Smartphones More Dangerous Than Alcohol, When Driving 358
judgecorp writes "The Institute of Advanced Motorists in the UK has carried out live tests which prove that using smartphones impairs driving ability more than drug or alcohol use, making reaction times 37.6 percent slower (PDF). The result is a big concern since a quarter of drivers admit to sending texts from their phones while driving. 'Young people have grown up with smartphones and using them is part of everyday life. But more work needs to be done by the government and social network providers to show young people that they are risking their lives and the lives of others if they use their smartphones while driving.'"
For you guys, maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For you guys, maybe (Score:5, Funny)
I drive better when I'm texting.
Re:For you guys, maybe (Score:4, Funny)
I can text, check my Facebook, AND drive with no problems. I think I'm one of only about 20 world-wide that can do it.
I only can do that if I'm drunk.
Re:For you guys, maybe (Score:5, Funny)
One of 19 people, now. Devon, the one in South Carolina, got into an accident and died last month, so you're down by one, now.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what all of these idiots think.
I'm guessing that was his point.
This study is from the UK. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
the first time I visited the UK (I'm from the US) some friends there asked how I was doing, dealing with the 'opposite side' driving problem. I said it would be no problem, I would just go to one of your nice pubs, have a few and then, I'd just naturally drive on the wrong side of the road. which, in this case, would be the correct side.
they didn't think it was funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We just drive wherever the hell we want and let the market decide.
I believe it, but it is a choice as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That story is just natural selection in action. It's only tragic when natural selection is averted. e.g., if the texter survives and procreates, or the texter takes the life of a non-texter.
I know in alcohol related crashes, the drunk is less likely to die than their victims are. What's the statistics on texting crashes?
Re: (Score:2)
One of the factors in that statistic is that a large. Number of DUI accidents are with pedestrians. Generally pedestrians fare worse that driver in auto accidents. I would expect cell phone while driving accidents to be similar in that they are more likely to happen in day light hours where more pedestrians are likely to be about. That's is educated guessing though.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're a dead victim of their "choice"?
Laws can be a way for society to set clear limits on acceptable behavior. Currently people aren't seriously considering the risks they're taking with others safety. That has to change - soon.
Siri (Score:5, Funny)
Siri, how close is the nearest hospital? Is it too far to walk there with one leg broken from a car accident?
Re: (Score:2)
Siri, how close is the nearest hospital? Is it too far to walk there with one leg broken from a car accident?
Sorry. I can only look for businesses inside the United States, and when you're using U.S. English. Glory to the Flesh. Glory to the Mass.
Re: (Score:2)
continuous vs instantaneous distraction? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about non-smart phones? (Score:2)
Does it help if you don't have to hold the phone with both hands to type?
Re:What about non-smart phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes or no is meaningless, and 100% is concentration is almost certainly unachievable. Stop being silly and give me numbers, dammit.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply remembering that I replied this way to your message may be a distraction to your driving tomorrow. Does that mean I'm a danger to your driving, and that you should be fined £50 for thinking of me?
Or should this only apply to smoking? Or to e
Re: (Score:2)
Great question, IMO ... and I think the answer is, it's only an instantaneous distraction using a cellphone to text. It'd be rather pointless to run one of these studies where you asked a person to just drive with a smartphone sitting next to them in a cupholder, right?
What bothers me the most are summaries like the one in this topic, stating "more work needs to be done by the government" to help solve this issue.
You know what? Government is NOT always your "go to" group for all the answers. In fact, it of
Re: (Score:2)
That does not do any good if you do not notice the environment is risky until it is too late.
Re: (Score:2)
While driving, a non-risky environment can change into a risky environment in a much shorter time than it takes to read a text.
Re:continuous vs instantaneous distraction? (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, as the accident stats clearly show, the theoretical ability to just drop your phone or whatever it is you image people doing when they "enter a risky environment" is rarely observed in practice. Presumably this is because while distracted by a conversation on the phone, drivers are significantly less accurate in judging risk in the first place.
Re:continuous vs instantaneous distraction? (Score:5, Insightful)
+1.
You can stop using your phone if you enter a risky environment. You can't stop being drunk.
-1
You can stop, but I never see anybody do it. Just like drunks who don't just pull off the road and sleep it off.
Mythbusters already did it (Score:5, Informative)
The Mythbusters showed that [youtube.com] years ago. It was actually quite shocking how similar the test results were between someone who was substantially drunk and someone just talking on the phone (got even worse when they were texting).
Input method? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've on occasion attempted to text while driving. Yes, I know, bad me, but unlike others I do realize how terribly risky it is. So I only do it at red lights now. However there are a few things that make it even more tempting to do while in motion:
Swype keyboard (and others) - with decent enough recognition, you can almost thumb-swype a whole message without looking. Corrections are a pain though.
Dictation (Siri, Evi, and speech-to-text) - actually works quite well.
But they all take more concentration from the road than they should.
I think combining a HUD with dictation might just be the way of the future. We need to get these systems developed and studied before we blanket-ban messaging and driving.
Re: (Score:2)
or just wait till you get to your destination to respond. 99% of stuff doesn't have to be handled RIGHT THIS DAMN MINUTE. People won't die, the world won't end, ect if you respondin 30 or 60 minutes. and if it is that important to respond right now, pull over and respond.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, no! Drivers have no business texting while the car us in motion, and the law should be very clear in saying that drivers seen holding a phone while the vehicle is in motion will be treated like drunk drivers. Why even think about a HUD when drivers could simply pull over to browse the web or work on their matchstick model of Big Ben?
I see no reason to waste time making a moronic and dangerous activity slightly safer
Re:Input method? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to get these systems developed and studied before we blanket-ban messaging and driving.
There is overwhelming evidence at this point that the distraction of being on a call or dealing with a message is actually the main danger, and that the physical effort of manipulating the device, while not completely irrelevant, has a much smaller effect.
That suggests we blanket ban these dangerous activities (and enforce it) first, and if anyone thinks they've come up with a safe way of doing it the onus is now on them to prove it so before it is permitted on public roads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, yes. As I noted in another post, the biggest screw-up the government made in the legislation here was that they didn't ban hands-free kits as well, apparently on the basis that enforcement would be impractical. That sent a clear message that driving using a hands-free kit was OK, which was then used extensively in advertising campaigns shortly after the laws were introduced.
Re:Input method? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, obvious but well-debunked counter-argument #27.
Actual passengers usually have some basic level of situational awareness, and will instinctively shut up when the driver needs to concentrate. Someone on the other end of a phone line can't see the road ahead and be quiet when a hazard is coming up.
(Having misbehaving children causing trouble in the back of a vehicle is a problem for the same reason, but unlike using a phone while driving, it is not practical to prohibit ever transporting unruly children by car. We fight the battles we can win.)
Re: (Score:2)
There is overwhelming evidence at this point that the distraction of being on a call or dealing with a message is actually the main danger
There's ovewhelming numbers of people making this up and repeating it on the internet, to be sure. Keeping your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel is 90% of the battle. You have millions of years of evolution helping you focus your attention on the scary thing that just happened, but only if you see it. Looking down at a screen is really troubling.
Also, "X might be ban, lets just banX and worry about it later" is exactly the sort of trading freedom for safety that eventually destroys freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get these systems developed and studied before we blanket-ban messaging and driving.
your selfishness does not trump safety.
I doubt you truly understand how much energy a moving car has and how much damage it can do.
short of a bonafide emergency (almost never happens) there's no good reason to allow such distractions.
sorry, but you are just not even THINKING, here, dude. no text or email is worth this.
Japanese Car Televisions (Score:3)
Young people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the focus solely on young people? I see plenty of so-called "adults" that are texting and jabbering incessantly behind the wheel.
Texting or otherwise using a cellphone while driving in fact suggests that the individual is too self-centered and too into instant gratification to be considered to be an "adult".
Should be in the no-shit-sherlock dept (Score:2)
On the cusp of a sea change (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Gives a whole new meaning to 'my computer crashed' though...
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it scales, though. (Score:2)
A little smart phone is probably worse than a little alcohol.
Maybe a heap of smart phone is still worse than a heap of alcohol.
I doubt that a whole whopping bunch of smart phone is proportionately worse than a whole whopping bunch of alcohol.
Though, I could be wrong.
Not a problem (Score:2)
This is BS. I'm posting this from my mobile phone while speeding down the freeway at 80 mph, and look no problems whatsoev (*&$&*# NO CARRIER
I use my smartphone when driving all the time... (Score:2)
...since I use it extensively as a GPS/navigation aid, as do many other people. It allows me to focus on the road more when I am driving in unfamiliar places.
For many, it is also a music player (which has been a standard component in cars for decades). I doubt that hitting a "play" button to launch a playlist with thousands of songs *once* provides more distraction than going through a CD wallet every hour.
On the other hand, SMS messaging has been present on pretty much cell phones since the beginning,
What? (Score:2)
Stuff which distracts a driver's attention could be dangerous?
Now there's a surprise!!!
This might work... (Score:2)
Then again, what teen watches TV anymore?
Look Ma! No Hands! (Score:2)
Undrunk yourself if the traffic gets dangerous... (Score:2)
Very irresponsible, implying that a slower reaction time means a worse driver.
Plenty of older folks have very poor reaction times (and I'm not talking senile oldies), and almost all young folks have great reaction times. Clearly, a lot of practice and knowledge and judgment goes into driving.
Alcohol impairs much more than just reaction times. Alcohol can't be switched off.
Here's a story:
"The other day when driving home, I was drunk as all hell, but there was hardly any other traffic around. But when I hi
Accident statistics don't support cell phone risk (Score:2)
Accident statistics in the U.S. do not seem to support the supposed danger of driving while talking on cell phones. During the period when cell phones became wildly popular here, the automobile accident rate has dropped sharply. According to the Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/mmwr_achievements.html/ [cdc.gov] "From 2000 to 2009, while the number of vehicle miles traveled on the nation's roads increased by 8.5%, the death rate related to that travel declined from 14.9 per 100,000 pop
Show me the actual accident data (Score:3)
Show me the massive increase in accidents and fatalities that have come along with the massive increase in cell phone usage. Then I'll believe there's a real correlation. The results of a controlled test designed to yield a certain result isn't useful data.
Here's the fatality list through 2009. It shows steady decreases in fatalities per mile driven.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx [dot.gov]
Of course, that's 3 years old now, but still... there's been an increase in cell phone use through 2009, so if using a cell phone is as dangerous as drunk driving, I'd expect to see a big increase in the fatality rate, not a decrease.
And here's another flawed study (2010)... http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx [nsc.org]
They estimate that 25% of crashes involve the use of cell phones. Based on that, I would expect accident rates to increase (to a degree) along with cell phone usage. But they don't. Many states have banned cell phone use by drivers. In those states, shouldn't see a big decrease in accidents? Do we? I doubt it.
-S
Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody who does something else than drive while driving is an idiot.
Here in the Netherlands, just *holding* a phone will cost you 180 euros. I really do not understand why people think it is OK to text and drive.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't stare at my beer or have a conversation with it. Drinking and driving is a minimal effort hobby.
Article translation: We overestimated the dangers of alcohol on driving.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it just says
reaction_time(smartphone-user) > reaction_time(drunken-driver)
Society has now successfully established that reaction_time(drunken-driver) leads to more accidents (especially troublesome because you are not just injuring yourself with your stupidity, but other, innocent people are killed).
The logical conclusion is that the danger of smartphones is large and people are not aware of it (unlike with drinking or phoning). While we are also now kindof aware that calling while driving is a bad idea, those two don't have a real stigma yet (like NZ ads "If you drink and drive --- you're a bloody idiot").
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Society has now successfully established that reaction_time(drunken-driver) leads to more accidents (especially troublesome because you are not just injuring yourself with your stupidity, but other, innocent people are killed).
That's false. MADD proved .15 BAC lead to more accidents, then argued "lower is better" until the impairment from the legal limit is well below impairment from cell phones, radio, kids, rain on the windshield, and anything else ever measured. The conclusion should be that the current DUI levels are below measurable increase in risk.
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
Let's try some actual references [cdc.gov] with, you know, facts, and stuff.
Instead of just making stuff up.
Re: (Score:3)
Well if your "reasoning, depth perception and peripheral vision" are impaired at .06 BAC [src] [wikipedia.org], things arguably relevant to driving, it makes sense to put the limit somewhere around .05 BAC. ... what more argument do you need to put it the DUI levels where they are now? [src [wikipedia.org]]
Then if you double the risk of accidents at 0.05 BAC, and triple it at 0.1 BAC, with 0 BAC as a control
DUI is not exactly a new phenomenon that doesn't have enough studies yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it just says
reaction_time(smartphone-user) > reaction_time(drunken-driver)
Society has now successfully established that reaction_time(drunken-driver) leads to more accidents (especially troublesome because you are not just injuring yourself with your stupidity, but other, innocent people are killed).
The logical conclusion is that the danger of smartphones is large and people are not aware of it (unlike with drinking or phoning). While we are also now kindof aware that calling while driving is a bad idea, those two don't have a real stigma yet (like NZ ads "If you drink and drive --- you're a bloody idiot").
That's ridiculous.
Reaction_time needs to be a function of the object, not a global function. Oh god, don't tell me this study wasn't object oriented...
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Funny)
I don't stare at my beer or have a conversation with it.
Clearly you need to start drinking better beer.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Funny)
I don't stare at my beer or have a conversation with it.
Clearly you need to start drinking better beer.
Or just more of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't using your phone in any fashion without a hands-free kit already illegal in the UK?
It amazes me that so many people seem to believe the proximity of one's hand to one's ear is the problem when it comes to making phone calls while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly a big part of the problem. Engaging your ears is one thing, but adding hands and eyes makes it a far bigger problem. People listen to the raido, chat with passengers, and so on without it being a major crisis, but texting is vastly more dangerous than listening to something interesting.
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
If God didn't want us driving a manual transmission car whilst texting on a smartphone he wouldn't have given us knees.
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, this sort of behaviour is already against the law. It isn't widely enforced, though, and way too many people still do it. It needs to become socially unacceptable, the same way drunk driving now is.
As an aside, driving while using a hands-free kit is hardly any safer. It's just harder to detect and penalise. Unfortunately, that means the government here in the UK didn't outlaw it at the same time, thus sending a clear (but completely wrong) message that "The government says driving using a hands-free kit is safe!". Of course, lots of companies who sell hands-free kits had huge displayboards in stores the day these laws came in playing off that misunderstanding, and to this day a lot of people think they're safe driving and talking as long as they've got hands-free.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse because a passenger is there with you and most passengers will naturally react to the surroundings and the driver's temperament, including knowing when to shut up and let the driver concentrate.
Misbehaving kids in the back can be a real problem, but it is impractical to ban all driving with kids on board and most of the time most kids aren't severely degrading the driver's performance. That is rather different to the situation where almost no-one actually needs to make a call while driving, and m
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder what cops think about the study? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution -- don't smartphones drive.
Until they get a bit smarter, at least...
I'd rather have the phone be driving than most people on the road, to be honest.
Re:more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
More laws on the way - I can't wait
Already laws. Just get them enforced.
Couple days ago I'm sitting in my car in a parking lot and nearly creamed by an SUV-driving phoner. Tricky enough on the street, but parking lots are mazes where unpredictable things are the norm - people walk out of nowhere, car suddenly backs out, car suddenly comes around blind corner, etc. You need to be on your toes there - besides, parking lot accidents are paid for by YOU -- fault, in my experience is never assigned on private property or public parking lots. Tough beans, even if you were not at fault. If you are at fault, you may find yourself taken to court for whatever your insurer is unwilling to cover.
Re:more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to be on your toes there - besides, parking lot accidents are paid for by YOU -- fault, in my experience is never assigned on private property or public parking lots. Tough beans, even if you were not at fault.
I can confirm that. I got broad sided in a supermarket parking lot some years ago by a guy in an SUV driving what seemed like 55 mph right though an intersection that had STOP painted on the pavement. The cop that arrived on the scene pointed out that, not only was that STOP on the pavement not a legal stop sign, the issues was moot, as the laws in general do NOT apply in parking lots. He could have been driving 100 mph. Ever since then I have an extra special disdain for anyone driving fast in parking lots...by which I mean that I get tempted to chase them down and beat the living shit out of them.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to be on your toes there - besides, parking lot accidents are paid for by YOU -- fault, in my experience is never assigned on private property or public parking lots. Tough beans, even if you were not at fault.
... as the laws in general do NOT apply in parking lots. He could have been driving 100 mph...
In most states, certain laws do pertain to parking lots. The two that I can think of off the top of my head are DUI/DWI laws (which even pertain to your own driveway), and reckless driving (where a person is subject to citation/arrest for breaking contact with the pavement, loss of control, and excessive speed). In your case, a charge where a civilian witness sees a person driving 100 MPH would be difficult to substantiate, since it does not come from a person trained in speed detection (e.g. a police off
Re:more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont think talking is going to distract me (but i am well above average in every aspect) . And if you cant talk and drive at the same time, then your license should be taken away. that should be part of all the new driving tests. you have to call and talk to a memeber of your family for 10min while navigating the streets of San Francisco.
I don't care how above average you think you are. My car his been hit by people I'd consider very good drivers, but their attention was divided for just the amount of time necessary where opportunity to smash into my car was present. Nothing asserts reality like standing around waiting for the cops, while an angry motorist is glaring at you for your bone-headed driving distractions you bring upon yourself and ultimately inconvenience you and other unwilling participants.
Really. I've heard it time and again, and there isn't a day goes by around here where someone is hit or hitting. Often in the places you'd think it wouldn't happen - sitting in a stationary vehicle at a light when another ploughs into the back of you.
I'd like to see driving bans for the first offense. Try riding the bus for three months as a reminder it is a privilege, not a right to be able to drive a car.
Re:more laws (Score:4, Interesting)
it is a privilege, not a right to be able to drive a car
I disagree with your statement - specifically where you suggest that driving is a privilege. I hope that I'm not being too pedantic, but this notion is freely thrown around with very little thought, and it has always bothered me. As far as me being pedantic on a small point...this is Slashdot, after all...and besides, someone is wrong on the internet [xkcd.com] ;-)
Driving is as much a privilege as using a public library. Driving is not limited to a privileged class, and a drivers license cannot be arbitrarily revoked (or even suspended) without some sort of due process - even if it is only administrative due process. This is especially true in many parts of America where public transportation is nearly nonexistent - as are most forms of alternative transportation. In these remote areas, suspension of licensure for operating a motor vehicle on a public right-of-way can severely impact a person's ability to make a living - or even live on a day-to-day basis. For this reason (among others), suspension or revocation of drivers licenses is not to be taken lightly. This is the same for trade licensure - I wouldn't call being an electrician a privilege either.
Another way to look at it is that driving is no more a privilege than being free from incarceration. A person who breaks the rules risks losing their license to drive - similarly, rights to any other freedom can be taken away if societal rules are broken - e.g. sentenced to prison, where many rights are suspended. WIth this in mind, does that make living in a person's own home, or even walking on a sidewalk a privilege? I would argue that if driving is a privilege, then living where one chooses (within the law), free from incarceration is a privilege too.
This is something that we tell 16 year old children. As a minor - driving privileges, like television privileges, can be taken away arbitrarily. The reality is that with adults they cannot.
Re: (Score:3)
I like your banning idea. works great, but add in 3 strikes and your DL is gone forever! and then people would actully listen and be better.
oh & my supurb driving skills have landed me wins in local races at Infineon raceway, as well as never have been in an accident that was my fault. only been hit once and that dude was drunk.. but i saw him coming and avoided a bad accident to where his car was totaled and I could drive away with my minor rear end damage. i guess those days at the race tracks have paid off.
I'm only guessing, but I'm thinking you weren't on your phone while driving at Infineon.
All it takes is once.
A good friend was runover by a driver, on a street with speed bumps. Speed isn't the only factor in accidents, just provides more kinetic energy. Try navigating a parking lot on Saturday afternoon while on a phone. I find it requires maximum alertness.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Reaction times might be slower, but the 2nd and 3rd and 4th reaction are going to be much much better than any drunk. It may be that the 1st is too much of a loss to be counteracted by the subsequent reactions, but someone who 'can' be in control would seem to a better bet than a drunk who simply can't be in control.
Besides cops do this every day, with t
Re: (Score:3)
It's also the nature of the communication. I hate phones because people just talk crap instead of just getting to the point. On a radio people get to the point a lot quicker without waffling on endlessly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't dispute the importance of road safety.......
But what is it with the obsession with taking away motorists rights? They can be pulled over for any reason that the police might make up. The thrust of policy seems to be making their lives more miserable, encouraging congestion, raising prices to drive, lowering local speed limits etc.
And if you care about saving lives - why not care about the current NHS reforms which I am sure will mean a worse level of service for those who cannot afford private care.
Re: (Score:2)
There are indeed a lot of bad/populist/NIMBYist laws about driving in the UK.
Banning using a phone while driving is not one of them. It's just a shame it only covers handhelds.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. "All laws that take away rights are bad, except the ones I like, those are fine." Gotcha.
Just because a behavior is bad doesn't automatically mean that a law baning it is good. Will the law actually reduce the frequency of the behavior? To an extent that really outweighs the accompanying loss of freedom? And the misuse of the law by malicious government/cops/etc? And the cost of enforcement? It needs to be a net gain, with full understanding of all the ways it costs us when we goven more power
Re: (Score:3)
Whether or not laws against murder actually deter murder doesn't matter to whether or not their should be laws against murder. If an 27 year detention period is a detriment, but a 25 year one not, then you're having a useful discussion.
Texting while driving is really f'n dangerous to you, and to everyone else on the road. It kills people and causes significant material losses, so pretty obviously it warrants rules against it (those laws in many cases already exists, a study like this merely clarifies that
Re: (Score:3)
A law against using a ph
Re: (Score:2)
Most death in the UK is from cardiopulmonary related issues. [guardian.co.uk] These are often not preventable (something one can delay, or trade for another category) - typical human end of life stuff. After that is cancer - some of this is access to care (particularly early access), but much of which is still luck of the draw. Government can sponsor research, and it can improve access to care, but a lot of current cancer related death isn't something that can be impacted by the government very easily. Accidents howeve
Re: (Score:3)
Just the opposite -- if you make driving onerous enough, people will get around some other way, which usually involves more physical activity. More exercise means reduced deaths from CP disease can (somewhat) reduced deaths from cancer. It might not be the intended effect of the laws, and it might take really draconian and obnoxious laws (that would likely be repealed by an angry mob of voting drivers), but the estimates of death-from-car-induced-lack-of-exercise are higher than the estimates of deaths fr
Re: (Score:3)
we overly obsess about the roads
News to me. I always had the impression that individuals (from the way they drive), the authorities and (most importantly) the media hardly gave a f@#k about road accidents unless one is particularly spectacular. If you worked in the industries I have (shipbuilding, railways and power) you would be struck by the contrast between the fanatical pursuit of safety at work (such as putting up a "Do not kick the fir cones!" sign by a group of fir tre
Re: (Score:3)
While you may have a right to travel, there is no right to drive and there never will be.
Driving is a privilege with the highest of responsibility, requiring you to never harm peoples lives or property.
Police have the right to pull any driver over for dangerous driving. Any reasonable distractions can be considered dangerous by the police and they should have full discretion on defining the risk posed by a distracted driver.
So the point of these new laws, is more to clarify and inform drivers that common be
Re: (Score:3)
Well, technically either there is a right to drive or the states have co-opted the granting of that right for themselves. As drivers licenses have never been ruled unconstitutional, I guess it's the latter. But the absence of such a right in the U.S. Constitution actually implies that it might be a right, not that it isn't one!
Re:more laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately there is little or no effort in trying to actually reduce the laws out there, because there is so much revenue is finding Law Breakers.
For example those No-Turn on Red Signs places right in the spot where if you are stopped at a red light the sign is parallel to your view so you cannot see the sign, so you may just turn on red, vs. putting them next to the red light, like they do in areas where there is actually a major safety concern for turnin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
If you put the phone on your lap you're still going to be picked up by the police. Your argument doesn't even stand up to the basic tests of logic. By your rationale, murder laws make it harder for people to murder, so it makes it worse. Seriously, are you off your face? Do you neocon/libertarians even get how laws work?
If you want to live in a country with no laws, go spend some time in DRC or another war torn country, you can text to your
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but we can't stop the ride once it's in motion.
Re: (Score:2)
no refunds, either!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Passengers also have been shown to increase accident rates.
Ban passengers too!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm asking because I don't carry a phone and when I did I didn't always answer a call until I felt like returning it. I didn't like being interrupted every 10 minutes by someone sending me a text that had nothing important to say.
Then turn off your phone or set it on vibrate. Instead of inconveniencing passengers on cars / trains / whatever.
I've been in many a situation where the passenger being able to talk to someone on the phone was a god-send. Especially in cars either without GPS or without the built-in-Traffic GPS.
Re:Here we go (Score:4, Informative)
There is a mountain of evidence that driving and using a phone at the same time is highly dangerous, and it has been growing steadily for a long time. This is about as clear-cut and one-sided an issue as you can get, and innocent people are getting seriously hurt and even killed as a direct result of the dangerous behaviour. Outlawing that behaviour isn't draconian, it's making good law in the interests of society based on a rock solid empirical evidence base. Please take your FUD elsewhere.
This is already illegal in the UK, BTW. The problem is more one of enforcement in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are talking/texting you can always put down the phone it you encounter a difficult situation. If you are drunk, you can't just stop being drunk just because you want to.
RTFA. You are the cause of the "difficult situation" you're not trying to avoid someone else who's texting while driving.
Can't folks find the OFF switch or AIRCRAFT MODE or just lock the damned phone in the boot (aka trunk) of the car. You can update FB when you get to a rest area and not while you're driving.
I don't have this problem for two reasons: 1. I'm that stupid fella on the bicycle that you're just about to attempt to kill and 2. I don't have or need a smartphone.
Re: (Score:3)
At least drunks go when the light turns green. And there are far fewer of them out there.