Slashdot Mirror
Phone and Text Bans On Drivers Shown Ineffective
shmG writes to share news of a recent study on the impact of laws which ban the use of cell phones while driving. There appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result of these laws. "The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington DC, Connecticut, and California — all states with currently enacted roadway text bans. Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, [although] there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes."
Just because a behavior is banned doesn't mean people have actually stopped doing it. California's ban has been in place for a year and a half now, and I still regularly see people driving while talking on their phones. So hand-held phone use has reduced in these areas. How much?
The other thing to consider is that at least the California law allows you to use your cell phone while driving as long as you use a hand-free system, like an earpiece or a car system that acts as a speakerphone. I seem to recall that other studies have shown that hands-free cell phone conversations are just as distracting as conversations carried out while holding the phone. (The article spends a whopping one sentence on this.)
shmG writes to share that according to a recent study on the impact of laws banning the use of cell phones during driving, there appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result.
"The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and California -- all states with currently enacted roadway text bans. Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, all though there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes."
On some phone platforms, crashes occur regardless of whether you're driving a car or not.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This doesn't surprise me too much. One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.
Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars. Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Is there any chance that anonymous cellphone usage from telco companies could be queried to better estimate the usage of cell phones on say remote Interstate portions (where it's far less likely that people are using their cell phones in their homes) ?
http://jimasks.me/would-you-ever-consider-bribing-someone-to-get-a-job-promotion
I'm in BC Canada, where they've recently instated a no cellphone (without hands-free) while driving policies. This first month is warnings-only, and next month the fines start up at I believe $150 or more.
Thus far I've seen no reduction in people with their phones attached to their ear, usually driving like idiots. Nowadays I try to make it a point to see if a driver is chatting on the phone before assuming they're going to be making a safe/legal driving move (like not going the wrong way up a 1-way street, etc).
...but we all do it anyways. How is this any different?
People still get speeding tickets, despite all the obvious Signs with posted limits....
Until people actually STOP using the phones while driving, you won't see a decrease in crashes. The laws need to have a much bigger stick to enforce them. Many of these are just like seatbelt laws, cops can't pull people over directly for the infraction and need another reason for stopping the person first. Then they can issue a bonus ticket because the person wasn't wearing a seatbelt or using the cell phone. The tickets need to hurt a lot more as well. Like say a $500 fine or 20 hours community service (I like the "or" in that since this will hit teenagers a lot, and they would really be just fining the parents with that $500. This way, the person who gets it can opt for the community service if they can't afford the fine, and the community as a whole benefits).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
The oblivious, accident prone drivers that use cell phones are likely to still using cell phones. The ones who generally pay more attention to the roads tend to try to obey the rules and not cause accidents aren't. I still see many drivers obliviously using their cell phones while driving even after laws are passed.
I have on occasion used a cell phone before the law was passed, but I was always careful about it. I'd move over to a slower lane and slow down. I avoided using it during rush hour. If I had to use it during rush hour I pulled off at an off-ramp and used it there, not while driving. With the law, I have an excuse not to answer the phone in the car and I'll tell people I was driving when I called them back.
My opinion is: the governments should not ban the practice and levy punitive fees to the non-compliant. They should offer license endorsements or permits (for a fee of course) for those that can soundly pass some kind of 'mobile phone usage' test. This would generate revenue, create jobs, and give those of us with teenage daughters yet one more thing to refuse to pay for.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
So I guess if you ban cell phones and texting, they'll just pick up iPods or a BigMac and crash while chowing down.
One of the most basic aspects of a study involving observation is to always remember: Correlation does not equal Causation.
It's a secondary offense and you have to do something else wrong before they'll pull you over.
Until it's a real ban with real consequences you won't see a behavior change because most drivers figure they won't be pulled over for it.
Looks like the DEA must be enforcing these laws...
instant driving ban for the driver + car crushed
repeat offence and its jail
i certainly would think twice if i knew that i could lose my car and driving privileges for a year for a simple phone call
The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and California
I'm not huge into math, and most of even the basic Statistics topics are over my head, but surely this can't be right.
There are about 41,000 - 43,000 traffic FATALITIES each year in the US alone; over a million fatalities worldwide. There are 2 or 3 million recorded traffic injuries in the US alone. Estimates range from 7 to 12 million accidents in total in the US every year.
I don't think 100 vehicles even comes close to meaning anything in a pool of around 10 million. Neither do I think it would matter if I'm misreading and it was 100 vehicles in each of those cities. Regardless of what they found, wouldn't their results fall well within statistical error or whatever?
I didn't RTFA, But, If the sample size is really only 100 people I'm not sure i would trust the results. Granted I'm pretty sure using a cell phone is safer then trying to fold unfold a map.
Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, all though there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.
Study 1: Cellphone use is "linked" to a four-fold increase in crash injuries.
Study 2: There is a correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.
Study 3: After laws banning cell-phone use were enacted, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change.
These studies, as summarized in the summary, are not inconsistent. Fluctuations in crash rates need not change in order for the overall number of crashes to change. Injuries are not the same as conversation or even accidents, and a difference in the quantity of injuries may reflect something as simple as not holding the wheel with both hands. And you don't say the correlation is positive.
Okay, maybe the last is implied--but still, could we try to be a bit more specific before implying conclusions that would, if true, justify major policy changes?
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Here's a story from my local newspaper about a 20-something woman who's totaled 3 cars in the past 3 years because she was texting while driving. Apparently she learned this from her dad, who is unable to spend 2 hours just driving and must spend the time on the phone and doing his email.
Why isn't she in jail? Why aren't we treating driving-while-texting the same way we treat driving while intoxicated? Do we have to wait until she (or her dad) kills somebody? http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/301086.html
The key is actual enforcement.
If companies like Redflex or ATS - photo enforcement companies - get the technology working, and there's a buck to be made, they will GLADLY start tracking cell phone usage with a combination of antennas and automated optical photo scanning.All they'd need is an antenna to detect nearby cell phone signals at a certain threshold - and then start snapping pictures of ALL cars - drivers and their license plates, of course - that go by until the signal drops again. Then you have automated software flag people with their hands up to their ears (or maybe even looking down at a device, if they work hard enough on the software), and then send those positives onto real people to verify the driver's transgression. Two weeks later, BAM - a ticket in your mailbox and a cool chunk in the pocket of the photo company.
With that level of enforcement you'd quickly see a drop in cellphone usage. (Would accidents go down because of them? Possibly - but if they didn't, you'd never hear that side of the story as the politicians (and the companies) grow addicted to their newfound "sin tax" revenue.)
Heck - why stop there with just cellphones and texting? If someone is flagged by their software for NOT LOOKING AHEAD AT THE ROAD a certain percentage of the time, cite them for "reckless driving"... Why not? That's a dangerous behavior - and there's money to be made...
This Just In: Unenforceable Law Proves Ineffective.
I'll say it again: "Training."
Add it to the drivers education curriculum and make it part of the mandatory drivers license examination. Maybe make a new class of license...
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Could it be that people who want to text while driving are just bad drivers, or don't understand the risks properly, to begin with and all banning phone use just removes their excuse?
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
There are people who are chronic crashers. Yet, until they actually kill someone, their licenses are rarely revoked or even temporarily suspended. They and other drivers aren't retested to ensure competency and the competency of the original tester. Canada's Worst Driver is a good show for demonstrating exactly why both of these are a problem: people on the show all have licenses, but many get in double-digit numbers of crashes every year, and often attest that they passed their original driver's test because the tester just didn't give a damn.
Both of these things need to change to really bring down the accident rate, but they're obviously more expensive than simply passing an unenforceable distraction ban. Guaranteed that stricter penalties for repeat offenders, and mandatory retesting every X years or after every crash would reduce accident rates considerably.
With the law, I have an excuse not to answer the phone in the car
The same excuse was available before the law.
"all though there were less people using devices while driving." [citation needed]
There are some benefits. If a driver slams into me talking on a cellphone and there's a ban in my area, it's going to immediately move to a ticketable offense and therefore their insurance is going to pay to fix my car.
Whereas if they're talking on a cellphone and there's no law banning it then I have to prove they couldn't drive before I get my insurance money.
Driving isn't a right but it's treated like one so very little is done, imo, to remove bad drivers from the road and for good if need be.
For those that say you need a car to have a job and live all I gotta say is people, like the woman you mentioned, should have thought about that. The thing is though she doesn't have to think about it because her licence won't be taken away.
Should we continue legislation that bars all these specific acts, or should we simply have a law that says, "people doing things that obstruct their driving ability will be ticketed".
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and California -- all states with currently enacted roadway text bans. Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted
if your comparing COLLISIONS of 100 insured vehicles per year wouldn't the crash rate be 100%? I'm assuming they mean numbers of collisions per 100 vehicles. Even so don't you think 100 is to small a sample size when there's tens of millions of vehicles in those areas? I really don't think 100 vehicles is enough to prove anything at all.
Replace the steering wheel airbag in her car with a 6 inch metal spike, and the problem will fix itself with the next totalled car. :)
Could it be that bad driving causes crashes? So, eliminating cell phone usage results in people still being bad drivers? Or how about a correlation between people more likely to obey laws and those that are good drivers? Enacting a prohibition might make the better drivers less distracted, but leave the bad drivers still bad drivers and still talking on their cell phones.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
car analogy anybody?
Smoking doesn't cause cancer
Great, now that the bans have been proven ineffective our reasoning lawmakers will surely repeal the unnecessary bans on cell-phone use while driving, right? What? They won't?!
Let this be a lesson to everyone who has grand new ideas for how the government can interfere with our lives: Once something has been done, it is almost impossible to undo it.
I've not seen or heard of a single instance of this being enforced and have seen a few situations where law enforcement should have done something but didn't. I saw only one copy radio on the loud speaker to put the phone down.
there is little to no compliance so who could the ban be effective?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Hands-Free = Holding Phone Up to Ear
It doesn't matter if you're using a hands-free device or not. Drivers are still talking having conversations on the phone and failing to devote enough attention to driving. Here on Slashdot, I've seen numerous studies and anecdotes about phone conversations taking up more of a person’s attention than a normal person-to-person in-the-same-room (or car) conversation.
All the hands-free law does is force people who are too busy talking on their cell phone to start driving with two hands on the wheel instead of one.
You want to lower the accident rate caused by cell phones? Ban them. Completely.
Hahah....
+1 Funny.
For those that say you need a car to have a job and live all I gotta say is people, like the woman you mentioned, should have thought about that. The thing is though she doesn't have to think about it because her licence won't be taken away.
People like this woman will keep driving even after losing a license. They "need" to for blah, blah, blah.
There really is no rational remedy for habitual dangerous drivers in a car-centric society. We'd have to imprison them or roll out some universal means of preventing someone from driving a car without authorization (i.e. some kind of device in every car). Neither of those are practical, so we are left with moral suasion and the mayhem caused by people who are immune to it.
In Illinois enforcement of the seat belt law is a primary enforcement activity and the cops do pull people over for it.
I used to buy police cars from the county sheriff's department and I never got over how many people I would see reaching to put on their seatbelt when they saw my car coming down the street.
If I was a cop, I wouldn't have known they weren't wearing the seatbelt until they reached for it most of the time, so it was very amusing.
Putting moderation advice in your
Or they could crash while digging for that CD under the seat, or changing their talk radio station... Oh wait, radios were popularized before 1980, so they must not be evil like cell phones....
Passing a law that makes using a phone while driving is not likely to decrease the incidence of using a phone while driving,
What it is likely to cause to happen is people will tend to lie more to say they weren't using the phone while driving. So unless they have some method of spying on drivers to see what they're really doing, rather than relying on self-reports, the HLDI has no grounds to state "such laws have reduced hand-held phone use" or to draw any conclusions based on phone use from the study in TFA.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I would agree with you if we started treating stereo use while driving or having arguing kids in the back while driving the same as driving while intoxicated. To do one and not the other would just be a case of outlawing a technology because of it's year of popularization.
Treat her like they treat drunk driving in one of the south american countries, the cop shoots you on the spot! Okay, they probably don't really do that, but its a great way to solve the problem.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
If the laws aren't being enforced, then you can't tell if they're unnecessary or not.
Seems like old albert saw a pattern. "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." - Albert Einstein
Won't help. Chauffeurs are still people. What prevents them from wanting to use a phone while driving their socialites around?
Duh! It's chauffeurs all the way down. :)
No one is afraid of being caught, at least in Cali. Everyone who did, still does - have a phone in their hands, and I've never seen anyone pulled over for cell phone use. Enacting laws that are not enforced is the first step in enabling the sense of "I can get away with it". Be it jaywalking or littering, if there is a law, it should be enforced, and the fines should include the cost of enforcement. Ultimately if the required cost doesn't justify the subsequent fine, then the laws need to be changed to reflect that. If law is about order, then the laws we abide by must be enforceable.
Also, correlation is not causation!! This cannot be emphasized enough. Regardless of whether the science is sound or not, if their results are just at the "correlation" level, then they are NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC. These are guesses with numbers, which is far far far from any proof or truth.
Since there were no car crashes before the existence of cell phones, eliminating cell phone usage will completely eliminate car crashes. In other news, government prohibition of illegal drugs has completely eliminated drug abuse.
what a fucking crock of shit, i see people taking their eyes off the road to send txt messages all the time. without a hands free kit you've only got one hand on the wheel and 1/2 your focus on the road. any god damn fool can see how that will end in disaster.
you know what would actually see a reduction in crashes? more cops on the road since that visible presence is the biggest deterent there is. if you think there's a cop around every corner that will book you for speeding/DYI/txting a lot less people will risk it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I personally feel I should ask, how is that any different from any other distracted driving, if she was looking at the radio to change the station the accident would have happened as well, why is it somehow special that it is a cell phone, not the brats in the back seat, or the person next to you. I have seen people kissing while driving...that is even worse in my mind. But this girl definitely needs to lose the phone...as she puts it, she looks at the screen and often forgets she's even driving, maybe she needs something that blocks the cell phone from working in the car...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"Careful" using your cell phone while driving ... hmmmmm. That's like saying I'm careful with the women I sleep with. Are my chances any better in not getting an STD? Have you ever drove somewhere, and realized ... what happened the last 5 minutes? One could argue that those 5 minutes you were oblivious as well, regardless of sub-consciously being "safe and law abiding". I am not arguing that accident prone people are not in the numbers of people still using them while driving, but accident prone people are in fact that, with and/or without the cell phone.
Forget the "studies" that result in cute sound bites like "talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk". Let's look at some good, hard numbers: DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION DATA SUMMARY
The key info is on page 5. From January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002 in California, there were 491,083 accidents. Of those, cell phones were only considered a factor in 611 of them. That works out to about 0.1% of all accidents. Even if we (generously) assume such accidents are somehow under-reported by a factor of ten (which is extremely unlikely, since driver inattention was only considered a factor in 1% of all accidents in that time period), that's no more than 1% of all accidents. That's well within the margin of error for year to year fluctuations. There's no way a ban on cell phone use in cars could have any statistically significant effect on accident numbers.
"But, but, I've see people on cell phones who were bad drivers!" Yeah, and I've seen plenty of bad drivers who weren't on cell phones. Does cell phone usage cause bad driving? I don't know. Maybe bad drivers are more likely to use cell phones. But do cell phones cause accidents? The numbers just don't support that conclusion.
Does it really f-ing matter whether you cause an accident because you were distracted by (a) holding a cellphone to your ear, (b) talking hands-free, (c) talking to a passenger, (d) fighting to control your children, (e) being drunk into a stupor, (f) being sleep deprived to the point of being a zombie, or (g) just daydreaming?
In terms of basic culpability, the answer is NO, it doesn't matter. You still caused an accident, regardless what particular behavior distracted you in the first place. Must we actually have specific laws describing every specific behavior as "criminal", when (a) those behaviors are only PRECURSORS to an actual criminal act and not truly criminal themselves and (b) we already have laws to handle murder, maiming, vehicular manslaughter, etc.?
This is what our elected legislators do to justify their existence? I want back all my tax dollars that went into their pension fund.
I suspect that's because you don't get pulled over for it.
In my state it is supposedly a ticketable offense to drive in the left lane on multilane highways without intent to pass. So far, I know of only one person who ever got pulled over for it. Same with not using turn signals. Police on traffic patrol always go for the big fish revenue-wise when it comes to ticketing, and that has always been speeding. Pulling people over for presumably lesser revenue offenses means time wasted pursuing the bigger fish.
So pardon me if I treat the results with a little skepticism.
As Climategate showed, it's entirely possible to fix studies if enough pressure is applied to the peer review process. Has anyone looked into the studies "proving" that cellphone use and higher accident rates are highly correlative? It makes sense that they might be intuitively true, but some group of people that might be talking without a hands-free device are now using one. So, shouldn't that have had a positive effect on accidents, even if not all the people out there were following the law?
Dog is my co-pilot.
There would have had to have been an increase in accidents from such activities for banning them to have caused a reduction. If they were as dangerous as people make them out to be, accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, and I've seen no indication whatsoever that that is the case.
Just replace the airbag with a sharp metal spike. People will be MUCH more careful when driving.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
That actually has the sounds of a plausible plan. That means you can forget about it.
And progressive fines, instead of fixed, based on income. That levels it out fast. Here is one reference from a DUI in Norway: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=29&art_id=nw20090512162514776C217806&set_id=1
Eventually, this would culminate in banning manual vehicles on major highways in about 2050-2060
It will take away my livelihood but that's okay--in all probability I'll be quite dead by then. Maybe even retired.
This ain't rocket surgery.
I really enjoyed seeing an LA county sheriff deputy driving his cruiser and using his cellphone in Marina Del Rey this summer... Classic!
Now THAT would make most of it stop ultra-pronto.
Only the sociopathic rich, 'tards, and teenagers would do it.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Driving isn't a right but it's treated like one so very little is done, imo, to remove bad drivers from the road and for good if need be.
you're half right. Very little is done to remove bad drivers, but don't pay your child support or steal a tank of gasoline and you'll get your license revoked. Doesn't make sense, but how often do most laws?
Perhaps its just me, but it seems like a few people may have jumped the gun here. There is a major distinction between correlation and causation. More to the point, just because in x% of accidents a cell phone was involved does not in any way show that by removing that factor you're going to magically stop those accidents. I'd be willing to bet over half of all car accident victims listen to the radio, and yet I do not see any government banning their use in cars. ((yes this is a stretch, but it illustrates my point))
It's like saying capital punishment will eliminate those crimes. No, it won't.
Woosh
With the law, I have an excuse not to answer the phone in the car
The same excuse was available before the law.
True, but now it has more weight.
"Careful" using your cell phone while driving ... hmmmmm. That's like saying I'm careful with the women I sleep with.
Did you not see the part about pulling over off the freeway?
I think that when it all comes down to it, it will be found that for the most part, it is people who are irresponsible drivers to start with are the ones who are irresponsibly calling and texting on their cell phones.
Somewhat ironically (but I don't want to get into that), I think they will eventually find that although cell phone use and texting are related to accident rates, they are not a proximate cause.
And that also means that insurance companies will have to change the way the do some things. No longer will they be able to charge more just because one thing is correlated with another. They should have to show actual cause.
Obviousely Saskatchewan, Canada didnt see this study, because as of January 1st 2010 SGI (the provincial insurance company) put into effect a law against texting or talking on a cell phone with fines as high as $300 CDN and points taken off your license. And yet, I still see plenty of people texting or talking on the cell when driving.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
If police departments have to make money by ticketing people, I'd rather they do so by ticketing texters/talkers than by ticketing speeders. If only they'd do the former, and not the latter.
Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars
They are called trains, if you call the person driving for you part of the train.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Won't work - cell phones talk to the tower sometimes without having any user interaction at all. And what about the "I was scratching my ear" defense?
>People like this woman will keep driving even after losing a license. They "need" to for blah, blah, blah.
>There really is no rational remedy for habitual dangerous drivers in a car-centric society.
Where I live, if you prove to be a completely irresponsible driver, they take away your car, for 48 hours the first time, then for 3 months, then forever.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
OK,
I get the impression this study is flawed. Here's how:
It's data set is based on "Comparing insurance claims for crash damage..."
So the crash data would be mostly self reported. Now - before the ban - someone might report, "I was talking on my phone, and I hit the tree."
However, after the ban, they wouldn't admit doing anything illegal during the crash (since this could be a cause for non-payment) like talking on the phone, so they would be motivated not to report the phone call.
Some of you thought that there is a 'right' to drive. That is not a right found in the constitution. However, the federal & state governments do have the ability to: protect us from others, and protect us from ourselves. Just like they can require seat belt wearing in cars, and helmets for motorcyclists, they can proscribe what they deem to be safe practices while driving like: having a license, not being drunk, and not driving while distracted.
Just mandate a jammer in every brand new car and you're done.
Won't solve the bad drivers issue though.
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
It's like saying capital punishment will eliminate those crimes. No, it won't.
Of course it won't eliminate new people committing those crimes, although it might slow them down a bit. But being dead is certainly reduces the likelihood that the person will offend again, and is cheaper than sticking them in a jail cell for the rest of their life.
I'm not sure I agree with capital punishment, but the people who harp on about "it isn't a deterrent" are missing the point.
"shmG writes to share that according to a recent study on the impact of laws banning the use of cell phones during driving, there appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result. "
They're doing it wrong. When the car detects a phone in operation it should go into Drunk Driver Simulation mode. Causing them to wreck sooner is getting Darwin in there as fast as possible.
The real issue is enforcement. AFAIK, almost no effort has been made to actually enforce these laws. If they were to post cops watching for people on their phone during peak times to ticket them, then we'd start to see some change. Until then, a law that isn't enforced isn't going to have any real effect.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Banning phone use while driving just means the idiots who do it will start doing something else. Like brushing their teeth or watching tv or playing card games while driving.
Idiots
I'm a pilot. It's routine to be maneuvering in 3 dimensions while avoiding 5 or more other targets in close airspace while traveling well in advance of 100 MPH while engaging in a conversation with those 5 other targets, and while managing airspeed, pitch, engine power, trim, and yaw, in adverse wind conditions.
In these cases, I'm steering the yoke and controlling broadcast with one hand, the engine power, altimeter, trim, and radios with the other, while cross-controlling the plane with my feet. You thinking talking on the *phone* while steering an automatic is mentally challenging? Yet, somehow, flying a small, private plane like mine is roughly as safe as driving a car!
I'm not surprised that banning texting while driving hasn't reduced the death toll, because I'm aware of evidence indicating that the spread of cell phones have not increased the death toll. What baffles me is how many laws we all have to obey are passed based on such insubstantial information. I mean, who actually thought that banning cell calls and texting while driving would actually reduce the death toll, when there hasn't been an associated increase in the death toll with their use?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
The amazing thing is how many of us actually get the reference.
The best part is that somebody actually made a shirt.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Ahahahahah! By attaching laser beams to land mammals as well as sharks I have total coverage and surveillance of the US! Haha! Starting tonight I will zap out of existance anyone using a cell phone whilst driving, eating while driving, driving while tired, driving with any alcohol or drugs in their system etc! Ahahahahahahahahaha! I am thinking of the children! Ahahahahahahahahaha! Pretty soon all these dangers will be gone forever!
At that point, will the people who devise, enact and enforce these laws say "well, my work is done, better resign and stop wasting taxpayers money" or "crap, better hype up some new dangers to justify my phony baloney job"?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I've always thought that every car should come with exactly one missile. Since you only have one missile, you wouldn't just launch it willy-nilly. I bet the roads would get a lot safer really quickly.
Unfortunately, I think that would only lead to an increase in car sales.
Over the last 20 years, cell phones have gone from a novelty to ubiquitous, and traffic fatalities have gone from around 40,000 a year to.... what? 60,000? 80,000? Did all those terrible cell-phone talkers drive it up to 100,000?
Naw, its now about... 40,000.
Real suspicios that the people that talk on cell phones and crash are the same people that used to crash while talking to someone in the car, or adjusting the radio, or trying to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Confiscate the car, and make it illegal to sell/borrow a car to someone with no licence?
We'd have to imprison them or roll out some universal means of preventing someone from driving a car without authorization (i.e. some kind of device in every car). Neither of those are practical
In the UK, they're very happy to imprinson you for driving without a licence or driving while uninsured. As well, the US has the greatest prison population in the world. So, it would seem more practical than you make it sound. Popular, though, that's another story.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
you can. and it actually is easy. and it works in many countries all over the world already.
1. have a point system for more severe things. for example, passing a red light three times usually gets you past the threshold (you would also get rid of greedy companies operating cameras at red lights, but i'd call that a bonus);
2. make the point system count down - it supposedly is proved that such an approach is psychologically much more efficient (so if your limit is 20, it's not as threatening when you are at 15. if you have a credit of 20, 5 looks much worse);
3. make driving without licence a serious offense. lump of cash at first, then move upwards. i'd suggest jail time after 2nd or 3rd time, but not for usa... you already are pushing too many people for minor offenses in commercial prison system. bigger and bigger lumps of cash, followed by confiscating the car used might work.
4. done. that woman would have serious problems by now.
depending on seriousness of offense, fine tune points. use common sense. for example, here driver can get "bonus" points for passengers that have not fastened their seatbelts. helps to convince some.
5. problems with the system - badly chosen points, corrupt officials assigning them, corrupt officials taking bribes to reduce them. probably more, but all seem solvable.
Rich
People generally do what is in their own best interest, staying alive and avoiding a car accident is in everyone's best interest. Just like having a conversation with someone in the car, taking a drink of water, or changing the radio station. People will do these things when a great amount of focused attention is not necessary.
Capcha: Alpine - A good brand of car audio equipment.
I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but a Carnegie Mellon University study proved that ALL conversations, be it cell-phone or otherwise contribute to a 40% drop in attention (oh and radio too). So if we ban cell phones, we have to ban things like screaming babies, doggies, a hyper mother-in-law, and yes, the radio. This is just an effort to demonize the cell-phone. Sadly no this message is a very small tree falling in a VERY large forest, so none of this ever happened.
-S
This has little to do with her texting. It has to do with her decision to drive recklessly, where recklessness can be proven by the fact that she got into an accident. You are going to write bad laws if you attempt to define all the possible things that can distract a driver. (Driving with children. Driving a car that belongs to somebody else. Driving while sleepy. Driving in snow or rain.) All you need are the laws on the books.
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
If I am not texting and cell-phoning what about the other guy there is nothing said about the cause of accidents by other distracted drivers. I know that texting is dangerous...
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
There is no "right" to drive. It is a privilege. States have a "right" to enact laws for the common good. No one has to follow them. But, there are penalties for not doing so. Everyone is "free" to be a mindless idiot, but if caught they will be ticketed. The purpose is to make driving safe for everyone. Not every thing that makes driving unsafe is against the law, but IMHO, texting or cell phoning have become a problem that can not be ignored. If you want to be part of the problem, continue being stupid if you like! Otherwise, accept the need to limit what we do for the common good. The life you save could be yours? Please forget the macho BS. Few new laws are totally effective, but one has to start somewhere and then work toward the common goal which is making driving safe for everyone. If you are not mature enough to understand this, then you are too immature to deserve a license to drive.
This just proves that the study is inherently flawed, and therefore had a flawed conclusion.
More people have and are using cell phones and texting than 30 years ago.
More accidents have happened while people were texting or holding a cell phone.
Therefore, more accidents have happened because of the cell phone. Wrong.
How about this...
More cars come with leather seats now, where they may have had vinyl seats 30 years ago.
More accidents have happened while the driver was sitting in a leather seat.
Therefore, more accidents have happened because of leather seat. Wrong again.
This same argument could be applied to a whole bunch of unrelated facts. Maybe the reduction of cars being sold in "burnt orange" color has increased the number of accidents. Just like the presumption that red cars get more tickets, or owners of red cars drive faster, or.. or.. or.. or..
There was absolutely no reason to outlaw driving while holding a cell phone, or texting, or girls doing their makeup. These are already covered under "driving while distracted", or whatever it may be called in your jurisdiction. A cell phone conversation can be as heated as an in-person conversation in the car. It's all covered already. Lawmakers just like making new laws to cover previously covered ground. Everyone else loves jumping on it like it's something new and amazing.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I wouldn't want to ride in a car who's source code wasn't open to public review. Though, I would also want a company I trusted to certify it (and I would pay them to do it), so there is still a liability issue.
Their liability should be limited though. And that is an interesting legal question.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
So are they going to ban passengers in cars as well -- as you might carry on distracting conversations with people in the car -- or worse, since they are there, you might be more likely to actually try to *look* at them during the conversation -- or observe children or passengers in the rearview mirror.
Certainly if one insists on banning cell phone conversations, one should ban passengers as well unless they are separated by a soundproof barrier. Yeah -- this sounds real useful. People think cell phones are some bad thing but there's no reason why one can't use a cell phone and yet keep focus on the here and now -- on the road, but I'd go so far as to say it would take 'training'. However, most people don't even have proper training to drive properly.
For me, my attention is increased by anything that makes the task more interesting. That might be a cell phone. For me, inattention is bred by a lack of distractions -- pure sameness -- boredom -- brain tunes out. I can't imagine that it's not the same for many or most people, but I'm told that I'm not entirely normal in this regard, so I accept that my experience may not be everyone's. But this is why rules designed for the masses may not be best for individuals. Laws designed for the masses may increase problems for some individuals.
A parallel observation was made for many veteran pot smokers and driving. Those who were regular smokers didn't perform worse on driving tests. To the contrary, many drove *better*. That's why it's a _medicine_, though I don't think the DMV is quite up to speed on medical facts and applies Lowest Common Denominator rules to the masses that are drivers. Way too many of our laws are being crafted for LCD folks -- like Windows interfaces being designed for LCD users. It doesn't make for an optimal experience for many.
So any distraction can be bad for driving....but some distractions can be useful to improve and sharpen the concentration of some drivers (obviously there are different levels of distractions, where too high on the intensity scale becomes counter-productive).
The opposite of people's 'attention state', is the 'sleep state' -- lack of "arousal" or "stimulation" breeds a tendency toward sleep...So conversations...more research needs to be done to see why cell phones are supposedly more distracting that the host of things that can be done with live passengers (including unruly children).
Is it looking away from the the driving visual field to operate the device? Would a heads-up display would provide increased safety?
-l
The people I see talking & driving are all going 15 mph!
Just because you make a law, doesn't mean it will actually do anything at all.
Both the US and Canada have a boat load of laws that for all intents and purposes are not enforced, and that everyone ignores.
Sometimes this is because the law is old and archaic and no longer relevant, but ofttimes is is due to the law simply being unenforceable or the enforces of the law (police, courts) are unwilling (usually budget constraints) to enforce it.
In addition, even if you have both of those things working, if the response or punishment is so slight, and your chances of getting caught so great, then most people will just ignore it anyway.
What would be interesting is a study on since the law coming into effect, how many people have actually been charged, and what sort of legal decisions were made (fine etc...).
I would bet that the police could care less about this law, cannot be bothered to enforce it, and even if they did the fines are so low, that most people will just take there chances, and in the off chance they actually get caught, will just pay a small fine and call it the small price you pay for being able to do that activity.
Correlation != Causation.
This woman totaled 3 cars in 3 years because she's a bad driver and unaware of her limitations, not because there was a phone involved. Her dad uses his phone while driving as well, but near as I can determine, in the same 3 years has totaled zero cars.
Problem: You can't legislate good judgment.
Solution: Prohibit anything that could possibly be misused by someone with bad judgment?
/ There has to be a better way...
Are you arguing that texting wasn't the cause of this accident? 'Cause if you are, you'd better explain that to Tyler.
No, you can't legislate good judgment, but that doesn't mean we have to allow all kinds of bad judgment, either. Otherwise we should take the laws against reckless driving, speeding, driving while intoxicated, etc., off the books. Laws against driving while doing things that are known to be stupid are useful because they give society a way to punish (and hopefully inhibit) the violators short of letting them kill themselves.
Further, I'm going to go against the Slashdot Common Wisdom and claim that texting is in fact different from other kinds of distractions such as conversing with other people in the car, eating, changing the channel on the radio, etc. Texting takes more time, you frequently have to take your eyes off the road, you have to use your hands to do it, and you tend to spend more time doing it. So, yes, it's a special kind of distraction and one that's worthy of exceptional prohibition.
I'm arguing that bad judgment - in this case not recognizing when it's ACTUALLY not appropriate to use your phone - was the cause of this accident.
I know this is an unpopular perspective, but it doesn't make it wrong.
Laws against speeding and laws against driving while intoxicated are two very different things. The speed at which you drive is a RESULT of your judgment, while alcohol in your system CAUSES bad judgment.
Anecdotal example: I have been driving for 18 years, 14 of which I have carried a cell phone, 10 of which texting has been a commonplace form of communication, only 2 of which using my phone behind the wheel has been illegal (in my home state). Not once to date have I caused an accident, either as a result of my speed or of using my phone.
Have I driven fast? Yes. Have I used my phone to talk/text while driving? Extensively. But I have had the common sense to understand (a) when I need to keep my speed down to be safe, and (b) when I need to ignore that incoming call because shifting my focus from the road/car to the phone would put me and/or others in danger.
Further, as I have gotten older I've recognized that my reflexes aren't what they were at 17, and I drive slowly enough to stay ahead of the car. If and when I have a close call (admittedly, it happens), I learn and apply a lesson in preventing it next time.
So: is it right that, because people like this woman can't make a good judgment call, people like me and many others -- who clearly are able to drive and use a cell phone within the boundaries of safety -- are prohibited from doing so by a sweeping, generalized law that, with the ostensible aim of legislating good judgment, completely fails to factor judgment into the equation?