Topic: Distracted Driving

[Asteriktos]

I seem to remember that there was a bill being discussed here in PA that would ban texting while driving. What do you all think about these kinds of bills? Will it prevent accidents, or is it just another useless governmental intrusion into our lives? Are certain things major distractions, and others not as much? The common things brought up seem to be texting, cell phone use, eating food, changing the radio station/CD, etc. However, one could argue that even talking to someone in the car could be a distraction, so where is the line drawn? I once got in an accident down on the South Side of Pittsburgh because I was talking to someone in the car with me, wasn't familiar with the area, and wasn't paying enough attention. I doubt anyone is going to push for not talking while driving though.

[PeterTheAleut]

When I consider that those who text or use their cell phones while driving are at least as likely, if not more likely, to cause accidents as those who drive while intoxicated, and when I consider the impact this has on the innocent drivers and pedestrians victimized by these accidents and on the auto insurance rates of those not involved in such accidents, I have to think that the public interest in minimizing these accidents is legitimate enough to justify intruding into the lives of others by passing laws banning such distracted driving.  In fact, I don't really think of it as an intrusion into the lives of others so much as I see it as a requirement that those who drive recognize the impact their driving practices have on others who drive (or don't drive, as is the case with auto-pedestrian collisions) and that they therefore drive responsibly.

[mike]

You can't drive properly with your hand holding the phone. At least I can't manage to control a steering wheel and a gear stick with one hand.

[Asteriktos]

I do fine steering with my knees, though I drive automatics. 

[PeterTheAleut]

I doubt anyone is going to push for not talking while driving though.

How would any law enforcement professional be able to enforce such a law as this?  In the light of what I said above, I also recognize that the expense of enforcing some possible laws would be far greater than the risk involved with not passing such laws to begin with.

[Asteriktos]

How would any law enforcement professional be able to enforce such a law as this?

Wouldn't be easy. Wouldn't be practical. Wouldn't be helpful. But then it probably wouldn't be easy to get people for texting either. How many people are going to be texting with their electronic-doo-dad at head level, such that a police officer can see it? Isn't it more likely that they'd be texting with the device down by their lap? How could the officer then prove that they were texting? Most traffic issues are the word of the officer versus the word of the driver. And in the case of texting, the officer probably wouldn't even be a witness to the crime, he'd just be making an educated guess that the person was texting. Not that I think people should be texting or talking on cell phones when driving. I don't even own a cell phone, so I'm not really even involved directly in much of this.

[LizaSymonenko]

It's not just that your hands are occupied while texting, or your mind is elsewhere, even your eyes are not on the road. 

While you talk to someone who is physically in the car with you, or even on speakerphone, your eyes are free to roam the road ahead.  If you are texting, your eyes have got to look down...if even for a second.  It only takes a second....

However, I was distracted just now on my ride home, not by my phone, or talking to anyone, but, by the driver behind me.  It was dark, it was snowing and I was going a wee bit below the speed limit, as I was focused on getting home in one piece.  The guy in the big truck behind me apparently thought that if he rides my bumper, I will go faster....which I did.  I went faster than I thought it was safe to, only because the big headlights were in my backseat.  He made me really nervous...and I was worried that if I skidded, he would ram into me...and then I would have a mess on my hands.

So, everyone, please be curtious to other drivers - and keep a safe distance.   

[Riddikulus]

I do fine steering with my knees, though I drive automatics. 

Yes, but it's for the unexpected that you need both hands on the steering wheel. Lost seconds in chucking the phone, or the cigarette lighter or whatever, to get control of the wheel can cost too much. Yes, I watch all the defensive driving ads!  

[HandmaidenofGod]

How would any law enforcement professional be able to enforce such a law as this?

Wouldn't be easy. Wouldn't be practical. Wouldn't be helpful. But then it probably wouldn't be easy to get people for texting either. How many people are going to be texting with their electronic-doo-dad at head level, such that a police officer can see it? Isn't it more likely that they'd be texting with the device down by their lap? How could the officer then prove that they were texting? Most traffic issues are the word of the officer versus the word of the driver. And in the case of texting, the officer probably wouldn't even be a witness to the crime, he'd just be making an educated guess that the person was texting. Not that I think people should be texting or talking on cell phones when driving. I don't even own a cell phone, so I'm not really even involved directly in much of this.

While a police officer may not be able to see you texting, he would be able to see the potential results of the dual actions, which would be erratic driving and potentially causing an accident. A study done by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found texting while driving to increase the crash risk 23-fold. When Car and Driver did an "unofficial" study of texting-while-driving vs. drunk driving, they found the two to be comparably dangerous.

Now, just as every police officer can't see who has had a few too many beers in them, they can see the results of their actions, and when it results in the death or injury of another, can penalize them accordingly.

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

[Asteriktos]

Yes, but it's for the unexpected that you need both hands on the steering wheel. Lost seconds in chucking the phone, or the cigarette lighter or whatever, to get control of the wheel can cost too much. Yes, I watch all the defensive driving ads! 

While a police officer may not be able to see you texting, he would be able to see the potential results of the dual actions, which would be erratic driving and potentially causing an accident. A study done by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found texting while driving to increase the crash risk 23-fold. When Car and Driver did an "unofficial" study of texting-while-driving vs. drunk driving, they found the two to be comparably dangerous.

Now, just as every police officer can't see who has had a few too many beers in them, they can see the results of their actions, and when it results in the death or injury of another, can penalize them accordingly.

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

True enough, and good points.

[PeterTheAleut]

How would any law enforcement professional be able to enforce such a law as this?

Wouldn't be easy. Wouldn't be practical. Wouldn't be helpful. But then it probably wouldn't be easy to get people for texting either. How many people are going to be texting with their electronic-doo-dad at head level, such that a police officer can see it? Isn't it more likely that they'd be texting with the device down by their lap? How could the officer then prove that they were texting? Most traffic issues are the word of the officer versus the word of the driver. And in the case of texting, the officer probably wouldn't even be a witness to the crime, he'd just be making an educated guess that the person was texting. Not that I think people should be texting or talking on cell phones when driving. I don't even own a cell phone, so I'm not really even involved directly in much of this.

While a police officer may not be able to see you texting, he would be able to see the potential results of the dual actions, which would be erratic driving and potentially causing an accident. A study done by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found texting while driving to increase the crash risk 23-fold. When Car and Driver did an "unofficial" study of texting-while-driving vs. drunk driving, they found the two to be comparably dangerous.

Now, just as every police officer can't see who has had a few too many beers in them, they can see the results of their actions, and when it results in the death or injury of another, can penalize them accordingly.

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

I can remember being pulled over for driving a bit erratically.  I hadn't been drinking any alcohol, nor had I been talking on a cell phone; I was just momentarily careless in discerning the line that separated the two lanes (going the same direction) in the darkness of night.  I didn't get a ticket for the infraction, just an admonition to drive a bit more carefully.  I offer this merely as a personal anecdote to inform others that the police will notice erratic driving and act accordingly.

[stashko]

I seem to remember that there was a bill being discussed here in PA that would ban texting while driving. What do you all think about these kinds of bills? Will it prevent accidents, or is it just another useless governmental intrusion into our lives? Are certain things major distractions, and others not as much? The common things brought up seem to be texting, cell phone use, eating food, changing the radio station/CD, etc. However, one could argue that even talking to someone in the car could be a distraction, so where is the line drawn? I once got in an accident down on the South Side of Pittsburgh because I was talking to someone in the car with me, wasn't familiar with the area, and wasn't paying enough attention. I doubt anyone is going to push for not talking while driving though.

Hello ! Who ever uses a c d Player and not a mp-3 player in this time thats hold way more songs is nostalgic for the old ways, old way can be good.......Ha Ха Ха

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I do fine steering with my knees, though I drive automatics. 

Yes, but it's for the unexpected that you need both hands on the steering wheel. Lost seconds in chucking the phone, or the cigarette lighter or whatever, to get control of the wheel can cost too much. Yes, I watch all the defensive driving ads!  

I've seen a few of them on YouTube. I love what Australia is doing with these ads. In the US, we place road signs and billboards reminding people not to be distracted.

[PeterTheAleut]

I do fine steering with my knees, though I drive automatics. 

Yes, but it's for the unexpected that you need both hands on the steering wheel. Lost seconds in chucking the phone, or the cigarette lighter or whatever, to get control of the wheel can cost too much. Yes, I watch all the defensive driving ads!  

I've seen a few of them on YouTube. I love what Australia is doing with these ads. In the US, we place road signs and billboards reminding people not to be distracted.

Yet even road signs can be a distraction.

[ms.hoorah]

When I need to talk or text on the phone, I just let my groundhog drive.
http://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/uploads/image/big_bill_in_groundhog-731047.gif

Sometimes I let Toonces drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rdLOrOLJiA

[ms.hoorah]

Books are apparently a distraction to some.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/weather/22490314/detail.html

Feb. 10, 2010   Drivers on the Parkway West ( a busy interstate) near Robinson Town Centre encountered a massive mile-long backup Wednesday morning. "Turned out, a woman had panicked. She was afraid to drive in the snow and she stopped to read a book (on the interstate without pulling off the road)," PennDOT spokesman Jim Struzzi said.

The police were called and she was taken to a hospital to be evaluated.

[GiC]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that poop happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.


Profanity replaced with something more appropriate.  Please remember that this thread is on one of our public boards and that you don't have the license to use the language you might use in the Private Forum.  Thank you.  -PtA

[HandmaidenofGod]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that shit happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.

Who spilled rotten milk in your corn flakes this morning? 

[GiC]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that shit happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.

Who spilled rotten milk in your corn flakes this morning? 

LOL...it's just another intrusion of the state on the individual, which I'm frankly sick of...nothing personal. I have the same objections to speed limits, seat belt laws, and a thousand others...if someone thinks driving is too dangerous, then keep off the roads.

[ChristusDominus]

Car and Driver did an "unofficial" study of texting-while-driving vs. drunk driving, they found the two to be comparably dangerous.

Car and Driver should do a study on texting-while-driving-drunk. I wonder about the results.

[GiC]

Car and Driver did an "unofficial" study of texting-while-driving vs. drunk driving, they found the two to be comparably dangerous.

Car and Driver should do a study on texting-while-driving-drunk. I wonder about the results.

That's a good point, I wonder if there's a limit to how distracted you can be

[HandmaidenofGod]

LOL...it's just another intrusion of the state on the individual, which I'm frankly sick of...nothing personal. I have the same objections to speed limits, seat belt laws, and a thousand others...if someone thinks driving is too dangerous, then keep off the roads.

I think most of these laws are driven by the insurance companies. It's fine to say "if someone thinks driving is too dangerous, then keep off the roads," but if you're in an accident and you're the victim, you want someone to pay for your injuries.

The insurance companies push for these laws in the hopes of reducing the numbers of accidents to reduce their liability.

[ms.hoorah]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that shit happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.

Worthless human beings we call police?? 

I don’t like government intrusion either, but stating that the men/women who may risk their lives to help you are worthless is just deplorable. 

[GiC]

LOL...it's just another intrusion of the state on the individual, which I'm frankly sick of...nothing personal. I have the same objections to speed limits, seat belt laws, and a thousand others...if someone thinks driving is too dangerous, then keep off the roads.

I think most of these laws are driven by the insurance companies. It's fine to say "if someone thinks driving is too dangerous, then keep off the roads," but if you're in an accident and you're the victim, you want someone to pay for your injuries.

The insurance companies push for these laws in the hopes of reducing the numbers of accidents to reduce their liability.

I don't disagree, but I think to allow these insurance companies not only to influence our laws, but to influence the establishment of laws contrary to the constitution is unforgivable. Not even the security and continuance of our republic is worth violating constitutional principles, much less saving a few bucks.

[GiC]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that shit happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.

Worthless human beings we call police??  

I don’t like government intrusion either, but stating that the men/women who may risk their lives to help you are worthless is just deplorable.  

I stand by my statement. If these 'people' had any dignity or self-respect they'd find another career. Oh, and I can defend my self well enough; if someone breaks into your home, your defense is up to you, don't count on the police coming to your rescue, if you can't take up arms and defend yourself...you're dead.

[HandmaidenofGod]

I don't disagree, but I think to allow these insurance companies not only to influence our laws, but to influence the establishment of laws contrary to the constitution is unforgivable. Not even the security and continuance of our republic is worth violating constitutional principles, much less saving a few bucks.

I agree with you. Yet even Plato in his idealized Republic did not foresee "Insurance Companies" and their impact on Govt.

I don't like it, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. I don't believe the country would ever vote to get rid of Insurance Companies.

[Liz]

Using a non hands-free phone while driving is banned in the UK.

I don't see the harm: I've never needed to answer my phone so much it couldn't wait. But, I think answering a phone is not really a problem, whereas texting is quite obviously dangerous. Texting while you drive is just stupid and irresponsible.

[katherineofdixie]

Here's an idea: an insurance company could write the exclusion into your policy that they will not pay in the event of an accident if it's determined that the driver was texting or talking on a cell phone.
No laws needed, and if you don't like the terms of the policy, go to another company.

[GiC]

Here's an idea: an insurance company could write the exclusion into your policy that they will not pay in the event of an accident if it's determined that the driver was texting or talking on a cell phone.
No laws needed, and if you don't like the terms of the policy, go to another company.

That would seem fair and reasonable to me...allow market forces to decide.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I do fine steering with my knees, though I drive automatics. 

Yes, but it's for the unexpected that you need both hands on the steering wheel. Lost seconds in chucking the phone, or the cigarette lighter or whatever, to get control of the wheel can cost too much. Yes, I watch all the defensive driving ads!  

I've seen a few of them on YouTube. I love what Australia is doing with these ads. In the US, we place road signs and billboards reminding people not to be distracted.

Yet even road signs can be a distraction.

I know. The irony was fully intentional.

[Asteriktos]

I have the same objections to speed limits, seat belt laws, and a thousand others...if someone thinks driving is too dangerous, then keep off the roads.

I wouldn't live in a society that wouldn't establish speed limits.  

[ms.hoorah]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that shit happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.

Worthless human beings we call police??  

I don’t like government intrusion either, but stating that the men/women who may risk their lives to help you are worthless is just deplorable.  

I stand by my statement. If these 'people' had any dignity or self-respect they'd find another career. Oh, and I can defend my self well enough; if someone breaks into your home, your defense is up to you, don't count on the police coming to your rescue, if you can't take up arms and defend yourself...you're dead.

I couldn't disagree more.  Some of us have officers defend/protect/rescue us on a weekly sometimes daily basis at our jobs.  I can't begin to count how many hundreds of times an officer has taken a punch, kick, slap or spitball to protect me from dangerously ill patients that come into the hospital.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that shit happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.

Worthless human beings we call police??  

I don’t like government intrusion either, but stating that the men/women who may risk their lives to help you are worthless is just deplorable.  

I stand by my statement. If these 'people' had any dignity or self-respect they'd find another career. Oh, and I can defend my self well enough; if someone breaks into your home, your defense is up to you, don't count on the police coming to your rescue, if you can't take up arms and defend yourself...you're dead.

I couldn't disagree more.  Some of us have officers defend/protect/rescue us on a weekly sometimes daily basis at our jobs.  I can't begin to count how many hundreds of times an officer has taken a punch, kick, slap or spitball to protect me from dangerously ill patients that come into the hospital.

Agreed. We had a school resource officer (a former Secret Service agent) for the first couple of years I was at this school. He was a great guy, a friend to all the kids, and a wonderful deterrent to fighting and other disturbances. Since he retired, and we didn't replace him, I've seen the number of disturbances rise.

[GiC]

I have the same objections to speed limits, seat belt laws, and a thousand others...if someone thinks driving is too dangerous, then keep off the roads.

I wouldn't live in a society that wouldn't establish speed limits.  

And, yet, outside towns and cities, most of the roads in the country didn't have speed limits for decades.

[GiC]

Even if this law reduces the number of drivers who use a cell phone (in any capacity) while driving by 10%, that's 10% less potential for accidents caused by cell phones.

In my mind, that's a good thing.

It hasn't. We have a law like that in California, yet, texting while driving has INCREASED since the law was passed. At one point texting was merely a distraction while driving long distances, now it's an obligation, it's civil disobedience.

This is nothing more than another intrusion of the state into personal liberty in the name of 'safety', which is NEVER justifiable under ANY circumstances. Drunk driving has long been used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights against search and seizure, the last thing we need is to give those worthless excuses for human beings we call police yet another excuse to trample upon our constitution. People need to learn that shit happens, life's not safe and people die...stop crying about it and get used to it.

Worthless human beings we call police??  

I don’t like government intrusion either, but stating that the men/women who may risk their lives to help you are worthless is just deplorable.  

I stand by my statement. If these 'people' had any dignity or self-respect they'd find another career. Oh, and I can defend my self well enough; if someone breaks into your home, your defense is up to you, don't count on the police coming to your rescue, if you can't take up arms and defend yourself...you're dead.

I couldn't disagree more.  Some of us have officers defend/protect/rescue us on a weekly sometimes daily basis at our jobs.  I can't begin to count how many hundreds of times an officer has taken a punch, kick, slap or spitball to protect me from dangerously ill patients that come into the hospital.

I prefer personal responsibility...you prefer state responsibility. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here that won't be resolved on this thread.

[Asteriktos]

And, yet, outside towns and cities, most of the roads in the country didn't have speed limits for decades.

Well see, that's just proof that it was all part of God's master plan for me to be born when I was. 

[Jetavan]

Honk if you love Jesus. Text while driving if you want to meet him.

[PeterTheAleut]

Honk if you love Jesus. Text while driving if you want to meet him.

[Shanghaiski]

"Text 'Lord, have mercy' 40 times if you're Orthodox."