Legislators Ponder BlackBerry Pileups 333
WSJdpatton writes to mention that legislators are taking a look at a new driving offense, DWT — Driving While Texting. Sparked by an increase in accidents related to the use of an electronic devices, this is just the latest in a string of "distracted driving" laws that are being entertained. "Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions. In Washington, D.C., an industry lobby group called CTIA -- The Wireless Association has begun tracking legislation, including Ms. McDonald's bill, and scratching out a strategy to counter it."
Uhhhhhhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, Oh, Oh, I know the answer!
"some common freaking sense or a chauffeur!"
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhhhhh!!! Ahhhh!!!! I can't feel my legs!
Losing blood. Feeling faint. Can only type. Sentence fragments.
Must...finish...post.
NO CARRIER
Awesome! (Score:2)
posted-from-i-94 (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...instead of looking at, say, the road ahead of you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh
I suggest that you consider who I was referring to in my post.
Why do we need new laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
The cynical--and obvious--answer (Score:5, Insightful)
So that politicians can look like they're doing something about this grave new threat to everyone's safety.
Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing.
Do we really need a law to prevent, what, a dozen or so at the most accidents a year? Would those dozen or so people who cause those accident really not send text messages while driving because of it?
Re: (Score:2)
So that politicians can look like they're doing something about this grave new threat to everyone's safety.
Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing.
Do we really need a law to prevent, what, a dozen or so at the most accidents a year? Would those dozen or so people who cause those accident really not send text messages while driving because of it?
The exact same argument could be used to say that there shouldn't be a law specifically against drunk driving. After all, if they drive dangerously they'll get arrested for that right? Except it's never that simple. It's not up to people to decide whether they're safe to do something while driving because they'll very often make the wrong option - the one that's convenient for them even if it's unsafe for others (and ultimately them too). You'll instantly start getting "I can't believe they pulled me over
Another obvious answer... (Score:4, Insightful)
The exact same argument could be used to pass a law making it illegal to build a campfire in the passenger seat of your car while driving. It's impractical to make laws to prevent every stupid thing a person may do while driving. At some point, you have to say, "You know what? We're going to trust you to use a little bit of common sense. If we find that you've got a bit of a lapse of it, though, and you do something dangerous, we're going to pull you over and give you a ticket."
Yes, some people will still do stupid things. They always will. It's impossible to outlaw them all.
What you can do is make a judgment about which are particularly dangerous. Drunk driving fits into that category, evidenced by the enormous number of accidents and fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Driving while drunk is also a special case in my mind because drinking specifically causes your judgment to be impaired. Texting on a Blackberry, to my knowledge, doesn't make one more stupid than they already are.
That why I was wonder exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" there are. If the answer is thousands, then yeah, passing a law against it would probably be a Good Thing®. If it's a few fluke fender-benders, then it's no big deal, and should be well-covered by existing laws regarding paying attention (or in this case, not) while on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on a minute, how many folk have you seen recently lighting a bonfire in their car while driving. Now how many have you seen using a mobile phone.
With evidence showing using a mobile phone to be more dangerous than driving while drunk, folk clearly aren't going to stop until t
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Pileups: Few. Minor to moderate accidents I have actually witnessed: Several a year. How many near misses have I had because some bozo was too busy texting to pay attention to the road: Several - ever
Re: (Score:2)
It is. Unfortunately, I foresee that if police start enforcing this existing "law" -- whether through arrests, tickets, or warnings -- there will be an enormous backlash.
Think of all the people you know or drive near who believe that if they aren't in an accident, they cannot be driving carelessly. Because clearly if you're not causing physical damage, you must be driving okay!
I once worked with a fellow who said he drove under the assumption that "basically, n
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but as long as police seem to be focused on easily provable violations like speed limits and tags expiring, somewhat nebulous laws like careless driving laws are just not going to be enforced. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it's the truth. If there is a specific law against using Blackberries, that makes for an easy conviction and you might be able to get police to get off their lazy duffs and enforce such a law. God forbid they have to show up in co
No new laws needed (Score:5, Interesting)
That is unsafe driving. Unsafe driving is currently against the law, and it covers more than just cell phones and crackberries. It is no more enforced than any new law against one specific type of unsafe driving would be. Why don't we just enforce the laws we have instead of making new ones that will also only be conditionally enforced?
unsafe driving (Score:2)
careless, reckless, and unsafe (newest) unsafe means no insurance points, just more cash straight to the state.
no. what that woman did was reckless.. it shows a clear contempt for the dangers of the road, and the fact that she has a 2 ton mass hurtling down the road.
that said, I text while driving, and expect I'll pay for it someday...
Re:unsafe driving (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No new laws needed (Score:5, Funny)
Great points throughout your entire post. So...was she hot?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh, reading that last paragraph, I can imagine most guys going "Yeah, so? That's normal, dude!" I guess I'm not normal
Re:No new laws needed (Score:5, Funny)
First, after I've had sex with my wife, I feel revolted and I want her out of the house. But, then, I realize that whether I like it or not, she's getting at least 50%. So, I get over it and try to interact. Second, this experience should prove to you that even bad sex is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! I'll be here all week. Be sure to try the fish.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No new laws needed (Score:5, Funny)
morning I was stuck behind a vapid looking blond in a Mercedes. She was driving erratically,
happened to me too this morning, she swerved across my path, causing me to drop my shaver, doughnut and mobile phone, the latter fell into my coffee and spilled it!
Re: (Score:2)
What you're looking for is called 'Public Transportation'. Look it up sometime.
A-fucking-men. (Score:5, Insightful)
Close, but not quite.
There's an infinite variety of shit you can distract yourself with when you're driving. Trying to craft legislation to address every single one of those things would be a great jobs program for would-be legislators, but it's likely to be ineffectual.
Like so many other problems with cars, this is one that's directly the responsibility of the idiot behind the wheel. Competent drivers don't distract themselves while they're driving, and the source of the problem is that we insist on giving drivers' licenses to people who are not only not competent, but whose only qualification for driving is the ability to fog a mirror.
If drivers' licenses actually signified some level of competence, rather than simply the ability to pay a registration fee, then the problem of drivers playing with their Blackberries or their cellphones or their makeup or a road map while they're supposed to be driving would tend to disappear, because those people would be either on a bus, or in the back seat of a carpool.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like trying to educate a long term substance abuser about the health habits.
They know, they could care less.
The law would at least allow them to fine the people, and maybe provide for harsher sentancing. The former could help pay for some of the damage they cause (probably not), and both could add just that little bit of incentive not to do the obviously stupid things they were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a law that does the exact same thing except for a more narrow description doesn't help, doesn't make people more alert, and it doesn't put more police on the highways to enforce the laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't make more police want to enforce the laws, either.
Here in Pennsylvania, it's a statewide law that if you're on a multilane highway you keep to the right unless you're passing someone. If you're driving in the left lane, not passing anyone, holding up traffic behind you, you're breaking the law. Even if you're the only car on the road, if you're driving in the left lane for some reason other than to pass someone, you're breaking
Re: (Score:2)
If you cause an accident because you're being stupid. You (not your insurance company) have to pay for the damage you to to other people and their property. You should still have insurance to cover the damage if you can't pay, but you should have your license revoked until you finish repaying your debt to the insurer.
If there were consequences to irresponsible behavior, people would be inclined to stop behaving badly. Also, it would lower
Reckless driving? (Score:2)
Rather than making new laws for every specific thing someone can do in a car that will result in reckless driving, just charge them with reckless driving and be done with it.
Saw a lady doing needle point as she drove down 50 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Saw a lady doing needle point as she drove down (Score:3, Funny)
Again... more new laws that are not needed! (Score:2)
You didn't think your cunning plan through... (Score:2)
Whoa, sparky. This is a law. You need to KEEP SUBJECTS DISTINCT.
The driver is not a subject in this fragment, only the motor vehicle. It makes it illegal for the motor vehicle to read/write/send electronic messages? Now, let's see what this wording outlaws, off the top of my head:
Buses that display the route/bus number
Trains that have verbal announcements of stops
Police Officers l
Re: (Score:2)
The motor vehicle is not doing the operating. It is not 'a subject' at all. In fact, it's a direct object. http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/
What is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
There are already laws on the books for negligent driving.
There are already laws on the books for distracted driving.
Between those two, you cover the vast swath of "being a danger to others".
You don't need laws for "driving while texting", "driving while putting on makeup", "driving while reading the NYT", "driving while eating", "driving while thinking about that really hot chick at the club", "driving while changing clothes", "driving while being outsmarted by the radio/CD player", "driving while tired, because I was an idiot and stayed up all night playing WoW", etc.
If any of those (or thousands of other examples) result in the person driving in a distracted or negligent manner, they are ALREADY illegal. If not, then why should anyone care?
Re: (Score:2)
Because politicians like the following things:
1) Righteous indignation (personal)
2) Righteous indignation (public)
3) Being seen as "doing something about the problem"
4) Being seen as "needed" per 3)'s corrollary
5) Addititonal power
Voter Support: Level up!
+3 chr +2 wis
Learned skill: Pride
Re: (Score:2)
More Legislation... (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:4, Funny)
If found, do not activate airbag.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are in marketing, just kill yourself now. (Score:2)
CTIA: "Yeah! It is discriminatory for the legislature to focus only on wireless dev
I must admit (Score:2)
Is the call/text really that urgent? (Score:2, Insightful)
They will never outlaw the biggest distraction (Score:4, Insightful)
You can turn off gadgets, but you cannot turn off your children. (Well, you can, but they tend to not come back on and it voids the warrenty.)
Until they outlaw children in cars these accidents will continue to happen.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kids in the back seat causes accidents.
Accidents in the back seat causes kids.
The heart of DWT. (Score:2)
If an employee is so important, it's key that they're reachable when their on their way somewhere else, or needs to be instantly accessed 24/7, maybe there needs to be thought about why that's happening. Why the
i usually don't like (Score:2)
yes, i can imagine at least half a dozen problems with this scheme. i'm just trying to be constructive. driving while texting is obviously a problem, but laws aimed at behavior modification are less appealing than laws that target the car industry to empower dr
Re: (Score:2)
Studies have conclusively shown that 95% of the 'distraction' is caused by not THINKING about the road.
Those hands free car phones? They don't solve the problem at all - people are just as likely to get in an accident while using them as when you use a regular cell phone.
that has to be bullshit (Score:2)
i often daydream while driving. i think everyone does. and i don't think it affects my response time at all, as my eyes are on the road, and i can anticipa
Don't need a new law (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't need a new law to deal with this. Reckless driving is already on the books in every jurisdiction. All they need is a law, regulation or ruling saying that failure to pay attention to the road, regardless of why you're not paying attention, is indeed reckless driving. Then it doesn't matter whether the guy's texting on his Blackberry, gabbing on his cel phone, has his head down fiddling with his overly-complicated stereo system or is turned around yelling at his kid in the back seat, he can get pulled over and ticketed. In California this is already the case, see California Vehicle Code sections 23103 [ca.gov] and 23104 [ca.gov]. Besides the fine and possible jail time, it's also a 2-point violation and 4 points in 12 months or 6 points in 24 months is a suspended license which will really put a crimp in these people's lives.
Symptoms of a larger problem... (Score:2)
Most people [including myself from time to time, but I think, perhaps with bias less so] commit driving infractions on a ROUTINE basis. Changing lanes without properly checking, or signalling, speeding, denying right of way, etc... So
UK Prison Sentence for DWT (Score:4, Informative)
In fact someone who caused a fatal accident while texting has been sentenced to jail for 2 years, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6357425.stm [bbc.co.uk] and another to a young offenders institution, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6448887
But it's common to other EU countries too, here is another example from France; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3673632.s
The REAL solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawmakers have to get out of this mindset of making laws for things to say what we can't do, and maybe work on rethinking the problem a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a stupid argunment and shows complete ignorance of numbers.
How many millions of miles are driven every day? how many 10's of people are injured?
The only way public transportatin can be ubiquitous if they stopped in front of you home whenever you needed them, and were ready to go where ever you need to go whenever you want to go.
But that would be expensive and wastefull.
Plus the more cars, the slower the traffic, the safer it is to use your blackberry
We already have laws for this (Score:2)
If an officer see's someone driving recklessly they should pull them over.
It doesn't matter if it was a phone, blackberry, putting on makeup, shaving, or wacking off.
Then give them the ticket.
The only organization the benefits is the insurance industry. It's just another way for them to get out of paying.
WTF?! (Score:2)
I'm having trouble visualising how one collision could reasonably lead to not one, not two, but three further collisions. I mean, how fast were these people going? When you go fast, you're supposed to go by the "two second" rule for distance from other vehicles. If they were going slow, how could the momentum have jostled a car three
Already covered by existing laws... (Score:2)
Note - I turn off the cell when driving, or if I'm expecting a call I pull over before answering.
commuting is boring (Score:2)
US laws seem a bit too specific (Score:2)
Admittedly, they did amend the law recently to band using a mobile phone in any way while driving, but at least in theory you could have been prosecuted under the old law anyway. I think the amendment was simply to get some free advertising and good publicity.
Too much "head-down time" (Score:5, Informative)
Aviation cockpit designers think hard about this stuff. They refer to it as "head-down time" [uiuc.edu], the time the pilot is looking at something else in the cockpit and not out the windscreen. In combat, this is fatal. Hence the military emphasis on heads-up displays and HOTAS (Hands On Throttle and Stick) input devices. In civilian aircraft, cockpits are designed to minimize head-down time at least during takeoff, approach, and landing.
Much automotive and civilian gear is terrible by these standards. Cockpit designers insist on big knobs you can set by feel and interfaces that minimize head-down time. They try hard to avoid interfaces with unneeded state, and ones where you have to look to see what state you're in. BMW's iDrive [wikipedia.org] was terrible in this regard. BMW's answer was to include a disclaimer that it was unsafe to operate iDrive while driving. Really.
One design feature that can kill - an interface which times out. The pilot/driver must be able to stop dealing with some cockpit gadget without losing any work. Phones/keyboards/dashboard devices that time out during data entry are dangerous, because they train the user to give them undivided attention. Some phones have this problem, and some don't. Texting has this problem.
"Nothing to watch but the road" - early Oldsmobile slogan.
new baby (Score:2)
Make it simple (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be much simpler than these silly knee-jerk reactions to specific un-problems?
The real problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't really get to the root of the problem. We need to start punishing stupidity more harshly.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it too late yet to submit my application for the U.S. presidential election in 2008?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Einstein, alone in the jungle without a bunch of "stupid" people around to take up the slack and focus on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you just believe that excellence is universal, that real genius will be good at everything. I don't think that's true. Take me for example, I'm very smart but also very forgetful and absent minded. I know that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you deny my basic premise?
Maybe you just believe that excellence is universal, that real genius will be good at everything. I don't think that's true. Take me for example, I'm very smart but also very forgetful and absent minded. I know that I have a lot to offer but I also know that, by myself, I'm kind of incomplete as a person. Having others around, I could trade my smarts for their organizational or hunting skills.
I deny your premise, because you seem to confuse "genius" and "smarts" with having a particular ability set. There are plenty of smart people in the world who think about such "mundane" things as auto repair or farming. Perhaps they aren't at what you would consider 'genius' level, but they aren't stupid because they aren't standing at a whiteboard all day.
The stupid people in the world are unable to or (worse) refuse to think about anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that most bad drivers, while they can be the CAUSE of an accident, often do not suffer the consequence of an accident. Its the cars reacting to their stupidities that end up smashed while they continue on, oblivious to their asshatery.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Oh, so let me see, I can't be drunk while driving, I can't be dropping acid, I can't use a cell phone, I can't camp the passing lane, I can't watch TV, I can't put on lipstick, I can't fire automatic weapons
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only ultimate solution is cars that drive themselves. Technology is on the rise, and people will be finding more and more ways to distract themselves behind the wheel. Furthermore, days are getting more and more busy in this fast paced society of ours, and we all have plenty of crap to think about whilst in transit to work or school.
Automated highways are the solution for the future, and really the only solution IMHO. Until they are implemented, we will
Re: (Score:2)
Well, half of all people are better than average drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
But frankly, it's worse than that. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because you're wrong - you can't handle it. You've handled it _so far_ but you're increasing your risk while driving distracted. Period. You may never get into/cause an accident, but your risk of doing so is higher than mine.
Re: (Score:2)
you make the primary focus the road, and keep the phone peripherally focused.. you warn the person who called that youre on the road and may need things repeated... if you see people preparing to act idiotic, or see the beginnings of erratic behavior (there are ALWAYS signs before it happens) then you tell them youll call back.
its not my fault other people cant
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than that. When he does cause an accident, it will probably be at a higher speed than a cautious driver would be driving at due to his confidence in his abilities.
He's right about watching out for stupid drivers though - if I had some way of identifying him on the road, I _would_ be keeping my distance.
Anyway, I suspect we've been trolled.
Re:Why not just have a new "dee dee dee" driving t (Score:5, Insightful)
What is your licence plate number so I know to avoid you? Whenver someone says they drive fine with distractions and the problem is with stupid people on the road. Then that means they are a bad driver and don't want to admit it. I know I am not the best driver in the world realizing that has made me a little bit safer and calmer on the road. Knowing and admiting to yourself when you make a mistake allows you to fix it in the future to improve your driving. As well it makes you less fustrated when someone else does a mistake because you can remember when you did the same thing. But the people who think they are good drivers usually act like jerks on the road cutting people off tailgating them and may other bad driving things just because they think they can handle it.
Re:Why not just have a new "dee dee dee" driving t (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not just have a new "dee dee dee" driving t (Score:2)
Re:Why not just have a new "dee dee dee" driving t (Score:3, Insightful)
I can drive perfectly well while using a phone or eating because i know how to read the early signs of stupid people and PUT DOWN THE PHONE OR FOOD when i see them.
For me, the early signs of stupid people are people who are on the phone or eating.
I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
I've been driving for 20 years. No accidents of any kind. Only 5 years since your last at-faul
Re: (Score:2)
funny how you go off on your tangent attacking me when i gave the example of my mother, who does the same thing, and has not had an at fault accident since my birth (i've been driving 8 years.. do the math pal).
For me, the early signs of stupid people are people who are on the phone or eating.
this is called prejudice.. can we say prejudice? gooood. next thing youll say is "for me, early signs of criminals are their skin col
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong again. Most people aren't involved in at-fault accidents at any point in their driving history. People are more likely to be involved in one at your age, but most young male drivers (70%, surprisingly) manage to avoid them [monash.edu.au] altogether. [Big ol' PDF.]
In the parlance of accident studies, you would fall into the "cognitive error" attribution category, as your ungrounded perceptions of your own driving ability are likel
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not just have a new "dee dee dee" driving t (Score:3, Insightful)
So can my mother. I'm clear of at fault accidents for over 5 years, and i've only been driving for 8.
A poor driver avoids "at fault accidents"
A good driver avoids accidents.
The defense of "the other guy came from nowhere and hit me" is only useful for determining who pays. In reality, it's bullshit. The "other guy" came from somewhere. Just because the law doesn't fault you for not avoidin
Re: (Score:2)
These statements contradict each other. By your own admission, you're not only imperfect, you're actually substandard.
And unsurprisingly narcissistic, to boot. Thank you fo
Re:Why not just have a new "dee dee dee" driving t (Score:2)
Yeah, I do the same thing, and the early signs of stupidity that I look for include someone holding a phone or sandwhich.
Glad to know that in your universe, stupid people always give you ample warning before swerving into your lane, considerately allowing you time to identify them, find a place to set down your phone/food/beverage, and return you
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow! So you got in at least one at-fault accident 5 years ago, and you've been in other accidents for which you were not techincally at fault since then. If you were so good at identifying and responding to other stupid drivers, you would have avoided those accidents. "Not at fault" does not mean that you were in no way responsible for the accident
one accident in the past 5 years thank you.. i was hit while sitting at a light behind someone else, next to someone on the
Re:Why not just have a new "dee dee dee" driving t (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you put down your phone before he hit you due to your uncanny ability to detect the stupid in advance?
And you were still in at least one at-fault accident before that, which is one more than me in the entire time you've been driving. Why should I be impressed with your amazing driving abilities again?
by a freaking troll who cant accept what someone else tells them, and decides to make insinuations about HIS life, and also cannot accept the fact that not everyone with a phone is incapable of driving.
Nobody is incapable of driving while talking on the phone. If they were incapable, there wouldn't be a problem because they wouldn't be on the road. No, the problem is idiots like you who think you can be distracted by a phone, but because of your magic ability to identify stupid people in advance -- an ability apparently not hampered by being on the phone -- you know to put the phone down before an accident happens, so you're not any less safe. You are dangerously wrong.
The problem is people like you who think that because they are capable of driving while on the phone, that ergo they are no less safe driving while on the phone. People like you are the problem. People like you cause accidents. Just because you may not have caused one yet means very little, just like you're not having been killed yet doesn't mean you are immortal. So no, I'm not going to just accept someone who says they have magical driving abilities that makes using the phone no less safe for them.
I've heard it too many times before. Someone who thinks that they are a great driver, and all problems are caused by other idiots. Someone who thinks that they are such a great driver, that what is for everyone else a bad driving habit is not any more dangerous for them. If you were such a great driver, you would not have the bad habit to begin with. But you're not. You're another idiot who thinks you're smarter than everyone else and can drive like a jacktard without putting anyone at risk. Just like every other idiot on the phone while driving.
Here's a fact: No actual good driver thinks that they themselves are not a possible source of error while driving. No actual good driver thinks they can engage in unsafe driving practices safetly. Being a good driver means knowing what is safe and unsafe, not that the rules of safety magically change. Anyone who claims that is, in fact, an unsafe driver.
This ain't a troll, this is a flame from an irate driver sick of retards who think their self-proclaimed super-driving means they can be unsafe on the road. You are no different than those you deride, and you're equally delusional. I'll wrap this up by saying to you what I say to them:
TELL THEM YOU'LL CALL THEM BACK, THEN HANG UP AND FUCKING DRIVE.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving a blow job while driving?
Damn man... thats pretty hard core... at the very least the passenger should have hold of the wheel
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the radio station
Putting on make-up
Shaving
Talking on a cell phone
Eating
Drinking
Smoking
Referring to a map
Referring to a GPS
Driving with children in the car*
And reading should be exapanded to include road signs, especially highway interchange signs
And I am sure I have left plenty of other distractions out as well
*Yes, I have children and realize they need to get from place to place, but I am definitely aware that they steal a dangerous amount of my at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are lucky, or dealing with a recently acquired GF. Wait until she starts criticizing your driving skills. My SO spends the entire time complaining about my driving skills, but she refuses to take the wheel herself. For the record, I've been driving for over 20 years and have never been the cause of an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that like drunk driving, in the majority of cases, it is the other person who gets the worst of it, not the person doing the driving.
I'm all for people who drive drunk getting in accidents and killing themselves. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case. The same with texting. The people who are doing the texting while driving aren't usually the ones who get killed or maimed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an excellent big brother idea. But how about this, you are in the back seat of someone else's car and now you have to pull over to use your cell phone