Texting While Driving More Dangerous Than DWI

[Ikari]

When texting, one can easily hold the phone in front of them on the steering wheel and constantly glance to the road in front of them whereas the drunk is drunk the whole time no matter what. Texting on the highway or freeway is even easier and less distracting than in the city, but the drunk is just drunk and swerving no matter where they are. There is no comparison. I don't by for a second that texting while driving is comparable to driving drunk... As a firefighter, we have yet to come to on to one accident that was cell phone related but I have been to may that were caused by DUI's and a couple of those had deaths involved. No comparison at all...

But the studies all show that texting and driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. The danger is the danger. If one provides more danger than the other, then it should be punished at least equally, right?

You want to say that there has been no cell phone related accident, but how do you know? You can test BAC and know if alcohol was a factor. How do you know if someone was texting at the time? I've seen people get hit because someone was on the phone in their car. So it's BS to say that there are no cell phone related accidents. I think what you have here is a failure of proper data collection.

 

[Ikari]

Is it ok to read a book while driving?

Yes, if you are on I-80 in Nebraska.

 

[mac]

Yes, if you are on I-80 in Nebraska.

LOL! I was going to say something similar.

I actually fell asleep on 40 in east Texas. I'm not sure how long I was asleep, but when I woke up I was still on 40 in east texas......

 

[Caine]

So this is just another one of those selectively enforced laws then? Yeah, those are useful. Who the hell would incriminate themselves anyway? That's the State's job.

The way the law is written makes it impossible to be enforced outside of an admission. The purpose of the law is to change people's habits BECAUSE there is a law that says, "Arrgg Look at me, Im a law and you'll have to pay money if caught doing it!"

I don't see why people would admit it in the first place. Why would they have to wait till it happens a bunch to learn that they shouldn't incriminate themselves? We have the right not to do so.

Your missing the point. Prior to the law, people openly and freely admitted they were texting while driving. Now that such an admission is self incrimination in the case for a crime or violation of the law, the admissions of texting causing the crash will go down, and thus... statistically, incidents of texting causing crashes will go down. Thus the law would have appeared to have worked! Hooray!

 

[Bodi]

But the studies all show that texting and driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. The danger is the danger. If one provides more danger than the other, then it should be punished at least equally, right?

You want to say that there has been no cell phone related accident, but how do you know? You can test BAC and know if alcohol was a factor. How do you know if someone was texting at the time? I've seen people get hit because someone was on the phone in their car. So it's BS to say that there are no cell phone related accidents. I think what you have here is a failure of proper data collection.

I didn't say that there were no cell phone related accidents, I said that of the accidents that I have rolled into, there were no cell phone related accidents. People admit to being distracted by changing a CD or applying make-up so I don't see a fear that would lead people to lie about texting causing an accident.

Regarding the danger being the danger... I don't care what the studies show, to be honest. I haven't seen them, but there is no way that texting, even prolonged texting, is remotely as dangerous as a drunk drunk. I will check on these "studies", but I would venture to say that they are claiming this due to the fact that more people text and drive than drive drunk, and that those that drive drunk are often not extremely drunk or blacked out drunk, just buzzed drunk barely failing the BAC test level.

 

[Caine]

Is it ok to read a book while driving?

Its horrible to read a book while driving.

Most sane people are aware of this.

However, with all these new communication devices and people's (especially young people) "need" to stay communicating with their precious friends 60 seconds of every minute create a HIGH number of this one SPECIFIC cause of the crashes.

Also, how many activist groups have you seen or heard about that are focused on those who read books and drive? How often is the discussion taking place on tv and in the news and other media?

I rest my case.

 

[Ikari]

I didn't say that there were no cell phone related accidents, I said that of the accidents that I have rolled into, there were no cell phone related accidents. People admit to being distracted by changing a CD or applying make-up so I don't see a fear that would lead people to lie about texting causing an accident.

Regarding the danger being the danger... I don't care what the studies show, to be honest. I haven't seen them, but there is no way that texting, even prolonged texting, is remotely as dangerous as a drunk drunk. I will check on these "studies", but I would venture to say that they are claiming this due to the fact that more people text and drive than drive drunk, and that those that drive drunk are often not extremely drunk or blacked out drunk, just buzzed drunk barely failing the BAC test level.

It's because of the probabilities and amount of usage at stake. If there was a large rise of texting and driving you'd see a lot more. Or if people would admit to texting. If there is a law against texting and driving, dollars to donuts says you will never see a "phone related" accident since no one would say anything. Which is why I say these laws are pointless because banning texting and driving will do little to change the actual probabilities of death on the road.

As it stands, the danger in the studies comes from studying concentration and reaction time. To which, texting and driving has a greater impact. That's the data. As for which one is done more...I don't really know. But even some of the most obsessive texters I know do not text and drive; so I'd venture a guess that at any given moment there is not a remarkably large number of people texting and driving.

 

[Ikari]

The way the law is written makes it impossible to be enforced outside of an admission. The purpose of the law is to change people's habits BECAUSE there is a law that says, "Arrgg Look at me, Im a law and you'll have to pay money if caught doing it!"

It can affect individual's behavior. But given the probabilities at stake I don't think it will go towards making anyone more safe. It will have relatively little impact on the real world probabilities of dying or living on the road.

Your missing the point. Prior to the law, people openly and freely admitted they were texting while driving. Now that such an admission is self incrimination in the case for a crime or violation of the law, the admissions of texting causing the crash will go down, and thus... statistically, incidents of texting causing crashes will go down. Thus the law would have appeared to have worked! Hooray!

Ahh, I get what you're saying. Sorry.

 

[haymarket]

I pay my taxes. You can hose me off the road if it comes to that.

And what about hosing off the road the innocents you took with you?

 

[haymarket]

from Ikari

But the studies all show that texting and driving is more dangerous than drunk driving.

And somehow, someway you see this as part of a winning argument opposing laws against texting and driving?!?!?!?!

 

[Jerry]

Its horrible to read a book while driving.

Most sane people are aware of this.

However, with all these new communication devices and people's (especially young people) "need" to stay communicating with their precious friends 60 seconds of every minute create a HIGH number of this one SPECIFIC cause of the crashes.

Also, how many activist groups have you seen or heard about that are focused on those who read books and drive? How often is the discussion taking place on tv and in the news and other media?

I rest my case.

There's no money to be made in built-in car devices which read you a book. There is money to be made, however, in conveniently coming out with a product just after a law was passed. Pure coincidence, of course. Pay no attention to campaign contribution records, they're irrelevant.

 

[Caine]

There's no money to be made in built-in car devices which read you a book. There is money to be made, however, in conveniently coming out with a product just after a law was passed. Pure coincidence, of course. Pay no attention to campaign contribution records, they're irrelevant.

You want to explain how this makes any sense

 

[Ikari]

And what about hosing off the road the innocents you took with you?

Que sera sera

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

And what about hosing off the road the innocents you took with you?

It wouldn't matter to him, he's already dead. :shrug:

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD/2010ConfCommRpts/Ccrb300_001_25.pdf

Prohibiting Texting While Driving

The bill would prohibit a person who is operating a motor
vehicle on a public road or highway from “texting,” using a
wireless communications device to write, send, or read a written
communication.

The bill would define “wireless communications
device” to include any type of device that sends or receives
messages but to exclude voice-operated devices.


The bill would include these exceptions to the ban:
! Law enforcement officers or emergency service personnel
acting within the course and scope of their employment;
! When the motor vehicle is stopped off the regular traveled
portion of the roadway;Using the wireless communications device to make or
receive a phone call; receive an emergency, traffic, or
weather alert message; or receive a message related to
the operation or navigation of the vehicle;
! To report current or ongoing illegal activity to law
enforcement;
! To prevent imminent injury to a person or property; and
! To relay information between a transit or for-hire operator
and the operator’s dispatcher, if the device is permanently
affixed to the motor vehicle.

— — — — — — — — — —
*Conference committee repor t briefs are prepared by the Legislat ive
R ese arch D ep a rtm e nt an d do n ot exp re ss le gisla tive in te nt. N o
su m m a ry is p re p a re d wh e n th e re p o rt is an a gre e m e n t to d isa gre e .
C o n fe re n ce co m m itte e re p o rt b rie fs m a y b e a cce sse d on th e In te rn e t a

Signed into law and took effect January 1, 2011

 

[Ikari]

http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD/2010ConfCommRpts/Ccrb300_001_25.pdf



Signed into law and took effect January 1, 2011

How do you enforce this?

 

[The Giant Noodle]

How do you enforce this?

Cameras of course. Many cameras that can detect it. Plus just police looking.
All for protecting society. :roll:

 

[dadrone]

Cell phones don't make people drive poorly, they are merely accessories that tend to be used by bad drivers. These are the same bad drivers who cut you off because they're smashing a Big Mac. I'm not sure why responsible drivers who are able to use the phone while driving are being lumped with these other drivers. In Washington State, they only banned citizens the ability to talk on the phone while driving. So police drive around with one in their ear all the time and it's perfectly legal. Police state!

 

[Caine]

Cell phones don't make people drive poorly, they are merely accessories that tend to be used by bad drivers. These are the same bad drivers who cut you off because they're smashing a Big Mac. I'm not sure why responsible drivers who are able to use the phone while driving are being lumped with these other drivers. In Washington State, they only banned citizens the ability to talk on the phone while driving. So police drive around with one in their ear all the time and it's perfectly legal. Police state!

I disagree with cell phone (talking) bans. I don't think holding a cell phone to one's ear and holding a conversation is any more distracting than driving a manual transmission and holding a conversation with your friend in the passenger seat.

Also, why are you blaming the police for a law written by legislators?

Also, I thought this topic was about texting while driving, which I think we can all agree is not able to be done with a decent level of safety while driving on the road.

 

[dadrone]

I disagree with cell phone (talking) bans. I don't think holding a cell phone to one's ear and holding a conversation is any more distracting than driving a manual transmission and holding a conversation with your friend in the passenger seat.

Also, why are you blaming the police for a law written by legislators?

Also, I thought this topic was about texting while driving, which I think we can all agree is not able to be done with a decent level of safety while driving on the road.

How am I blaming the police?