penalty for texting & driving

Quote: Beethoven9th

BTW, Mr. Tangent, read this article:

Eating while driving causes 80% of all car accidents, study shows

Should we ban eating in the car too??????????

the new york daily news, now that's a reference! I'm more likely to get more reliable information from my neighbor's cat. Show us the study, not the newspaper article.

Quote: boymimbo

the new york daily news, now that's a reference! I'm more likely to get more reliable information from my neighbor's cat. Show us the study, not the newspaper article.

I spent over a half an hour at the National Highway Safety Traffic Safety Administration website trying to find the relevant study...yeah, failed on finding that one.

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: Beethoven9th

BTW, Mr. Tangent, read this article:

Eating while driving causes 80% of all car accidents, study shows

Should we ban eating in the car too??????????

the new york daily news, now that's a reference! I'm more likely to get more reliable information from my neighbor's cat. Show us the study, not the newspaper article.

LOL

Quote: Beethoven9th

What if he was talking to his girlfriend in the car? Should we then ban girlfriends in the car, too?

Sometimes I wish.

I DON'T think this is a valid argument somethings are a necessary evil.

I have a diffident view of talking WD and texting WD. I have found myself almost rear ending someone while texting and driving a few times in the past. I realized how dumb I was being and finally started putting my phone out of reach while in the car.

Every time I see someone making an idiot move like cutting someone off abruptly. 9 out of 10 times its some chick on her cell phone.

Those who think that drinking and driving deserves huge penalties but that texting or even just talking on a cell phone is just an annoyance read this article quoting the Ontario Provincial Police CELL PHONES KILL MORE DRIVERS THAN BOOZE

The statistics in the article back up the many studies that show even hands free cell phone use significantly changes the attention a driver gives to the road, contrary to what several posters feel.

Confiscation of texting device (phone, i-product, etc) AND $100.

If you knew your device would be confiscated, would you still T&D?

I never knew bus drivers texted enough that there needed to be laws specifically forbidding them

Quote: bigfoot66

Nope. A study published in The Journal of Public Economics found that communities that passed smoking bans between 2000 and 2005 had on average a 13% increase in drunken driving fatalities the following year. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeepubeco/v_3a92_3ay_3a2008_3ai_3a5-6_3ap_3a1288-1305.htm

Nonsense. If an individual city passes a tough smoking ban, perhaps there's an incentive for smokers to get drunk and kill people. But if the ban covers an entire state, there's no incentive for drunk-driving, because the town down the road has clear air in their bars, too (sadly).

California passed its smoking ban in 1998. Did drunk-driving fatalities increase in the following decade? Of course not, drunk driving fatalities have decreased by one-third!

2001-2011 % Change in California Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities per 100K Pop: -34%

New York State passed a similar law in 2003. Between 2001-2011, NY drunk-driving fatalities fell by almost 10 percent.

Ohio passed a similar law in 2005. Between 2001-2011, OH drunk-driving fatalities fell by one-third.

Massachusetts passed a similar law in 2004. Between 2001-2011 drunk-driving MA fatalities fell by almost 40 percent!

Quote: tringlomane

I spent over a half an hour at the National Highway Safety Traffic Safety Administration website trying to find the relevant study...yeah, failed on finding that one.

I believe that study was from 2009, so the complete survey may not be available on their website anymore.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Beethoven9th

Quote: rxwine

I would say you consider how necessary the action is. Carrying babies around is fairly necessary. Yapping on a phone, not so much. Eating, probably not so much either.

So ban eating in the car?

You should do it, but that's different than can you do it. It won't likely pass as law.

Not the point. The point is why you are so keen to ban phones, but not eating. (You still haven't explained)

Quote: boymimbo

the new york daily news, now that's a reference! I'm more likely to get more reliable information from my neighbor's cat. Show us the study, not the newspaper article.

Haha, that's great.....the guy who cited a bogus study on gays is now trashing a survey without providing a reason other than the fact it was reported by a publication he doesn't like. lol

I would tell boymimbo to read the article below (which he could have easily found through Google, if he was really interested)...

Eating while driving 'more dangerous than using phone'

...but I'm not going to bother because I'm sure he'll come up with another lame excuse to trash it, too. ;)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Beethoven9th

Quote: rxwine

I would say you consider how necessary the action is. Carrying babies around is fairly necessary. Yapping on a phone, not so much. Eating, probably not so much either.

So ban eating in the car?

You should do it, but that's different than can you do it. It won't likely pass as law.

Not the point. The point is why you are so keen to ban phones, but not eating. (You still haven't explained)

Because the effort to ban eating in cars would be a wasted effort. Why waste my time not accomplishing anything.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Haha, that's great.....the guy who cited a bogus study on gays is now trashing a survey without providing a reason other than the fact it was reported by a publication he doesn't like. lol

I would tell boymimbo to read this article (which he could have easily found through Google, if he really was interested)...

Eating while driving 'more dangerous than using phone'

...but I'm not going to bother because I'm sure he'll come up with another lame excuse to trash it, too. ;)

I hope you note the 26.5 percent for using a hands free phone in there. I wish these press releases would refer back to the original papers to see if there was a baseline for 'passenger in car talking'.

But I did find this :

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_conversations_in_cars_the_relative_hazards_of_mobile_phones.htm

"Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone."

and

http://www.trl.co.uk/trl-news-hub/transport-news/latest-transport-news/motorists-who-drive-with-arguing-kids-could-have-reduced-reaction-times_19833176.htm

"A driver's reaction time may be reduced by up to 13 per cent if arguing kids are present in the car, a report has suggested."

All are from the same institute... so it looks like adding arguing kids only increases the distraction by half as much as a conversation on a hands free phone... which about the same as eating.

Lesson : When driving, drive and don't try and do something else as well.

I wonder what factor the terrain of the drive has to do with it... I suspect there's a lesser effect between driving on the Number 1 highway through Saskatchewan and trying to drive around Leeds city center ring road.

Quote: thecesspit

All are from the same institute... so it looks like adding arguing kids only increases the distraction by half as much as a conversation on a hands free phone... which about the same as eating.

I wonder if the explanation for the kids not being worse, is part of the protection process is ensuring they kids don't get hurt in an accident so there is some more heightened attention to not focusing away too much even when they are distracting you. Just a guess though.

Quote: tringlomane

$20 for California is pretty nuts. I would have expected them to be more anal about this. Maybe they were one of the first states to pass legislation.

$20 is the "fine" but mandatory court costs and fees put it up well over $200 and maybe over $275. I 've never gotten a ticket and I don't text and drive. I get off the road to text.

It is amazing to me how many people do text and while they don't cause many accidents they SLOW TRAFFIC TO A CRAWL. Pass by any group of slow moving cars on a freeway and you will see drivers texting and using laptops. Immediately the freeway speed drops from 70 to 45.

Fines should only be imposed if accident with injury or loss takes place.

Quote: rxwine

Because the effort to ban eating in cars would be a wasted effort. Why waste my time not accomplishing anything.

Well, that's why you have to push for it, if that's how you honestly feel. Libs like you are known for pushing for things that aren't/weren't popular (e.g., global warming, gay marriage, etc.), so why are you settling for defeat now???

(I love all your excuses, BTW) ;)

Quote: thecesspit

I hope you note the 26.5 percent for using a hands free phone in there. I wish these press releases would refer back to the original papers to see if there was a baseline for 'passenger in car talking'...


...Lesson : When driving, drive and don't try and do something else as well.

That's fine, if we ban hands-free devices (which many places have in fact done), we should ban eating as well. I just get weary from all the inconsistencies.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Well, that's why you have to push for it, if that's how you honestly feel. Libs like you are known for pushing for things that aren't/weren't popular (e.g., global warming, gay marriage, etc.), so why are you settling for defeat now???

I'll leave that to Bloomberg and his soda ban. I don't have to do anything.

Quote: rxwine

I don't have to do anything.

That's my point. You choose to put some things ahead of others, and I'm simply trying to figure out your thought process here (assuming there is one).

Quote: Beethoven9th

That's fine, if we ban hands-free devices (which many places have in fact done), we should ban eating as well. (I just hate all the inconsistencies here)

If by inconsistencies, then you must be for doing whatever you want while driving. Why would you draw the line anywhere? Maybe you can hand load ammunition while you drive and don't mind people distracted from driving while you're going down the road.

Quote: rxwine

If by inconsistencies, then you must be for doing whatever you want while driving. Why would you draw the line anywhere? Maybe you can hand load ammunition while you drive and don't mind people distracted from driving while you're going down the road.

No, that's not what I mean. (As usual, you've gone off on a tangent talking about ammunition.) What I'm saying is that eating causes more accidents than cell phones, yet you support banning the thing that hurts/kills less people, which makes no sense at all.

Quote: Beethoven9th

No, that's not what I mean. (As usual, you've gone off on a tangent talking about ammunition.) What I'm saying is that eating causes more accidents than cell phones, yet you support banning the thing that hurts/kills less people, which makes no sense at all.

He would support banning eating and driving too if it was feasible to be banned (it's not though).

Quote: tringlomane

He would support banning eating and driving too if it was feasible to be banned (it's not though).

...which leads to my second point. Gay marriage was not "feasible" 15 years ago, but people like him & his cohorts pushed on. Why not push on with a ban on eating if it will do something much more important than gay marriage (i.e., an eating ban would actually save lives)?

Hear ye, hear ye, all who are not deaf, I push for a ban on eating in a car by the driver. Does that help?

Quote: rxwine

Hear ye, hear ye, all who are not deaf, I push for a ban on eating in a car by the driver. Does that help?

Actually, it does. At least you're being consistent now instead of selective. Kudos! ;)

Well, why don't we ban the radio too while we're at it? And it was banned for awhile I think and/or not available on cars. Raise the driving age to 18...lower the speed limit back to 55...have a legal BAC of 0.00 or 0.02, etc. You can obviously argue a bunch of things. Texting is the easiest to get rid of though because 20 years ago, it didn't exist, and until about 5 to 10 years ago, it wasn't that big of deal. But then more and more ppl started to text significantly. So data showing a sharper increase in accidents thanks to texting is much more noteworthy than eating, which likely has remained fairly constant in the past couple of decades. Therefore, this helps get the attention of brain-dead politicians, leading to legislation.

Well, I'm pretty sure they banned TVs in the front seat years ago. Not sure how the laws vary. There's a variety of things they've considered and either did or didn't do.

Quote: tringlomane

Well, why don't we ban the radio too while we're at it? And it was banned for awhile I think and/or not available on cars.

Well, now you're seeing my point. :)

It's silly to pick on cell phones and not all of those other things. Plus, as I said earlier in the thread, the rise in texting didn't occur until talking on the phone was banned. And since a texting ban is extremely difficult to enforce, you're going to have to pass even stricter legislation that pretty much bans even holding a phone in the car, if you really want to end texting once and for all. Either that, or lift the ban on talking, which would reduce the need for texting.

Quote:

No television viewer, screen or other means of visually receiving a television broadcast shall be located in a motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat or in any manner so that the driver of the vehicle can see it while in actual control of the vehicle.

No doubt, a few people felt they should be able to watch their favorite TV show while driving and had TVs up front.

Beethoven, you want to watch reruns of Bewitched and I Dream of Genie while you drive?

Quote: rxwine

No doubt, a few people felt they should be able to watch their favorite TV show while driving and had TVs up front.

Well you're just trying to be argumentative now. :)

It's obvious that in order to watch TV, the driver must take his/her eyes off the road for more than a brief moment. OTOH, talking & listening doesn't require that.

EDIT: BTW, you've also provided another reason why eating should be banned. Most drivers continually take their eyes off the road while eating.

Quote: Beethoven9th

It's obvious that in order to watch TV, the driver must take his/her eyes off the road for more than a brief moment. OTOH, talking doesn't require that.

One eye on the TV, one on the road.

You enroll in the Marty Feldman School of Driving.

Quote: wroberson

Fines should only be imposed if accident with injury or loss takes place.

Driving drunk is ok if no one gets hurt? Running red lights is ok if no one gets hurt? Speeding 80 mph in a 25 zone is ok, if no one gets hurt?

I just don't see it that way, I'm guess I'm old-fashioned.

Quote: tringlomane

Texting is the easiest to get rid of though because 20 years ago, it didn't exist, and until about 5 to 10 years ago, it wasn't that big of deal.

That's not why texting bans are so popular. The reason these bans are popular is because texting interferes with the drivers' obligation to keep their eyes on the road. I can sympathize with the libertarian view that cell phones voice conversations aren't much more distracting than other common driving activities (eating, smoking, yelling at the wife, etc.) But texting isn't even in the same ballpark.

Perhaps an exception could be made if you're texting while stuck at a red light. But the problem with texting at a red light isn't safety... the problem is that the driver will be too distracted to notice when the light turns green, thereby inconveniencing other drivers.

An international perspective from Switzerland (yeah guys, go ahead and scream socialism if you have to):

Illegal while in the driver's seat and the car is in motion:

- Cellphone in hand for any purpose whatsoever (hands free is fine)
- Eating
- Drinking
- Having a distracting conversation
- putting on makeup
- changing the CD
- reading (obviously)

In short, you mustn't do anything that might be a distraction and is not essential for driving.

But here is the fun part: People here are not screaming "nanny state" or "government overreach", instead we feel this is how it should be since we really don't want to be run over by a 1-ton death machine with a distracted driver.

Quote: Beethoven9th

lift the ban on talking, which would reduce the need for texting.

There is no NEED to text while driving.

Here is why there is no NEED to text while driving.

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/10/rahway_woman_becomes_first_in_essex_county_charged_with_vehicular_homicide_while_texting.html

Quote: Canyonero

An international perspective from Switzerland (yeah guys, go ahead and scream socialism if you have to):

Illegal while in the driver's seat and the car is in motion:

- Cellphone in hand for any purpose whatsoever (hands free is fine)
- Eating
- Drinking
- Having a distracting conversation
- putting on makeup
- changing the CD
- reading (obviously)

Even though I disagree with some of the things listed, I do give the Swiss credit for at least being consistent about the activities they ban.

Quote: FatGeezus

There is no NEED to text while driving.

Here is why there is no NEED to text while driving.

There is no NEED to eat while driving, either.

Here is why there is no NEED to eat while driving:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/eating-while-driving-blamed-crash-near-sacramento.html

Don't worry guys we can all get excited again in a few months when a significant number of people start driving wearing 'Google Glass'. Of course I am sure our governments will anticpate this since all elected members are so forward thinking and will have the rules in place ahead of time -;)

Which brings us accidentally on topic:

Casinos are way ahead on this, this was back in June:

http://news.yahoo.com/casinos-ban-gamblers-using-google-glass-183837408.html

IIRC several states have a "distracted-driving" verbiage to the "cel-phone/texting" regulations. Here in CT we do have such language that does cover makeup, eating and drinking.

Quote: reno

That's not why texting bans are so popular. The reason these bans are popular is because texting interferes with the drivers' obligation to keep their eyes on the road. I can sympathize with the libertarian view that cell phones voice conversations aren't much more distracting than other common driving activities (eating, smoking, yelling at the wife, etc.) But texting isn't even in the same ballpark.

Perhaps an exception could be made if you're texting while stuck at a red light. But the problem with texting at a red light isn't safety... the problem is that the driver will be too distracted to notice when the light turns green, thereby inconveniencing other drivers.

Time to way in. I've got a 180 degree view on a lot of things. The war on drugs, poverty or ignorance has failed miserably. You just can't stop people from making babies they can't afford or will never be qualified to raise.

For a thought experiment, make the highways drive at your own risk. Cut the highway patrol down by 90% and just let self funding tow trucks cruise the interstate. People need to realize the roads are a dangerous place. There is no way to fix stupid.

As far as I'm concerned, arm everybody on airplanes and bulletproof the cockpits and get rid of the anal probers at security. If the security was to save lives they would put airbags on planes and school busses. They don't. It's all about the money. Remember when seat belt laws weren't going to be a pull overable offense? I knew that was another lie. It's just another revenue crime. Statistics might have changed but a while ago, 85% of law enforcement dollars was spent on traffic control, while the criminals run wild on wall street. Same time guys are beating there wives, selling crack and boosting seniors. Lot of this stuff isn't about what ya think it is, it's always about the money.

Have some fun with texter's or teste's for that matter. I like it when I see someone beside me at a red light and they are reading or texting, I lurch ahead like the light has changed and see if I trick them into going for it. It's fun. An ap play on this is pass somebody texting, get in front of them for a little while and then stomp on the breaks. Fools and idiots I tell ya, can't get rid of em fast enough. There is a need to limit growth on a finite planet, let's start by getting rid of the stupid.

Quote: reno

Nonsense. If an individual city passes a tough smoking ban, perhaps there's an incentive for smokers to get drunk and kill people. But if the ban covers an entire state, there's no incentive for drunk-driving, because the town down the road has clear air in their bars, too (sadly).

California passed its smoking ban in 1998. Did drunk-driving fatalities increase in the following decade? Of course not, drunk driving fatalities have decreased by one-third!

2001-2011 % Change in California Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities per 100K Pop: -34%

New York State passed a similar law in 2003. Between 2001-2011, NY drunk-driving fatalities fell by almost 10 percent.

Ohio passed a similar law in 2005. Between 2001-2011, OH drunk-driving fatalities fell by one-third.

Massachusetts passed a similar law in 2004. Between 2001-2011 drunk-driving MA fatalities fell by almost 40 percent!

I am sorry that you think the study is nonsense: You admit yourself that it passes the "smell test" and seems reasonable. On the margin, it makes perfect sense that a smoker would be willing to drive a little further to avoid a smoking ban and that additional mileage increases the chances of a collision. If you say that this argument is nonsensical then I say you are being intellectually dishonest. Your solution of simply banning smoking over a larger area would probably minimize the effect, it would not eliminate it as smoking speakeasies would likely still exist, or bars with larger outdoor patios would encourage people to drive further so that they could smoke while drinking.

I admit to not having read the study or being familiar with the statistical methods used. Frankly I am not qualified to evaluate the methods anyway. However, your counterexamples are not very convincing as they do not hold other factors constant. The argument is that the smoking ban increases traffic deaths on the margin. Let's say I start a new diet which includes a Heart Attack Grill milkshake every day but otherwise strictly limits calories, and I start intensely excercising. After I lose 25lbs in a few months I come back to you and say "See Reno, you dummy, those HAG milkshakes don't make you fat. I've lost 25 lbs since I started eating them every day!" What would you say?

Finally you are missing the bigger point here which is that legislation has unintended consequences that are very difficult to predict beforehand. Sometimes these unintended consequences result in death, like the smoking ban. For example, as cars have more and more safety features , people drive more aggressively. Anti-lock brakes have not measurably improved road safety because people follow more closely and brake later with ABS, so the risk level stays about the same. Much of what happens as we get more seat belts, airbage, ABS, etc. is that more and more of the burden of road danger is carried by pedestrians and less by drivers. Imagine that instead of your regular airbag, your car was equipped with the Bigfoot66 airbag: When you get into an accident your steering wheel pops open and an icepick shoots out. Would you drive more carefully? :)
See the wikipedia article about risk compensation and the Peltzman Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation .

We CAN often deal with the unintended consequences of well meaning legislation, though not always. For example, prohibition of mind altering substances always leads to the creation of black market firms that supply these products and operate violently (We call them gangs or the mafia). However even where a legislative solution exists, it could have its own unintended consequences.

me too... smacks of NIMBY. I guess a loved one MUST perish b/4 you wake up. The object is only 1/2 don't be distracted while driving...
the other 1/2 protects you or your loved one(s) from injury/death at the hands of a distracted driver. Its a cure for driving cancer.

Quote: bigfoot66

Finally you are missing the bigger point here which is that legislation has unintended consequences that are very difficult to predict beforehand. Sometimes these unintended consequences result in death, like the smoking ban.

"Death?" Do honestly believe that the smoking bans have killed more lives than they've saved?

Some laws are too new to judge their intended benefits and unintended costs too society. But in California the 1998 indoor smoking ban has been on the books for 15 years! 15 years ought to be a long enough period to determine whether the law is a success or a failure. So Mr. Bigfoot, tell me about the unintended consequences this law had in California. Tell me about the tobacco speakeasies that popped up on every street corner from San Diego to San Francisco. Tell me about the horrific increase in drunk-driving which has ravaged the Golden State since 1998.

Sure, California does indeed have a few illegal modern-day speakeasies for smokers. But they're filled with marijuana smoke, not tobacco smoke.

If something really really really can't wait until you're done driving I'm sure the judge or jury will understand.

Quote: Beethoven9th

There is no NEED to eat while driving, either.

So we agree. There is no NEED to TEXT or EAT while driving.

Quote: FatGeezus

So we agree. There is no NEED to TEXT or EAT while driving.

I already alluded to this earlier. What I don't understand are people who are gung ho about banning texting, but not eating.

My eyes are on the road while I am eating. And I have the stained shirts to prove it.

Quote: reno

Quote: bigfoot66

Finally you are missing the bigger point here which is that legislation has unintended consequences that are very difficult to predict beforehand. Sometimes these unintended consequences result in death, like the smoking ban.

"Death?" Do honestly believe that the smoking bans have killed more lives than they've saved?

Some laws are too new to judge their intended benefits and unintended costs too society. But in California the 1998 indoor smoking ban has been on the books for 15 years! 15 years ought to be a long enough period to determine whether the law is a success or a failure. So Mr. Bigfoot, tell me about the unintended consequences this law had in California. Tell me about the tobacco speakeasies that popped up on every street corner from San Diego to San Francisco. Tell me about the horrific increase in drunk-driving which has ravaged the Golden State since 1998.

Sure, California does indeed have a few illegal modern-day speakeasies for smokers. But they're filled with marijuana smoke, not tobacco smoke.

I am not sure I believe in the increased deaths from the smoking ban since neither side has referenced any statistics and it doesn't really pass the smell test for me. I do find the graph in your post quite interesting though. From 1984 to 1998 (indoor ban) the smoking rate fell 10%. From the start of the ban in 1998 the next 12 years only dropped the rate another 5% in roughly the same amount of time. First glance would seem to indicate that instituting the ban slowed the rate of smokers quiting.