Slashdot Mirror
Federal Summit Eyes Crackdown On Texting While Driving
suraj.sun sends along this quote from an Associated Press report:
"Opening a government meeting on auto safety, the Obama administration reported Wednesday that nearly 6,000 people were killed and a half-million injured last year in vehicle crashes connected to driver distraction, a striking indication of the dangers of using mobile devices behind the wheel. The Transportation Department was bringing together experts over two days for what it's calling a 'distracted driving summit' to take a hard look at the highway hazards caused by drivers talking on cell phones or texting from behind the wheel. ... Driver distraction was involved in 16 percent of all fatal crashes in 2008. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws making texting while driving illegal and seven states and the district have banned driving while talking on a handheld cell phone, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Many safety groups have urged a nationwide ban on texting and on using handheld mobile devices while behind the wheel."
At least 22 states currently text traffic conditions, emergencies, etc to motorist.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
This guy was coming right at me, crossing 2 lanes of traffic one night. Driver behind him reported that he was looking down and fumbling with a device while driving (likely texting):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28154298@N05/sets/72157605928214101/detail/
He never slowed down after hitting the bank on the opposite side of the road, and nailed the house at around 50mph.
...and maybe running red lights. But you'll never see existing driving-while-distracted laws enforced. So all this hullabaloo about a Federal Summit ignores the fundamental flaw in roadway policing. The cops pretty much ONLY care about the speed you're going. They never pull anyone over for violating basic rules like failing to use a turn signal, zig-zaggers who change lanes endlessly to get 3 car lengths ahead, etc. And to make it even more inane, the speed limits are arbitrary and political, rarely having a correlation to the road they are posted on.
I agree that distracted drivers is a BIG problem. However, the response to it is idiotic:
Why is it idiotic?
There are laws already covering it. If you're driving >10mph under the limit, you're guilty of a reverse "speeding" infraction, AND hindering the flow of traffic. Two lucrative finable offenses.
If you are weaving in and out of your lane you are guilty of two or three offenses: failure to maintain control of your vehicle, improper lane changes (one offense per time you cross the line without using turn indicators), and reckless driving,
If you sail right through a stop or yield sign, or if you change lanes cutting someone off (aside from anyone exceeding the speed limit or anyone using the breakdown lane - here in MA the breakdown lane MUST yield to ALL other traffic where breakdown lane travel is allowed, but unfortunately the massholes who use it use it as a passing lane and will not yield to anyone) you're guilty of reckless driving and ignoring rights of way, yield, and traffic signal laws.
Either way you look at it, there are laws in place which can be used to solve this problem once and for all. However, thanks to assholes who don't think logically, but think with their hearts "Oh someone think of the children" my using my GPS could be outlawed. That's okay though because I will go back to using a compass and street directories. That way, I can become a distracted driver who is paging through a thick book and staring at a map to figure out where I am but that will be perfectly legal, and presumably safer than using my handheld gps/phone with its realtime traffic updates.. Right? Of course the printed street directory will be safer. Gotcha.
See the problem is the massholes causing the problem are going unpunished because revenue officers are too busy pulling people over who are "speeding" on the interstate (although those evil speeders are traveling at speeds of at least 60mph slower than the interstates were originally designed for - based on 1960s automotive suspension technologies) so they can meet their quotas rather than enforcing actual safety issues covered by law. No, instead it's just easier to punish everyone because of the irresponsible few. Throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don't you dare pick up that cellphone if you're a doctor or an EMT on call. Don't you dare pick up that phone and call for directions when you're lost (instead, drive around erractically as you figure out where you are). Don't you dare check your GPS or click "reroute."
Instead, much like the drinking age, using cellphones without headsets, and trans fats and sodas, let's throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's punish EVERYONE for the irresponsibility of the few.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
as you say 'Distracted Driving' is the actual 'crime' here. And most states already have laws against it on the books already.
This is just marketing hype by politicians to look good doing absolutely nothing useful.
The big gripe I have is comparing texting while driving to drunk driving. They simply are not remotely the same. After a horn honking at them the texter is going to be alert and aware of what's going on around them.
Perhaps texting while driving is actually worse since the effects can be mitigated in an instant, whereas the drunk is on going and can't solve the issue for hours. So a few moments of inattention from texting cause the same results as a drunk's constant impairment.
And even if it is worse, it's a only a training issue. Police cars today have full laptops they use while driving, not to mention cell phones and blackberries and yet we don't see the police having extraordinary accident rates do we? Why? because they are trained for the situation and the tools. Give people proper training and you'll see accident rates of *all* types go way way down.
An example:
I got pulled over a few years ago in VA for flashing my high beams at a slowpoke in the left lane. The ticket? Improper use of high beams. If flashing them is improper, why the hell is it a ready made 'feature' in every car today? Oh and it was daytime, so no way my beams were brighter than the sunlight.
Was I driving perhaps a tad aggressively? yeah I'll admit to that, but if he hadn't been going 55 in the left lane in a 65 zone with a bunch of backed up traffic waiting on him...
Discussing all this with the officer blew my mind:
Me: Doesn't he have to yield to my visual or audible signal?
Officer: I'm not aware of any such law? (upon looking it up, the VA law is audible signal only hence my ticket)
Me: But he's going to slow in the left lane? I can't pass him on the right, that's a dangerous procedure isn't it?
Officer: You can pass him on the right no problem.
Me: Seriously? When did that change?
Think about it. Apparently much of what I learned in driver's ed is no longer the law. Keep right except to pass - gone! Yield to overtaking traffic - gone! Passing on the right illegal - gone!
What's next? If we don't properly train people, we get the anarchy on the roads we see...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I might be younger than you, but I've never been taught that passing on the right was illegal -- just a bad idea. Apparently on the Autobahn it is illegal and taken very seriously (along with blocking up the left lane). I've heard arguments that such a system winds up being a lot safer than the American system of enforcing speed limits and not much else, but there are enough differences between (and even within) the two systems that I'm not sure about drawing big, general conclusions.
I do agree that people are trained very poorly on safe driving in the situations they're likely to encounter. Back in high school (I lived near Chicago then) we spent much more time in the driver's ed cars backing around corners and doing three-point turns than working on lane changes, merges, and other highway techniques. And it showed -- during the test everyone aced the parking-lot maneuvers and the instructor had to grab the wheel from one of my classmates on the highway. Even so, I'm not sure that's the biggest reason that police can seemingly handle a higher level of in-car activity than other drivers. I think there are two bigger differences. First, the police are at work, doing their jobs. They're not just trying to get somewhere, so they've already done their makeup, put on their uniforms, talked to their spouses and friends, etc. The dispatchers are trained in how to talk to drivers, and the radios are designed for drivers (that is, it's really easy to use them without looking at them) and are a lot simpler than cell phones. The driver will often have a partner in the car that is also focused on the task -- providing assistance and not distraction. Furthermore, if they're on patrol it's their job to pay attention to what's going on around them. I think the second difference is that police on the whole take their duty to public safety more seriously than most people -- that's why they went out for the job in the first place. They've seen lots of wrecks and don't want to cause more. Even given good training and a phone that's designed for use while driving (perhaps some of the voice-control systems in recent cars would qualify) most people just don't care very much.