Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Goverment Shames Texting Drivers on Twitter (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the federal body tasked with automotive safety," reports the Verge, adding "If you look at NHTSA's Twitter feed right now, you'll find that it's just a non-stop stream of burns aimed at people who admit -- sometimes gleefully -- that they text and drive."
For example, seeing a tweet that read, "I have no problem texting while driving, but I won't text while going down stairs, the NHTSA replied "You might not have a problem with the texting & driving...but we do. Stay off your phone and #justdrive - it's not worth it." And seeing a tweet that read "I text and drive way too much," they responded, "Um, agreed... Please realize you're putting yourself and others in danger, and a silly text isn't worth it. #justdrive".
The Verge argues "For what it's worth, NHTSA is right: countless studies have linked texting in the driver's seat with higher accident rates... Getting shamed online by a government agency is far harsher than getting shamed by a friend -- but it's still a lot better than getting killed over an email." To which the NHTSA responded on Twitter, "Thanks for the shoutout, .@verge! #justdrive"
For example, seeing a tweet that read, "I have no problem texting while driving, but I won't text while going down stairs, the NHTSA replied "You might not have a problem with the texting & driving...but we do. Stay off your phone and #justdrive - it's not worth it." And seeing a tweet that read "I text and drive way too much," they responded, "Um, agreed... Please realize you're putting yourself and others in danger, and a silly text isn't worth it. #justdrive".
The Verge argues "For what it's worth, NHTSA is right: countless studies have linked texting in the driver's seat with higher accident rates... Getting shamed online by a government agency is far harsher than getting shamed by a friend -- but it's still a lot better than getting killed over an email." To which the NHTSA responded on Twitter, "Thanks for the shoutout, .@verge! #justdrive"
My ex-girlfriends shame me all the time on Twitter. Just not about texting and driving.
My dad was killed by a texting driver while he rode his bike. The whole thing was caught on his camera, and in the video from his rear-facing camera, you can even see, in crystal clear high definition, that the driver's head is looking down towards her lap the whole time.
She got a ticket for failure to yield right of way. That's it. No manslaughter despite her obvious negligence.
Shaming these morons isn't going to help. They won't stop until they either kill themselves or somebody else. I've given up counting the number of people I see dicking with their phones while they drive - even cops.
Autonomous cars can't get here soon enough. Human beings just aren't smart enough to be driving.
Make it at least as bad as DUI, or better yet... First time felony.
Both should be automatic felonies, with extended loss of license. We treat both as minor offenses in the US which is itself criminal.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I see it all too often. The car driving under the speed limit slowly drifting out of its lane is driven by someone chatting on their phone. The one below the speed limit weaving all over the place is a texter. Or very drunk. The person on their phone driving safely and consistently, well, they don't exist.
A friend moved from the US to the UK and joined the company I worked at (he wasnt a friend before that point) and he was astounded by how different the drink-drive culture is in the UK - over here, its universally accepted that its a very very very bad thing to do, to the point where very few people pressure you to "have a quick one" if you are driving, and drinking soft drinks on a night out is completely acceptable.
He was very approving of it, and said that it was unheard of from where he came from (California).
It's costs a lot of money to buy cars and destroy them.
Oh, I see, you didn't think that they let the car companies provide them test samples directly, did you? How silly. That's just an invitation to commit fraud by providing samples that don't match what is manufactured. That's why they buy cars from random dealers.
Legalize Mary Jane and put the people who text in prison. No loss for the companies who operate the prisons.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The person driving below the speed limit and slowly drifting out of their lane is chatting on their phone. The one driving below the speed limit and weaving all over the place is texting. Or very drunk.
It's not physically possible to drive safely while texting. Too much time with your eyes off the road, too much attention on the phone. The instant you start manipulating your phone, you change direction. It's physiological - you start to turn in the direction of your focus. It can't be avoided or safely corrected for.
I suspect tweeting and texting while driving will continue unless someone sues and wins a large judgement against cell phone manufacturers and/or automobile manufacturers for not implementing a "kill feature" while driving.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
So just like shooting at people, if you miss?
You should work on your understanding of this issue. Texting while driving is dangerous like drinking while driving. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't be allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk. This is not too difficult to understand. Do you perchance happen to text while driving, and are getting all defensive?
As a cyclist, not looking where you are going in a 2 tonne metal box is the same as shooting a gun randomly. You may not have hit anyone yet, but on a long enough timeline you or someone else will.
You are making a leap.
1. Saying you do something on Twitter as a confession
2. Assuming that that doing something equates to a potential loss of life
3. Punishing it as though it did cause loss of life.
But you don't know its a confession and not a troll.
You don't know whether it was done in a place that could cause potential loss of life, or is even illegal. It's perfectly legal to text and drive on your private road.
Likewise you're punitively punishing it based on your hyped view of the crime.
As the parent of a young child, it infuriates me when I see some mother with a kid in a car seat texting. I'm not even a fan of talking on my phone while driving.
I wish the penalties would be much more harsh. What is so important that it can't wait until the car is parked somewhere?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
> [...] "kill feature" while driving.
Now killing the driver (while effective) might be argued to be a bit... exagerated?
But hey, we might try and see.
I wish they would pull over texting drivers and then punch them in the face.
there is NO REASON.... to text while driving. NONE... and if you do it you deserve a punch in the face for risking others with your selfish behavior.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Legalize Mary Jane and put the people who text in prison."
Imagine the effect of this on culture. Prison novels and poetry will now have to be deciphered from text-speak, and at the same time will lack the fake profundity that such works traditionally get from drugs.
It's simple, really. UK learned through public education from sane groups of people that don't hate alcohol, they'd just rather you consume it without driving a car.
The US (and to a lesser extent, Canada) attempted to teach it through harsh sentencing, surveillance nets, and public education from temperance groups (and later, groups that don't advertise themselves as pro-temperance, but act so much like it the president quit for that reason alone).
Extremely harsh sentencing doesn't work for the death penalty, and it won't work for drunk driving. Surveillance doesn't seem to work either, though I think it's a byproduct of the next thing: Temperance groups telling you to drink less are laughed at.
The UK has reasonable drunk driving laws. There's attempts by the temperance groups to bring our laws down to "Not even one", or 0.03%. When you teach from such an outlandish position, your attempt at education has the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
Harsh punishments to laws, have less to do with justice then getting revenge.
Much like DUI, it will create a long court legal process for a mistake done by a person. With a good chance of finding a loophole to let the person go, and the court will normally allow this, because it is better off to let the guilty go free, then permanently harming an innocent man.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We need to make driving entirely voluntary (it isn't in most of the US) before we can legitimately remove someone's license.
I know that's an unpopular view, but you're literally destroying someone's ability to support themselves by banning them from driving in most of the US. That needs to change, the right way is to end bad zoning and to re-introduce public transport where possible, but until that's done (and we're nowhere near that) revoking driver's licenses is reprehensible and evil.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, you don't. You just don't realize how bad you're driving. Same goes with weed. I live in CO, and have met many people who claim they drive better while baked. Having witnessed them driving while baked, they really don't. Driving 20 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is actually quite dangerous contrary to what they seem to think.
5 furlongs per fortnight seems like a ridiculously low speed that may interfere with texting will sitting still.
"His name was James Damore."
D.A.M.M. - Drunks Against Mad Mothers
It helps that driving is entirely optional in the UK, which has an excellent transit system. As a result, driving is considered a luxury, and it's legitimate to crack down hard on people who drive badly.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And you should work on your understanding of the word draconian and the idea of apt punishment.
As it is, I've already seen drinking and driving go from a reasonable justification to get impaired drivers off the road to an ever increasing escalation of moral signaling that hasn't noticeably reduced the number of drinking and driving accidents, but has been a fucking goldmine for concerned citizens to keep upping the ante with legal limits and punishments and government involvement. You'd think offering free taxi service to and from any bar would be cheaper than locking people up, and would actually reduce the number of incidences, but no, instead we get people puffing out their chests and demanding even more stringent laws when their first round has been an absolute failure. Explain to me again how making texting and driving a felony actually reduces the number of instances? You can't because it is an idiotic way to approach this after the fact, when you are better served looking at prevention through better driver training and licensing requirements.
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back, making the drive home after a horrendous double shift, or infotainment systems in cars. Shouldn't these be felonies too? Why so selective in your pretentious march to keep the roads safe?
In addition to this, the US' culture is very much "It's only illegal if you get caught and the cops will do something about it". About -everything-.
If you tell someone they really shouldn't do something because it's dangerous/irresponsible, they'll blankly stare at you and go: "But...how will they ever catch me? I don't understand". No matter their age or what you're talking about. There's no critical thinking. It's just about scoring by sticking it to the man.
I mean, everywhere has a little of that, it's just human nature, but when I moved to the US, I was really amazed by how far they push it.
What about the passengers? Are they going to demand the driver go 5?
Public transport in most of the UK is terrible. Some cities, like inner London and Birmingham, are an exception, but for the most part a car is essential.
Drinking and driving became socially unacceptable here, much like smoking indoors has. It was down partly to some pretty shocking advertising on TV, and the potential repercussions of being caught (fine, points on licence, massively increase mandatory insurance costs).
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In Japan anywhere that serves alcohol must ask if there is designated driver and not serve them anything alcoholic. They usually ask that person to wear a pendant or something so it's really clear to all the staff. Serving the designated driver is an automatic loss of licence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Good to know you are so damn important that you can't wait a couple minutes until the next stoplight or pull over for a moment to check that SUPER important text message/email and write a response.
The practice of setting unrealistically low speed limits and being permissive with violators promotes a culture of scofflaws. Who knew?
if GPS.speed>5 then SMS.disable=true
Done.
You'd need a law enforcing that on all smartphones or no one would buy whatever brand pioneered it. Then of course people will just use custom or cracked operating systems to disable the feature or tamper with the GPS module - so you'll need another suite of laws to prosecute counterfeit devices and manufacturers. We'll need social campaigns to dissuade the use of these devices, organise stings against manufacturers and cracker networks, build a bureaucracy to define, audit, and enforce standards on the phone companys, etc. Oh, how the nanny state expands. Not quite as "done" as was anticipated was it? It would be humorous to watch this legislate-every-problem mentality destroy society if it wasn't so sad, and if my kids didn't have to live in the resultant mess.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
why would a text and driver buy a car or a cell phone that contained this feature?
Why doing half the job? Ban drivers and implement self-driving autonomous vehicles.
Achille Talon
Hop!
LMAO that's a good one.
Should talking to your passenger be a felony?
Adjusting the volume on the sound system?
Drinking coffee?
What is the burden of proof for a conviction? Are we going to make people hand over their phones for analysis?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The headline:
"U.S. Goverment Shames Texting Drivers on Twitter "
Is what should be shamed. Stare at it for a while, boys.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
And as a cyclist AND a motorcyclist, you are deluding yourself to think you have total 100% control over all situations. If someone flies around a corner from behind and hits you from behind, there are times where there is absolutely nothing you can do to influence the outcome. In my case, had a broken rib and collapsed lung. I did everything I was supposed to in order to protect myself and still nearly got killed.
I'm tired of this it's all our own personal responsibility fault bullshit. Personal responsibility and attention is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for me not getting killed on the road when I'm on two wheels. At the end of the day our safety is dependent upon others acting responsibly as well. We need everyone's cooperation and not text/drive, else it will just be chaos out there.
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back.
You don't have to see. The facts are completely independent of your willingness to educate yourself.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I wish more people would at least stop and think first.
In more and more cities, I'm seeing situations where a person is given a citation for "texting while driving" even though their vehicle is stopped at a red traffic light. These are often the folks who were trying to COMPLY with the law by not touching their phone until they knew they reached a red light, where it was finally safe to take a quick look at what was sent to them.
For example, in the DC metro area, we recently had a cop dressed up like a homeless person on the side of the road begging (except the sign he was holding explained that he was a law enforcement officer). He was handing out "texting while driving" tickets to people at the intersection, at the red light!
When I pointed this out to a girl I know who was ranting about the "need to lock people up and throw away the key" for texting while driving, she just shot back, "Good! The people using their phone while sitting in the car ANYPLACE should be punished! Anything to make us safer!" That's the mentality in America that always scares me.
Insurance companies should create a smartphone app that monitors whether you text while driving and gives a discount to drivers who don't.
Doesn't every phone have voice control these days?
Between Google Now, Siri, and Cortana everyone should easily be able to send off a text completely eyes-free via voice. I use Siri to do it and haven't had a problem dictating or hearing her read the incoming. It's built right into the vehicle's own CarPlay system.
To a great extent, due to stupid laws that make no sense (like the pointless war on drugs), many people now view laws as suggestions only.
Shaming is one thing but neither should be felonies. I don't approve of drunk driving or texting while driving but we do need to keep in mind that both are things which increase the probability you will do something bad, not something bad in their own right.
In most of the UK, a car isn't merely unessential, it's a liability, with no space on the roads and great difficulty parking it. On the odd occasion a city's bus system is subadequate, a bicycle is almost always a superior way to get around compared to a car.
British people bitch and moan about transit, sure. That's partially because it's transit, and like the weather, the post office, and TV, it's something everyone bitches and moans about regardless of quality; but it's also partially because that's what British people do, about everything.
I've only been in one place, a part of rural Wales, where a car was probably something you'd want, but even so I didn't need one, I used bicycles and rail and the occasional bus to get where I wanted to go.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you were a "field technician" you didn't receive any important messages. You are a TECHNICIAN. You are so full of yourself. Narscisstic asshole.
Me neither, I think people are blowing this way out of propo/#)/"!#))!=*{ NO CARRIER
Car driver here, but I completely agree. A few years ago, I was driving my wife, mother-in-law, and then-toddler son in our mini-van to a local computer store. As we passed through an intersection (which was green for us), I spotted a car turning from the other direction that was going to hit us. It was one of those "time slowing down" moments - I could see that the impact was going to happen, but had no options for preventing it. The guy hit us, our mini-van went careening across four lanes of (thankfully light) traffic on two wheels. We wound up facing the other way on the other side of the road. Somehow, we didn't hit into anyone else, flip over, or suffer any major injuries.
Nothing I could have done would have prevented this accident. The guy was turning illegally (he was in the wrong lane and had a red light for turning at the time) and simply didn't pay attention to where he was or who was coming in the other lane. I couldn't have avoided him and his careless actions could have resulted in me or my family suffering serious injuries or worse. When someone texts and drives, they are distracted from the road. Some people think "oh, it's only a second", but all it takes is one or two seconds of not looking at the road to cause a major accident. If a text is that important, find somewhere to stop and answer it. If it's not important enough to stop over, then it can wait until later.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This also doesn't help the case of "My wife is driving and I'm texting from the passenger seat to let X know we're running late." This use of texting isn't distracting to the driver (any more than normal conversation is and you can't ban talking to passengers while driving) but my phone would register "hit driving speed, shut down SMS."
Perhaps have a warning message pop up "Phone has detected that you are moving at X mph. This means you are likely in a motor vehicle. If you are the driver, please do not text and drive as this can cause a fatal accident. Press this button to verify that you are a passenger and not the driver." Then, have a button they can press to confirm. Make the phone record this action and, if an accident occurs because the driver confirmed it falsely, this would immediately be cause for license suspension (in addition to any other charges).
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
A lot of this texting and chatting would stop if the other person would cut off the conversation. I have this conversation all the time:
"Are you driving?". "Yes". "Call me back when you can talk"
I've had bosses carry on meetings while their subordinate was driving. I see that as criminally irresponsible behaviour. It should be prosecutable.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
It doesn't matter that I have links. Propaganda? Fed? You would discount anything shown to you because you're convinced that you already know the answer, and pretty damn emotional about it to boot.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I don't disagree that public transport is pretty bad in much of the UK (unless your baseline for calibration is the USA), but there are some important differences. Cities in the UK tend to interleave different property types. This means that most people live within easy walking distance of a pub (most villages collect around one and you'll find at least one in most residential areas of a city). In contrast, UC city designers like ensuring the places where people live and places where people want to be are as far apart as possible, so that it's basically impossible to get from home to a bar without driving.
As a knock-on effect from this, if you do need to get to the pub in a car and there aren't busses (and there often are in many cities, though they're not always convenient), a 10-15 minute ride in a taxi is pretty cheap. Most US cities sprawl so much that it's a 30-40 minute drive, which is a lot more expensive.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's actually impossible to focus your eyes on the screen right in front of your face and the road ahead, you are doing one or the other. The same true of your GPS but that you can glance at just like you would one of your mirrors. You can't do that with a text.
Getting to work on the bus would take my 1.5 hours, and there is no train. In the car it's 15 minutes. This is not unusual for the UK.
Cycling is okay when the weather is nice, but often during the colder months it would be unpleasant and dangerous. All year round, in many areas the roads are not safe for cyclists anyway.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well then educate yourself:
http://monash.edu/news/show/ch...
because this has been plainly obvious for some time now, but of course in your infinite wisdom have chosen to ignore.
Your freedom to make decisions on your own ends when those decisions endanger innocent people around you who didn't consent to be hit by your car.
You certainly can contrive situations where that happens. They are relatively few and far between though. Most people who've told me that they just cannot live without their car in the UK have made a combination of certain choices, living far away from their employer because they have a car, and exaggeration of the circumstances they're currently in.
I've lived all over Britain, Oxford, Reading, Aylesbury (urgh), Norwich, Leeds, and Milford Haven (double urgh) to name a few. Only the latter I'd argue came close to US styles of mandatory driving. And even there driving was not mandatory. I didn't drive, I used a bicycle and the public transport that existed.
Coming to the US was an utter shock as a result. In most parts of the US, even a bicycle isn't going to get you very far. There are no urban centers, buildings are deliberately spaced far apart (imagine walking 1,000 feet and passing 5 stores. That's typical. The space in between? "Free" parking.)
In the US, not owning a car outside of a small number of decent cities means you're no longer able to support yourself. By all means tell me that your current job and current home means a car is more optimal, but tell me seriously that if you didn't have a car, you wouldn't be able to have a job capable of supporting yourself. That's not true for anyone in Britain. That's true for 90% of Americans.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I'm not seeing any correlation in the data
https://imgur.com/Ooa6Etr
Me neither, I think people are blowing this way out of propo/#)/"!#))!=*{ NO CARRIER
Grandpa! We've told you a thousand times. Don't try to log into IRC in the car. The TRS-80 doesn't fit in the front seat!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That way and silly laws exist(ed) in most first world countries that don't have that problem though.
Even if you don't actually look at the phone, you have to use your visual cortex to know where the keys are in relation to each other, and that's in addition to keeping track of the words that would be appearing on the screen in sentence order. That means less ability to process the visual information in front of you.
> you'll find that it's just a non-stop stream of burns ... "You might not have a problem with the texting & driving...but we do."
Oh, snap! Harsh!
Regardless, I agree with the sentiment. Each time you're stopped the punishment so double. First time $200, second $400, etc. with no cap. Will it stop the problem? Not entirely. But it'll get awfully expensive for the asshats who insist of sharing whatever the hell it is they're texting.
Bark less. Wag more.
I'm pretty sure you can find urban centers in the United States. There's absolutely no place inside the Chicago city limits that you can't get to on public transportation, and buildings are not deliberately spaced far apart.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm sick of you nanny-state SJWs who want to make the roads all "safe". Laws against texting while driving are censorship against my free speech. You're saying it's OK to be feminist while driving but not for me to text while driving. It's 1984 all over again.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A friend moved from the US to the UK and joined the company I worked at (he wasnt a friend before that point) and he was astounded by how different the drink-drive culture is in the UK - over here, its universally accepted that its a very very very bad thing to do, to the point where very few people pressure you to "have a quick one" if you are driving, and drinking soft drinks on a night out is completely acceptable.
He was very approving of it, and said that it was unheard of from where he came from (California).
Just for people who've never been to the UK, that's because the DUI penalties are an instant loss of license. The penalty for DUI is 1-3 years of license suspension and up to 2500 pounds in fines for your first offence, second offences within 10 years can get up to 5 years suspension and 5000 pounds in fines. Jail is also a real possibility for repeat offenders.
They really do take a hard line on drink driving over here, in Australia or the US, if you're caught just under the permitted BAC (Blood Alcohol Content, for the uninitiated) then you're fine, here courts are likely to treat that as DUI. If you get pinged for drink driving, you've got no chance of keeping your license.
The UK has the harshest drink driving rules I've seen outside of countries where alcohol is illegal.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Well the way car makers keep piling on new safety features like adaptive cruise control and lane assist and whatnot it seems the dominant strategy is to make it safer for you to text-while-driving.
Make it at least as bad as DUI, or better yet... First time felony. That'll help.
People are charged with DUI because they are incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle on the public highways, but drive anyway.
Treating a person that used their mobile phone in some specific way the same is pre-crime. There is no difference between someone causing an accident because they're distracted fiddling with the radio or arguing with their kids, than because their detracted by their cell phones. NONE.
So you create punishments for people because they actually caused a problem, not by calling out one specific activity that could be a distraction that could cause an accident.
No victim == No crime.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Knucklehead, the study you link to compares a toddler in the back seat to talking on a cell phone, not texting on a cell phone. See the headline on this story?
You can talk and keep your eyes on the road. You cannot text and keep your eyes on the road.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A large part of the problem is diverting attention from driving, which applies to yapping on the phone, fiddling with the stereo, eating, reading, swilling coffee, and quite a few other things some drivers do. But I've noticed that most of the horrible incidents in my corner of the world (yeah, no scientific data here) have accompanied looking down and texting or looking down at the stereo, etc. So at the expense of increasing texting, at least all of these diversions could use displays routed to the windscreen and buttons on the steering wheel. Perhaps sensors could blank the display when obstacles appear nearby or closing speed becomes important. People are apparently NOT going to stop messing with other things while driving.
I take it you've never actually looked them up.
The UK has the harshest Drink Driving penalties in the western world.
Being caught with a breath test reading of 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 micrograms of breath (about 0.08 BAC) carries:
1) Mandatory 12 month driving suspension (minimum, could be up to 36 months).
2) Up to a 2500 pound fine (calculated according to your income).
3) 3 to 11 demerit points.
Repeat offenders can expect up to 5 years suspension, 5000 pounds in fines and up to 6 months in prison. More over, you can be charged with drink driving even if you blow just under the limit.
These penalties are far harsher than any others I've seen, especially compared to Australia or the US.
In the UK these penalties work because they're enforced and we have decent public transport options (erm... not to mention there's a pub on every street corner, so you dont have to go far to get rat faced if you dont want to). It's just not worth the risk to drink and drive... nor do you really need to.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
All year round, in many areas the roads are not safe for cyclists anyway.
From what I've seen here in London, cyclists are not safe for the roads the year round. I dont know what it is about Lycra that makes people feel invincible around 2 ton hulking death machines.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Those situations are *not* few and far between tho - I learned to drive at the grand old age of 27 precisely because the UK rail network was utter shite, and I was using it a lot at that point.
It was more often than not that between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham New Street, the train was so packed you could not find a seat, and standing room was all the way down the car aisles - this was the norm. On more than a few occasions the train manager refused to leave Bristol Temple Meads until some people got off the train, as it was so crowded - with no alternative transport, and no guarantee the next train might not also be as crowded...
I live in Norwich, which has a relatively good bus network. To get from my house to Norwich hospital takes one change and about an hour travel time in total - by car it takes 10 minutes.
Public transport in the UK is abysmal.
Seems like a decent suggestion, though I'm already pretty sick of car GPSs making me push an acknowledge button (to the danger of being distracted) every time I start the car before I can see directions, regardless of whether I'm driving or not. Perhaps the phone could sense where in the car it's located with NFC or something involving a transmitter in/near the steering wheel.
If the government does something "harsh" to a citizen, that's a punishment. The problem here isn't that the harsh action is shaming, it's that it happens without due process. That's particularly bad because if the NHTSA gets it wrong, unlike a private party that you can sue for damages, you have no remedies against the federal government.
You cannot text and keep your eyes on the road.
"The researchers, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) found the average parent takes their eyes off the road for three minutes and 22 seconds during a 16-minute trip.
I know you've been working on your comprehension skills, but there is still room for improvement.
Oh, and the headline reads: Children more distracting than mobile phones.
That would be a sensible solution, but unfortunately doesn't help with the legality; legally, being stopped at a stop sign is driving, as is pulling over with the motor running. Furthermore, at least in the US, on highways, the places where you can legally "pull over" when there is no emergency are far and few between.
The "no texting" laws are not sensible in another way, since "texting" can mean many things. With mobile text apps, people can "text" hands-free, or they can simply push one of four response buttons, which is probably less distracting than changing channels on a car radio. On the other hand, "no texting" laws often don't cover other activities where people are distracted because they enter text manually into devices (or put on makeup, brush their teeth, play with their infant, etc.).
You should respect no-texting laws. Nevertheless, those laws are generally poorly thought out and poorly written. There are probably better ways of reducing fatality rates from distracted driving.
You should work on your understanding of this issue. Texting while driving is dangerous like drinking while driving. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't be allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk. This is not too difficult to understand. Do you perchance happen to text while driving, and are getting all defensive?
No, it's nothing like "drinking while driving" (intoxicated driving). If you are incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, you're simply incapable of operating a vehicle safely. No matter what. Getting behind the wheel at all is endangering yourself and others.
When we talk about texting while driving, we are simply referring to a specific kind of distraction. There are many others. Fighting kids, eating in the car, playing with the radio (or "in-car entertainment center"), hunting through the console, putting on makeup, eating, talking on the phone (yes, even hands free), being sleepy.
In fact, drowsy driving is just as dangerous and causes as many highway deaths as drunk driving. Far worse than the specific type of distraction called "texting".
If you're stopped waiting for a stop light, you can whip off a quick text "Driving right now - will respond later". Perfectly safe, and perfectly legal even in jurisdictions where non-verbal mobile phone use (texting) has been outlawed. Nothing like drunk driving - if if you manage to stop at the stop light, it's still not safe for you to be driving.
The whole issue is just another instance of wanting to punish everyone because some people are irresponsible with things. People that allow distractions to interfere with their driving will find another distraction. But people that can use their phones safely while never being in danger of a distracted accident are punished.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
We need to make driving entirely voluntary (it isn't in most of the US) before we can legitimately remove someone's license.
Texting - and drinking - are 100% voluntary. People who take their driving sufficiently seriously do not engage in either when they are driving.
I know that's an unpopular view, but you're literally destroying someone's ability to support themselves by banning them from driving in most of the US
They made a terrible choice. They need to face the consequences of that terrible choice. They could have chosen to not do this terrible thing. Nobody forced them to do this.
revoking driver's licenses is reprehensible and evil.
Not when the holder of said license is showing complete disregard for public safety. They do not deserve the privilege of driving when they do that. They chose to be irresponsible, with that choice comes consequences.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I just left the US after two years there and had the same astonishment from the other side. I'm from Australia where, like the UK, it is massively socially unacceptable.
Within weeks of being in the US we found a lot of people in our new social circles would think nothing of getting in the car after an extended drinking session. It was staggeringly common.
Took me a while to understand that they don't have random breath testing like they do in Australia (and I assume the UK). At least in the state I was in (Ohio), the police had to publicly announce where they would be setting up to do their "random" testing for drunk drivers. I think I saw two or three of these announcements in the two years I was there.
The risk of getting caught is so close to zero that people don't even think about it.
This is because of some Constitutional thing (4A IIRC?). It seems to make sense in the scope of the Constitution but the practical effects I think are pretty serious (e.g., the fatality rate for a lot of the states that I was in around the midwest was quite a bit higher than it was in Australia.
Friends from other states told me that Ohio was actually pretty good compared to some of the neighbouring states in terms of their attempts to enforce it. - a quick search indicates that it's 5.4 deaths / 100k population in Australia, vs 8.7 in Ohio - but Kentucky is 15.2 and Tennessee is 14.7!
I'm not just talking about your eyes, I'm talking about your attention.
Granted all things are not equal, there is a huge difference between the cruise of a long haul interstate drive and in city traffic but in city traffic requires a driver to actually have all their vision and focus on the road and mirrors it also requires both hands on the wheel, or at least free to grab without pause.
If you are texting you are unlikely to even notice something that would take a fast two hand reaction to resolve before it's too late. You spend less time on your decision making for actions like switching lanes. You spend less time checking indicators like the speedometer and that reduced time to check everything adjusts the speed at which you want everything coming at you so you tend to slow down like a drunk driver. There is also a dramatic difference between focusing on an unrelated to task and switching between the many tasks involved in driving.
Here in the US where we all drive on a daily basis we tend to forget how much is actually involved because we do most of what it takes to drive automatically and without conscious thought. Because of the tax all being reflexive and automatic it feels incredibly easy leading us to believe that adding on other tasks is likewise easy. But make no mistake, your driving is impaired if the radio is loud vs quiet. Your driving is impaired if you are eating a cheeseburger, and your driving is far far more impaired if you are texting vs those things.
God, you're a dumbshit. You're still trying to prove having a toddler in the backseat is more distracting than texting on a cell phone by citing an article that claims toddlers are more distracting than talking on a cell phone.
Here's the first paragraph from the article you cite:
You are welcome on my lawn.
Cops have normally 2 phones, laptop and a radio. They will be looking up information while driving, calling other officers about issues and incidents, and talking on the radio. They are multitasking WAY too much in the car.
The average person will most likely use bluetooth or have a car read texts now, so the issue is going away. But not for police.
So you want to give a felony to citizen drivers but allow cops to text. Thats interesting.
In many places, it's illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalks. You _have_ to share the road, unfortunately.
It helps that driving is entirely optional in the UK, which has an excellent transit system. As a result, driving is considered a luxury, and it's legitimate to crack down hard on people who drive badly.
Driving in Canada isn't a luxury, and there's even more distance between major metro centres or even basic cities then there is in the US. But we don't have the same problem with drinking and driving that Americans do, and it has to do with the change that not only Canada went through legally in the 1980's, see charter of rights and freedoms and that R.I.D.E. programs(DUI checkpoints) are considered a charter violation, but one that's acceptable as long as it isn't abused. The other was massive campaigns against making it a social stigma, plus other laws making it an offence and the server being culpable for the state of the person driving the vehicle in the event of DUI related crime. As well as in the cases of house parties, where the homeowner/person throwing the party are culpable for their guests as well.
Though you get out into prairies(Alberta and Saskatchewan) or the east coast(varies heavily), and you start to run into this and the vast majority of these cases fall into two areas: Either natives being absolutely shitfaced and making a run to buy more booze, or the people being absolutely shit poor and doing the same thing.
Om, nomnomnom...
But i was just a passenger.
Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they also don't have an understanding.
It just means they disagree with you.
I don't even understand why we need texting laws for the road. We've had "don't drive distracted" laws for decades... People are just really really stupid.
We have really moved away from the "not your child" thing. For better or worse, that's how it is. Initially it was people who were legitimately abusing their child. Now? I see articles about people getting arrested for letting their kid play in a nearby playground (visible but maybe 500 feet away, if I had to guess based on the picture in the last article I saw) and having their kid taken away.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I could, but I don't. I suspect in reality you've been guilty of this before as well (since nearly everyone has), I just have the courage to admit it. It's ok, anonymous coward, we understand. Everyone is still doing this. Everyone. Look at your own stats. Your stupid law has done nothing for this problem other than make it worse. Crotch watching is far more dangerous than using your phone freely. So the next time you get the urge to meet reality with an idiotic emotional response and pointless law, try critical thought... It might just work out better. And please, pass it along.
OK, I'll post as something other than AC. You're wrong saying "Everyone is still doing this."
I've texted while driving before, but it was never a routine thing. I stopped completely after my cousin was killed by some asshat who didn't see the red light. It's been more than 5 years since I, or anyone in immediate family, texted while driving.
In a different incident, my dad's friend and colleague spent a full year in the hospital because another asshat ran a stop sign while texting.
Now I find myself trying to very discreetly answer something important in a way that requires my eyes to be off the road. Much more dangerous.
Yet you continue to do what, by your own admission, is dangerous.
I have lots of choice words for you that I'll keep to myself, because they won't sink in. Let me say this instead: I sincerely hope you never have to get the call my cousin's parents got, or the visit from police with their heads lowered that his wife got. I also hope that you are never the person who drifts out of your lane, fails to see the red light, or the bicycle on the shoulder, or the pedestrian stepping out from behind cars.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
I can't text nearly fast enough to get off six words while the light is red. It's also illegal around here, which I'm dubious about.
However, we're getting a lot of people who are actively driving while testing, and they're plenty dangerous. If you're sleepy or drunk or have a toddler in back or are talking on the phone, you can at least keep your eyes outside the car and see where you're going.
Disclaimer: I am taking this personally. My sister-in-law was taking my brother home from surgery when a texting driver hit them and totaled their car. Fortunately, neither my brother nor his wife were hurt (I have problems caring about the texting driver), but it could have been a lot worse.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I've made mistakes on the road before, and had accidents (the ones that were my fault had no injuries, fortunately). I've driven when I was tired or otherwise below normal functioning. I do not, repeat not, text while driving. There's a difference between accepting risk and deliberately doing something unsafe.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Don't shame people for texting while driving.
Take away their driver's license for one year, sell their car at auction (with no proceeds back to them), and confiscate their cellphone.
Problem solved.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There are many different kinds of attention and varied degrees to maintain for a modicum of safety to be had. Absolute safe means I get to kick you off the road. We'll never have absolute safety.
I did drive drunk - for a very, very long time. I've never caused an accident and I have no moving violations on my record for well over 30 years. I don't drink any more but I was a functional alcoholic for years. Did you know that you can kind of see straight if you close one eye when you're seeing double? Did you know that it's really hard to do that for like 20 miles of rural driving? Yeah... I have no idea how I didn't hurt myself of someone else but I didn't. My bad, I've learned my mistake and don't do it anymore.
It gets worse...
I was a professional driver for a while. I'm an automotive enthusiast, I've taken somewhere close to 100 different driving courses (I'm not kidding or exaggerating), and I've actually traveled for the express purpose of driving certain roads and taking further instruction. Example: I spent almost two weeks in Germany, the first four days were in a classroom and then I had two days of driving lessons. Then, I spent the remainder of the time renting exotics and even paid for further instruction - to do laps on the Nurburgring. I also worked, quite specifically, in traffic modeling and that means a lot of attention to safety. I've driven on tracks and off-track. I've driven down highways and I've used block and tackle and worked my way to the top of a mountain and back down. And more... Much more...
So, I knew better. I still did it. Shit, I've driven with my knees so that I can snort a line of coke. Though, I'm not sure coke has much debilitating effect. It does increase your paranoia, however. So, it might lead you to make stupid choices that result in harming someone else.
We're also not really allowed to do much testing. We can't just get people trashed and let them drive around a closed course or anything. It's not allowed and it's illegal to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated - even if on private property or in a closed environment. So, we use simulators and I've driven a bunch of simulators and they're not very realistic. I kind of miss getting drunk and driving in snowstorms but it's actually a pretty stupid thing to do.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If you eat tons of junk food and becoming obese, that's primarily your problem. It may raise my insurance rates or taxes a hair, but I really don't care, and really don't want to have the government butting in on stuff you do to yourself that's stupid and self-destructive.
If you drive somewhere and deliberately engage in behavior known to be unsafe, you're endangering others, and that's where government can reasonably step in.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In the US it varies state to state (because, of course it does). It's not uncommon for blowing 0.08 (the first time) to result in:
$10,000+ of fines/court costs/legal fees
1 year of no license (once out of prison)
24 hours (til you sober up) to 1 year in jail.
Plus your insurance rates skyrocket, job applications often ask if you've ever received a DUI, etc.
You can even get a DUI if the car is on, but in park and you're not driving. Say, if your friends left your passed out ass in car (with the AC/heat on) while they went into a restaurant to get food.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Please. In the US, on the first DUI you lose your license... after you get out of jail. And you're spending $10,000. And that's the first offense. They'll put in interlock in your car (a breathalyzer in the ignition system) if it happens more than once (at your expense). The US has crazy harsh drunk driving laws (it used to not have them, in the 70's. But they've changed)
Well, that sounds fucking horrible. There's a posted BAC. I can measure my BAC as determine if it is legal for me to drive. If there's a posted BAC, but it means nothing, than... why post it?
Although, in the US they legally can claim you were driving drunk at a lower BAC, if erratic. It's just that that BAC is prima facia evidence you were driving drunk.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This is only tangentially related. You have a slew of people, even here, who will not want their spouse or whatever to access their phone. So, they'd have to unlock it instead of just handing it to them. That's crazy, in my eyes, and yes I have had some very horrific relationships. Shit, we weren't even dating when I'd had the phone to the missus and ask her to send a reply or even read a text to me. I sure as hell wouldn't have a relationship with someone I don't trust to handle my phone. I'm pretty sure she knows every password I have, or how to get them, and I like it that way. If we break up, and we might, then I'll change things.
Hell, she has her own debit card now. If she wants to rob me blind then now's the time to do it. Then again, I also have an accountant. The odds of me noticing she was spending a bunch of money are pretty damned low, however. I'm pretty sure my accountant will spot it in short order and, it being a debit card attached to but one account, there's a limit to the damage she can do. She could just as easily ask for the money and I'd just give it to her. I can make more. She's seemingly not the scamming and thieving type. At the least, she's not meandered off with a bunch of money yet. It'd probably save me money, in the long run, if she were to just take a bunch and meander off. She'd be much better off with a long-con and finding a way to get it out from under my accountant's notice and mention.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I have never said I do it all the time, just that, like you, I have. I think most people have, and most people are probably able to deal with the distraction of texting responsibly. Distractions are not new, the form has just changed. When I was a teenager we didn't have phones, but I'd need more than two hands to count the number of friends who got in accidents over paying too much attention to the radio or checking their makeup. Remember when we had to use paper maps? That was always fun while driving. Is it worse now with phones? Maybe. The problem isn't the phones, it's the irresponsible drivers. And regardless of the problem, the fact remains that these laws simply make it worse not better; which was my entire point. Now that you've managed to have your little emotional outburst to my admission I have texted and drive before, perhaps you can argue on that point, or do you have nothing to offer other than anecdotes and hyperbole?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I've said for years, they should put speed limits up to 100 on interstates and impound your car if you exceed that speed, sell it at auction.
That would build a culture of respect for the law.
Cheap storage VM.
As somebody who has been rear ended at a stop light by somebody who had already stopped, then proceeded to "whip off a quick text," I can tell you it is NOT "perfectly safe." And for the record, fighting kids are a huge distraction. When my children start to act up, I pull into the nearest parking lot. I'm not about to kill everybody or endanger an innocent bystander just because my two little hellions won't STFU. My wife thinks it's perfectly acceptable to fumble with her phone, text, hand things to the kids, or even barf (morning sickness is a real PITA) while driving. Whatever. Not me. I suppose it's possible that I'm just such a bad driver that I need to really concentrate on the task. But I suspect it's more likely that other distracted drivers just don't realize how shitty they drive
Driving 20 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is actually quite dangerous contrary to what they seem to think.
Totally agree! However, driving 50 MPH in a 20 MPH zone is also dangerous.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I'm having this problem too. I don't know if it happens in other browsers or not. It's possible it's a FF problem.
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back.
You don't see (the road) because you're texting; a screaming toddler might prevent you from hearing the radio, but doesn't require you to take your eyes off the road.
It's not so much that they don't have to see, it's that the phone screen they're staring at is in their lap, rather than in the direction they should be looking, so they simply can't see.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You can pull over to deal with either of them. And you should.
Nothing punctuates the phrase "don't make me stop this car" better than actually stopping it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Unfortunately, disabling the phone while driving is a bad idea, because how is the phone supposed to know it's being used by a driver rather than a passenger? Same thing with in-car navigation systems: it's very annoying to not be able to operate it while the car is moving as a passenger. There's really no excuse there, since it could just detect if there's someone in the passenger seat using the existing sensor for the passenger seatbelt warning.
I've never told my GF my phone pin, but she'd probably get it on the first or 2nd try, just because she knows me well enough to guess. My only reason not to hand her the phone to answer a text for me would be that it might be too distracting digging it out of my pocket in traffic.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
You don't put feminism in your pocket and ignore it until you're no longer behind the wheel. You still have the right to your speech, just as a feminist does, but you don't have the right to endanger others with said speech; speech that actively endangers others is not protected. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which can incite people to run from the theater, possibly trampling over each other (there have been deaths related to this very activity) is illegal, unless there is an actual fire.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It has EVERYTHING to do with me if they cross the center dividing line and hit me head on. I am aware of my surroundings because I keep my eyes on the road. They have their head down fucking around with their phone, not knowing if they are actually still in their own lane.
I'm sorry if my empathy for my son as well as the well-being of children being subjected to needless risk is too much for you to handle. I don't give a shit about the parent.. but I sure as hell care about my son, myself, as well as that child in the other vehicle.
It's not some victimless crime, innocent people get hurt by those people who cannot detach from their cell phones while operating a 2000lb+ chunk of metal.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
People would drive around with a sack of potatoes or a beer keg on the passenger seat.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You must be one a them SJWs.
Oh, and whoosh.
You are welcome on my lawn.
1 year of no license (once out of prison)* *Unless you need to goto work, then you can drive, no worries.
"It has EVERYTHING to do with me if they cross the center dividing line and hit me head on."
"It's not some victimless crime"
If that happens it certainly wouldn't be but since I gather it did not happen it certainly was victimless and though calling it a crime is begging the question a bit.
As for the child in the other vehicle, you can care all you want but you don't have any right to expect that caring should result in any sort of action on the parts of others. I'm sure there are all sorts of things I'd do in the raising of my child you wouldn't approve of. I'm also certain I'm likely to consider a quick end in an automobile accident to be better for a child than many of the things you do in the raising of yours. But it is none of my business what occurs between you and your child any more than it is yours what occurs between me and my children.
As somebody who has been rear ended at a stop light by somebody who had already stopped, then proceeded to "whip off a quick text,"
DUDE! You rolled backward into me! Learn to use a clutch, for crying out loud! I wasn't moving AT ALL.
Also, it's not my fault that your stupid plastic bumper cracked at 2 miles an hour. That metal bracket is on my front bumper because that's how you mount a winch. Quit your bellyaching already - the insurance companies have ruled.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"They have their head down fucking around with their phone, not knowing if they are actually still in their own lane."
Exactly.
Their eyes are on the screen, not looking at the brake lights on the car in front of them, or the little kid in front of that car that just ran out in the street after his dog did.
I have never said I do it all the time, just that, like you, I have.
I used to be a field technician and would use my phone while driving every day.
I could, but I don't.
Sounds like a regular and ongoing thing to me.
Here's a tip: people on the internet don't know you, they only know what you post and most don't read very carefully. Speak plainly and stick to the point. Use paragraphs when appropriate.
And regardless of the problem, the fact remains that these laws simply make it worse not better; which was my entire point.
If personal responsibility was no issue, I might be inclined to agree with you. As it is, you sound like you're trying to assign blame to someone else; in this case "it's not my fault that I am distracted in the car, the government shouldn't have MADE me look in my lap." I claim that the irresponsible drivers aren't being MADE to do anything, they either think they're not doing anything dangerous, they don't care, or they're just not thinking about the danger they're putting other people in. The fact is that we're simply not good at multitasking, and the comparison between texting while driving and drunk driving is well-earned.
Now I'm no expert, so I did a quick search. It looks like this was probably the earliest study into this issue, which supports your claim. There is more discussion about that study though, and a later study seems to contradict it.
Now that you've managed to have your little emotional outburst to my admission I have texted and drive before, perhaps you can argue on that point, or do you have nothing to offer other than anecdotes and hyperbole?
First you offered anecdotes about how your own driving changed after the passing of this law, expressed anger at the size of the fine, and suggested applying existing laws about careless driving; all without any comment regarding the actual danger of distracted driving. Your entire first post comes off as an indignant rant about a law you disagree with.
Then you blithely admitted that you continue to drive in a dangerous (your word, not mine) manner. You claimed "Everyone is still doing this. Everyone."
Now you claim the problem is with irresponsible drivers and hint that you're not part of the problem, and you try to shift the burden of proof to me, when you've given no arguments of substance yourself.
I'm touchy on this issue because it's personal to me. I'm not upset at you for your "admission [you] have texted and drive before"; I'm upset because you switched to a "much more dangerous" activity and made no indication that you are give a damn about the people you are putting in very real danger. As long as motor vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of death, some kind of effort must be made to improve the situation; people must be held accountable for their actions; ergo, punish those who needlessly endanger others. If you have some better solution please present it, the world will thank you.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
If you have some better solution please present it, the world will thank you.
The world doesn't need to look to me for better solutions, it just needs to be less lazy. Freakonomic's entire thesis is based on the idea of incentives working better than prohibition. You want to make driving safer? Incentivize. My 2016 Ford Escape reads my text messages to me, at least 8 years too late. Tax breaks for this type of safety could have been brought in sooner. Spend your money and time educating people, or punishing people that actually offend instead of shotgun blasting the entire population with a ridiculous nanny-state law. Do you want to know what this law does? It subconsciously makes people distrust authority, and you're not helping. You want to demonize people that look at their phones while driving because you have a reason to have an emotional reaction to this problem. This is akin to a teenage girl being told she can't have boys over because "I said so". Your reasons are terrible and your methods are despotic, which people will naturally resist. The simple fact is that 99.9999% of time you check your phone you're not going to cause an accident. The problem is negligent drivers - the phone is simply their tool to be negligent. Address an increase in negligent driving due to cellphones with a series of incentives, PSA campaigns, and punishment for the severe cases. Don't shotgun blast the symptoms of a problem with lazy regulations. And then, with astonishing hypocrisy, continue to defend those regulations when they're proven not only ineffective, but more dangerous to the actual problem.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Ever driven 100 mph on the interstate? It feels pretty curvy at that speed, the straightaways don't feel so long anymore.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
On the other hand, for a first time offense, there are many times you can plea-deal it down.
When I got pulled over with a BAL of 0.08 (roadside test), I contacted a lawyer and pretty easily got it knocked down to a "Wet Reckless" (Alcohol-Related Reckless Driving). The cops who pulled me over were very nice and actually drove my car to a local hotel, so I wouldn't have to deal with the impound. No prison time and about a $500 fine and a $500 lawyer fee. Oh, and I had to visit the local AA meeting a dozen times.
But I did get to spend the rest of the night in the local lock-up. Frankly, I couldn't imagine doing that for a day, much less a year. That's why I stopped drinking and driving.
There's absolutely no place inside the Chicago city limits that you can't get to on public transportation
In some of those places I recommend Kevlar fashions if you work the second or third shifts. And leave the Nikes and jewelry at home.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is Slashdot, people who actually think that way are quite common here so, yes, whoosh, because there was no indication that you were in any way joking. I've seen you around enough that you should know what you wrote is something one might expect to see written here in all seriousness.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If you need to go to work, you get a special license that's only good for to/from work (by time I think). Which only really matters if you get pulled over. But then again, having no license really only matters if you get pulled over.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Yes, I've driven 100 on the interstate. I've even driven 120, but that was years ago when traffic was not as bad as it is now.
It was scary because the car I was driving didn't have the suspension needed for driving at that speed. The car felt like it was floating along the road and I was sure I didn't want to make any sudden lane changes.
Do you know a city in the world where there are not high-crime areas? And in Chicago, it's mainly at night. You can travel through any neighborhood on public trans and be pretty safe, if you know how to act.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It probably was 'floating' a bit. Cars become kinda aerodynamic at that speed.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Those are reasonable. It's the lax laws in the other places that are unreasonable.
How can so many people be so retarded?
those words should be a recursive loop, endlessly rolling through the entire waste of existence. They are a self-fulfilling prophecy. again and again and again and again and again.
To
Enjoy the world you've created for yourself. The only people who can be blamed for the sad state of American public transport are the people. This is not some quirk of nature or physics, bad luck or juju, just terrible city/town planning. You've made your bed...
You are 100% right! We should also get rid of all drunk driving rules, as some people think they can drive really well when hammered, and they've never had a crash yet. It's punishing everyone because some people can't handle their booze!
You just admitted in engaging in unnecessary behaviour which endangers other road users, and expect to make some sort of point besides "I'm a selfish twat who thinks their texts are more important than the lives of other people". You are tragically hilarious. You are the irresponsible driver you are talking about.
I don't care if people want to be careless with their own lives. I do care when they needlessly endanger others. It's really as simple as that for me. In the car, an adult passenger at least has the reasoning to say "uh, maybe you should watch the road instead of your phone because you just about hit that parked car".
If a person has a deathwish.. just don't take someone else out with you.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
In Japan anywhere that serves alcohol must ask if there is designated driver and not serve them anything alcoholic. They usually ask that person to wear a pendant or something so it's really clear to all the staff. Serving the designated driver is an automatic loss of licence.
This must not apply to tourists. My friends and I weren't asked once to do this, despite drinking at numerous places. We were in Tokyo.
An emotional response that doesn't address what I was actually saying but rather uses hyperbole to reinforce an already established world view? Oh, your name is dave420, makes sense. I remember the days when adults used to visit this site, what happened?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Depending on age a child may as well. Either way a child has a guardian to that for them.
I'm not arguing for taking a child passenger while txting or drinking. I'm simply arguing that it has nothing to do with you. I would certainly argue against any parenting style that doesn't involve endangering your children.
I'll tell you what, you go with that no endangering thing and teaching your child not to stand by while another is mocked. I'll teach my child how to defend his/herself both physically and verbally while also teaching them respect for life and suffering and letting them experience a limited taste of what challenge and difficulty feels like.
I've thought for many years that police should be able to confiscate the phone from a texting driver, stick it under one of the cars wheels, and then wave them on their way. This alone ensures that, at least until they can get to a shop and buy a new phone, the nut holding the wheel can concentrate on driving safely.
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
If you're middle-class or better and, depending on the jurisdiction, white.
Yay selectively applied laws.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Casteism
Let's say you can text and drive and be safe 9,999/10,000. Most people would think that they like those odds. Now, let's say now that 10,000 texts are sent while driving in one day. The chance of an accident is (0.9999)^10,000 = 36.79%. That means if the odds of an accident were 1/10,000, for every 10,000 texts, over one third of the time you would expect an accident. This is a basic problem those dealing with safety encounter. While something might seem relatively safe, as the volume increases, an accident becomes almost guaranteed. Texting and driving must be treated the same as driving under the influence of alcohol.
Nothing agains fighting texting while driving but...why is U.S. legislation always about ruining peoples' lives completely?
I can't do anything but laugh at your assertions. I have a 3 year old boy, he very much acts like a 3 year old boy. Scraped up knees, dirt under the finger nails. You can do whatever you want with your children. I believe I'm doing pretty well with my son.
I am a "live and let live" type of person in general. However when the actions of an individual threaten the well-being of others unwillingly, then I do have a problem with that. If you want to go home and get high/drunk.. more power to you. I just want you to sober up before you get behind the wheel of your car.
If you want to somehow link this to being a helicopter parent, that's on you.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
The speed limit should be high enough that there is no reason to break it, with harsh punishments if you do. It shouldn't be an income source.
Cheap storage VM.
Actually I think people should just drive more carefully. Most don't understand the laws of physics, and that even at 30 moh* the vehicle is out of control and cannot be stopped in a reasonable distance without wrecking (hitting) something.
*Over 40 feet per second. It takes that long just to "think" about putting your foot on the brake when the kid jumps out in front of you.
Speed traps are bad, not necessarily speed limits.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”