U.S. Goverment Shames Texting Drivers on Twitter (theverge.com) 293
An anonymous reader writes: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the federal body tasked with automotive safety," reports the Verge, adding "If you look at NHTSA's Twitter feed right now, you'll find that it's just a non-stop stream of burns aimed at people who admit -- sometimes gleefully -- that they text and drive."
For example, seeing a tweet that read, "I have no problem texting while driving, but I won't text while going down stairs, the NHTSA replied "You might not have a problem with the texting & driving...but we do. Stay off your phone and #justdrive - it's not worth it." And seeing a tweet that read "I text and drive way too much," they responded, "Um, agreed... Please realize you're putting yourself and others in danger, and a silly text isn't worth it. #justdrive".
The Verge argues "For what it's worth, NHTSA is right: countless studies have linked texting in the driver's seat with higher accident rates... Getting shamed online by a government agency is far harsher than getting shamed by a friend -- but it's still a lot better than getting killed over an email." To which the NHTSA responded on Twitter, "Thanks for the shoutout, .@verge! #justdrive"
For example, seeing a tweet that read, "I have no problem texting while driving, but I won't text while going down stairs, the NHTSA replied "You might not have a problem with the texting & driving...but we do. Stay off your phone and #justdrive - it's not worth it." And seeing a tweet that read "I text and drive way too much," they responded, "Um, agreed... Please realize you're putting yourself and others in danger, and a silly text isn't worth it. #justdrive".
The Verge argues "For what it's worth, NHTSA is right: countless studies have linked texting in the driver's seat with higher accident rates... Getting shamed online by a government agency is far harsher than getting shamed by a friend -- but it's still a lot better than getting killed over an email." To which the NHTSA responded on Twitter, "Thanks for the shoutout, .@verge! #justdrive"
Thats nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Good. Texting drivers kill people. (Score:5, Interesting)
My dad was killed by a texting driver while he rode his bike. The whole thing was caught on his camera, and in the video from his rear-facing camera, you can even see, in crystal clear high definition, that the driver's head is looking down towards her lap the whole time.
She got a ticket for failure to yield right of way. That's it. No manslaughter despite her obvious negligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Car drivers are allowed to murder motorcyclists and cyclists without recourse. It's the scumbag cops that refuse to issue reckless driving tickets that will make it easier to put manslaughter chargers on these people.
Yes I believe that a 16 year old teenybopper kid texting and driving needs to go to fucking prison for the rest of her life if she kills someone.
Re:Good. Texting drivers kill people. (Score:5, Informative)
My dad was killed by a texting driver while he rode his bike. The whole thing was caught on his camera, and in the video from his rear-facing camera, you can even see, in crystal clear high definition, that the driver's head is looking down towards her lap the whole time.
This also happened in one well known case in Los Angeles, where the texter was a cop. He was not even indicted:
http://www.dailynews.com/gener... [dailynews.com]
Re:Good. Texting drivers kill people. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a motorcyclist.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish they would pull over texting drivers and then punch them in the face.
there is NO REASON.... to text while driving. NONE... and if you do it you deserve a punch in the face for risking others with your selfish behavior.
Re:As a motorcyclist.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have had two cars totaled by texting drivers while parked in front of my house and I used to live in a school zone. I try to never park on the street any more and bought a house a little farther from the school zone where there is less traffic.
Slashdot should be ashamed (Score:5, Funny)
The headline:
"U.S. Goverment Shames Texting Drivers on Twitter "
Is what should be shamed. Stare at it for a while, boys.
For all the demands for more enforcement .... (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish more people would at least stop and think first.
In more and more cities, I'm seeing situations where a person is given a citation for "texting while driving" even though their vehicle is stopped at a red traffic light. These are often the folks who were trying to COMPLY with the law by not touching their phone until they knew they reached a red light, where it was finally safe to take a quick look at what was sent to them.
For example, in the DC metro area, we recently had a cop dressed up like a homeless person on the side of the road begging (except the sign he was holding explained that he was a law enforcement officer). He was handing out "texting while driving" tickets to people at the intersection, at the red light!
When I pointed this out to a girl I know who was ranting about the "need to lock people up and throw away the key" for texting while driving, she just shot back, "Good! The people using their phone while sitting in the car ANYPLACE should be punished! Anything to make us safer!" That's the mentality in America that always scares me.
Re: (Score:2)
Drunk driving laws similarly punish those who are trying to do the right thing. If you leave the bar thinking you're good to drive, then at some point on the highway realize you are not, the responsible thing to do is pull over and sleep it off. However, that makes you a sitting duck for cops looking for drunk drivers. There have been people who, after the bar closed, went to sleep in the backseat of their car (while still in their parking space) and were hit with drunk driving charges.
Thus the "safer" (
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Wow.... That's an utterly stupid interpretation of the law. I was always told that in order to be issued a DWI or DUI, they had to find your keys in the ignition. (That seems a little arbitrary in and of itself. I don't see how it can be construed that you were operating the motor vehicle if the engine isn't even running AND you weren't even necessarily in the driver's seat.) But at least that's an easy enough thing to remedy. Just make a mental note that if you're going to "sleep it off" in your ca
Re: (Score:3)
I'm seeing situations where a person is given a citation for "texting while driving" even though their vehicle is stopped at a red traffic light.
You mean the assholes who text through most of the green light so they are the only ones who make it through?
Fuck them just as much, they are just as dangerous since they end up causing road rage for the 20 cars behind them
Re: (Score:2)
Take a market approach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But... but... but... I don't have a smartphone.
One major reason is because of stupid ideas like "if you have nothing to hide, just let everyone (not just the government) spy on you."
Voice control? (Score:3)
Doesn't every phone have voice control these days?
Between Google Now, Siri, and Cortana everyone should easily be able to send off a text completely eyes-free via voice. I use Siri to do it and haven't had a problem dictating or hearing her read the incoming. It's built right into the vehicle's own CarPlay system.
Yet fatalities are down? (Score:2)
I'm not seeing any correlation in the data
https://imgur.com/Ooa6Etr [imgur.com]
Burn? (Score:2)
Oh, snap! Harsh!
Regardless, I agree with the sentiment. Each time you're stopped the punishment so double. First time $200, second $400, etc. with no cap. Will it stop the problem? Not entirely. But it'll get awfully expensive for the asshats who insist of sharing whatever the hell it is they're texting.
what to do (Score:2)
lack of due process (Score:2)
If the government does something "harsh" to a citizen, that's a punishment. The problem here isn't that the harsh action i
Cops are the worst offenders (Score:2)
Cops have normally 2 phones, laptop and a radio. They will be looking up information while driving, calling other officers about issues and incidents, and talking on the radio. They are multitasking WAY too much in the car.
The average person will most likely use bluetooth or have a car read texts now, so the issue is going away. But not for police.
So you want to give a felony to citizen drivers but allow cops to text. Thats interesting.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Make it at least as bad as DUI, or better yet... First time felony.
Both should be automatic felonies, with extended loss of license. We treat both as minor offenses in the US which is itself criminal.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend moved from the US to the UK and joined the company I worked at (he wasnt a friend before that point) and he was astounded by how different the drink-drive culture is in the UK - over here, its universally accepted that its a very very very bad thing to do, to the point where very few people pressure you to "have a quick one" if you are driving, and drinking soft drinks on a night out is completely acceptable.
He was very approving of it, and said that it was unheard of from where he came from (California).
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect tweeting and texting while driving will continue unless someone sues and wins a large judgement against cell phone manufacturers and/or automobile manufacturers for not implementing a "kill feature" while driving.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> [...] "kill feature" while driving.
Now killing the driver (while effective) might be argued to be a bit... exagerated?
But hey, we might try and see.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well the way car makers keep piling on new safety features like adaptive cruise control and lane assist and whatnot it seems the dominant strategy is to make it safer for you to text-while-driving.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple, really. UK learned through public education from sane groups of people that don't hate alcohol, they'd just rather you consume it without driving a car.
The US (and to a lesser extent, Canada) attempted to teach it through harsh sentencing, surveillance nets, and public education from temperance groups (and later, groups that don't advertise themselves as pro-temperance, but act so much like it the president quit for that reason alone).
Extremely harsh sentencing doesn't work for the death penalty, and it won't work for drunk driving. Surveillance doesn't seem to work either, though I think it's a byproduct of the next thing: Temperance groups telling you to drink less are laughed at.
The UK has reasonable drunk driving laws. There's attempts by the temperance groups to bring our laws down to "Not even one", or 0.03%. When you teach from such an outlandish position, your attempt at education has the baby thrown out with the bathwater.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
D.A.M.M. - Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to this, the US' culture is very much "It's only illegal if you get caught and the cops will do something about it". About -everything-.
If you tell someone they really shouldn't do something because it's dangerous/irresponsible, they'll blankly stare at you and go: "But...how will they ever catch me? I don't understand". No matter their age or what you're talking about. There's no critical thinking. It's just about scoring by sticking it to the man.
I mean, everywhere has a little of that, it's just human nature, but when I moved to the US, I was really amazed by how far they push it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would build a culture of respect for the law.
Re: (Score:3)
I take it you've never actually looked them up.
The UK has the harshest Drink Driving penalties in the western world.
Being caught with a breath test reading of 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 micrograms of breath (about 0.08 BAC) carries:
1) Mandatory 12 month driving suspension (minimum, could be up to 36 months).
2) Up to a 2500 pound fine (calculated according to your income).
3) 3 to 11 demerit points.
Repeat offenders can expect up to 5 years suspensi
Re: (Score:2)
In the US it varies state to state (because, of course it does). It's not uncommon for blowing 0.08 (the first time) to result in:
$10,000+ of fines/court costs/legal fees
1 year of no license (once out of prison)
24 hours (til you sober up) to 1 year in jail.
Plus your insurance rates skyrocket, job applications often ask if you've ever received a DUI, etc.
You can even get a DUI if the car is on, but in park and you're not driving. Say, if your friends left your passed out ass in car (with the AC/heat on) wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Informative)
Public transport in most of the UK is terrible. Some cities, like inner London and Birmingham, are an exception, but for the most part a car is essential.
Drinking and driving became socially unacceptable here, much like smoking indoors has. It was down partly to some pretty shocking advertising on TV, and the potential repercussions of being caught (fine, points on licence, massively increase mandatory insurance costs).
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Getting to work on the bus would take my 1.5 hours, and there is no train. In the car it's 15 minutes. This is not unusual for the UK.
Cycling is okay when the weather is nice, but often during the colder months it would be unpleasant and dangerous. All year round, in many areas the roads are not safe for cyclists anyway.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you can find urban centers in the United States. There's absolutely no place inside the Chicago city limits that you can't get to on public transportation, and buildings are not deliberately spaced far apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Those situations are *not* few and far between tho - I learned to drive at the grand old age of 27 precisely because the UK rail network was utter shite, and I was using it a lot at that point.
It was more often than not that between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham New Street, the train was so packed you could not find a seat, and standing room was all the way down the car aisles - this was the norm. On more than a few occasions the train manager refused to leave Bristol Temple Meads until some people g
Re: (Score:3)
All year round, in many areas the roads are not safe for cyclists anyway.
From what I've seen here in London, cyclists are not safe for the roads the year round. I dont know what it is about Lycra that makes people feel invincible around 2 ton hulking death machines.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't disagree that public transport is pretty bad in much of the UK (unless your baseline for calibration is the USA), but there are some important differences. Cities in the UK tend to interleave different property types. This means that most people live within easy walking distance of a pub (most villages collect around one and you'll find at least one in most residential areas of a city). In contrast, UC city designers like ensuring the places where people live and places where people want to be are as far apart as possible, so that it's basically impossible to get from home to a bar without driving.
As a knock-on effect from this, if you do need to get to the pub in a car and there aren't busses (and there often are in many cities, though they're not always convenient), a 10-15 minute ride in a taxi is pretty cheap. Most US cities sprawl so much that it's a 30-40 minute drive, which is a lot more expensive.
Re: Harsh laws... (Score:2)
LMAO that's a good one.
Re: (Score:2)
It helps that driving is entirely optional in the UK, which has an excellent transit system. As a result, driving is considered a luxury, and it's legitimate to crack down hard on people who drive badly.
Driving in Canada isn't a luxury, and there's even more distance between major metro centres or even basic cities then there is in the US. But we don't have the same problem with drinking and driving that Americans do, and it has to do with the change that not only Canada went through legally in the 1980's, see charter of rights and freedoms and that R.I.D.E. programs(DUI checkpoints) are considered a charter violation, but one that's acceptable as long as it isn't abused. The other was massive campaigns
Re: (Score:3)
A friend moved from the US to the UK and joined the company I worked at (he wasnt a friend before that point) and he was astounded by how different the drink-drive culture is in the UK - over here, its universally accepted that its a very very very bad thing to do, to the point where very few people pressure you to "have a quick one" if you are driving, and drinking soft drinks on a night out is completely acceptable.
He was very approving of it, and said that it was unheard of from where he came from (California).
Just for people who've never been to the UK, that's because the DUI penalties are an instant loss of license. The penalty for DUI is 1-3 years of license suspension and up to 2500 pounds in fines for your first offence, second offences within 10 years can get up to 5 years suspension and 5000 pounds in fines. Jail is also a real possibility for repeat offenders.
They really do take a hard line on drink driving over here, in Australia or the US, if you're caught just under the permitted BAC (Blood Alcohol
Re: (Score:2)
Please. In the US, on the first DUI you lose your license... after you get out of jail. And you're spending $10,000. And that's the first offense. They'll put in interlock in your car (a breathalyzer in the ignition system) if it happens more than once (at your expense). The US has crazy harsh drunk driving laws (it used to not have them, in the 70's. But they've changed)
Re: (Score:2)
I just left the US after two years there and had the same astonishment from the other side. I'm from Australia where, like the UK, it is massively socially unacceptable.
Within weeks of being in the US we found a lot of people in our new social circles would think nothing of getting in the car after an extended drinking session. It was staggeringly common.
Took me a while to understand that they don't have random breath testing like they do in Australia (and I assume the UK). At least in the state I was in (O
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Legalize Mary Jane and put the people who text in prison."
Imagine the effect of this on culture. Prison novels and poetry will now have to be deciphered from text-speak, and at the same time will lack the fake profundity that such works traditionally get from drugs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are making a leap.
1. Saying you do something on Twitter as a confession
2. Assuming that that doing something equates to a potential loss of life
3. Punishing it as though it did cause loss of life.
But you don't know its a confession and not a troll.
You don't know whether it was done in a place that could cause potential loss of life, or is even illegal. It's perfectly legal to text and drive on your private road.
Likewise you're punitively punishing it based on your hyped view of the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish the penalties would be much more harsh. What is so important that it can't wait until the car is parked somewhere?
Re: (Score:3)
We have really moved away from the "not your child" thing. For better or worse, that's how it is. Initially it was people who were legitimately abusing their child. Now? I see articles about people getting arrested for letting their kid play in a nearby playground (visible but maybe 500 feet away, if I had to guess based on the picture in the last article I saw) and having their kid taken away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We need to make driving entirely voluntary (it isn't in most of the US) before we can legitimately remove someone's license.
Texting - and drinking - are 100% voluntary. People who take their driving sufficiently seriously do not engage in either when they are driving.
I know that's an unpopular view, but you're literally destroying someone's ability to support themselves by banning them from driving in most of the US
They made a terrible choice. They need to face the consequences of that terrible choice. They could have chosen to not do this terrible thing. Nobody forced them to do this.
revoking driver's licenses is reprehensible and evil.
Not when the holder of said license is showing complete disregard for public safety. They do not deserve the privilege of driving when they do that. They chose to be irresponsible, with
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Interesting)
In Japan anywhere that serves alcohol must ask if there is designated driver and not serve them anything alcoholic. They usually ask that person to wear a pendant or something so it's really clear to all the staff. Serving the designated driver is an automatic loss of licence.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And prosecute both parties (Score:3)
A lot of this texting and chatting would stop if the other person would cut off the conversation. I have this conversation all the time:
"Are you driving?". "Yes". "Call me back when you can talk"
I've had bosses carry on meetings while their subordinate was driving. I see that as criminally irresponsible behaviour. It should be prosecutable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
You should work on your understanding of this issue. Texting while driving is dangerous like drinking while driving. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't be allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk. This is not too difficult to understand. Do you perchance happen to text while driving, and are getting all defensive?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sick of you nanny-state SJWs who want to make the roads all "safe". Laws against texting while driving are censorship against my free speech. You're saying it's OK to be feminis
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Interesting)
You should work on your understanding of this issue. Texting while driving is dangerous like drinking while driving. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't be allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk. This is not too difficult to understand. Do you perchance happen to text while driving, and are getting all defensive?
No, it's nothing like "drinking while driving" (intoxicated driving). If you are incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, you're simply incapable of operating a vehicle safely. No matter what. Getting behind the wheel at all is endangering yourself and others.
When we talk about texting while driving, we are simply referring to a specific kind of distraction. There are many others. Fighting kids, eating in the car, playing with the radio (or "in-car entertainment center"), hunting through the console, putting on makeup, eating, talking on the phone (yes, even hands free), being sleepy.
In fact, drowsy driving is just as dangerous and causes as many highway deaths as drunk driving. Far worse than the specific type of distraction called "texting".
If you're stopped waiting for a stop light, you can whip off a quick text "Driving right now - will respond later". Perfectly safe, and perfectly legal even in jurisdictions where non-verbal mobile phone use (texting) has been outlawed. Nothing like drunk driving - if if you manage to stop at the stop light, it's still not safe for you to be driving.
The whole issue is just another instance of wanting to punish everyone because some people are irresponsible with things. People that allow distractions to interfere with their driving will find another distraction. But people that can use their phones safely while never being in danger of a distracted accident are punished.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't text nearly fast enough to get off six words while the light is red. It's also illegal around here, which I'm dubious about.
However, we're getting a lot of people who are actively driving while testing, and they're plenty dangerous. If you're sleepy or drunk or have a toddler in back or are talking on the phone, you can at least keep your eyes outside the car and see where you're going.
Disclaimer: I am taking this personally. My sister-in-law was taking my brother home from surgery when a t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they also don't have an understanding.
It just means they disagree with you.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back.
You don't have to see. The facts are completely independent of your willingness to educate yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then educate yourself:
http://monash.edu/news/show/ch... [monash.edu]
because this has been plainly obvious for some time now, but of course in your infinite wisdom have chosen to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Knucklehead, the study you link to compares a toddler in the back seat to talking on a cell phone, not texting on a cell phone. See the headline on this story?
You can talk and keep your eyes on the road. You cannot text and keep your eyes on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot text and keep your eyes on the road.
"The researchers, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) found the average parent takes their eyes off the road for three minutes and 22 seconds during a 16-minute trip.
I know you've been working on your comprehension skills, but there is still room for improvement.
Oh, and the headline reads: Children more distracting than mobile phones.
Re: (Score:3)
God, you're a dumbshit. You're still trying to prove having a toddler in the backseat is more distracting than texting on a cell phone by citing an article that claims toddlers are more distracting than talking on a cell phone.
Here's the first paragraph from the article you cite:
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter that I have links. Propaganda? Fed? You would discount anything shown to you because you're convinced that you already know the answer, and pretty damn emotional about it to boot.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a cyclist, not looking where you are going in a 2 tonne metal box is the same as shooting a gun randomly. You may not have hit anyone yet, but on a long enough timeline you or someone else will.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of this it's all our own personal responsibility fault bullshit. Personal responsibility and attention is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for me not getting killed on the road when I'm on two wheels. At the end of the day our safety is dependent upon others acting responsibly as well. We need everyone's cooperation and not text/drive, else it will just be chaos out there.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Car driver here, but I completely agree. A few years ago, I was driving my wife, mother-in-law, and then-toddler son in our mini-van to a local computer store. As we passed through an intersection (which was green for us), I spotted a car turning from the other direction that was going to hit us. It was one of those "time slowing down" moments - I could see that the impact was going to happen, but had no options for preventing it. The guy hit us, our mini-van went careening across four lanes of (thankfully light) traffic on two wheels. We wound up facing the other way on the other side of the road. Somehow, we didn't hit into anyone else, flip over, or suffer any major injuries.
Nothing I could have done would have prevented this accident. The guy was turning illegally (he was in the wrong lane and had a red light for turning at the time) and simply didn't pay attention to where he was or who was coming in the other lane. I couldn't have avoided him and his careless actions could have resulted in me or my family suffering serious injuries or worse. When someone texts and drives, they are distracted from the road. Some people think "oh, it's only a second", but all it takes is one or two seconds of not looking at the road to cause a major accident. If a text is that important, find somewhere to stop and answer it. If it's not important enough to stop over, then it can wait until later.
Re: (Score:2)
I've made mistakes on the road before, and had accidents (the ones that were my fault had no injuries, fortunately). I've driven when I was tired or otherwise below normal functioning. I do not, repeat not, text while driving. There's a difference between accepting risk and deliberately doing something unsafe.
Re:Harsh laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you don't. You just don't realize how bad you're driving. Same goes with weed. I live in CO, and have met many people who claim they drive better while baked. Having witnessed them driving while baked, they really don't. Driving 20 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is actually quite dangerous contrary to what they seem to think.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving 20 MPH in a 50 MPH zone is actually quite dangerous contrary to what they seem to think.
Totally agree! However, driving 50 MPH in a 20 MPH zone is also dangerous.
Revenge or Justice? (Score:2)
Harsh punishments to laws, have less to do with justice then getting revenge.
Much like DUI, it will create a long court legal process for a mistake done by a person. With a good chance of finding a loophole to let the person go, and the court will normally allow this, because it is better off to let the guilty go free, then permanently harming an innocent man.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Make it at least as bad as DUI, or better yet... First time felony. That'll help.
People are charged with DUI because they are incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle on the public highways, but drive anyway.
Treating a person that used their mobile phone in some specific way the same is pre-crime. There is no difference between someone causing an accident because they're distracted fiddling with the radio or arguing with their kids, than because their detracted by their cell phones. NONE.
So you create punishments for people because they actually caused a problem, not by calling
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
I see it all too often. The car driving under the speed limit slowly drifting out of its lane is driven by someone chatting on their phone. The one below the speed limit weaving all over the place is a texter. Or very drunk. The person on their phone driving safely and consistently, well, they don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you don't actually look at the phone, you have to use your visual cortex to know where the keys are in relation to each other, and that's in addition to keeping track of the words that would be appearing on the screen in sentence order. That means less ability to process the visual information in front of you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The person driving below the speed limit and slowly drifting out of their lane is chatting on their phone. The one driving below the speed limit and weaving all over the place is texting. Or very drunk.
It's not physically possible to drive safely while texting. Too much time with your eyes off the road, too much attention on th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many different kinds of attention and varied degrees to maintain for a modicum of safety to be had. Absolute safe means I get to kick you off the road. We'll never have absolute safety.
I did drive drunk - for a very, very long time. I've never caused an accident and I have no moving violations on my record for well over 30 years. I don't drink any more but I was a functional alcoholic for years. Did you know that you can kind of see straight if you close one eye when you're seeing double? Did you
Re: (Score:2)
Granted all things are not equal, there is a huge difference between the cruise of a long haul interstate drive and in city traffic but in city traffic requires a driver to actually have all their vision and focus on the road and mirrors it also requires both hands on the wheel, or at least free to grab without pause.
If you are texting you are unlikely to even notice something that would take a fast two hand reaction to resolve before it
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's costs a lot of money to buy cars and destroy them.
Oh, I see, you didn't think that they let the car companies provide them test samples directly, did you? How silly. That's just an invitation to commit fraud by providing samples that don't match what is manufactured. That's why they buy cars from random dealers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if GPS.speed>5 then SMS.disable=true
Done.
You'd need a law enforcing that on all smartphones or no one would buy whatever brand pioneered it. Then of course people will just use custom or cracked operating systems to disable the feature or tamper with the GPS module - so you'll need another suite of laws to prosecute counterfeit devices and manufacturers. We'll need social campaigns to dissuade the use of these devices, organise stings against manufacturers and cracker networks, build a bureaucracy to define, audit, and enforce standards on the pho
Re: (Score:3)
This also doesn't help the case of "My wife is driving and I'm texting from the passenger seat to let X know we're running late." This use of texting isn't distracting to the driver (any more than normal conversation is and you can't ban talking to passengers while driving) but my phone would register "hit driving speed, shut down SMS."
Perhaps have a warning message pop up "Phone has detected that you are moving at X mph. This means you are likely in a motor vehicle. If you are the driver, please do not te
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is only tangentially related. You have a slew of people, even here, who will not want their spouse or whatever to access their phone. So, they'd have to unlock it instead of just handing it to them. That's crazy, in my eyes, and yes I have had some very horrific relationships. Shit, we weren't even dating when I'd had the phone to the missus and ask her to send a reply or even read a text to me. I sure as hell wouldn't have a relationship with someone I don't trust to handle my phone. I'm pretty sure s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a sensible solution, but unfortunately doesn't help with the legality; legally, being stopped at a stop sign is driving, as is pulling over with the motor running. Furthermore, at least in the US, on highways, the places where you can legally "pull over" when there is no emergency are far and few bet
Re: (Score:2)
I could, but I don't. I suspect in reality you've been guilty of this before as well (since nearly everyone has), I just have the courage to admit it. It's ok, anonymous coward, we understand. Everyone is still doing this. Everyone. Look at your own stats. Your stupid law has done nothing for this problem other than make it worse. Crotch watching is far more dangerous than using your phone freely. So the next time you get the urge to meet reality with an idiotic emotional response and pointless law, try critical thought... It might just work out better. And please, pass it along.
OK, I'll post as something other than AC. You're wrong saying "Everyone is still doing this."
I've texted while driving before, but it was never a routine thing. I stopped completely after my cousin was killed by some asshat who didn't see the red light. It's been more than 5 years since I, or anyone in immediate family, texted while driving.
In a different incident, my dad's friend and colleague spent a full year in the hospital because another asshat ran a stop sign while texting.
Now I find myself trying to very discreetly answer something important in a way that requires my eyes to be off the road. Much more dangerous.
Yet you continue to do w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me neither, I think people are blowing this way out of propo/#)/"!#))!=*{ NO CARRIER
Grandpa! We've told you a thousand times. Don't try to log into IRC in the car. The TRS-80 doesn't fit in the front seat!
Re: (Score:2)
If you eat tons of junk food and becoming obese, that's primarily your problem. It may raise my insurance rates or taxes a hair, but I really don't care, and really don't want to have the government butting in on stuff you do to yourself that's stupid and self-destructive.
If you drive somewhere and deliberately engage in behavior known to be unsafe, you're endangering others, and that's where government can reasonably step in.