Fines Fail To Curb Cell Phone Usage While Driving 339
andylim writes "An in-depth study of over 14,000 London drivers by the Transport Research Laboratory has found an increase in the number of London motorists making and taking calls using their handsets at the wheel between 2008 and 2009, even though harsher penalties were introduced in 2007. It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're using your cell phone."
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children.
The problem is, everybody has their own ideas about what to teach the children, and the vast majority of those ideas will turn little Lisa into an imbecile, a sociopath, or a robot.
On the other hand, at least the robot can be programmed to drive safely.
Re:Not just London... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just in London, I think you will find that this is the case everywhere in the world...
Basic human behavior, and it's hardly restricted to cellphone misuse behind the wheel. You see, everyone is somehow special and better able to handle a given situation than anyone else, and is therefore immune to consequence. That is, until such time as a consequence kills them dead, or if they're very lucky just scares the shit out of them. Cigarettes, drugs, risky sex, bad driving ... most people don't learn to think until after their stupidity nearly kills them. I don't have a problem with that, particularly, unless their mental malfunction gets someone else killed. That's what makes using that damn cellphone on the road a bad thing.
Wise up people, you're no better at driving and texting than anyone else, and nobody is any good at it.
Positive Reinforcement (Score:2, Insightful)
Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine. Who can say why this takes place?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that argument is that if someone else fucks up, you or I may be affected by the consequences in terrible ways that no amount of compensation or punishment inflicted on the other party could correct.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Texting and driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Human being is not a mathematical beast. People take risk that will kill them and/or cripple their family every single day. Think about tobacco, drinking while driving,
To solve the problem, you need to increase the risk so that people think that the risk is real. After that you need to make sure that they think the consequences are bad enough to avoid it.
The remaining problem is education. Since the threat is artificial, people also need to be convinced that the fine is fair like they do for the safety belts or alcohol.
Otherwise, like with file sharing, instead of stopping the risky behavior, they will try to dissimulate it to avoid the fine
Re:Positive Reinforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine. Who can say why this takes place?
Man, what alternate universe do you live in? Whichever it is, I want to go there--a large percentage of the people in my universe don't seem to respond to any sort of fact, scientific or otherwise. Only a cold, hard dose of reality (such as running their car into a fire hydrant at the end of their driveway) ever gets through to them.
Won't work. Unrealistic. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the enforcement. We have really, really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations, but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random. Your chances of getting caught are miniscule, so people learn to ignore the law. If they do get caught, the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent.
Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training. Every police vehicle I've seen has a laptop mounted on the center console. Every time I see a cop driving around they have one hand on the keyboard and constantly glance back and forth between the road and the computer.
Cell phones and cars aren't going away anytime soon. Instead of punishing the citizens for doing something police are trained to do, train the citizens too. There is no reason that drivers ed. classes shouldn't discuss this and deal with it.
I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children. If you don't want little Lisa to text and drive into a horrible wreck, teach her how to text and drive responsibly. Otherwise take your blanket statements and have every computer removed from police vehicles because otherwise we have an effective working double standard which provides revenue to the police force. Fuck that shit.
First of all, you cannot train folks to multitask because humans are incapable of doing it [npr.org]. The cops can't do it either. What you call multitasking is actually them selecting attention rapidly between their laptops and driving - if they're even doing that.
Two, even if it were possible to train folks how to do it, what makes you think that folks will follow their training? People are trained not to tailgate, speed, cut others off, etc...
Everything you've proposed is impossible. The ONLY solution is to ban cell phones in cars. There is absolutely no reason to talk in a car anyway - no exceptions. Got to talk? Pull over.
Re:Positive Reinforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Have they tried educating rather than penalising? Strange as it may see, most of us respond positively to scientific fact rather than an impersonal fine.
What planet do you live on? Facts don't dissuade people from doing what they want to do. A lot of it in this case is self-overestimation: people will continue to cell/text/IM while they drive because in spite of the evidence, they are all convinced that they are an exception to the rule and can do these things and still drive safely. In their minds, those studies and laws apply to all those other people, not me. It's very reminiscent of "well, most people probably shouldn't drive after drinking, but I can do it just fine."
I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children. If you don't want little Lisa to text and drive into a horrible wreck, teach her how to text and drive responsibly.
How about teaching little Lisa to keep both hands on the wheel, both eyes on the road, and her mind focused on driving? How about teaching her that that phone call or text can wait until she gets where she's going? How about teaching her that the world won't come to an end if she's not constantly in touch with her little friends 24/7?
Risk (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:2, Insightful)
This ignores 2 things:
1) People learn, usually by doing.
2) Police are not special, they are the same as anyone else.
If cops can learn to use a radio with complex codes to remember, or a laptop connected to a specialized system, so can anyone else.
If the 'anti-cell phone in cars' people had their way, we wouldn't even have radios in our cars.
The majority of people ALREADY know how to talk on the cell phone and drive safely, through experience.
The occasional event you hear about involving a crash caused by talking is just that, an isolated experience.
If the "distracted driving" people were right, there'd be at least a million dead on our roads every day.
There isn't; they're wrong.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:2, Insightful)
How is flushing the 4th amendment down the toilet not "interfering with previously held freedoms"? Why do all my fellow countrymen want to turn this country in to a totalitarian police state hell hole? WTF is going on in this country??
Exactly how is this flushing the 4th down the toilet? How else do you punish adults other than restrict their rights or outright revoke them? I am a proponent of the concept that if you fuck up badly enough as an adult you need to have a severe punishment.
Allowing the police to stop you and verify you're not drunk is a compromise yes, but an acceptable one for society as a whole. Otherwise society as a whole would vote to change it. I happen to agree with this, as it is democratic (even if it is a uncomfortable compromise).
All you have to do to avoid being tagged with "whiskey plates" is not repeatedly drive drunk and endanger the lives of your fellow Americans. Fuck you if you disagree with that.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
No... You most certainly are not... It is that kind of attitude that allows people like you to engage in risky behavior that endangers other peoples' lives than your own. You have a right to risk your own life as much as you wish however, there is no such right to risk other peoples' lives at your whim because you think you're such a fantastic driver that the statistics don't apply to you. If you cause an accident because your attention was diverted by your talking on a cell phone it can be considered Negligent homicide just as drunk driving is in certain jurisdictions [wikipedia.org].
Re:Positive Reinforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
hard dose of reality (such as running their car into a fire hydrant at the end of their driveway) ever gets through to them.
In my universe that person would blame the fire hydrant...
Big Surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, if you run over someone because you were texting, you should get assault with a deadly weapon at least and negligent homicide at most (assuming no ill intentions), but nothing should be done until you actually do something wrong and injure another person or destroy someone else's property.
Re:Big Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prohibit children (Score:3, Insightful)
Tie a short string between the pacifier and rug-rat.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training. Every police vehicle I've seen has a laptop mounted on the center console. Every time I see a cop driving around they have one hand on the keyboard and constantly glance back and forth between the road and the computer.
I find it amusing that you just assume that the cops are not, themselves, a danger on the roads when they're doing this.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I believe that your argument is valid in some other, not traffic-related cases (e.g. I believe that teaching young people how to drink responsibly is better than deterring them from drinking, but that is a different thing), I believe it is not valid in this case. When driving, have one hand at the steering wheel and occasionally one at the gearshift. That's it.
It's not the fines.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Driving is not a right.
It's open to anyone who can demonstrate ability and only revocable if you show yourself to be a danger to others. Sounds like a right to me.
That makes it a privilege. Rights are inalienable, to use an American term, while privileges are revocable for cause.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not just London... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just how many IFR Pilots do you know? (assuming you're not an Aviator yourself and more likely to know a few).
Take a flight on a fully-loaded 747, I'll bet even money the only two people who can fly that plane are already in the cockpit. I don't know what definition you have of 'rare', but IFR Pilots are, IMO.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:0, Insightful)
Driving is not a right.
To hell with this attitude. Who says driving is not a right? "Privileges" are for the oppressed. I am an American, and I have rights.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly how is this flushing the 4th down the toilet?
You don't see being subjected to a traffic stop without any sort of probable cause as a violation of the letter and spirit of the 4th amendment?
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we could enforce the laws *and* suitably punish those who are found to be in unsafe operation of a few thousand pounds of metal and plastic traveling up to, and past, speeds of 75mph.
We seem to take driving for granted in this country, but if you are operating your vehicle in such a way that you may kill someone, perhaps you shouldn't have a license for awhile.
Spot on. Training! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training.
Also look at pilots who must by law be on the radio while piloting a vehicle in 3 dimensions that falls out of the sky if you slow down too quickly or bank too sharply while going slow. They are taught aviate, navigate, communicate - in other words fly and know where you are before worrying about the communication part.
Even if you remove mobile phones, radios and all other electronics, what about all the other distractions on the road? What about the piece of newspaper that flys onto your windscreen? What about a baby that starts choking in the back seat?
Train people to cope with distractions while driving (making it part of the driving test) and you've got a much safer environment than one where they've been reduced to the point where a driver can no longer cope with one.
Another pointless law (Score:1, Insightful)
I've driven for 13 years and many times with a cell phone, a burger, coughing, sneezing, changing and other as you would put it "dangerous" activities. I've never hit anyone while driving safe or "unsafe."
It truly does boil down to education of driving aware of your surroundings.
I don't need some law nazi telling me I can use a cell phone while driving if I'm truly not driving any more dangerously.
And if you're still not goiing to agree, then consider this. We already have a law against driving recklessly. Shouldn't that cover activities such as poor driving with cell phone use? Let's nail people who are negligent with their driving: not just any Joe taking a phone call while in the car.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:5, Insightful)
These plates do not require all police officers to pull the vehicle over, but they do give additional indicators that this driver who is driving oddly enough to gain the attention of the officer has a history of DUI convictions that warrant a more careful check to verify sobriety.
I think these plates are a great idea. But only after multiple convictions (not just being pulled over multiple times but full convictions) for DUI.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a person is shown to repeatedly endanger the public they shouldn't be tagged with a little "I've been naughty" sign. They should be locked away where they can't hurt anyone.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Your passengers will scream before you hit the truck. They may even call your attention to the red light you're about to run.
It's b/c we live in an age of instant contact (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody remember the days before call-waiting? Y'know the days when you called someone and if they were on it you'd get this thing called a busy signal? We live in an age where we expect people to be able to be in instant contact. I sent you a text message, you get it instantly. We IM people on the computer. Creating mobile phones allows us to call someone (or be called by someone) almost anywhere we go. Nolonger do we have, "Sorry I was at the grocery store for the past hour.." You get called while you are in front of the apples. Conversely, you can call home and find out from your wife what type of apple to get for the pie.
People have grown accustomed to this... this leash. There was a time when people didn't have cell phones or pagers for that matter. When you went to the movies, you went to the movies, and when you were in the car driving to grandmas house, she couldn't call you. Now she can call you, and I would bet that most people would answer the phone rather than wait until you could a) safely pull over or b) arrive at your destination before you answered the phone or checked to see who called and call them back.
Do I think that we'll ever change our behavior to where we don't have this desire to have instant contact? Nope, and with the young kids of today growing up with email being the slowest form of communication, they won't think twice about driving while on the phone, texting or whatever comes out next (video-conferencing via the center console mounted computer?).
Why are you all hot to punish when it doesn't work (Score:2, Insightful)
How else do you punish adults other than restrict their rights or outright revoke them?
How about - YOU DON'T. Often many destructive behaviors carry their own penalty, let people live with the consequences of their own actions.
Not to mention, I thought we were trying to prevent people from doing something we didn't like - not apply random punishments at the whim of law enforcement. As the study shows, punishment does not generally deter or do anything to stop behavior, so even if you demand it stop punishment and removal of rights is not the answer, because it simply does not work. If it doesn't work, you have to think of something else, but you can't keep hitting yourself in the head with a hammer expecting the headache to go away.
Only community peer pressure or other factors can really have an effect in improving behavior.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it amusing that you just assume that the cops are not, themselves, a danger on the roads when they're doing this.
Exactly.
From discussions with traffic police I know in the UK, it seems to be standard practice for traffic patrols to have two officers in the car, and the one who is not driving is the one who is on the radio, giving the commentary during a pursuit, etc. If there is any serious car chasing to be done, a traffic car with suitably trained officers and proper spec will take over as the lead car as soon as possible and get everyone else to back off. There are pretty strict limits on the extent to which other officers are allowed to engage in pursuits.
On top of that, the serious decisions (such as when a pursuit is too dangerous to continue) are taken by senior officers in the control room, with the benefit of the commentary from vehicles on the ground and typically a view from a helicopter as well. Basically, the procedures are designed so that the guy who is actually driving the lead car in a pursuit can concentrate on the driving as much as possible.
Of course, other police officers also receive training in advanced driving techniques and are allowed to break certain rules that apply to the rest of us in an emergency, but they are typically much more limited in what they are allowed to do than specialist traffic officers, unless they too have specialist training and equipment.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why are you all hot to punish when it doesn't w (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Texting and driving (Score:3, Insightful)
I call shenanigans!
How do you know he was texting if he was going 70mph, it was the middle of the night, and you ended up in a ditch (presumably not able to follow and identify the person or his activities). How do you even know it was a teenager, or that it was a "he"?
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Driving is not a right.
It's not about 'the right to drive' - It's about the right to be going about your business (including driving) and not being randomly pulled over by the police to determine if "maybe you might have done some kind of crime perhaps."
If I'm swerving all over the road, fine, or if you see me chatting on my phone (or eating a cheeseburger or watching a DVD or texting) then fine, but being randomly pulled over so the police can check my phone logs? Fvck that.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:5, Insightful)
what, exactly, is so fascist about suspending or terminating the driving license of someone who has proved that their driving habits are a danger to pedestrians and other drivers?
sounds like common sense to me.
(and if losing their license causes some fuckwit to lose their job - and whatever goes along with that - then so be it. fuck 'em.)
you don't have a right to drive. you don't have a right to endanger the lives of others because you're too fucking stupid to realise that drunk driving (or driving while distracted by cell-phones, video screens, or whatever) is dangerous.
drink all you like in your own home or when you're not going to be driving. in fact, take whatever drugs you like. your body, your life, your choice to do whatever you like to/with it. but you don't have any right to endanger others.
fuck you and your sense of entitlement.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:4, Insightful)
cite [dot.gov]
If someone is looking at LOLcats on their iPhone and kills you in a car crash and they blow a 0.01 on a breathalizer because they were eating a bagel with their free hand that is considered an alcohol-related fatality. If you run over a a drunk guy on a bike that counts as an alcohol-related fatality. Furthermore, if there is no breathalizer done then they use "statistical modeling" to determine if alcohol is involved. I don't know what kind of modeling they use, but my guess is that they say there is a 33% chance alcohol was involved and list is as such. I'm not sure why their threshold for "alcohol-related" is so low, but it definitely gives us some big, scary numbers.
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not the fines.... (Score:1, Insightful)