Slashdot Mirror
Smartphones More Dangerous Than Alcohol, When Driving
judgecorp writes "The Institute of Advanced Motorists in the UK has carried out live tests which prove that using smartphones impairs driving ability more than drug or alcohol use, making reaction times 37.6 percent slower (PDF). The result is a big concern since a quarter of drivers admit to sending texts from their phones while driving. 'Young people have grown up with smartphones and using them is part of everyday life. But more work needs to be done by the government and social network providers to show young people that they are risking their lives and the lives of others if they use their smartphones while driving.'"
More laws on the way - I can't wait
I don't stare at my beer or have a conversation with it. Drinking and driving is a minimal effort hobby.
I can text, check my Facebook, AND drive with no problems. I think I'm one of only about 20 world-wide that can do it.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
All driving is more dangerous in the UK, because they insist on driving on the wrong side of the road.
Every cop in US has been using their cell phones and laptops while driving and it has not been an issue at all.
Isn't using your phone in any fashion without a hands-free kit already illegal in the UK? If you must, enforce it.
Education does nothing. Young kids don't really care if what they do is dangerous, in fact, thats often why they do it.
Easy solution -- don't smartphones drive.
Until they get a bit smarter, at least...
While what happened in this story is tragic, she knew the consequences. I don't agree with the parent's response of lobbying for new laws, either- theft is illegal, but that doesn't mean people don't steal.
Siri, how close is the nearest hospital? Is it too far to walk there with one leg broken from a car accident?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Does this risk change if you consider a sufficiently long period of time? Presumably for a given trip you spend more time intoxicated than you do checking or responding to a message on your phone.
... which prove that ...
Hasn't Mythbusters already covered this? Hasn't "common sense" already covered this? And what in the world is an "Advanced Motorist?"
Stop the planet, I want to disembark, thanks!
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
How about for non-smart phone users?
Does it help if you don't have to hold the phone with both hands to type?
The Mythbusters showed that years ago. It was actually quite shocking how similar the test results were between someone who was substantially drunk and someone just talking on the phone (got even worse when they were texting).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've on occasion attempted to text while driving. Yes, I know, bad me, but unlike others I do realize how terribly risky it is. So I only do it at red lights now. However there are a few things that make it even more tempting to do while in motion:
Swype keyboard (and others) - with decent enough recognition, you can almost thumb-swype a whole message without looking. Corrections are a pain though.
Dictation (Siri, Evi, and speech-to-text) - actually works quite well.
But they all take more concentration from the road than they should.
I think combining a HUD with dictation might just be the way of the future. We need to get these systems developed and studied before we blanket-ban messaging and driving.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I've heard that it is or was common for Japanese domestic cars to have TVs installed. It seemed strange to me when I heard about it, because I certainly couldn't keep attention to both a TV screen and the road. On the other hand it would probably be easier to regulate attention to that versus a phone conversation where I'm actually pressured to perform two tasks at the same time.
Emotions! In your brain!
Why the focus solely on young people? I see plenty of so-called "adults" that are texting and jabbering incessantly behind the wheel.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And similar to having a drunk person on the road, the consequences often end up ruining the lives of people who were not making the horrendously bad decision. The problem, of course, is proving it when something bad hasn't happened. This is why so many people get away with sending text messages while driving, because they don't get caught doing it. Unfortunately it gives them the false belief that they can do that safely.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I predict that factors like this will be the impetus for society ultimately being OK with switching over to computer driven vehicles. Not saying that's good or bad, just predicting.
...so let's enact laws that reflect the serious danger of driving while texting. Penalties similar to DWI infractions, for starters. Then, while we're at it, let's also deal with other at-the-wheel distractions, like eating, smoking, applying makeup, and yelling at your kids. No... I am quite serious.
They need a "Texting 101" class in school, so that students can get properly up-to-speed on texting at a young age, and by the time they can drive it only impedes their reaction times by "only" 20% or so.
This sort of testing is unrealistic. If I'm texting while stopped at a 90-second traffic light, I can stop texting when the light changes. A drunk driver stays drunk.
You can put down a cell phone; But you can't stop being drunk...
You always see these single-study reports to get everyone to panic about this "horrible epidemic" just before the powers-that-be attempt to pass some draconian restriction which will stop everyone from doing something just because a stupid minority.
A few years from now, after the legislation has been passed in a panic, more studies will then find that the problem really wasn't that bad and other solutions would be better at solving the real problem without restricting everyone's activities. Ah! Too late, the law was already passed.
Panic early and often, then they can control you.
A little smart phone is probably worse than a little alcohol.
Maybe a heap of smart phone is still worse than a heap of alcohol.
I doubt that a whole whopping bunch of smart phone is proportionately worse than a whole whopping bunch of alcohol.
Though, I could be wrong.
In other words, I'm safer driving drunk than all those teens texting on the road. Hooray!
It's hard to hit them with a baseball bat and drive at the same time. You can't really hit them with a smartphone.
If you are talking/texting you can always put down the phone it you encounter a difficult situation.
If you are drunk, you can't just stop being drunk just because you want to.
Why not just disable sending and receiving messages while the phone is moving over a specified speed? The phone alerts you to the call or text but you can't view the text or answer the call until you pull over. Why is it that people seem to think that a phone call can't wait a few minutes? Make 911 / 999 calls exempt.
Why not just engineer cars to be natural Faraday cages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
Apparently you are new here or haven't read any of the previously posted research indicating that 'mere' phone conversation during driving renders one as dangerous, due to decreased reaction time, at the wheel of a vehicle as the average drunk. There's no need to approach the keyboard, at all. Just dial-a-distraction and engage in conversation with someone who's not (all) there (either).
I wonder when researchers will establish the coefficient of distraction we can use to calculate the inverse relationship between the 'smartness' of the phone and the intelligence of its user, behind or in front of the wheel?
This is BS. I'm posting this from my mobile phone while speeding down the freeway at 80 mph, and look no problems whatsoev (*&$&*# NO CARRIER
...since I use it extensively as a GPS/navigation aid, as do many other people. It allows me to focus on the road more when I am driving in unfamiliar places.
For many, it is also a music player (which has been a standard component in cars for decades). I doubt that hitting a "play" button to launch a playlist with thousands of songs *once* provides more distraction than going through a CD wallet every hour.
On the other hand, SMS messaging has been present on pretty much cell phones since the beginning, and you could access the WAP web over GPRS from an old Siemens over a decade ago.
My point is that many people use smartphones in a car in a way that doesn't make their driving any more dangerous, whereas you could use an old phone in a way that does. Don't blame the device, blame the activity (e.g. communicating by text while driving). While the article actually delivers this point, the title of the article (and the post) does not. The title should have been Using social networks while driving is more dangerous than alcohol.
Stuff which distracts a driver's attention could be dangerous?
Now there's a surprise!!!
People will attempt to perform all kinds of additional activities while driving. I've seen folks reading paperback books, eating cereal (from a large bowl), applying makeup, and even shave--all while "driving."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E
Then again, what teen watches TV anymore?
Silence is a state of mime.
If you are talking/texting you can always put down the phone it you encounter a difficult situation. If you are drunk, you can't just stop being drunk just because you want to.
RTFA. You are the cause of the "difficult situation" you're not trying to avoid someone else who's texting while driving.
Can't folks find the OFF switch or AIRCRAFT MODE or just lock the damned phone in the boot (aka trunk) of the car. You can update FB when you get to a rest area and not while you're driving.
I don't have this problem for two reasons: 1. I'm that stupid fella on the bicycle that you're just about to attempt to kill and 2. I don't have or need a smartphone.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
I wouldn't go so far as to say smart phones are making people stupider, but they do seem to make the stupid ones stand out.
Just today, as I was heading over to the store to get lunch in the City, I watched as some idiot rollerbladed in front of me on the sidewalk while reading something on his blackberry. The mind reels.
That's why they invented software like Vlingo for smartphones! and Bluetooth headsets for talking. A Smartphone is only as smart as the person using it.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
When I drive, or more correctly ride, I answer phone calls all the time with the hands free Bluetooth system built into my motorcycle helmet (Don't even take my hands off the handle bars, Phone tells me who's calling in a robotic voice and I just have to say answer or ignore) I don't find that the "Added distraction" of having to talk while on the bike is any worse than having a passenger in a car, and even less than having someone on the back of the bike. So, where are we going with this? Are we going to say that since passengers are distracting all drivers must be locked in the driving cone of silence with there eyes pried open so they can't blink. It's call acceptable risk, when you get behind the wheel of a car, in the passenger seat, or on a motorcycle you are choosing to gamble that you have higher odds you will arrive safely at your destination than not. But it's still a gamble. We will never make cars 100% safe and I still think the most dangerous thing on the road is some wanker who can't bother to check his mirrors before changing lanes.
I believe you have, misplaced a comma.
When I was in High School (30+) years ago, Drivers Education spent a lot of time going over police video/film from accident scenes. Un-cut. All the gruesome results in brilliant full color. Most of us learned that 4000+ pounds of steel and glass + high velocity + inattention = gruesome consequences.
Those reels should be mandatory for every driver. Not everyone will "get it", but enough will.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Very irresponsible, implying that a slower reaction time means a worse driver.
Plenty of older folks have very poor reaction times (and I'm not talking senile oldies), and almost all young folks have great reaction times. Clearly, a lot of practice and knowledge and judgment goes into driving.
Alcohol impairs much more than just reaction times. Alcohol can't be switched off.
Here's a story:
"The other day when driving home, I was drunk as all hell, but there was hardly any other traffic around. But when I hit I-225, the traffic was suddenly jam packed and hectic, so I suddenly cancelled my drunkenness instantly for the duration of that road."
Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense. But the actual version of that story, with a phone, fucking does. If I have to text (or talk) while driving, you can bet I'm in the right lane during that part with a great following distance and good future knowledge of what's going on. If shit is buzzing around me or there's some motorcycle doing some crazy shit, I'm not going to let myself get distracted. But if you get behind the wheel wasted, you've accepted limits on your peak and average levels of performance over the whole drive. It's a completely different pickle.
Apparently you're new here too; like I replied to the other person, this means nothing. All distractions are dangerous; but how dangerous are they? The GP asked about "Risk Change", not "Is this 'dangerous'?"; since that has such an obvious answer.
Simply remembering that I replied this way to your message may be a distraction to your driving tomorrow. Does that mean I'm a danger to your driving, and that you should be fined £50 for thinking of me?
Or should this only apply to smoking? Or to eating? Or for having passengers? Or singing to yourself? Do you see my point?
Accident statistics in the U.S. do not seem to support the supposed danger of driving while talking on cell phones. During the period when cell phones became wildly popular here, the automobile accident rate has dropped sharply. According to the Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/mmwr_achievements.html/ "From 2000 to 2009, while the number of vehicle miles traveled on the nation's roads increased by 8.5%, the death rate related to that travel declined from 14.9 per 100,000 population to 11.0 and the injury rate declined from 1,130 to 722." Yes, there were other factors, like seat belt laws, but if cell phones were such a major danger, it's hard to believe deaths could have fallen that much at the exact same time they became ubiquitous.
Yeah, because every time I text and drive, I always end up drive the wrong way on the freeway.
Show me the massive increase in accidents and fatalities that have come along with the massive increase in cell phone usage. Then I'll believe there's a real correlation. The results of a controlled test designed to yield a certain result isn't useful data.
Here's the fatality list through 2009. It shows steady decreases in fatalities per mile driven.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Of course, that's 3 years old now, but still... there's been an increase in cell phone use through 2009, so if using a cell phone is as dangerous as drunk driving, I'd expect to see a big increase in the fatality rate, not a decrease.
And here's another flawed study (2010)... http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx
They estimate that 25% of crashes involve the use of cell phones. Based on that, I would expect accident rates to increase (to a degree) along with cell phone usage. But they don't. Many states have banned cell phone use by drivers. In those states, shouldn't see a big decrease in accidents? Do we? I doubt it.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I'm currently posting this on my smartphone while driving. NO PROBLEMS! Perfectly safe, in fact I'm about to... >>>
Once, while sitting in line at a stop light just turned green, I noticed my young neighbor hadn't noticed the light change and was also texting. I tooted my horn and did a "wake-up/look ahead" gesture while mouthing "put the phone down". I'm not sure what she thought I said, but she chased me for miles and tried to run me off the road all while trying to take pictures of me and my car with her phone. You can't tell these kids anything. I would say let darwinism flesh these lunatics out if they didn't also endanger everyone on the road around them.
What you read
SMARTphones worse than alcohol
What the cops read
smartPHONES worse than alcohol
See the difference there? I do. The cops, on the other hand, are starved for funds. Why a cop fresh out of cop school can barely buy a decent four bedroom house or afford three cars AND a boat, let alone his donuts and sunglasses. The long time cops need to look out for their overblown pensions. They NEED more tickets and so every phone, even bluetooth headset phones, will be illegal. Soon if you get pulled over for not having your seat belt buckled, having dice in your mirror, or having dark skin, you can look forward to this exchange:
COP: "Can I see your phone?"
YOU: [GABBING PHONE FROM POCKET] "Sure, officer."
COP: "This phone is on. I'll have to write you a ticket."
YOU: "It was in my pocket. I wasn't using it."
COP: [SMILING] "The law is the law. You're can take it to court if you want."
YOU: [THINKING OF THE TIME OFF, THE MORE TIME OFF FROM POSTPONEMENTS, THE INEVITABLE DEFEAT AND HAVING TO PAY A LARGER FEE] "Thank you, officer."
COP: "Have a nice day."
Chocolate glazed for everyone!
I see a lot of complaints about books, but I want to see the studies about:
Reading books while driving.
Reading maps while driving.
Shaving while driving.
Eating while driving.
And, surprisingly enough, I'd love to see a study about Reading a map while taking notes on a notebook while driving a delivery truck. (Yes, I've seen this happen)
The thing is, yes using your phone actively while driving is dangerous, so are a million other things. What we need is rather than one at a time passing laws to limit each dangerous thing, is to start again requiring actual TESTING of people before we license them to drive. I mean when I got my first license I had to prove I could drive on actual roads with actual lights and traffic. I found out a few years ago, that where I live now does the driving test on a -closed- course. It made it very clear why no one out here knows how to act at a four way stop. We also need actual enforcement of traffic laws besides speeding. I mean my god, I've watched cops ignore cars in front of them making illegal u-turns on a RED light right in front of them. Not to mention law enforcement who apparently no longer obeys any traffic laws, so much for setting examples.
Old people have even slower reactions than even my drunk-off-my-ass self does. This is provably true, yet nobody talks about taking away their licenses, or vilifies the evil old people like they vilify the evil drunk drivers... not for any little bit of impaired slow reactions, anyway, not until they're really much too blind to drive safely.
You want to talk about peak and average performance? I'll stop being drunk in a few hours, but they'll never stop being old.
Sure the reaction time is delayed, but isn't patience increased?
Drunk people are speeding and flying down the road.
If you're posting on facebook then you're in no rush
I can text, check my Facebook, AND drive with no problems. I think I'm one of only about 20 world-wide that can do it.
Yo dawg, I heard you like crashing into things, so I put Angry Birds on your phone so you can crash into things while you crash into things.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I'm pretty sure staring at anything other then the road while driving is more dangerous then alcohol.
I've never been sympathetic to cell phone use (talking and texting) while driving because it's always been obvious that those people were far worse then you typical drunk driver. But yours is an important distinction. My pandora classical channel calms me down and makes me a safer driver. The navigation app keeps me from constantly taking my eyes off the road to review some hand written directions. A smart phone can be used responsibly, but at least half the people out there don't yet seem capable of it.
I don't think it's practical to legislate between the two types of use. We just need more of these studies to hammer it home to people so that they'll start changing their behavior on their own.
In fact I make sure the movie starts playing before I put the car in drive.
Everybody who does something else than drive while driving is an idiot.
Here in the Netherlands, just *holding* a phone will cost you 180 euros. I really do not understand why people think it is OK to text and drive.
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
I can now, in all good conscience, put down my smartphone and proudly pick up my beer again!
Science is useless in the hands of stupid people. Based on how many people use cell phones while driving. Compared to drunk driving. We should have hundreds of thousands dead from cell phones.
A much more likely scenario is that the prohibitionists have lowered the blood alcohol level for drunk driving so low that it doesn't really equate to drunkenness. And we are arresting people who pose no real risk.
Now get people drunk, really drunk. Not oops they had one glass of wine. Then do this test and you'll get a much different result.
But let's be honest. What this study really shows is every 3 months dumb fuctards will post this same baseless study and drive us insane.
We should run over those who resubmit this topic more than once a year.
This study compares the cases, it would be interesting to do the correlation with drunk people using smartphones!
Not so much.
Seat belt laws in the USA date from the 80's and 90's. In general, the effect they'd have had had already happened by 2000.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yes, "Smartphones" are more dangerous than alcohol when driving. Just owning a smartphone makes you a bad driver. Those evil smartphones! Ban them all!
If I have to text (or talk) while driving,[...]
You don't.
Course I do!
I suppose I could "choose" not to drive at all as well, for cleverly chosen values of "choose".
When I read these studies, I often wonder how many variations were tried. Usually some mention is made of "even hands free", but I suppose that means a set of earphones. The first time I ever tried to use a cell phone while driving, I immediately found that he voice dancing around my head as I moved my head around (looking various ways for turning, lane changing) was highly disorienting. I'm used to the person I'm talking to staying in one place. If I hold the phone still in front of my mouth while I talk, I don't have that problem.
Have they tested policemen and truckers using CB radios to see how distracted they are? What about a "hands free" set up where the voice of the person you're talking to comes through the radio speakers?
One thing I think is distracting that doesn't get much talk is the fact that the person you're talking to doesn't see the same thing you do. This means that when something drastic happens and you have to cut off the conversation for a few seconds, the person on the other end of the phone doesn't know why - so your tendency to be polite will cut into your tendency focus on the road when the need arises. You don't have this problem with someone the car with you- they saw the same thing you did and how you had to react. This might acount for a fraction of a second reduced reaction time. Odd as it sounds, perhaps a video and audio link would be safer than a audio-only link. Another advantage to a video link is that part of your brain wouldn't be occupied trying to imagine the other person.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
The Mythbusters proved that if you are forced to continue a conversation on a cell phone while driving through a test course, your driving skills would suffer. In real life, the experience would've went something like "Hey, I'm going to have to call you back. I'm going to be driving through an obstacle course. Bye."
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
1 - *I* don't drive and phone/text at the same time. Part of the reason is that it is illegal in my country.
2 - I am not denying the fact that using a smartphone is dangerous, I am questioning the fact that using a smartphone is more dangerous than being drunk.
3 - WTF are you doing on the motorway with your bicycle ? (in the article, none of the road sections tested look bicycle-friendly)
...looking at hot women, eating hamburgers, fiddling with GPS units, receiving oral sex, map reading, and shaving are even more dangerouser than smart phones. It's good to have scientific studies to confirm this stuff. Keeps those yahoos from spending as much of their time driving.
I had a nokia 3310 a sony ericson K750 and an HTC rose. I could call anyone with safety while driving
Now with touch interfaces (iphone/android) i have to stop by dial someone. you have to be completely distracted to operate touch-phones while keys in older phones could be pressed blindly...
I can't agree strongly enough with the statement that, if you're driving you shouldn't be doing anything else. I ride a bicycle frequently and if I get run over by a texting driver then I'm dead. If one of my two kids gets run over by a texting driver there won't be a straight-jacket strong enough. And police enforcement is a joke in the U.S. From what I have observed they'll run the occasional speed trap or alcohol enforcement exercise, but I see a lot less police presence on the roads these days and much more careless driving. I guess that cars have gotten so safe that law enforcement no longer need to do their job.
This is not quite a fair comparison. I know for a fact that I am perfectly capable of taking my allegedly smart phone with my in the car and keeping it in my pocket where it creates no distraction. On the other hand, if my BAC were .15 or somewhere near that range, I doubt that simply ignoring my drunkenness would allow me to maintain my ability to drive.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
I'd like to see driving bans for the first offense. Try riding the bus for three months as a reminder it is a privilege, not a right to be able to drive a car.
I have a better idea. Let's ban anyone from the country for 3 months who suggests that the right to drive to a "privilege." Sorry sheep, but your forefathers vehemently disagree with you that the government has any right to restrict travel.
And yes, not being able to drive is a HUGE travel restriction in most of the country.
If only we could keep those other people off of the road you and I can relax and sip our caramel machiatos while carrying on a text conversation about the mundane simpletons who could never have our intellectual capacity.
Here's a better idea: let's have smarter licencing of drivers, so that the majority of people on the road can now be counted on to have some modicum of driving skills. Let's then get in our cars, buckle our seat belts, and remember as well out onto the road that driving is a risk and is dangerous, and so conduct ourselves accordingly.
Why not reframe the question? If I where an operator of a gantry crane and you worked in very close proximity to me. Would you want me texting while I was moving two tons of metal near you? Would you not fire someone for being drunk while operating that same crane(instead of making them take classes)? Wouldn't you at least give the operator a tongue lashing for operating the crane unsafely, even when no-one was hurt?
Well that depends. Is it a fleet full of gantry cranes, sitting side by side, which people have no alternative to operating if they want to be able to live?
Cars are extremely dangerous, more dangerous than guns because people operate them very frequently and at least some people operate them with little or absolutely no thought of what is safe. I could spout a hundred anecdotes about how I and other operated cars in a manner that was unthinking and unsafe. It is a miracle that people don't die more often in car accidents.
It's a miracle, or its just your failure to understand risk?
What would you say about someone who brandished a handgun in order to get someone to get out of the way? Then think of the same thing the next time you or someone you know creeps up on a pedestrian in a crasswalk because the driver is in a hurry or just doesn't like being made to wait four second.
People feel bigger and more powerful when they drive a big and powerful vehicle, versus a person on foot.
In other news people feel bigger and more powerful when driving bigger cars than others around them. They also feel bigger and more powerful when they know the person they are intimidating is unable to "fight back", is at a disadvantage, or will never been seen again.
More details at 11.
The reason car driver's 'rights', which I can only assume you mean the 'right to drive fast and ignore proscribed procedures', are taken away is because people are stupid and ignorant and need to be told what to do because we are self-destructive by nature.
Our founding fathers would STRONGLY disagree with your line of "reasoning" here.
Especially when we get a little adrenaline rush from driving fast or narrowly avoiding an accident.
Right, because the adrenaline rush from narrowly avoiding an accident TOTALLY makes me want to go out and try to almost cause another one.
In this country, with the exception of high speed roads ("limited access highways"), bicycles are allowed on all roads. Drivers are supposed to pay attention and drive in a way that makes this a safe choice for the cyclists. Reality diverges from theory, of course, though it is one of those things were most people are great, another chunk is clueless but well-meaning, and then there's a small number of inconsiderate bozos who ruins it for everyone. I determined this experimentally with a rear-facing camera on one of my (bicycle) commutes; very many people would see me and take sensible steps before I was even aware of them (at quite some distance, true defensive driving).
How about providing a localised jamming field within the car whilst the car is in motion. That way you can pull over and get a signal if you need to and you won't be disturbed by shit when you're driving!
http://www.gibby.net.au
Unfortunately there is little or no effort in trying to actually reduce the laws out there, because there is so much revenue is finding Law Breakers.
Now you see exactly why studies like this are coming out. OMG, using a smart phone is 10x more dangerous than DRUNK DRIVING!!11 OMFG. This TOTALLY explains the enormous, previously unexplainable increase in traffic deaths since the iPhone was introduced in 2007. Right?
MORE LAWS NEEDED NOW! And of course, you won't mind paying for the extra cops, extra courts and judges, extra prisons, extra clerks and janitors, extra credit card machines, and other capital needed to establish an efficient system for extracting taxe....er, "fines" out of you and your fellow citizens's pockets.
First they came for the speeders, and I said nothing because I obey the speed limit....
And, yet, they keep pulling me over for drinking and driving, and never for talking/texting and driving.
Cops want more revenue. A system where those in power can use it to make more money? What could possibly go wrong