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."
I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children.
The problem is, everybody has their own ideas about what to teach the children, and the vast majority of those ideas will turn little Lisa into an imbecile, a sociopath, or a robot.
On the other hand, at least the robot can be programmed to drive safely.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Not just in London, I think you will find that this is the case everywhere in the world...
Basic human behavior, and it's hardly restricted to cellphone misuse behind the wheel. You see, everyone is somehow special and better able to handle a given situation than anyone else, and is therefore immune to consequence. That is, until such time as a consequence kills them dead, or if they're very lucky just scares the shit out of them. Cigarettes, drugs, risky sex, bad driving ... most people don't learn to think until after their stupidity nearly kills them. I don't have a problem with that, particularly, unless their mental malfunction gets someone else killed. That's what makes using that damn cellphone on the road a bad thing.
Wise up people, you're no better at driving and texting than anyone else, and nobody is any good at it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The problem with that argument is that if someone else fucks up, you or I may be affected by the consequences in terrible ways that no amount of compensation or punishment inflicted on the other party could correct.
I don't believe that the vast majority of people can be taught to do this safely and responsibly. What I see every day is that at least half the people on the roads are just barely competent to be driving, and you add a cellphone to the equation and they become downright dangerous to themselves and everyone around them. Police are specifically trained for the skills they must have to do their jobs, but in addition to that they are held to much more rigorous standards before they're even accepted for that training. If the average person was held to the standards potential police or highway patrol are held to, there would be many fewer people on the roads to begin with.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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.
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?
Man, what alternate universe do you live in? Whichever it is, I want to go there--a large percentage of the people in my universe don't seem to respond to any sort of fact, scientific or otherwise. Only a cold, hard dose of reality (such as running their car into a fire hydrant at the end of their driveway) ever gets through to them.
This ain't rocket surgery.
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.
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.
What planet do you live on? Facts don't dissuade people from doing what they want to do. A lot of it in this case is self-overestimation: people will continue to cell/text/IM while they drive because in spite of the evidence, they are all convinced that they are an exception to the rule and can do these things and still drive safely. In their minds, those studies and laws apply to all those other people, not me. It's very reminiscent of "well, most people probably shouldn't drive after drinking, but I can do it just fine."
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.
How about teaching little Lisa to keep both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, and her mind focused on driving? How about teaching her that that phone call or text can wait until she gets where she's going? How about teaching her that the world won't come to an end if she's not constantly in touch with her little friends 24/7?
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
hard dose of reality (such as running their car into a fire hydrant at the end of their driveway) ever gets through to them.
In my universe that person would blame the fire hydrant...
by that logic, I can drive drunk as hell and it's okay, just so long as I don't hit anybody.
Reboot macht Frei.
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.
I find it amusing that you just assume that the cops are not, themselves, a danger on the roads when they're doing this.
Police cars are also sometimes allowed to ignore red lights, use one-way streets in the wrong direction and ignore speed limits, in case of emergency. That, however, does not mean that we should teach every person to ignore red lights responsibly.
While I believe that your argument is valid in some other, not traffic-related cases (e.g. I believe that teaching young people how to drink responsibly is better than deterring them from drinking, but that is a different thing), I believe it is not valid in this case. When driving, have one hand at the steering wheel and occasionally one at the gearshift. That's it.
The history of driving drunk by the drivers assigned such plates is sufficient probably cause. Now if they issue those plates on the first offense then it's a problem, but if the individual has shown a repeated disregard for the safety of his/her fellow citizens by repeatedly driving while intoxicated, they have given permanent and sufficient probable cause.
These plates do not require all police officers to pull the vehicle over, but they do give additional indicators that this driver who is driving oddly enough to gain the attention of the officer has a history of DUI convictions that warrant a more careful check to verify sobriety.
I think these plates are a great idea. But only after multiple convictions (not just being pulled over multiple times but full convictions) for DUI.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
If a person is shown to repeatedly endanger the public they shouldn't be tagged with a little "I've been naughty" sign. They should be locked away where they can't hurt anyone.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
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?).
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.
what, exactly, is so fascist about suspending or terminating the driving license of someone who has proved that their driving habits are a danger to pedestrians and other drivers?
sounds like common sense to me.
(and if losing their license causes some fuckwit to lose their job - and whatever goes along with that - then so be it. fuck 'em.)
you don't have a right to drive. you don't have a right to endanger the lives of others because you're too fucking stupid to realise that drunk driving (or driving while distracted by cell-phones, video screens, or whatever) is dangerous.
drink all you like in your own home or when you're not going to be driving. in fact, take whatever drugs you like. your body, your life, your choice to do whatever you like to/with it. but you don't have any right to endanger others.
fuck you and your sense of entitlement.
cite
If someone is looking at LOLcats on their iPhone and kills you in a car crash and they blow a 0.01 on a breathalizer because they were eating a bagel with their free hand that is considered an alcohol-related fatality. If you run over a a drunk guy on a bike that counts as an alcohol-related fatality. Furthermore, if there is no breathalizer done then they use "statistical modeling" to determine if alcohol is involved. I don't know what kind of modeling they use, but my guess is that they say there is a 33% chance alcohol was involved and list is as such. I'm not sure why their threshold for "alcohol-related" is so low, but it definitely gives us some big, scary numbers.