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."
This has been the common thing in many European countries for many years already. You're only allowed to talk in car if you're wearing a hands-free device to talk.
Even more as speaking on a phone, SMS'ing is just stupid. You're not only putting your concentration it, but changing your view from the street to the phone screen. Sound's like a great idea.
At least 22 states currently text traffic conditions, emergencies, etc to motorist.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Here's an anti-texting-and-driving PSA video I came across.
It's a dramatization, but I found it to be uncommonly disturbing. Worth watching, if for no other reason than the quality of production.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I54mlK0kVw
Driving while distracted is already illegal. Telling us exactly how to do everything is not making people any more responsible. Solve the problem by applying existing law using common sense instead of making new laws that are easier to apply.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
It's just another loop hole insurance companies will use to not pay out claims.
Fault will be immediately assigned to the driver who was texting, there insurance won't pay, everybody is screwed...well except the insurance companies.
Just like if their is an accident and a vehical has a broken bottle of liquor fault is assigned to that vehicle EVEN IF THE DRIVER WASN'T DRINKING, and it's damn hard to get anyone to review and change the fault even with a toxicology report.
If someone is driving recklessly, give them a ticket. You can not pass laws to specifically name every way someone could drive dangerously.
OAN: isit me, or is EVERYTHING more dangerous then driving while drunk?(.08)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
... is that people have to be told that sending/reading text messages when driving is unsafe.
Are people really that fucking dumb these days?
Judging by the evidence above, it seems so.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
The summary says that "nearly 6,000 people were killed and a half-million injured last year in vehicle crashes connected to driver distraction". What percentage of accidents was that? What percentage of people who drove last year was that? How many of those "driver distraction" cases were text messaging? For that matter, how many were from people using "mobile devices behind the wheel"? How many were changing the radio station? How many were eating something?
Texting while driving is stupid, but current laws already cover it. I am pretty sure that a ticket for reckless driving given to someone texting while driving would hold up in court.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
This is an example of states setting their own laws to respond to an issue that directly affects the lives of their citizens. The possibility of the federal government stepping in and usurping this power is analogous to America's situation as far as the legal drinking age goes - MADD used its lobbying power to get Congress to essentially coerce the states into following its will. Keep in mind, barring a constitutional amendment, congress lacks the power to directly affect the drinking age - hence their questionable approach (albeit one that has been upheld by the courts) of saying, "well look, states, we're not telling you you HAVE to set the drinking age at 21, but if you don't, something might happen to your federal highway funding. We're just saying, it could happen." I realize that it would be somewhat impractical for the federal government to stay limited by an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution, but there is absolutely no reason for the national government to waste its valuable time meddling here (don't we have a health care crisis or recession or whatever that they should be dealing with?). Cell phone use, like the drinking age, is one of those areas which should not be controlled nationally - if we take away all the powers of the states to set their own laws, then what's the point of even having a federal system to begin with?
...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.
If someone was weaving all over the road while trying to shave, we wouldn't ask for a law against shaving-while-driving to be passed.
Instead we would charge that individual with some existing law against negligent driving.
Give the person a ticket. If he or she contests it, proving that the driver was weaving shouldn't be hard in this day of police vehicles with front-dash cameras. Problem solved.
Why not enforce the existing laws instead of allowing politicians to pat themselves on the back for passing a popular law that is redundant?
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
The physical interaction is not the major problem. It is the mental engagement that causes the driver to remove attention from the driving task. Eating that fast food cheeseburger does not take a lot of thought. Neither does adjusting the heat, mirrors, or stereo (once you have some basic familiarity with their operation). Following a route on a GPS is not a problem.
Cell phone conversations (hands-on AND hands-free) and composing text messages/email do take a significant concentration from the driving task. You are correct that passengers can be a serious problem, particularly with younger drivers*. Route-planning on a GPS is a problem.
*There is much debate in the community as to why cell phone conversations are worse than in-vehicle conversations with adults. A lot of theories, no solid evidence. Except to show that there is a demonstrable difference. One such theory is that the in-car conversation is a self-paced task while the cell phone is a forced-pace task. Your passenger does not wonder why you got quiet when trying to merge onto a busy freeway. The person on the other end of the cellphone is not aware of the driving environment and people will keep up the conversation even when dangerous to do so.
One of my favorite research videos is from a high school where students had their cars set up with cameras and computer recording. A girl goes around a slippery curve in winter, the car does two complete spins, and lands in the outside ditch. At no point does she drop the cell phone or stop talking to the other person. Although, at the end, it is mostly "Oh my god! I'm crashing!"