She survived her first driving-while-texting accident – but not her second

[Gaius46]

... and then eat them in the car???

What? And mess up my interior?

 

[Gaius46]

...with some fava beans and a nice chianti, no doubt.

Funny thing is I like chianti. Fava beans too.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yeah, but sometimes they take us with them! :doh

That's the problem, isn't it? Maybe we could encourage them to take up base jumping, extreme skiing, or surfing the ten meter waves instead.

 

[Lutherf]

First offense, no. You'd get a roadside suspension, have to find a ride home.

The law impacts harder and harder with each offense.

You might not even get that. As they have to test twice if they get a possitive at least 20 minutes apart. And if the .06 was going down, they'd probably let you go with a warning.

There was a huge push back when the level went from .07 to .05 all sorts of protests and the bar owners feared a loss of business. It hasn't happened. However accidents are down even more, and the government got the reaction it wanted, highway deaths are down dramatically.

That IS a difference. If you get popped over here odds are someone is going to have to pick you up from jail even if you were under the limit. The cop is likely to call it "impaired driving" and you're still going to get a lot of hassle until you go to pretrial and they offer you a diversion program in lieu of actually going in front of a jury.

Subsequent offenses are supposed to be more harshly punished but the "regulars" seem to get popped over and over. They'll do a few weeks or months but get busted again as soon as they get out and never do any real time until they kill someone.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If texting-while-driving is actually that much of a problem perhaps license suspensions are called for.

Well, according to this, it's pretty bad:

Drivers who text on the road are in far more danger than intoxicated drivers. That is according to a new study conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL).

 

[Dittohead not!]

Agreed.

A suburb near me made eating while driving illegal.

That would kill us as a family, because whenever I send one of the kids out to pick-up food that has a finger-friendly component (ex: french fries), we commonly have a process occur during the return trip that we jokingly refer to as "evaporation"!

Delivery charges.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Talking on a cell while driving is actually about as bad as having 3 drinks in you. Texting and driving is worse, because you aren't even looking at the road.



I'd say make talking on a cell while driving = OUI

Make texting and driving while driving = OUI, but at an offense level of N + 1 (meaning that your first offense is treated like an OUI 2nd, your second offense is like OUI 3rd, etc)

Eating while driving shouldn't be OK either.

The ridiculous thing about human beings is that the ultimate penalty (death) would be a huge deterrent if administered as a penalty by the government for texting and driving. But when death is something people are doing to themselves or others, then it perversely becomes a tolerable risk. They'll pay more attention to losing their license for a bit than they will pay to ****ing dying.



(I mean, how hard is it to just pay attention to the road? How often do you really get an emergency call that has to be answered right away? And if you do get it, why can't you just pull over for a bit? Etc.)




I do appeals/post-conviction stuff for a career, so I'm generally against harsh penalties and mandatory minimums. Things like the Drug War need to stop entirely. BUT, I think things that are causing the most carnage - OUI and generally distracted driving - need some more focus.

Lots of people don't seem to understand that they actually could die doing what they're doing.

 

[Fearandloathing]

That IS a difference. If you get popped over here odds are someone is going to have to pick you up from jail even if you were under the limit. The cop is likely to call it "impaired driving" and you're still going to get a lot of hassle until you go to pretrial and they offer you a diversion program in lieu of actually going in front of a jury.

Subsequent offenses are supposed to be more harshly punished but the "regulars" seem to get popped over and over. They'll do a few weeks or months but get busted again as soon as they get out and never do any real time until they kill someone.

Yeah, that was sort of what was happening here years ago. It was a cost offload, but Victoria gave ICBC, the public utility called the Insurance Corporation of BC, which has become a huge megalopoly, the responsibility for all 'road safety' and handed them the batmobile. ICBC was more interested in reducing costs by not having to pay out on accidents than they were in statistics about how many were jailed.

The result was a graduated program, with a youth or 'early driver' program [harsher penalties and denial of access], because what they were missing was the grey area, drivers who aren't much over the limit, but it's they who cause the most accidents. They also made it FAR more costly in fines, which the courts embraced eagerly. So, first time it's a roadside, second offense within five years and you go to jail overnight at least and lose the right to drive from one to 99 years. It isn't how far you are over the limit, but how many times you get caught.

As an aside, in 12-step recovery you would be surprised how many come in and all they needed was that second or third bust. In this region a car is almost necessary so to lose your ticket for any amount of time has economic and social consequences

 

[Chomsky]

Delivery charges.

Well stated! :thumbs:

 

[Mr Person]

Mind you, if you aren't impaired, you have nothing to give but a few minutes of your time.
Around here, people get grumpy when they are being stopped. Period..

There may also be a constitutional/libertarian objection to suspicionless stops and searches...

There may also be a common-sense objection based on the fact that the rate at which roadblocks catch drunk drivers is far lower than the rate at which patrol cops do. This, coupled with the fact that road blocks take cops off patrol, means that less drunk drivers are caught overall when roadblocks are used. Finally, there are apps that tell people where roadblocks are, so savvy drunks can simply take another route home from the bar.

Despite sounding good to "common sense", they are in fact a privacy-defeating waste of resources....



(And I say all this despite my previously expressed utter disdain for drunk drivers, texting drivers, and cellphone-chatting drivers. I care about what works).

 

[Thrilla]

Yeah, but sometimes they take us with them! :doh

even if they don't take you with them, they cause insurance rates to increase for everyone in their region. ( i've no accidents or tickets in 30 years, but my rates increase every year because of asshole drivers in my region)

**** em.. take their license, impound their cars, and make them walk to work.. or quit their jobs because they can't drive like responsible people.... i care not what happens to horrible drivers, just get them off the road if they can't drive safely.
or at least make it legal to beat the **** out of them...

 

[Lovebug]

There may also be a constitutional/libertarian objection to suspicionless stops and searches...

There may also be a common-sense objection based on the fact that the rate at which roadblocks catch drunk drivers is far lower than the rate at which patrol cops do. This, coupled with the fact that road blocks take cops off patrol, means that less drunk drivers are caught overall when roadblocks are used. Finally, there are apps that tell people where roadblocks are, so savvy drunks can simply take another route home from the bar.

Despite sounding good to "common sense", they are in fact a privacy-defeating waste of resources....



(And I say all this despite my previously expressed utter disdain for drunk drivers, texting drivers, and cellphone-chatting drivers. I care about what works).

Ego overriding the common good is what it boils down to, at least for me, when one refuses such check points.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ have a device that renders the phones inoperable while the car is moving?

Not just teens, I've often wondered whether some kind of signal suppressant can be built into cars to prevent the phone getting a signal when moving. Would have to have the manufacturers agree to it or have some kind of penalty if they didn't build it in.

 

[longview]

Not just teens, I've often wondered whether some kind of signal suppressant can be built into cars to prevent the phone getting a signal when moving. Would have to have the manufacturers agree to it or have some kind of penalty if they didn't build it in.

It is fairly easy to see if someone is distracted driving, they drift across lanes, delay starting at lights ect.
People only think they can multitask, in reality humans do a poor job of both tasks, when they try.

 

[Carjosse]

Not just teens, I've often wondered whether some kind of signal suppressant can be built into cars to prevent the phone getting a signal when moving. Would have to have the manufacturers agree to it or have some kind of penalty if they didn't build it in.

Three problems:
a) Probably expensive.
b) What if I want to use my phone properly through a hands-free device?
c) Passengers.

 

[Absentglare]

Three problems:
a) Probably expensive.
b) What if I want to use my phone properly through a hands-free device?
c) Passengers.

Many new cars can already bluetooth to your phone. It would be a simple matter of software to disable a specific drivers phone while the car is in motion.

 

[Mr Person]

There may also be a constitutional/libertarian objection to suspicionless stops and searches...

There may also be a common-sense objection based on the fact that the rate at which roadblocks catch drunk drivers is far lower than the rate at which patrol cops do. This, coupled with the fact that road blocks take cops off patrol, means that less drunk drivers are caught overall when roadblocks are used. Finally, there are apps that tell people where roadblocks are, so savvy drunks can simply take another route home from the bar.

Despite sounding good to "common sense", they are in fact a privacy-defeating waste of resources....



(And I say all this despite my previously expressed utter disdain for drunk drivers, texting drivers, and cellphone-chatting drivers. I care about what works).

Ego overriding the common good is what it boils down to, at least for me, when one refuses such check points.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you refer to "refus[ing]" check points. I'm pointing out the simple fact that they catch far less drunks than do patrol cops.

 

[Lovebug]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you refer to "refus[ing]" check points. I'm pointing out the simple fact that they catch far less drunks than do patrol cops.

What I mean it...we can't give a few minutes of our time just to make sure drunks are off the road.
Yeah, you may be caught in the middle of a road check and may be inconveniences a bit, but the guy right behind you may be dead drunk, get caught and taken off the road before he kills someone.
So yeah, our ego, our own self, can't be bothered for the greater good. That is what I mean.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ a) Probably expensive.

Hard-wired Software then through GPS tracking. If GPS tells a phone it is travelling at car-like speeds or even along a busy road then it could disable the phone.

~ b) What if I want to use my phone properly through a hands-free device?

If you went down a software route, the disabling could be switched off for such devices.

~ c) Passengers.

Harder in the software route but you could program in a recognition for the device being in the back of the car. If the front passenger is on the phone that's more problematic but would also solve the problem of such passengers distracting or egging on the driver.

 

[Absentglare]

What I mean it...we can't give a few minutes of our time just to make sure drunks are off the road.
Yeah, you may be caught in the middle of a road check and may be inconveniences a bit, but the guy right behind you may be dead drunk, get caught and taken off the road before he kills someone.
So yeah, our ego, our own self, can't be bothered for the greater good. That is what I mean.

No, that's not it, at all.

You don't seem to understand: they catch drunk drivers more effectively WITHOUT using checkpoints.

Checkpoints actually make them less effective.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Another problem with disabling a phone when it's traveling down the highway is that people use them to find their way around strange towns.

 

[calamity]

[h=1]She survived her first driving-while-texting accident – but not her second




So, instead of putting the phone away after the first accident, she went on to kill herself by texting while driving a year later. So much for awareness of the danger. What does it take, I wonder, for the texters, the tailgaters, and the Indy driver wannabes to quit doing what they're doing?
A $150 fine certainly doesn't do the job.

I know a guy with 4 DUI in less than 5 years. So...obviously some people learn slowly, some not at all.

 

[countryboy]

Another problem with disabling a phone when it's traveling down the highway is that people use them to find their way around strange towns.

I would think they could figure out a way to disable the radio without interrupting data or GPS.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I would think they could figure out a way to disable the radio without interrupting data or GPS.

Maybe, but that is one more consideration.

 

[Mr Person]

What I mean it...we can't give a few minutes of our time just to make sure drunks are off the road.
Yeah, you may be caught in the middle of a road check and may be inconveniences a bit, but the guy right behind you may be dead drunk, get caught and taken off the road before he kills someone.
So yeah, our ego, our own self, can't be bothered for the greater good. That is what I mean.

Except the greater good would be better served without the checkpoints.

I know I didn't post a link, but I'm not making it up. DUI checkpoints are far less effective than patrol cops at taking drunk drivers off the road, and every cop manning a check point is a cop who isn't out patrolling.


They might sound like common sense, but the simple fact is that they don't work nearly as well as one might hope.