disaster that any innocuous looking target could be (any biker helmet could have my head inside it), then we'll all get along just delightfully. Just don't make the mistake of believing that your big truck makes you immune to my insane anger.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you shouldn't kill people when there is no threat (you're inside your nice big cage, that you can drive away in). The only excuse you have to pull a gun and shot someone is to get revenge, which you would later regret for the rest of your life for doing something so stupid.

    9. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Umm i didn't say threaten, i said kill.

      I don't pull my gun out to show it off, it only comes out if its going to be shot immediately, and only if the situation warrants death of the person to protect myself or my family. ( attacking my car like suggested in that post with me still in it would qualify )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    10. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      He implied they were stuck in traffic ( speaking of his escape afterwards ) so you wouldn't be able just drive off to safety. ( and lets say he followed you.. what then? )

      Ever been car jacked? That does happen in this country you know, and sometimes the people are killed in the process. You are not as safe in your car as you think if you are sitting there gridlocked, and some freak is beating on your car with objects that could easily break your side window.. ( even a fist can do that if the person is wired or something )

      I wouldn't be taking a persons life for revenge in the situation proposed, it would be self defense and i would never regret it, not even for a second.. If the situation was different, sure id have driven off. ( of course i wouldn't have cut him off in the first place as i do not drive talking on a phone, but that isn't the point i was trying to make )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    11. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but I also know a many such incidents are more to do with road rage than true self-defense.

    12. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by zsau · · Score: 1

      So I bashed off their side rearview mirror. I ripped it from the truck, and smashed at their truck over and over again while they watched in shock. ...
      make install -not war

      Hah!

      You do realise of course that you were left with an angry, half-blind driver on the road, don't you? Not a very good recipe for safety.

      --
      Look out!
    13. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Mike610544 · · Score: 1

      I realize that you're an armed internet tough guy, but someone breaking a mirror on your vehicle is not justification for killing, not even in Texas.

      --
      ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    14. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by noidentity · · Score: 1

      So I bashed off their side rearview mirror. I ripped it from the truck, and smashed at their truck over and over again while they watched in shock.

      You're my hero.

    15. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ass-kicking post like that is modded "Informative" and "Insightful." Great Zeus, I love Slashdot!

    16. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Have you ever thought that the throttle was put on the right-hand grip just to keep you from holding a pistol while you ride? :)

    17. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You really aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. ( either that or you are incapable. i don't know which, but i lean towards inability )

      Have a nice day, I'm finished with you.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    18. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by shermo · · Score: 1

      I also risk my life daily by riding to work on a (push) bike. I don't take it quite that far though, and merely invert the offending car's rear view mirror once I catch up to them in the inevitable traffic.

      It's non-destructive, hopefully gets the point accross, and if anyone challenges me on it I can reply 'I'm just making sure you see me this time'.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    19. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Mike610544 · · Score: 1

      You said you'd kill a guy for attacking your vehicle. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were a real psychopath. Now it looks like you're just a troll (good work though, you did get me.)

      --
      ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    20. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, removing their side mirror will make them LESS of a traffic threat

    21. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Once I drive away, that's their problem. Hopefully they crash into something inanimate. More likely, they'll pull over, or just drive very cautiously.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    22. Re:Striking Back at Traffic Threats by zsau · · Score: 1

      This driver tries to run you down and you think it more likely than have the common sense to "pull over, or just drive very cautiously"? You obviously have more faith in humanity than me.

      --
      Look out!
  62. Text messaging is safer than calling.... by dafrazzman · · Score: 1
    ...or Californian government really is a slab of bologna.

    In a few days, I won't be allowed to talk on my phone while driving. While I may not be allowed to avert my mouth and ears, I can still distract both hands and eyes (much less important) while texting.

    I can even dial a number, hold the phone up by my ear, and talk to someone in the car (My New Hobby). If I want, I can text at the same time.

    It is my opinion that we will all feel much safer knowing that those dangerous non-hands free cell phone talkers will now be focusing solely on the road.

    --
    My preferred name is frazz, but someone keeps taking it. If you see him, tell him I said hi.
  63. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  64. Motorcycles by Platinum+Fire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I drive a motorcycle and it was already bad enough with people not paying attention, and not seeing you in the mirror and about taking you out, and lately about 90% of the time when someone pulls into the lane and about hits me I notice they are on their phones usually texting. they need to just drive off a bridge already and rid the world of some more morons.

  65. Moron! by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1

    Fucking morons like this are making cellphone use more and more restrictive for the rest of us who have a brain.

    1. Re:Moron! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      If you are using your phone while driving around, you don't qualify as 'who have a brain'.

      its been proven to degrade your attention while driving. Its not safe. You are putting others at risk, period. Your disregard is rather offensive.

      Not only that, YOU DONT NEED TO BE TALKING ON THE DAMNED PHONE WHILE DRIVING. Pull off the road and make your stupid call.

      I bet you are the type that stands in line at the grocery rudely yacking away.

      Thankfully we have phone jammers, for a non violent way to force people like you to behave in public.

      ( ya, mod me down for being right )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Moron! by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1

      No, asshole, I'm NOT. You're making an assumption that I:
      a) Talk while driving, and
      b) Talk loudly while in public (as you suggest)
      while neither are true. I don't approve of EITHER activity, but dickheads like the guy in this article make cellphones more difficult to use for EVERYONE.

    3. Re:Moron! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      B - i didn't use the adjective loudly. Talking at all on the phone at the check out is rude.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Moron! by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      Why? If you're capable of keeping your voice down to normal conversation levels, what's the big deal? Is it rude to chat to someone next to you in line at the checkout?

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    5. Re:Moron! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Its rude and offensive to use a phone ( or other communication device ) in public ( or in a meeting ) regardless of volume.

      The practice should be outright banned unless its an emergency. ( and you should get jail time for a violation )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Moron! by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I lose at not being trolled. Need more practice...

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    7. Re:Moron! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      No troll, its how i honestly feel. I think our society in general has gone down hill since the advent of cheap and abundant personal communication devices.

      They breed rudeness, and lack of consideration to others in general is a result.

      And TV, but dont get me started on that.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  66. The key word here is... by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

    "Yet"

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
  67. Re:We Need Better Voice Recognition DONE! by aceofspades626 · · Score: 1

    It exists and it's pretty d@mned good. www.jott.com Send your texts while you drive and don't look down. Everyone happy?

  68. Everybody gets distracted by Zen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, I agree that texting and using phones in general while driving is a bad idea. But it's not that bad in small doses. It seems that lots of Baby Boomers seem to think it's one of the most dangerous things ever. Let me help you understand - it's not.

    Multitasking is a learned behavior. Depending on how often you do it, unless you're incredibly dumb, you get better the more often you do it. Things like talking while jogging - you can't do it when you first start out because you can't control your breathing. It takes a while to learn how to do it. Same with multitasking while driving. Yes, it does distract you. But as long as your not inept, it shouldn't distract you any more then reading billboards and streetsigns that you pass, changing stations on a radio, talking to passengers, drumming on your steering wheel when your jam comes on the radio, etc.

    Yes, I text while driving. But on a blackberry, not a cell phone. Blackberry's are different - one button per letter. Since I've been using blackberry's for so long, I can pretty much type without looking at the screen, and I just have to glance at it every once in a while to make sure the last sentence was correct. I don't glance away any more then I do to look in the sideview mirrors or look at my center console to check my speed.

    I agree it's bad, but I disagree that it is always dangerous. I think there is a small percentage of people who happen to be bad at multitasking who try to talk/text and drive at the same time. Same as there's a small percentage of semi-truck drivers who are dangerous and cut small cars off at the last second, but we all watch out when we're around any truck because they have a bad reputation. Some people can compartmentalize and do multiple things at the same time, and some people can't handle it.

    I don't understand legislating the use of a phone while driving, because it's already covered under reckless driving laws. If you're sending a quick message, or having a few sentence conversation I don't see a problem with it at all. If you're having a heated argument, that's going to take a lot more attention away from you, and you should know better then to do that while driving.

    1. Re:Everybody gets distracted by Kabuthunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that it makes no difference if some people are good at texting while driving. Hell, it doesn't matter if 98% of people could do it flawlessly. In today's day and age, all you need is one jackoff to be retarded, and laws are created that affect everyone.

      These days, things are always put in place to appease the extreme minority, even if it pisses off the rest of the majority.

      Why do you think the warning "do not stop chainsaw with hands" exists?

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
    2. Re:Everybody gets distracted by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it makes no difference if some people are good at texting while driving.

      Where are these people? Lab tests tend to show the opposite, and have also shown that people aren't a good judge of their own ability in this area.

    3. Re:Everybody gets distracted by Zen · · Score: 1

      Right, and mice like cheese. Lab tests usually show the result that people are looking for. They're comparing talking on the phone or texting to no distraction at all. I have yet to see a comparison of talking on the phone to listening to a favorite song or yelling at your kid in the backseat to stop pinching their brother. They're all distractions, and they're all covered under reckless driving laws. I don't see how one is less of a distraction then another.

    4. Re:Everybody gets distracted by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Well it should be obvious that the less distractions, the better. Of course you can't eliminate them all, but you can reduce them.

    5. Re:Everybody gets distracted by Zen · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with you on less distractions being better. I just don't understand why this one is singled out to be legislated separately from reckless driving laws. There may be studies out there showing comparisons between different types of distractions. I haven't gone out of my way to look for anything because this type of tragedy has not affected me personally. I'd feel completely different if I caused an accident, or someone I know was injured or caused an accident by doing this. I don't know enough to back up this claim, but I have serious doubts that the numbers/percentages of accidents caused by this type of distraction are high enough to warrant the attention that this topic gets. If you cause an accident it doesn't really matter what the reason is, you're going to get a ticket for something. It's largely irrelevant what the ticket is for.

      I don't know. I'd stop if I saw concrete evidence that it was more dangerous than other common distractions with or without any legislation. Just haven't seen any actual evidence yet. I really do agree it's not good - I just do it anyway because in my mind it doesn't seem like much of a distraction for me. Probably the same for most users (at least in our minds). I firmly believe it is not always bad, which is where I think legislation shold come in. If something has a potential to be very bad in 9 out of 10 cases, then I think it's fair to pass a special law about it. Drunk Driving, waiting periods for handguns, purchasing large quantities of antihistamines or fertilizer, etc. Those could sometimes result in nobody being hurt, but often enough people do get hurt. I just don't see texting in the same category.

      btw - it's nice to be able to disagree with someone who's rational for once!

  69. Hands-free is no safer by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I finally bought a bluetooth earpiece when the laws changed

    "a 2006 study concluded that talking on a cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, even if the phone is a hands-free model."

    The problem isn't the phone occupying your hands; the problem is the phone occupying your brain.

    one person's "due care and attention" is anothers recklessness.

    Apparently.

    1. Re:Hands-free is no safer by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Different people have different levels of ability.

      Also, from your link:

      The same survey also found that 19% of motorists say that they text message while driving. That equates to roughly one in five drivers who not only use their cell phone while driving, but actually send and receive text messages on their cell phones instead of focussing on the task at-hand.

      This is insane.

  70. Re:Darwin? Not so fast... by cuby · · Score: 1

    Last week, near my hometown a neighbour of my father died because one of these text-while-drive-guys. The guy didn't respect a stop and crashed into the men's car. His wife is critical and both kids saw their father die...

    Darwin was not so good this time.
    Jail these guys for a couple of days and remove their permits!

    --
    Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
  71. Done send me a text message by djfuq · · Score: 0

    Text messaging is for wussies who don't want a response to what they say. (usually because what they say sucks)
    Text messagers assume that other people will be happy to text them back.
    Text messagers think that they can yap away via text and the person on the receiving end wants to read all of their crap, and respond in text.
    Girls are typically text messagers, since it is a manipulative way to communicate.

    Text messagers suck.

    In ATHF they coined the term "instant pestering" and that is exactly what this is.

    Text messagers are wankers!

    (yes I know messagers is not in the dictionary yet)

    --
    Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
    1. Re:Done send me a text message by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Awww, somebody needs a hug.

    2. Re:Done send me a text message by djfuq · · Score: 0

      That is correct. Thanks!

      --
      Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
  72. Kids. by argent · · Score: 1

    There's a reason they have higher insurance premiums.

  73. I agree by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    It's really difficult to text message when you're on a motorcycle. But with practice I'm sure you'll get it down.

  74. Texting and driving should be illegal by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, really, folks. If you've constantly got that phone in your hand pushing buttons, how the hell are you supposed to hold on to your beer?

    1. Re:Texting and driving should be illegal by kesuki · · Score: 1

      duh! they invented it in the 80s or something like that! the beer hat

  75. They should totally amalgamate groups! by Cathoderoytube · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's another group on Facebook called 'I've had unprotected sex with 258 crack whores I've picked up at homeless shelters and I haven't caught any life threatening STD's yet'. I think that group and the text messaging while driving group should join forces. They could rename the groups 'we're a gaggle of stupid morons who're really pushing it'

    --
    I have nothing compelling to say
  76. This may sound cruel but... by Slacksoft · · Score: 1

    I was driving home last week and rounded a corner at an intersection with a light. I was turning right slowly and noticed the second car waiting for the light to go on the new lane I was entering a women was applying eye liner. I have never done this before but I was so curious I couldn't help it. I'm still in the middle of turning right so the front of my truck is pointing directly at this car by this point. I hit my horn a few times, and keep my eye on eye-liner women. Next thing I know she's poked herself in the eye with the liner and is visible spooked/blinded. After I am in the lane and going I see her scrunched up face visible verbalizing how thankful she is I made her aware of her lack of attention.

    I've seen people doing this _while_ driving before, and this lady, while parked, was unable to even remotely react to the possibly of an accident. If it had been someone paying attention they'd have surely just looked to see what was going on, but this lady was too busy concentrating on her head rest mirror and face to even realize what was going on. I think text messages are just another form of makeup that distracts us from the road, but there are some of us who can pull it off without causing accidents. I am not, I have a touch screen phone, and I admit I'd probably hit a pole/car before I'd ever be able to send one off. That's common sense to me that I shouldn't do it. What we're dealing with as a whole is a complete lack of typical common-sense generations. We have to do the greatest good, and if I means I don't text while drive then I won't.

    1. Re:This may sound cruel but... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Something I hate are people who sit on green lights in the city. Problem is you don't know if they are waiting to turn of go straight ahead so you don't realise what they are doing until they eventualy see the green light and by then several minutes may have passed.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  77. I want a morsecode key as a serious HID by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously.

    For years I have had a shortwave transceiver in my car and since I don't like voice communication, I had a morse code key between the seats. I am quite proficient at the code, doing something like 40 WPM easily while driving on the Autobahn and I found that concentration was more difficult when I had an actual person to talk to in the car.

    I wish there was a mobile phone with twoe keys, one for dots, one for dashes to let me input text messages. Anything less than a full size keyboard is a PITA for text input; morse code would be a fine alternative, but i realize it's not for everyone. I look forward to a new generation of mobile phones that is open enough to make something like this possible.

    Please no hint at Darwin: I am an experienced driver and listening to music is just as distracting as watching parts of the landscape and in fact when doing morse code at 120 mpH I never need to take my eyes from the road. I would agree, however, that any input interface that requires a look at the input device is an invitation to cleanse the gene pool.

    1. Re:I want a morsecode key as a serious HID by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      You see, it's think kind of mentality, "I know it doesn't affect me", that causes so many accidents. When you're doing 120mph and there is other traffic around, you shouldn't be doing something else. I'd be willing to concede if you can prove it in a lab setting.

  78. My sister used to do that... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    My youngest sister used to text message while driving. Then she had an accident, while texting. So now she doesn't do that anymore. Fortunately nobody was seriously hurt, but her car was totalled.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  79. Texting behind the wheel gives everyone a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what about those who can successfully text without looking at their phone? Using one thumb to text, while looking at the road with your eyes, and holding the wheel with the other hand isn't that hard...

  80. In the future, if any of you find her obituary ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please post a link here... I'll feel safer!

  81. That is just crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is just crazy, if you need to text, pull over and then send your message

    SQLDenis
    http://www.lessthandot.com/

  82. Revenge of the bikers by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    I just hope bikers pay attention to news reports.. If a biker dies because of being hit by a "distracted" driver who only gets a pittance of a sentence, they should read the court records, find out the killer's address, and exact vengeance on them.

    There is no excuse for distracted driving leading to the death of anyone. If you can't control your kids, have your spouse/partner do it, and if you don't have a spouse/partner, don't drive with your unruly spawn.

    Everyone else, pay some goddamn attention for Xenu's sake..

  83. Yet another redundant law by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is already illegal to drive impaired. Why do we need another law to say the same thing is illegal?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  84. Willingly accetping that his activity kills others by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I think that this kind of stupidity resides on a level with manslaughther and that a slap on the wrist is not enough. Operating dangerous machinery in a way that endangers the lives of others and continueing to do so after having been made aware of the problem constitutes nothing else but disregard for the lieves of others. I think a few years in prison are adequate to express societies displeasure with this psychopath behaviour. And if he kills somebody, he should go a way for a long time as murderer.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  85. "Sometimes it just seems easier" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1st, how much more difficult is it to make a call. Are you that lazy?

    2nd, and more importantly, I assume you are at minimum an Ambassador, or Senator. Doctor? Otherwise, how often could you find scenarios in which it is vital that someone can't wait five minutes to see you show up.

    This self-important, easy-is-best attitude so prevalent now diminishes my hope for our future.

  86. I'm part of that group! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I text and talk to people while I drive... Although I'm on the highway most of the time. I usually get in the slow lane and slow down before I attempt anything, but I just had my cd player jacked so I need something to do. I have a blackberry, I don't attempt the internet or anything like that, but I'm not going to give up talking and texting just to sit there in silence.

  87. Don'[t want to be your mommy. by Nowhere.Men · · Score: 1

    but I don't want you to crash into me or for my "tax dollar" to pay for your rescue.
    On your private road, you can do whatever you want.

    PS : I don't pay taxes in the states but will be driving there in a few month with my baby daughter. So stop texting while driving.

    1. Re:Don'[t want to be your mommy. by shiftless · · Score: 1

      but I don't want you to crash into me or for my "tax dollar" to pay for your rescue.

      Just because YOU'RE frightened doesn't mean that I'M an unskilled driver who's likely to crash into you.

      PS : I don't pay taxes in the states but will be driving there in a few month with my baby daughter. So stop texting while driving

      LOL, no. Sorry, you don't come to MY country and tell ME what to do.

  88. I used to text while driving by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    Switching to a Blackberry stopped it. For simple messages, even as a low-volume text message user I could type on the keypad with one hand and without looking at it - predictive text was usually correct, and when it wasn't I could make corrections at a stoplight before actually sending. Of course, the fact that I can spell helped with the predictive text bit.

    Doing the same thing on the "full" keyboard on the Blackberry? No thanks. It can be faster to enter things on, but would be very hazardous to use while actually driving.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  89. I Do That by vga_init · · Score: 1

    To be honest, I text while I'm behind the wheel (I do it all the time). I've never been in any near accidents because of it, so I never saw any kind of danger.

    Here are some things to keep in mind:

    First of all, you have to have the discipline to give the driving first priority over texting. That means you have to be patient enough to have long delays in the composition of your message, which might include stopping the process completely while you drive.

    Second, you have to avoid looking at the phone as much as possible. This means you have to memorize the position of the letters and push them without looking if you can, or glance at the keys for only a moment to confirm the position. That means you're watching the road 98% of the time, and the other 2% is spent glancing at the phone. If this seems weird, consider that we often glance around while driving, usually for reasons not directly related to the task of safe driving (eg you see something on the side of the road, you're reading street signs). Using T9 is worse for this purpose since you have to check every word--try getting a QWERTY phone. Another note about this is that you should be holding your phone in front of you so that it's in your field of vision and the glancing takes as little time as possible (you can also still see the road with your peripheral vision).

    There are plenty of opportunities to optimizing your texting, like sitting idly at stoplights, stuck in near 0 mph traffic jams, etc. You can also text important things immediately before you depart and right after you arrive at your destination.

    TEXT WITH ONE HAND ONLY

    If you practice safe text, everything should turn out OK in the end, and it's not nearly as dangerous as it sounds. Remember that when you are talking on the phone with someone, the act DEMANDS your attention since it feels wrong/rude to ignore the other person for a length of time or put them on hold constantly while you have to focus on driving. Texting demands no retention of your attention, so you can feel comfortable setting it aside whenever necessary.

  90. Ban life by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Yeah! But why stop there? We should ban all risk of any kind. Make abortions mandatory, it's the only way to save us from ourselves!

    1. Re:Ban life by jmcnaught · · Score: 1

      You don't think it's risky to ride a bike with all the cars on the road. A major source of my hostility to cars is all the near death experiences I have thanks to cars every day. So if we can't get rid of cars all together, why not make them drive at a speed that doesn't put others in danger? I think that 50 km/h is way to fast for people, especially on their cell phones, still waking up, playing with the GPS etc.

      Why should I have to deal with the risks taken by selfish car drivers? If I get hit by a car while I'm on my bike I'm the one who will be messed up or dead, not the driver.

      And besides, wouldn't our cities be so much nicer if we prioritized non-offensive traffic?

    2. Re:Ban life by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It takes too long to get anywhere at that speed. And you aren't a lot less likely to get hit, since people driving slowly are more easily distracted. Can't you just carpool rather than riding your bike? Riding a bike is really pretty dangerous even if there aren't cars on the road.

  91. Text to speech and vice versa by dosun88888 · · Score: 1

    I see no reason why nobody has yet tied basic speech recognition software into an interface to text messaging systems. If you have a sufficiently powerful phone, there should be a "texting mode" or something that allows you to either say something like "respond to text" and then say your message, or hit a single button and then speak the message. You should be able to have it read to you on command as well.

    All of these technologies are already there - it's not magic.

    You may counter that speech recognition software sucks, but have you ever tried to read a text message? It's a mess of abbreviations that is barely intelligible to begin with. Who cares if the recognition isn't perfect, it'll be just as effective.

    1. Re:Text to speech and vice versa by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      > I see no reason why nobody has yet tied basic speech
      > recognition software into an interface to text messaging systems.

      Wow. You could speak into the phone and have your message sent to another phone.
      To make this da killa, they should also develop text to speech software for the receiving end...!

      Imagine that, holding a voice conversation with a pair of telephones...

  92. Twists Of Fate by lime700 · · Score: 1

    Cynthia driving home on her way back from a successful serial shopping spree, decides to give boyfriend Brendan a quick txt message,

    "HI HUN HAV SUMTNG SPEC 4YA! CU IN 5 K B REDY 4 ME ;) LUV U XOX".

    Although Cynthia had time to send the SMS, tragically while placing the phone in her handbag, didn't have time to avoid the stationary dumpster-truck ahead. Cynthia didn't make it back in 5, or at all for that matter. RIP.

    However, there is an upside: Had Cynthia made it back in 5, not long after arriving home she would've fallen pregnant to her lil love muffin. And so it could've been; Although Brendan ended their three-year relationship soon after Cynthia gave birth to Timothy, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Cynthia's solo parenting skills. But Tim the little bugger, turned out to be a successful Hannibal-esque serial killer...

    1. Re:Twists Of Fate by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Your point please? (I assume there's one, or at least I'm pretending to)

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  93. Article??????? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Read the article?

    What the fuck is an Article?

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  94. How about Killed By a Textor?... with source by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is an accident where a driver who was texting killed someone because he was not paying attention to the road.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  95. IDIOTS! by stanjam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I ride a motorcycle. It is MY LIFE these idiots are playing with out there. It is bad enough I have almost been killed numerous times by people on their cell phones, but TEXTING??? I see anyone texting near me they are gonna get a fender kicked in!

    --
    Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
  96. great new gadget for this! by robotbrain · · Score: 1
  97. OT : Should we even drive? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    According to the WHO, 1.2 million people die from car accidents each year in the entire word (about 670,000 in developed countries and 43,000 in the USA alone), and 50 million are injured (more than there are people in Canada).

    Just like the myth of the frog that won't jump out of slowly boiling water, didn't we get too slowly used to the reality of the dangers of driving to realise and conclude that maybe we aren't fit to drive? Why do we still find the risk acceptable? Is it because most of the people who could learn from experience that driving is dangerous cannot drive anymore? Why do we accept so easily to see 43,000 people (14 times 9/11) die every year and not look for a solution for it and get really upset when a hundred of people die from firearm accidents? Why don't we look more actively for a more radical solution that won't reduce casualties by just a very few percents but make us orders of magnitude safer? Can't we see that there's something fundamentally flawed about letting mostly anyone drive a vehicle close to other vehicles at deadly speeds? Why do we seem to worry more about the gases that our cars emit than the lives they take?

    And more importantly, where's my fully automated flying car?

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  98. Never mind yourself, what about others? by noidentity · · Score: 1

    TIME interviews 21-year-old Taylor Leming, creator of the 600-member Facebook group I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Killed Any Innocent People Yet!

    There, fixed that for you.

  99. I played Russian Roulette and won by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    Therefore, it isn't dangerous.

    Definitely an inductive reasoning problem.

    But also a "my rights trump yours" problem.

    Sounds a lot like the war on terra. My rights not to be spied on (even if the chances of that happening are 1/1000000000) outweigh the other guy's right not to be nuked. Oh, wait, that's different...

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  100. Some people don't understand by phorm · · Score: 1

    My ex was like this. I drove in the car with her dad once, and he drove like a complete moron. Too fast, short stops, close-cut-corners, etc. And all in bad weather with a car that didn't exactly have spectacular tires.

    The saddest part was that my ex would rant about how he managed to do all that and had never had an accident, so he was an "excellent driver" (she would say this with stars in her eyes).

    My reply that he was a shitty driver, and just lucky so far, tended to result in fights. One day a short stop or tight turn during winter seasons is going to surprise him with a little bit of black ice on the road, and so far the only thing that has kept him from crashing is luck.

  101. Just don't take the brain by phorm · · Score: 1

    As obviously it's already suffered some form of damage.

  102. Dangerous and predictable by Maalstrom+Aran · · Score: 1

    Drivers like these are the reason I can't wait for cars to drive themselves. Their need for instant gratification and communication put all of our lives in danger, not just those who are comfortable risking their lives in their metal cages. There is no respect and little awareness for the other people on the road, much less the pedestrians and bikers. I'd much sooner trust a tested computer system with multiple environmental sensors to drive everyone around. They won't get distracted by conversation, food, drugs or the dead people at the side of the road.

    --
    Truth is a matter of perspective. Wear the other guy's shoes before you dismiss him.
  103. Another Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about alternative modes of transport?

    More than 40,000 people die every year in America due to vehicle accidents.

    http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

    Banning cell phone use while driving might prevent a few accidents, but I bet we would continue to see more than 40,000 people die each year.

    Alternative modes of transport would prevent not only these types of accidents (crash while using cell phone), but several others as well.

    On a bus or subway or light rail, you can text, talk, be tipsy, sleep, read, let your mind wander, listen to music, roam through various emotional states, what have you.

    Of course, this would involve a massive re-think of how our cities and suburbs and exurbs are laid out, which everyone will say is too expensive, blah blah blah. So, 40,000 dead people/year is an acceptable price?

    And don't forget all the non-fatal accidents that occur each year, and the associated medical, repair, and property damage expenses. The estimated cost for all traffic crashes is $230.6 billion.

    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2006FE.PDF

    Not sure if that factors in the economic costs of disabilities that victims have to live with for the rest of their lives, to say nothing of the emotional cost.

  104. Drawing Lines and the Hypocrisy of Everyday Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find interesting how everyone cries out against distractions while driving, yet most of us do it every day. I have done all of these things while driving and I bet that most of you have too.

            Eaten a sandwich
            Consumed a beverage
            Talked on the phone
            Talked to a passenger
            Tried to grab something from the back seat
            Tried to restrain a toddler / dog / cat in the backseat
            Changed the CD / radio station / tape
            Tried to catch a spilled drink / fallen cigarette
            Sent a text message
            Watched a movie
            Tried to learn a foreign language

    Maybe you've even done some nerd sniping where you were so lost in thought that you don't remember getting home.

    Unless, you ride that bus I would imagine that all of us have done at least four of those things and that most of us have done all of them.

    The point is that we all have different personal boundaries and we have to acknowledge our own limits and hold ourselves to them. The honest truth is that some people are better at multi-tasking and driving than others. My mother in-law is so bad at multi-tasking and driving that I can't drive when she's in the car. I'm not condoning any of these things while driving, I'm just saying that they are going to happen and we must all make the personal judgment call of what is appropriate and encourage those around us to make responsible decisions.

    The cell phones are not the only things that distract us in the car, they are just the newest. If we try and legislate the problem away we'll wind up with something equally ridiculous as requiring all beverages in the car to be consumed through a straw.

    As long as we are in control of our own transportation, we will have distractions and in the end the only people that we can be responsible for is ourselves.

    A coworker once told me that everyone should ride a motorcycle, because then everyone would be that much more aware of their surroundings when they drive.

  105. Not a good idea by OmegaWolf747 · · Score: 1

    I don't trust myself even to talk on a handsfree set, never mind texting while I drive. It would be even worse since you have to take your eyes off the road. I know I'd get in an accident, so I'd only do it at a red light.

    --
    I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.