Texting While Driving

[Wayne M]

Well, I have to agree somewhat with RedNeckExpress. If everyone obeyed the laws the "collision" rate would most likely go down. In many instances it is not the one breaking the law that has the accident but the one that causes the accident, but then they are not on the scene so some one has to be blamed and it is not the law breaker.

The speed limits are posted at the speed indicated for a reason.
The rules and regulations in driver license manuals are there for a reason.

When anyone starts to disregard the driving rules, they are just an accident waiting for a place to happen.

Although texting while driving is only against the law in some states, it is still a major concern for the cause of accidents. In one state we were in where it was illegal to text while driving, I was able to look down from my high perch and see a driver with the cell phone in her lap, texting away. I guess it goes back to the old adage, "Out of sight, out of mind." So if the law enforcement officer can't see it, he can't ticket you. Duh! It is plain outright dangerous. And just talking on a cell phone under any circumstances is also dangerous when driving.
JMHO

[BCooke]

Redneck the only thing about your stats are that they go by what people tell the responding LEO. You will probably find that in states where it is illegal to text that the collision rates go down due to texting. We (responding ambulance) would wonder how some accidents (before they had to be called collisions) could happen the way they said. If there wasn't no investigation it went down as described by the driver.
After the DRLs came into being, after study after study in CA, look into how many more 'I was blinded by oncoming lights', are reported now.

[RedneckExpress]

It is illegal to text and use a cellphone while operating a vehicle in Oregon (Primary offense), it's had absolutely no change on anything because it's basically unenforced and will remain as such because there just isn't physically enough state troopers to really enforce the law because of the nature of it.

And that's the main problem, there's no way to really make an effective change in the mass behavior, no amount of laws regarding the individual behavior passed are going to act as a deterrent when they're next to unenforcable, which brings me back to the point that there's no way to put this genie back into the bottle, rather the genie itself has to be removed from the equation, which in this case is the physical ability to even use a phone while on a roadway entirely, or limit it so that it can only call 911 or a tow service or motor club.

While this will not solve other distracted driver behaviors, it does remove the most common and most dangerous.

That, or make it legal for people to own cellphone jamming devices with a 1/4-1/2 mile range (While none with that range that I know currently exist, I do know of legal ones in other countries that are about the size of a pack of cigarettes and will jam cellphones from working within a couple hundred feet of the user), I'd gladly go for that alternative, put one in every vehicle .

[gray ghost]

And when you drive past my vehicle parked on the side of the road and your cell phone jammer cuts off my 911 call, or call from my deployed son, then I will be on a forum calling for the ban of such objects. None of us like distracted driving but having the government use your ideas would have unintended consequences. To use a different analogy, let's suppose that the gov puts a system in place that shuts off the engine of a car that is exceeding the speed limit by 20 mph. Should save lives, right? But then what about the guy rushing to the hospital or folks trying to outrun a tornado?

[jzick]

And that's the main problem, there's no way to really make an effective change in the mass behavior, no amount of laws regarding the individual behavior passed are going to act as a deterrent when they're next to unenforcable, which brings me back to the point that there's no way to put this genie back into the bottle, rather the genie itself has to be removed from the equation, which in this case is the physical ability to even use a phone while on a roadway entirely, or limit it so that it can only call 911 or a tow service or motor club.

So, because a cell phone might be used in a less than safe way they should be banned? If that logic were true we might want the government to dictate what is served in school lunches because some kids are fat, or because some terrorists might attack an airplane everyone who flies would have to waive their rights and allow themselves to be embarrassingly searched without cause before boarding, or we might want to fill the jails with drug addicts because of their dangerous behavior even though there is no hope of behavior change, or maybe we would kick a child out of school because he brought a pen knife there. The next thing you know you would want the NSA to be able to monitor all cell and land line phone calls in case bad things were discussed, and cameras would be everywhere to monitor citizen behavior. With that logic silly cities like New York and San Francisco might be tempted to make the sale of Happy Meals illegal because kids might be attracted to less healthy food. The next thing you will want is mandatory health insurance purchase. Oh wait, we already do all these things. Banning cell phones because some nanny thinks they are dangerous would make sense too.

[RedneckExpress]

Originally Posted by gray ghost

And when you drive past my vehicle parked on the side of the road and your cell phone jammer cuts off my 911 call, or call from my deployed son, then I will be on a forum calling for the ban of such objects. None of us like distracted driving but having the government use your ideas would have unintended consequences. To use a different analogy, let's suppose that the gov puts a system in place that shuts off the engine of a car that is exceeding the speed limit by 20 mph. Should save lives, right? But then what about the guy rushing to the hospital or folks trying to outrun a tornado?

Again, why do people insist on using extreme case scenarios everytime to try and refute my point? This knee jerk reaction behavior is why this country is fouled up as it is right now. Nothing can get done because everyone is trained to immediately go Chicken-Little.

Usually, it's most common from people who they themselves are guilty of the behavior being called into question and don't want to have to make changes. Be it talking on yer cellphone while operating a motor vehicle or government entitlements, people are fine with a sacrifice so long as it isn't their pig being gutted, but the moment it becomes their pig, they start screaming that "If we do this, then this and this and this will happen."

So, now I will put forth a proposition to all who wish to shoot down my solution. Provide one yourself, one that will have a maximum effect on behavior and actually effect a change. If you cannot, then your sole goal isn't to really find a solution to the problem, rather to just rant about it.

There's plenty of folks ranting and raving in media already, but very few people actually offering up solutions.

Because, really, I'd love there to be a day where everyone woke up and had an epiphany where Common Sense came back into play, along with Personal Responsibility, Respect, and a love of God and Country, cause these days, it seems to be sorely sorely lacking. We have a few, they're our young people in the Armed Forces who have a love of their fellow man and country that is far above any the rest of us will ever have who haven't served and they are willing to give their lives up for it.

[gray ghost]

RE, folks use extreme situations in refusing your arguments because extreme situations do occur and when the government or other entity uses mechanical means to police behaviour there is no leeway. I am a big believer in personal responsibility and do not think taking responsibility away from all due to the actions of some will do anything to encourage anyone to be responsible for themselves. My sons did not learn how to do things for themselves and then lead others in combat because I made all their decisions for them.

We both want an end to the problems of distracted driving, but in my opinion, the measures you propose would create worse problems.

[hondo122]

I'll stay out of this because it's getting way too personal.

[DutchStar38]

I say make legislation that allows Police to impound a vehicle when the driver is cited for using a cell phone while the vehicle is moving. Additional penalties for additional offenses.

[toneumanns]

The NTSB recommended today that texting & talking on cell phones be banned nation wide. Hope it happens.

[RedneckExpress]

Here's the actual article relating to the NTSB:

Ban on Cell-Phone Use, Texting While Driving Sought by NTSB

[Wayne M]

ABC News with Dianne Sawyer:
"The National Transportation Safety Board today urged all U.S. states to ban drivers from using electronic devices while driving, including for text messaging."

Not just texting mind you, but all devices. They did exclude a device used for navigation, and in emergency situations.

According to NHTSA, more than 3000 people lost their lives due to driver distraction.

"Distracted driving, which includes texting and talking on a cell phone, is a major cause of death on the road. In 2009, more than 5,400 people died and nearly 550,000 were injured in crashes linked to distraction, according to the Department of Transportation."

So there are the statistics my friends.

It was reported that at texting takes up about 5 seconds of a persons attention. At 55 mph a vehicle will travel approximately 100 yards, the length of a football field.

As I personally have stated previously, texting and talking on a cell phone are extremely distracting. It is just that no one doing it wants to admit that it is distracting to them.

I personally would like to see a ban.

[LadyFitz...]

While I feel voice dialed hands off would be acceptable, if a total ban is what it would take to stop texting and hands on cell phone operation, then I would accept that.

[Wayne M]

I'm sure that you will accept any law that is passed.

Talking while driving, hands free, is distracting. Having a very detailed conversation with a passenger is distracting.

One day, many moons ago I was sitting behind two people who just happened to be women. You could see that they were engaged in a verbal communications. They were sitting in a left hand turn lane waiting to go into a parking lot. Traffic passed and they sat there and continued to chat. Traffic passed, and the sat there and continued to chat. Traffic passed a third time and they continued to sit there and chat. So I went beep beep, short ones, on my car horn. I immediately received the one finger wave, but they did move into the parking lot.

As I drove by when they were getting out of their car, I extended all 10 fingers and said, "Here are ten more just like it." There was an "Oh, I never....etc.," Now that part was comical, but the conversation they had prior to pulling into that parking lot was distracting them.

Follow anyone talking on a cell phone. It appears that people talking on cell phones do not know that they can use cruise control, but then that could be dangerous also. In any case they are typically doing 10 mph slower than the rest of the traffic at the speed limit. And they are always, well almost always, in the left hand lane. Sheeessh!

p.s., I have an amateur radio license. The same thing can be said about them. Distracting to the user.

There are many other distractions that I guess no one can do anything about. Reaching for the piece of candy on the passenger seat. Reaching for a CD. Changing the station on a radio. Adjusting the thermostat on the aC. And on and on. I still think banning all cell phone use is a good idea.