Slashdot Mirror
Fines Fail To Curb Cell Phone Usage While Driving
andylim writes "An in-depth study of over 14,000 London drivers by the Transport Research Laboratory has found an increase in the number of London motorists making and taking calls using their handsets at the wheel between 2008 and 2009, even though harsher penalties were introduced in 2007. It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're using your cell phone."
It's the enforcement. We have really, really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations, but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random. Your chances of getting caught are miniscule, so people learn to ignore the law. If they do get caught, the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent.
We're seeing the same thing here. The number of people driving with handsets to their ears dipped significantly when the law first took effect, but is now back up to almost where it was before. And here too, I think the main reason is lax enforcement.
At least the gov gets money out of it. Perhaps it can be used to improve hospitals or something for the people who will die from the lack of obedience (dyamn that sounded totalitarian).
Not just in London, I think you will find that this is the case everywhere in the world...
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
It's hard to enforce, and you would have to get enforcement percentages way up there for people to decide the risk/reward ratio wasn't worth it. And your police officers have more important things to be doing with their time.
No, the thing to do if you're a government and want to make people safer given this behavior is to do everything you possibly can to encourage the development and use of economical self-driving cars and/or really excellent public transportation.
Frankly, driving is a waste of valuable time and a task humans are ill-suited to doing.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
A law requiring the use of a hands-free device when using a cell phone while driving went into effect last year. For the first few months, there was a noticeable drop in the number of people seen with a phone held up to their ear as the Highway Patrol was concentrating on writing tickets for people caught doing that. Now that the CHP is no longer making a concerted effort to ticket phone users, the numbers are right back up to their old levels and I'm still getting cut off on the freeway by people paying more attention to their phone conversation than their driving.
Of course, it could be argued that the law was pointless in the first place since scientific studies have shown that using a hands-free device doesn't actually help prevent accidents caused by distracted drivers.
This ain't rocket surgery.
I'm using my I-Phone right now to ma
I think they're going about it all wrong. Children are much more distracting to drivers in my experience. I can't count the number of times I have almost wrecked trying to pick up a pacifier, etc.
London should prohibit driving with children in the car. It's an inconvenience for parents, but it's a safety issue. Likewise car radios should be banned.
As far as I'm concerned, people have the right to do what they want in their cars. If they fuck up, then there are consequences.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
We as humans by and large dismiss the chances of bad things happening if they haven't occurred to us yet in our lifetimes. This is especially true of adults who think they have "seen it all". I highly doubt those who have been in an accident caused by distracted driving would be so quick to dismiss it's danger. We see the same phenomena with many kinds of natural disasters where people choose to wait it out thinking that is can't possibly be as bad as it ends up being. Many people fill their lives with things that if they took a moment to think about the impact they would never do them again. Smoking and tailgating come to mind.
We only need to wait on a little natural selection to kick in for the usage to drop.
Just kidding - start enforcing the law!
Hey mate, spare a sig?
Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine. Who can say why this takes place?
It's bad, but it's not that bad.
It would be interesting to see a productivity study to go along with the accident study. I'm not claiming to know what it might say, but it would be interesting to understand if any tangible benefit could be defined.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
In this case you are driving under the influence of an electronic device.
I'm also from California, where it has been illegal to drive while on a cell phone for some time now. The problem is that not only is the fine only $20, but it is also only a secondary offense, meaning that you can only be cited for cell phone use in conjunction with some other ticket, such as speeding or reckless driving. That means that even if the police see you talking while driving, they can't do anything about it short of checking if your tail lights are both working and trying to get you on that. Not only that, but it seems to me that not everyone thinks the law applies to them. Take Maria Shriver for example, she was caught by paparazzi (yes I normally hate them) talking on her cell phone, and although Arnold threatened to "punish her," I know that it certainly doesn't make me want to stop using my cell phone in the car. Maybe it's because I'm part of the younger generation who learned to drive when cell phones were already prevalent. Nothing against older people, but it seems to me that most of the accidents are caused by them on cell phones, not by the younger one that grew up with cell phones...
I was almost hit by some asshat teenager in a SUV two weeks ago because he was texting on his fucking phone in the middle of the night while doing 70mph down a freeway I ended up in the ditch avoiding the lil fuck. Police should fine them and confiscate the phone and have it destroyed. Talking and driving is one thing but to be so stupid as to fucking text and drive is an entirely different thing. Hell throw in a 6month license suspension if they get pulled over for texting and driving. I hope anyone who texts and drive hits a bridge at 80mph and dies in a painful and messy manner. If you didn't notice I really hate people who text and drive.
it's not the amount of the fine it's the likelihood for getting caught.
same as every other crime.
People will risk their jobs just to nick a 20c pen from work.....
It's the enforcement. We have really, really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations, but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random. Your chances of getting caught are miniscule, so people learn to ignore the law. If they do get caught, the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent.
Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training. Every police vehicle I've seen has a laptop mounted on the center console. Every time I see a cop driving around they have one hand on the keyboard and constantly glance back and forth between the road and the computer.
Cell phones and cars aren't going away anytime soon. Instead of punishing the citizens for doing something police are trained to do, train the citizens too. There is no reason that drivers ed. classes shouldn't discuss this and deal with it.
I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children. If you don't want little Lisa to text and drive into a horrible wreck, teach her how to text and drive responsibly. Otherwise take your blanket statements and have every computer removed from police vehicles because otherwise we have an effective working double standard which provides revenue to the police force. Fuck that shit.
First of all, you cannot train folks to multitask because humans are incapable of doing it. The cops can't do it either. What you call multitasking is actually them selecting attention rapidly between their laptops and driving - if they're even doing that.
Two, even if it were possible to train folks how to do it, what makes you think that folks will follow their training? People are trained not to tailgate, speed, cut others off, etc...
Everything you've proposed is impossible. The ONLY solution is to ban cell phones in cars. There is absolutely no reason to talk in a car anyway - no exceptions. Got to talk? Pull over.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
"there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're" in a car. In the USA 40,000 people a year are killed by the automobile directly, and thousands more are killed by the side effects of an automobile centric society. That is more than ten 9/11s. every. single. year.
We actually have to rely on people to fine and tax Londoners? That sounds like work.
Rule to survive:
If you see somebody driving erratic, keep extra distance behind, then try to pass quickly and check cellphone-use. If positive, take note.
Keeping a tab on positive will quickly convince you that
a - It's a dangerous world out there
b - Darwin's law of survival... holds true
c - Politicians are stupid (CO no-phone-use-in cars was watered down to no-messaging-while-driving)
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html
Solution: Blue tooth keyboard that mounts to steering wheel so that half the keys are on left side of wheel and half on right side of wheel. It is blue tooth enabled to your phone. Either mount phone on steering whell or even better have a HUD on your windshield. I would have to say it would be more likely for me to crash during texting then during reading a text. I can type without looking so get me that keyboard!!!
Mark
Enforcement or behavior modification thru financial disincentives are always ineffective because they rely on people. People don't want, and should not be required, to mitigate the incredible stupidity of other people.
Although the cost of a motor vehicle will increase, the solution is to install low power cell phone interference generators, multiple with redudancy and overlap, in all automobiles and other vehicles which use public roads. These devices would be active devices only when the vehicle is operating. This would not interfere with emergency calls since most emergencies should cause the vehicle to stop. The power should be kept very low; and the design should cause the system to burn out if creative people try to boost the power for creative purposes. Failure of the cell phone interference system should also cause the vehicle to fail annual inspection.
This won't stop creative people from using cell phones while driving. But it will stop your average, technically disinclined idiot who should not be driving and phoning.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
My own casual observation (and one that my friends seem to agree with) is that since Los Angeles introduced a similar law last year, it has in fact curbed such behavior. Prior to that it seemed to be a much bigger problem (as it was in previous cities I lived in). This isn't to say you don't still see it most of the times that you drive, but more frequently it's that one idiot on the cell phone during your trip rather than a whole road full of idiots on their cell phones.
Everyone I know has also made it a point to get a bluetooth headset to use while they're driving, as well. Your Los Angeles Mileage May Vary.
Why is it every time I see a cop they're on the cell phone?
The best thing I did to improve my driving cellphone-wise was set my Blackberry to no alert on email when holstered.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
Can you blame people for not caring about victimless crimes? You might as well fine people for disregarding the "Wet Floor/Piso Mojado" sign.
Don't get me wrong, if you run over someone because you were texting, you should get assault with a deadly weapon at least and negligent homicide at most (assuming no ill intentions), but nothing should be done until you actually do something wrong and injure another person or destroy someone else's property.
Money is the root of all evil?
Live to talk.
Social contact is more important than life itself.
It used to be when you saw some one weaving in a car they had been drinking. Now every time I see it the person is talking on their cell phone. If they drive like they are drunk then they are functionally drunk. Some may handle it better than others but it's risky behavior and it is killing people. I lost a close friend to a drunk driver and I just don't see the difference between some one all over the road while they obsessively talk on a cell phone and a drunk driver. It's even worse because drunk drivers aren't always drunk when they are behind a wheel but people that talk on phones when they drive tend to always do it.
Considering that TFA says ~3% of people surveyed /in London/ use their mobile phones while driving, this doesn't seem to suggest what the article states - "It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're using your cell phone."
3% =/= most
It's undeniable that cell phone usage distracts most drivers and increases danger. But so do myriad other things (eating a Whopper, smoking, smacking the kids around, having just one drink, etc.) and those are not singled out for prosecution.
So the inevitable conclusion is that it's not about safety, it's about taking advantage of the fear of new technology to generate revenue. And nobody respects that.
It turns out that encasing yourself in a 2 ton hunk of steel and plastic and hurtling it down the highway at 70MPH is inherently dangerous. But people make risk-reward calculations and decide to take the risks anyway.
How about if somebody crashes they're fully liable? That would make people actually re-consider.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
clearly the public perception of the danger is lesser than the systems perception of the offence. that is to say that those that talk and drive mostly havent killed anyone (yet). thus its hard toi get it into there head that it might be dangerous. more people have died the year due to swine (mexican) flu this year than have died due to mobile phone use . and nobody thinks swine flu is a danger on the roads
Federally de-fund roads and make transportation private - all of it. The Federal Government has decided what our primary form of transportation is by dumping trillions into a road system. If they stopped dishing out all those tax dollars to public transportation and, at the very least, simultaneously deregulated rail, then we would see a huge boon in other more efficient types of transportation. This would substantially reduce such problems as texting while driving. It would also reduce pollution and shipping costs - and thus the cost of the goods being shipped. For example, I work in the importing business and it is currently less expensive to ship a container of goods from Los Angeles to Dallas via truck than rail, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever except for the fact that the Government controls the laying of rail and unions control the rail already laid.
I ride a motorcycle and I can see quite well into other vehicles on the road, and my observation is that here in the SF Bay Area there has been no reduction in cell phone usage while driving since the passage of the various laws. I think that, if anything, the laws have made it more dangerous because drivers who probably are not competent to drive and talk are now also trying to avoid getting caught on the phone by the po-po.
I had completely forgotten about the law and I was calling someone on craigslist to arrange picking up a filing cabinet. I arrived at his house and there was nobody home, so I called him and he told me to "just a sec. I'm trying to avoid this cop - I don't want him to see me." And I'm like, dude, I'm just here for the filing cabinet....
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Driving is not a right.
It's open to anyone who can demonstrate ability and only revocable if you show yourself to be a danger to others. Sounds like a right to me.
That makes it a privilege. Rights are inalienable, to use an American term, while privileges are revocable for cause.
A lot of people feel pressured to stay in touch with work or loved ones. Yes, even pressure from loved ones. If you ignore a text for 5 minutes or don't answer a call right away some people get upset. There's enough crap for one day already especially with work on your ass when you're already working through lunch to get the job done.
Captcha is "groaning", how appropriate.
Driving while distracted is not a victimless crime. There wouldn't be so much support for penalizing phoning and texting while driving if we weren't all experiencing idiotic driving by cell phone wielding seat warmers every day. Ninety percent of the time when I see another vehicle do something dumb - like running a red light, plowing through a pedestrian crosswalk when all the other traffic has stopped for somebody to cross, changing lanes without looking, or sitting at a green light - I then see that the zombie in the driver seat has a cell phone in their hand. It's just a matter of time before those dangerous acts become fatal acts.
Should driving drunk not be a crime until you kill somebody? Should firing a rifle randomly at a park not be a crime until you kill somebody?
I'm willing to wager that at least 50% of accidents these days involve somebody under the influence of a cell phone. My 45-minute commute frequently gets pushed over an hour by daily accidents on busy roads. What's the cost of the thousands of people like me who are stuck in traffic for an extra 30 minutes?
I'd like a hood-mounted cell phone jammer on my car. But I fear it would just confuse the zombies more if they lost contact with their super important urgent essential conversation partner.
I work in south LA and in my experience, there are just as many people talking directly on their handset and checking their Blackberry, if not more. I just don't think it's being enforced. But really, it seems nearly impossible to enforce that law with any sort of efficacy. Just another useless law brought on by populist politicians...
"The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as long as we live." - M.J. A
ATT's crappy coverage strikes again.
Take a hint from my lovely state, Massachusetts (among others... i know, but we're one of the worst.) If you're a government and you can fine people for doing something, and the fine doesn't deter them from doing it... well son you've just created yourself a source of revenue. It's addictive. Soon enough you'll figure out what other non-crimes you can make fineable offenses like declaring a snow emergency (a state where parking is restricted to make room for snow plows and emergency vehicles) when it's not actually snowing or very little snow is forecast, then give out thousands of tickets for $100 and tow everyone!
...has prohibition *ever* worked?
If cell phones were as dangerous as people like to make them out to be, accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last decade.
Once again, a little observation supports the general assumption that most people are stupid.
I see at least 10-30 people on their cellphone while driving. I would have to say about 2-5 times while passing a cop. NOTHING happens. How do you expect a change when its not enforced. Increase the fine so its worth it for the cop to write the ticked. In court it can only be 1 warning then tickets after that. ENFORCE THE LAW COPS.
Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training.
Also look at pilots who must by law be on the radio while piloting a vehicle in 3 dimensions that falls out of the sky if you slow down too quickly or bank too sharply while going slow. They are taught aviate, navigate, communicate - in other words fly and know where you are before worrying about the communication part.
Even if you remove mobile phones, radios and all other electronics, what about all the other distractions on the road? What about the piece of newspaper that flys onto your windscreen? What about a baby that starts choking in the back seat?
Train people to cope with distractions while driving (making it part of the driving test) and you've got a much safer environment than one where they've been reduced to the point where a driver can no longer cope with one.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The reason this doesn't work is because people start to consider the fine as a type of fee for using your cell phone while driving. They will feel that if they pay the fine, they will be able to use their cell phones on the road.
I've driven for 13 years and many times with a cell phone, a burger, coughing, sneezing, changing and other as you would put it "dangerous" activities. I've never hit anyone while driving safe or "unsafe."
It truly does boil down to education of driving aware of your surroundings.
I don't need some law nazi telling me I can use a cell phone while driving if I'm truly not driving any more dangerously.
And if you're still not goiing to agree, then consider this. We already have a law against driving recklessly. Shouldn't that cover activities such as poor driving with cell phone use? Let's nail people who are negligent with their driving: not just any Joe taking a phone call while in the car.
Funny that most of this conversation is about creating more laws and not much about ideas for ways that technology can solve the problem.
Mobile communications are here to stay, there is no going back and there is no way you are going to stop people from answering their phone.
Why do cars not yet come with bluetooth?
This would be simple and inexpensive. A mic in the steering wheel and the sound comes through the speakers.
I stopped texting and driving once I got an iphone because I can not send a message while looking at the road, while previously I could use T9 without looking. But how about phones start offering text-to-speech and speech-to-text?
There are plenty of ways that we can make communicating on the road safer without trying to criminalize people.
The complete list is:
- W: Convicted Drink Driver
- M: Convicted Murderer
- P: Paedophile
- D: Drug Offender
- B: Britney Fan
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Anybody remember the days before call-waiting? Y'know the days when you called someone and if they were on it you'd get this thing called a busy signal? We live in an age where we expect people to be able to be in instant contact. I sent you a text message, you get it instantly. We IM people on the computer. Creating mobile phones allows us to call someone (or be called by someone) almost anywhere we go. Nolonger do we have, "Sorry I was at the grocery store for the past hour.." You get called while you are in front of the apples. Conversely, you can call home and find out from your wife what type of apple to get for the pie.
People have grown accustomed to this... this leash. There was a time when people didn't have cell phones or pagers for that matter. When you went to the movies, you went to the movies, and when you were in the car driving to grandmas house, she couldn't call you. Now she can call you, and I would bet that most people would answer the phone rather than wait until you could a) safely pull over or b) arrive at your destination before you answered the phone or checked to see who called and call them back.
Do I think that we'll ever change our behavior to where we don't have this desire to have instant contact? Nope, and with the young kids of today growing up with email being the slowest form of communication, they won't think twice about driving while on the phone, texting or whatever comes out next (video-conferencing via the center console mounted computer?).
How else do you punish adults other than restrict their rights or outright revoke them?
How about - YOU DON'T. Often many destructive behaviors carry their own penalty, let people live with the consequences of their own actions.
Not to mention, I thought we were trying to prevent people from doing something we didn't like - not apply random punishments at the whim of law enforcement. As the study shows, punishment does not generally deter or do anything to stop behavior, so even if you demand it stop punishment and removal of rights is not the answer, because it simply does not work. If it doesn't work, you have to think of something else, but you can't keep hitting yourself in the head with a hammer expecting the headache to go away.
Only community peer pressure or other factors can really have an effect in improving behavior.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Once GPS is universal, have cellphones that are in use report any speed above posted limits for an instant zero-tolerance ticket. This would seriously reduce the number of cellphones in use on the roads.
I have no problem with allowing people to be stupid if it only endangers themselves. However, in the case of drink driving, or driving while distracted by a mobile phone other people get killed or injured through no fault of their own.
I believe that some insurance companies now have a clause that if you were using a phone while in an accident, your policy is null and void, meaning you have no coverage, plus no medical coverage. To carry this further, if you cause a death, then you should be charged with murder.
Yes, times have changed a lot. "Society" is no longer the thing you live in, it's the thing you have to put up with when you leave the house.
Quite frankly, unless something dramatic changes and people respect the rules again, we need massively improved enforcement, especially on the small rules. Ignoring the "no smoking" sign, talking on the phone while driving - these are minor crimes, but they instill disrespect for others and society in people. Heck, that's not a theory, it's been tested and proven correct several times.
I see smokers ignoring the "no smoking" signs every day on my way to work. That's a good example because it creates actual, physical harm on others, not just potential danger.
I'm not for harsher fines. In fact, I think moderate fines are much better. But they need to be enforced. Strictly and reliably. A $10,000 fine coupled with a 0.1% chance of being caught may be mathematically identical to a $100 fine and a 10% chance to be caught, but people's actual reactions to the scenarios are vastly different (again, there's been research on that, I'm just too lazy to walk over to the book shelves).
Make "enforcement days". Send police officers or even temps out on those days with the express goal of catching every single one who talks on the phone or texts while driving. Do that every month or two. The fines collected will almost certainly pay for the whole operation. After the 2nd or 3rd time caught, lots of people will reconsider. And those with a severe learning disability will pay for the next operations.
And as I said, if you think police officers are too valuable to be wasted on making the roads safer, hire temp workers for the job. Photographs with both the driver and the license plate visible would probably do, after all they do for speeding.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Uh, laws, government, and standard punishments are institutionalized community/peer pressure. We are the government; what it does, it does in our name.
Who are you or the goverment to say I don't have the right to drive? Driving IS MOST certainly a right because one is unable to function in our society normally without the ability to drive. That being said, my rights can be taken away by violating laws that we've all implicitly or explicitly agreed to as a society (i.e. no drunk driving, no drugged driving, no driving while getting a blow-job, etc, etc).
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
In 1971, the Essex, UK Police ran a public 16 lesson (1 hour theory + 1 hour practice) Advanced Police-style, Driving course.
... sound fun but it is very hard work.
At first, as a young academic, with 10 year's driving experience, it seemed pedestrian, until you had to drive at at least 40 MPH in a special police car with absolutely bald tyres, for an hour, on a skid pan, eg oil+soap+water, much slicker than ice. You learned abou front, rear and 4 wheel skids, how to get in, easy, out, and use them. Handbreak turns
At the end, two, including me, got a prize, the Police Class 1 test, the two winners drove one-way Chelmsford-2-Leeds ( M) in an un-marked Jaguar Police car with concealed lights and siren, that you were NOT allowed to use. To pass you had to average 80 MPH which meant that you had to constantly overtake traffic with 20+ MPH overtake speed. UK speed limit is 70 MPH.
If the Instructors had to use the lights and siren you failed, average <80, you failed. I passed with 80.1 MPH and was washed out for a week. At the time I could fly, and thus talk with ATC and watch the instruments, out the front window, and behind. A constant scan.
,
Texting while driving a car is insane! Voice is OK, only on Hands Free, and if you can master a clear sense of priorities, first drive safely, then talk. If I answer the phone in the car, an dont know the caller, I say "I am driving so, if traffic gets busy bear with me". For me the Baregg an Guberist tunnels, in rush hour, are the only places where I really have a problem. A stau in Guberist means the in-tunnel cell gets overloaded anyway.
The UK Police Class 1 training is superb and the SS (aka MI5) comabt driving courses are better and unrivaled. The guys who can do that every day have all my respect, they are superb at what they do.
Inspite of that, no car can hold a big motor-bike, and match a rider who knows the terain well. It is also almost impossible to shoot, accurately, from-to a moving car - target. Again bikes are better than cars, and can set up reverse ambushes. To deal with that you need Apache, FLIR and Hellfire.
The number of cell phones in use as exponentially increased in the last decade. Where is the graph showing fatalities going through the roof due to this? Oh whats that? They've actually slightly went down?
Maybe its not such a big deal after all. Maybe the government should just.. ya know.. do nothing.
Now do these stack? What would you have if someone was a Convicted Drunk Driver, Murderer and a Drug Offender?
WMD = home grown terrorist
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
These are the same sort of studies that "know the result they want" before they do anything, Citeable data, methods and detailed analysis please.
Climategate
Ask anyone you know that is a licensed driver: Is your driving: A)average B)below average C)above average? Go on- I dare you. You'll "C" what I mean.
Nobody obeys laws that are pointless and stupid. This should be a no-brainer. Talking on the phone is less distracting that talking to a real person. Is THAT going to be illegal?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
HERF guns for the win.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I read that as "AT-AT crappy coverage strikes again". What an AT-AT could be doing throwing cars around, I do not kn
I definitely agree with community peer pressure. When I see drivers use their cell phones I like to look dead at them and mockingly blab away on a pantomimed phone. ring ring banana phone.
Something I find interesting is using a mobile phone is the main thing that blurs the line between the two (yes, over generalised, etc) categories of driver:
1. Those who drive defensively, are relatively courteous and a penalty (demerit) on the license would be unthinkable - embarassing
2. People who appear to consider themselves the most important thing on the road. A ticket or penalty would be a nuisance and somehow it would be unjustified or somebody else's fault. Behaviour only changes when they re running out of points, though they'll still chance it sometimes.
I know several otherwise very good drivers who still answer their phone (but not initiate a call) while driving - and very few people can resist checking who it is and cancelling it. Shortly after passing my test I was driving and the phone went off, it was so distracting I just had to turn it off, though in the process I saw who was calling and that little bit of knowledge stopped it being bothering. Since then I always remember to turn my phone off when I get in the drivers seat.
p.s. If you realise you are talking to someone who is driving, tell them you will call back and hang up.
People who can walk and chew gum at the same time realize that they have what it takes to increase their vigilence concerning their immediate surroundings, and can talk to someone outside the car and not crash like they can talk to someone inside the car and not crash. Some people shouldn't be driving at all, and these shouldn't be talking to either their phones or their passengers, but for the rest of us, we know its BS and continue to remain available and maybe even keep in touch by making a call or 2 when it's safe to drive with 1 hand.
As for the legal thing, we can see from the previous boneheaded law that nobody believed in but simply generated a pile of cash in fines of perfectly safe motorists, the 55 mph speed limit was also near-universially ignored by the motoring public and in some places even by the cops. You can't always simply pass a law and expect the sheeple to suffer willingly.
Ooooh .... live and let live, how noble.
I'd bet the farm you're naive attitude would Disappear after some drunk asshole killed your family.
I'd bet the farm you're naive attitude would Disappear after some drunk asshole killed your family.
Why should it? When I know whatever law was passed wouldn't have prevented it anyway, I wouldn't turn to the idea of "more government" for solace. Honestly I don't know what I would do, but again since I know it wouldn't stop anything that would literally be the last thing to occur to me to think of. Things like MADD and all started with a good intention but as always it's a noose that draws tighter around everyone, and saves no-one - at least from the laws they have passed. What does help are the awareness programs, spreading the notion of "designated driver", etc (which MADD has also championed). They should have stuck with doing things that helped.
If we couldn't make a totally global ban on all alcohol work (prohibition) no law is going to stop one guy from drinking - especially not the guy who drinks too much anyway. Those are the guys that get in fatal accidents.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have no problem with allowing people to be stupid if it only endangers themselves. However, in the case of drink driving, or driving while distracted by a mobile phone other people get killed or injured through no fault of their own.
Me too. Except the laws, they do NOTHING TO STOP THIS. So in the end it is stupid to pass them, because they DO NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. All they do is give cops a reason to pull people over. Honestly I would be OK with just passing a law saying "Law enforcement officers have the ability to pull over anyone for any thing that they personally consider weird" and do away with about 100,000 stupid laws that are there to basically say just that. I honestly think we should have a police force where we feel we can trust individuals to make judgment calls, instead of trying to contractualize the whole field of interaction between officer and civilian. You see? I don't mind the aspect of police being able to pull people over, I just hate the idea of laws that make people think they are protected from something when nothing is actually being helped. Talk about security theater!
If you want to solve that problem the thing that works is awareness programs, like the concept of designated driver (you could have designated texters, or "hold the phone" programs to make people think about using the phone less in cars).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
for a mere $100 I will provide complete coverage in the afterlife.
A fairly typical *first offence* sentence for drink driving in the UK is now 12 months ban *and* 12 months probation.
Repeat offenders are typically jailed.
In other news, something like 10% of drivers in London are uninsured. The NHS had to start a department to privately sue for recovery of injury treatment costs.
Driving in London is lunacy. Actually much of life in the UK is lunacy, but that's another topic . .
I believe that people need to see the effects of accidents in order for it to truly register. (Heck, do this for other serious stuff, too, like the casualties of wars.) Making it cost "more money" to drive dangerously is basically sugar-coating, hiding the very real risks.
There should be ads in prime time that show accident victims whose lives have been turned upside down. Show people who can no longer walk, or who lost limbs, or who lost family members. Make it clear that it was drunk driving, or cell phones, or whatever, that led to their demise.
Too many ignorant people seem to think that the world is a heck of a lot nicer than it really is. That ignorance continues when they get behind the wheel.
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
If motorists won't abide by the law, then enforce it through hardware. Built-in (vehicle-only-area) cellular jamming hardware could enforce cell-phone compliance while the vehicle is in motion. Only after being placed in park would the jamming device allow calls to be made. A signal on a seperate frequency could indicate an incoming call by chiming. The motorist would still have to stop the vehicle to actually take the call.
it's only risky for the bad drivers ... and I'm not one of the bad drivers, so I can safely talk on my cellphone while I'm driving.
No, seriously! I mean it! Stop laughing!
Actually, the trick to driving safely is to be willing to tell the other person to shut up when you need to pay full attention. Ever had somebody do that? Um-hum, I thought so. Well, now you know, so you can do it too.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
When cell's first started appearing on the market in Australia many moons ago, what us motorbike riders did when we saw someone on the phone was to rip-off their car antenna's and then dissapear into the sunset.
It felt good to do that.
But today, the antennae is often built in to the glass, its no longer possible to do that.
I wonder what the fine is for breaking a cars window?
It is easy to control this. Using measurement of the doppler effect, simply have base stations reject calls from phones that are moving faster than a certain speed.
Or, you can build this into the phone itself. Not hard.
"First of all, you cannot train folks to multitask because humans are incapable of doing it. "
The research says we're not very good at it, at least not good enough to justify doing it at work.
It doesn't say we are "incapable" of doing it.
I'll never understand how you people can take something so simply stated and obvious, and completely misrepresent it as you have here.
I have to conclude that you're either not bright enough to read for comprehension, or you enjoy actively distorting reality for the purpose of making a point.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
What the fuck are you smoking, fella? I had to wait a few minutes to stop laughing before I could respond. You're certainly not married - if there's an extra road hazard, the old girl MIGHT pause to suck in some extra oxygen for the next tirade about my sub-human driving skills. "The wife" doesn't see me concentrating - she "sees" me dreaming about some imaginary 18 year old lolita, and to hell with the fact that I was actually calculating whether or not we can afford her 30th pair of shoes this year.
Sorry, I exagerate. it's only her 16th pair of shoes.
...accidents is because no one teaches people how to drive drunk" (SUMMER SCHOOL)
And the solution is to drive about 10-15 mph slower than ongoing traffic. Gawd, every time i get stuck behind some idiot who is driving way slower than traffic, it's someone on a cellphone. Yeah, it may be safer for THEM, but it's crazy frustrating and dangerous when cars have to try to navigate around these moving roadblocks.
With modern phones, GPS and Avionics you can just use a free floating BT headset, so you no longer need an expensive OEM car setup, audio-mute is nice, but hardly essential. The Avionics stuff also has good cabine ambiant noise cancellation, on both channels, so ground dosn't get motor noise
There are several states now that don’t allow you to talk on your cell phone while driving. Studies have shown that talking on the phone is a distraction from doing what you’re supposed to be doing, piloting your vehicle. My argument against these laws is that there’s already laws on the books that allow a police officer to pull you over if you’re driving poorly. Ever heard of Reckless Driving? If you’re being reckless, a cop can already site you with a moving violation. The cause of reckless driving isn’t important, it’s that you’re BEING reckless. Many of the states with “no cell phone” laws make an exception as long as you’re using a hands-free device. That doesn’t make much sense. The studies didn’t find that HOLDING a phone causes a distraction, TALKING on the phone is the distraction. Those same studies showed that whether you’re holding a phone to your ear, talking into a speaker phone, or using a wireless headset, the chance of you being distracted from your driving is the same. So, if the only issue is DISTRACTION, how can we legislate that? If we can make laws banning cell phones because of the distraction we’d need to outlaw food, music, coffee, maps, screaming kids, and pets to be consistent. Everything you do in a car other than driving is a distraction. The cellphone is just the latest scapegoat for the real issue out on the road – PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Our law enforcement should spend more time enforcing the laws we already have (like reckless driving) instead of adding more laws to our already complicated law books.
Can't speak for anywhere else but London. Car drivers in London get away with murder, literally. I see dickheads watching televisions in their cars on the Marylebone Road and Westway. Most of these cretins don't know what a mirror is for, think the reason there are two head lights and two rear lights is because one's a spare, and think the orange light at each corner is there so they can stop and park anywhere while all four are flashing. A red traffic light in London means another two or three can carry on through, and speed limits mean nothing at all. Having had a friend killed by one of these arseholes on the phone, I would treat it the same as drink or drug driving and give them at least a years ban. Actually if I had my way it would be a game of russian roulette by the side of the road, as that's what they are doing with the lives of those around them.