Texting Ban increase accident rate.
 

This is interesting

...BEFORE or AFTER idiots?

Lazarus -

Sounds like it's going to take a generation of DUI/MADD-style of pressure to change this behavior. Would you call this Twitterholism, Twitoholism, or Textoholism?

CarloSW2

I'm seriously thinking about installing a cell phone jammer in my car, but I fear that might cause more problems as those idiots are trying to figure out why they can't text or talk on the phone all of a sudden.

Twits?

Unfortuneately, MADD = Nazi. They have gone waaaay too far. :mad:

The texting is a problem but not the only one and I agree it will be an up hill battle. I see this up close and personal about 3 times a week as someone will try to run over me while in the process of talking, texting ,reading, doing makeup, or watching DVD's. :mad:

I like Frank idea "twits"

I like DAMM
drunks against mad mothers

Frank -

Hee hee hee, I had a feeling you might say that. I don't have a better answer, but a preponderance of crashes is the only thing that will change this behavior.

But, by that time it won't matter because the testing will be replaced by wet-wired tele-talking into our brains.

CarloSW2

It was a dumb idea to even place a law such as a texting ban on the books, the reason we have had a law that covered this and many other things like this its called "reckless driving".

Not to mention that you could get in big trouble for this since usually jamming devices in violation of the FCC. Assuming you get caught, but I could use one of these at times also or a GPS jamming unit.

I say we go for the crashes, Darwin in action.

Unfortunately they may not just crash into each other.

I've been happily recording mobile phone muppets on my in car camera - which is deliberately out of reach for obvious reasons :)

...hm-m-m-m, sounds like a "challenge" for somebody with a wickedly inventive mind!

...maybe a "Darwin Magnet"?

We should go to a European style of licensing. Where it takes two years and about 3k to get a license. The penalties for Drunk driving and moving violations should be stricter. Put their licenses at risk, and the ability to drive and people tend to listen. A small fine is not enough to change anyones driving habits when most people spend more money on their cell phone bills to begin with.

We should do all that why? Is the accident rate that high?

Make it the law that if you crash while distracting yourself while driving that your at fault, even in circumstances where the other driver would normally be at fault. We need to go to major problem of driving while distracted, not just address specific distractions in a piece meal fashion.

...hm-m-m, does that mean we replace the old "debtors prisons" with new "driver's prisons"?

...and give out free tickets to a daily Darwin Ball?

A small fine is objective if you only make $1667 before taxes a month and get a speeding ticket for $150 that is nearly half a weeks pay. So in that situation paying about 1% of your after tax income as a speeding ticket would make a difference ($20,000yr * .16tax). If the person that gets $150 speeding ticket makes $85,000 a year before taxes gets the ticket it will not be effective for them. Speeding tickets should have a set minimum and increase with income.

As for making it very expensive to drive in the US I doubt that it would work since most areas do not have adequate public transportation or enough employment located by peoples homes to support them. So in doing so it COULD increase unemployment, people on Medicaid, food stamps, and increase the price/funding of public transportation. The last one would not be so bad since increased funding would put more bus lines in trams ect. but if it is not available within walking distance of those with out cars/license it would not be of much use.

How about just making the at-fault person at fault? Unless you're also willing to ban radios, CBs, passengers, food, printed materials, razors, make-up...

how dare you advocate personal responsibility. Don't you know that nanny is suppose to tel you all the things that are bad.

...which is it? nanny or ninny (as in nin-com-poop)?

Do what we do here. You get points. Points do not make prizes.

Non serious speeding is 3 points - I have 3, Mrs A has 3. Most people do.

More serious speed = 6.

Dangerous driving 6 to 9 to a ban.

Mobile phoning and just being caught 3 points.

Mobile phoning and being dangerous is 6 to a ban.

If you get 12 points then its game over, your licence is removed and you are walking or on the bus for 12 months or more. DUI is also a ban straight away. This is from the moment you are found guilty - quite a few people forget this and drive to court thinking they can drive home and then surrender their licence.

The points reset after a while, speeding a lower seriousness crimes drop away after 3 years - you gain an extra life :) If you get your licence back from a ban though your insurance will be a killer.

All of this is on top of fines.

Fines can be large. Even if you have enhanced breasts, which I do not. Mine are natural and due to over indulgence in pies :p

Jordan found guilty of driving rap - mirror.co.uk

...if you'll pardon the pun, Arragonis, you've made a good point!

it still boils down to the lack of proper penalties for irresponsibility while driving in the US. Most people who drive properly and obey MOST laws are the ones we don't need to worry about. It is the people who don't abide by MOST laws and do what they want who are the reason insurance rates go up, fatality statistics go up, and the reason I have to participate in stupid drive safe programs in the military even though I haven't even seen flashing lights in my rear view mirror in 8 years.

You mean the same programs you would advocate to the "bad" drivers out there?

My dad used to yell at people when I was in the car with him... "These ass-hats need to learn to eff'ing drive!"

"Who's gonna teach 'em, Dad? You?"

Of course, realizing that he was acting like the very same ass-hats he was yelling at, he would quiet right down.

It boils down to the fact that just because you haven't seen lights in your rear view mirror doesn't mean that you're a good or safe driver. It just means that you're not getting caught, for whatever reason.

I street raced for the first 3 years I had my license, regularly doing in excess of 100+ MPH on highways and public thruways.

NEVER ONCE got caught. So what was your point again?

It is funny you automatically assume I do all the same stuff you did, and so much others do. I haven't gone more than 5 over the speed limit since I got my last ticket 8 years ago. I did that only because I felt it was safer to keep up with traffic rather than being a possible hazard in the road. I have never done street racing, nor broken any major traffic laws. I don't see the point in it. The only reason I have slowed down to exactly on the speed limit or just below it is because I can't afford the gas for my commute, can't afford a new vehicle, and am trying desperately to move closer to work.

I do think it is funny when people try to play their transgressions on others, and assume everyone acts like they did. My point is people doing stupid stuff will, at some point, screw up and cause some major problems. You got lucky, good for you, most people don't. Those people are the reason others have to suffer in numerous ways.

Yes, either, both.

1. I didn't assume that you acted in any way short of how you've presented yourself here.

2. I know for a fact that, on average, far more people break the law and don't get caught than those that do. It's simple numbers. There are more would-be criminals than cops to arrest/ticket them. Easy.

3. I'm sure that, on more than one occasion, you've gone more than 5 over the limit and didn't even notice it. The bad part is that, at least in many states in the US, even 5 over the limit is illegal.

4. Even if you haven't sped, and you've signaled every turn, and you've stopped completely at every stop sign, you've still done something illegal. Trust me on this - You don't know every law out there, and I'm sure one of them covers something you probably do without even thinking about it.

5. The point of me saying what I said had nothing to do with comparing you to me, it was to show that just because you haven't been pulled over, doesn't mean you're not breaking the law. Plain and simple. I put it in terms which most could understand, just to make it more clear.

6. I strongly disagree that there is any legitimate reason to believe that insurance rates and the like have increased as any direct result of morons behind the wheel breaking the law. The insurance companies, like everything else, charge what they feel is suitable based on what they may have to pay out to a certain area on a yearly average, sliding scale. That said - It's a business, just like every other out there. YOU CAN NEGOTIATE your rates, and if they fail to see it your way, you can freely move on to the next company who will satisfy your needs. You can effectively change insurance companies in the US every week, if you so choose. There is no penalty for doing so. Believe me - If another company offers me a lower rate, with the same coverage, and they're a recognized, well-reviewed company, I'm going with them. I notify my current company of the situation, and ask if they'd like a chance to bargain for my business. They say "No, we don't do that here." I say "See ya. Cancel my policy effective (date)." and move on. You want a lower rate? Stop blaming morons with cracker-jack licenses and take advantage of the ideals of this Capitalist Country of ours.

Moderation in all things :D

Getting caught - here real Police have been replaced with Cameras. Cameras can catch you at speed yet I can drive at 80 (10 over the motorway limit) and be safe and get a camera ticket, or drive like a d**khead at 60 and I won't be detected at all. Some areas don't even have traffic police and I haven't seen on on a motorway since May. Maybe this will change with the new uk.gov, although I doubt it - scameras are much cheaper.

Limits - Here police have a threshold - usually they will let limit + 10% + 3mph go with no action or a wagging finger and a telling off and no ticket, or if a camera you won't get anything. Over that and they will probably go for the points.

Arragonis i just wanted to mention that we use a points system here also or at least in Kentucky I'm not sure about the other states but the amount of points to turning the license over is about the same as you posted.

My problem is that the law singles out mobile phones, even though there are plenty of other things people do--tuning the radio, talking to passengers, eating, drinking hot coffee, reading, playing with an iPod--that are just as dangerous (or even more so), and are perfectly legal. Oh wait, they aren't, because they're already covered under reckless driving laws. If you're being dangerous, regardless of why, it should be 3 to a ban, but mobile phones aren't particularly more dangerous than any of a dozen other activities drivers are engaged in, including watching their MPGuino instead of the road, and there shouldn't be any reason why holding a mobile phone in your hand has any more penalties than holding an iPod, sandwich or cup of coffee in your hand.

Reminds me of the laws that make committing a crime with a gun a crime...

The real reason all penalties in this country aren't stricter is that the lawmakers aren't out to prevent ANY behavior they're out to monetize ALL behavior, which is an unfortunate consequence of capitalist society, everything is about MONEY.

If they took the persons license how would they get to work to make more money so they could pay their next fine??

...beware of the truths you speak, for it *is* close to election time you know (wink,wink)!

Mobiles were singled out especially because people whinged that it is not dangerous. The muppets at TTAC still moan that they can use a hand held mobile perfectly safely whilst driving but they are total wankers. There I said it, and will take no arguments on it. :cool:

But the law here is quite broad. For example one lady got done for eating an apple whilst driving.

Yeah I know, you think this is extreme but you have to remember that a lot of cars in the UK do not have auto trans. A lot still don't even have PAS so not using both hands is quite a risk really.

Yet this morning I passed a traffic jam caused by a crash on the A702 bypass. And out of the cars just getting to the crash I estimate 2/3 had drivers on the handheld phone - yeah, you are coming up to a cop standing in the road - good idea. Most were orange women too. Fake tan has a lot to answer for.

I'm not clear on the point about guns, I am not a fan of them at all but I'm not going to preach about how I like living in a country where they can't be got hold of easily, and I like it that way tbh. To each his/her own.

On your point about people paying the fines, well yeah - that is where the system sometimes fails. For example if you don't have car tax the DVLA (uk.gov tax people) can clamp (boot) your car, tow it away and crush it unless you pay the tax and a fine. Except the tax is sometimes several times the value of the car so people just say f**k it and let them go.

Or they learn how to pick locks and remove the boot - which is legal as long as you don't damage it. One bloke removed the boot by picking the lock and then used it to lock the gates to his local DVLA yard, he is on Youtube somewhere.

So what you're saying is that it's your opinion. Got it.

I had put together statistics on distracted driving from a couple of sources for a Fark flamewar once. I wish I had kept that analysis, because it was telling.

For instance, among the causes of distracted driving, mobile phone use was in the single digit percentages, right around the other things I mentioned--talking to a passenger, adjusting the radio, sudden movement of an object in the car, drinking, eating, reading, personal grooming, etc. All of those caused accidents at about the same rate. Yet, none of those things is specifically banned in the U.S., even though they were as likely, or even more likely, to cause an accident.

I found that on the web, along with drivers getting nailed for eating ice cream, drinking water, etc. I don't know if that's specifically banned in the UK, or if they were caught because they were driving erratically. (How does a police helicopter spot somebody eating an apple if it first doesn't see them driving erratically?) Either way, if all of those other things are banned (including radios, which were very close to mobile phone in danger, and passengers, which are far more dangerous), then a mobile ban also makes sense. Obviously that's not the case.

I drive a stick, so I use a Bluetooth headset. However, to use your logic, they should ban manual transmissions, since you have to take a hand off the wheel (and a foot off the brake!) to shift.

And the other third had turned off their radios, told their passengers to shut up and put down the bickies too, I'll bet.

Has nothing to do with guns specifically. The point of the comment is that there are laws that make penalties for murder higher if a gun is used. It basically puts the focus on the gun, rather than the fact that somebody was murdered. Mobile phones are specifically targeted in the same way, even though they are but a tiny portion of accidents.

That's awesome. I had no idea you could legally pick the lock.

...it's gotta be both "...breaking and entering..."

Good. :thumbup:

Okay. Flame war. Got it. er, I don't want one...

Why the feck (excuse me :) ) should every single stupid thing people do behind the wheel be specifically outlawed. Thankfully we have a reasonable prescribed crime which is

'Driving without due care and attention'

It has been around for ages. Seems pretty fair to me. If an evidence exists you were (for example) swerving and you were on the phone / chatting / eating / picking fluff out of navel / inventing fusion power instead of driving then this is the law for it. It is then up to the court to decide if you are guilty or not. You can argue stats there.

I meant 2 hands to drive including gears. Joke here in the UK - if you are steering with one and eating an apple with another then where is your third for shifting etc - or are you a clever dick ? :D

No honest, I think we are on the same side - distracting stuff is bad. Take steps to avoid it. I have hands free too. I have a manual gearbox. I eat when parked. etc etc.

OK I understand this more now. I did tap my views and thats fine, I am not here to preach as I tapped - I get the point. Accepted and valued in my view.


Yep. UK law has lots of tricky twists and turns. If you are clamped generally and can remove it without damage to the clamp then you are free. Clamping (except the DVLA) is illegal in Scotland which although we are part of the UK has its own legal system. However even the DVLA clamp can be removed without charge if you don't damage it.

I'll just interject here on a slightly unrelated topic: I love Father Ted.

And yet you also specifically have a mobile ban that is completely separate. In California, if you're so much as picking up a phone to move it from the seat to the cupholder, it's a ticket. THAT'S my problem with the mobile ban. The problem is covered under existing reckless driving laws in the U.S. as well, but that wasn't good enough for the whiner (whinger?) crowd, so they made an additional law so that so much as glancing at a phone to see who is calling gets you a ticket.

LOL. That's why we have adjustable columns, to make steering with the knees more comfortable.

I tend to leave my eating for when I'm stopped, but there's enough contiguous nonstop freeway in California that one can generally leave the car in top gear long enough to eat or drink something--provided that something isn't ice cream or scalding hot tea.

In California, you can drive with a mobile if you use a headset, but if your fingers so much as touch the phone itself, it's a ticket. Thus, I have to hold the phone below the window line while dialing or ending a call, increasing the risk slightly. (Before, it was on a mount on the dashboard so my eyes were much closer to the road, but the law, as the thread topic suggests, has made things slightly more dangerous out there.)

My own informal surveys show cell use while driving DEEP into the double digits. Once upon a time I did try to find an "official" stat on cell use while driving but didn't succeed.

I'm referring to distracted-driving accidents caused by cell phones.

It is because you government does not exist to serve society, society exists to serve government now.

It was made a specific ban here was for 2 reasons.

Firstly the message wasn't getting through, people would trawl statistics etc. and believe they had the driving skills of Tony Pond and that the ban shouldn't apply to them.

Secondly, and more tellingly, it allowed the Police to deal with it as a fixed penalty - basically they issue a ticket there and then which you can challenge later rather than having to take people through the courts as they did with Driving Without Due Care and Attention.

One interesting piece of recent research found that the old excuse of a passenger having a conversation with the driver being just as bad was flawed. Your passenger is in the car with you and experiences the same challenges - when you go quiet so do they, but the person on the other end of the phone doesn't.

It has been this way since WW2, its just nobody noticed until more recently.