posted
I have never understood how talking on a hands-free cell phone would be any more distracting than talking to another passenger.
So do we ban talking in cars all together?
-------------------- "May you make the Yuletide pay!" Posts: 811 | From: Arcadia, CA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
The passenger is in the car and can see the same thing that the driver can see -- break lights on in the cars in front, another driver weaving in and out, stopped traffic, etc. Conversation with people in the car tends to drop off while the driver deals with the situation. The passenger may even call problems to the attention of the driver. A person on the phone has no clue what is going on and will continue to talk, ask questions, etc., just as he would if the driver was sitting at home on his sofa.
I have this idea that we talk on the phone in the car like we talk on the phone anywhere else -- we give first consideration to the person on the phone, waving off distractions around us. After all, we acquired our phone habits before we acquired our driving habits. But while driving, our first consideration should be to driving, not the person on the other end of the conversation.
This idea was reinforced for me when I saw the video that has been showing up on all the news shows from the experiment where parents allowed cameras to be put in their children's cars. There was the girl, her car spinning out of control, continuing to hold her phone up to her ear as she screamed while her car was crashing.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snow-Dog: How about this, Don't outlaw any sort of driving distraction, but raise the penalty if you do do something wrong.
If you try to drive home drunk, and hit a telephone pole, then you get charged with drunk driving, if you're talking on your cell-phone or eating a burger and you run someone off the road, then you get charged with driving while distracted.
Instead of punishing someone before they harm someone else, punish them appropriatly after the fact.
Snow-Just throwing out an idea here-Dog
OK, you're just throwing the idea out, so I'll try to be gentle
The problem is that it's not a lot of consolation to the people who've been injured or killed by the distracted driver. The aim should be to eliminate (as far as possible) driver distraction, not to punish drivers after they've crashed.
Which is why it's an offence (at least here) to drive over a certain blood-alcohol level, whether you crash or not. If other forms of distraction dramatically increase the chances of accident, and are practical to detect and enforce, why not ban them too?
Alright, I'll try not to sound too cold, but even though every life lost is a tragedy, it's really the chance you take living in a free society, we all risk horrific death and dismemberment every time we step outside our door (and even then too). But the fact remains that the only thing you have control over is yourself, Better to watch out for that distracted driver and avoid him than to expect someone else to protect you from him.
Snow-They do always tell you that life isn't fair-Dog
Posts: 474 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people are bored while they are driving, and frustrated that they spend too much unproductive time in their car because of urban sprawl, traffic congenstion, lack of public transportation.
If you ban cellphones, food, drinks, or anything, drivers are still going to look for something else to do to fill that time.
Posts: 28 | From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ouch My Ankle
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by ratface: I think people are bored while they are driving, and frustrated that they spend too much unproductive time in their car because of urban sprawl, traffic congenstion, lack of public transportation...
Do we really have to be productive all the time?
IP: Logged |
posted
I think "unproductive" was a less-than-ideal choice of words. Being stuck in the car cuts into both work *and* leisure time as far as the person in traffic is concerned.
Posts: 2787 | From: California | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snow-Dog: How about this, Don't outlaw any sort of driving distraction, but raise the penalty if you do do something wrong.
If you try to drive home drunk, and hit a telephone pole, then you get charged with drunk driving, if you're talking on your cell-phone or eating a burger and you run someone off the road, then you get charged with driving while distracted.
Instead of punishing someone before they harm someone else, punish them appropriatly after the fact.
Snow-Just throwing out an idea here-Dog
OK, you're just throwing the idea out, so I'll try to be gentle
The problem is that it's not a lot of consolation to the people who've been injured or killed by the distracted driver. The aim should be to eliminate (as far as possible) driver distraction, not to punish drivers after they've crashed.
Which is why it's an offence (at least here) to drive over a certain blood-alcohol level, whether you crash or not. If other forms of distraction dramatically increase the chances of accident, and are practical to detect and enforce, why not ban them too?
Alright, I'll try not to sound too cold, but even though every life lost is a tragedy, it's really the chance you take living in a free society, we all risk horrific death and dismemberment every time we step outside our door (and even then too). But the fact remains that the only thing you have control over is yourself, Better to watch out for that distracted driver and avoid him than to expect someone else to protect you from him.
Snow-They do always tell you that life isn't fair-Dog
Yep I agree - you should rely on your own judgement on the roads.
But if there are penalties that can be brought against people who are proven to be driving dangerously - and these penalties act as a deterrant to other road users - then surely it's worth doing that too?
Some people are motivated to watch their driving because they know that humans belting around restricted spaces in a tin box at high speeds is potentially dangerous. Let's call these people socially responsible Others are motivated by avoidance of fines, points and penalties. Let's call these people, line-toers. And there are still others who don't give a damn.
We probably can't reach this last bunch - but surely it makes sense to try and get sensible driving out of groups 1 and 2?
Posts: 1157 | From: Westcountry UK "It's Bootiful" | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snow-Dog: Alright, I'll try not to sound too cold, but even though every life lost is a tragedy, it's really the chance you take living in a free society, we all risk horrific death and dismemberment every time we step outside our door (and even then too). But the fact remains that the only thing you have control over is yourself, Better to watch out for that distracted driver and avoid him than to expect someone else to protect you from him.
There I am, sitting at a red light behind a gasoline tanker, when Snow-Dog, yapping away to his mistress on his cell phone, plows into me, ramming me into the tanker, which ruptures, filling both our cars with burning gasoline and giving me and Snow-Dog agonizing deaths. Snow-Dog drove by a cop two blocks up the road, but said cop ignored him because driving while chit-chatting on a cell phone isn't illegal.
I'm sure my widow and orphaned daughter will take great satisfaction in suing Snow-Dog's estate for wrongful death. Of course, Snow-Dog's estate can't pay anything, because he was penniless when he died, but the satisfaction will be there.
I have always objected to the "you can sue to recover from damages" school of civil liberties. First of all, I have to have sustained damages to sue for damages. I'd prefer not to be damaged, thank you very much. Secondly, court cases may drag on for years, and, if my lawyer isn't as good as the defendent's lawyer, I may not win. Lastly, the defendent may not have any money. What good does winning a million dollar lawsuit do if the defendent doesn't have and will never have a million dollars?
-------------------- Ad astra per asparagus. Posts: 4806 | From: Groton, CT | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Peter H: There I am, sitting at a red light behind a gasoline tanker, when Snow-Dog, yapping away to his mistress on his cell phone, plows into me, ramming me into the tanker, which ruptures, filling both our cars with burning gasoline and giving me and Snow-Dog agonizing deaths. Snow-Dog drove by a cop two blocks up the road, but said cop ignored him because driving while chit-chatting on a cell phone isn't illegal.
I'm sure my widow and orphaned daughter will take great satisfaction in suing Snow-Dog's estate for wrongful death. Of course, Snow-Dog's estate can't pay anything, because he was penniless when he died, but the satisfaction will be there.
I have always objected to the "you can sue to recover from damages" school of civil liberties. First of all, I have to have sustained damages to sue for damages. I'd prefer not to be damaged, thank you very much. Secondly, court cases may drag on for years, and, if my lawyer isn't as good as the defendent's lawyer, I may not win. Lastly, the defendent may not have any money. What good does winning a million dollar lawsuit do if the defendent doesn't have and will never have a million dollars?
Ok, this will sound cold, but... That's life. Any moment now, something could happen that could strike you dead. All you can do is prepare for that eventuality. For instance instead of pulling right up behind the tanker truck, leave enough room to move to the side incase someone does come flying up behind and rear ends you, or even better, use that space to move out of the way when you see me coming at your back side at dangerous velocities, then not only won't you be covered in burning fuel, but you won't even be in an accident.
It's not about getting back what's owed after something terrible, or relying on others to do the right thing, or even counting on someone else to protect you. It's all about doing the right thing yourself.
Snow-Dog
Posts: 474 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, SnowDog, I am with you on the personal responsibility - but not the "That's life" attitude to road safety.
Accidents are nearly always preventable in some way. So what's wrong with throwing all the preventative measures at the roads we can?
My own Dad was flattened and set on fire by a truck driver who took a little nap in the fast lane and jackknifed.
Absolutely nothing Dad could have done to prevent it. Truck driver could have done everything to prevent it. The company he worked for could have not pushed him so hard and gone a long way to preventing it. The UK police could have clamped down on drivers' hours offences that day and maybe prevented it. What do we do - say "That's life!" and go about our day, making no effort to prevent it happening to someone else?
So yes, you should do the right thing yourself. It's also true that you can't rely on others to do the right thing, or protect you. There is no system that will guarantee the safety of everyone on the roads - as I said earlier, humans + cars = a mess. What we do have some control over, is how big a mess it is.
But it seems to me that you're arguing that drivers should be entirely self-reliant, and are not entitled to any attempts at protection from the state or other road users. That doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying "There's the road. We will give you some guidance with x, y, and z, but if you find anything else dangerous after that, you're on your own"?
Posts: 1157 | From: Westcountry UK "It's Bootiful" | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry your dad was in the accident Neffti.
The problem with driving though, as you say, is that it's a big mess. It probably always will be too, and I suppose we could either try to make every distraction illegal.
I'd rather provide better driver's education, teach better vehicle control and defensive driving techniques. I think maybe the problem is is that people don't have a good understanding of how they drive, and the concequences of what they could do.
But basically yeah, unless you're driving like your a threat to someone on the road, then there shouldn't be any issue with what you're doing while you drive.
Snow-Dog
Posts: 474 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think we are beginning to agree with each other! Except that it seems that you think driving using a cell-phone won't affect anyone else on the road. I disagree, because as the stats show (4 times more likely is the title of this thread!), it does threaten yourself and other road users in a way that, say, listening to the radio doesn't. (Changing a CD - now that's a whole other story!)
Thanks for a good chew over the issue with me. Now go forth and stay safe - it's a mess out there! Posts: 1157 | From: Westcountry UK "It's Bootiful" | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Wiley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Cars have become rolling living rooms. As a motorcyclist I see more because I have to in order to survive. A lot of people in cars are way too disconnected from the world around them, cell phone or no cell phone.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snow-Dog: The problem with driving though, as you say, is that it's a big mess. It probably always will be too, and I suppose we could either try to make every distraction illegal.
I'd rather provide better driver's education, teach better vehicle control and defensive driving techniques. I think maybe the problem is is that people don't have a good understanding of how they drive, and the concequences of what they could do.
But basically yeah, unless you're driving like your a threat to someone on the road, then there shouldn't be any issue with what you're doing while you drive.
Snow-Dog
Just to add my own $.02 to the conversation, not long ago I was witness to an accident. I was stopped at the traffic light in the north-bound lane. Another car was across the median stopped at the same light in the south-bound lane. A third car was approaching in the south-bound lane. I see the woman in the approaching car realize there was something in the road ahead, drop her cell phone, and slam on the brakes. She hit the stopped car at between 45 and 50 MPH (estimated later by the police, based on skid marks). The speed limit on this road was 45 MPH. When she made her statement to the police, she said "the other car just stopped in front of me for no reason". She was unaware that she had been speeding, and that there was a traffic light at that point. I know that one incident is nothing more than a single point on a data plot, but it showed me personally how dangerous it is to talk on a cell phone while driving. My cell either gets turned off when I drive, or I have a passenger answer for me. I am not going to be that person who smashes into a car load of teenagers stopped at a traffic light.
Posts: 724 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robigus, Mushroom Warning:
quote:Originally posted by Snow-Dog: The problem with driving though, as you say, is that it's a big mess. It probably always will be too, and I suppose we could either try to make every distraction illegal.
I'd rather provide better driver's education, teach better vehicle control and defensive driving techniques. I think maybe the problem is is that people don't have a good understanding of how they drive, and the concequences of what they could do.
But basically yeah, unless you're driving like your a threat to someone on the road, then there shouldn't be any issue with what you're doing while you drive.
Snow-Dog
Just to add my own $.02 to the conversation, not long ago I was witness to an accident. I was stopped at the traffic light in the north-bound lane. Another car was across the median stopped at the same light in the south-bound lane. A third car was approaching in the south-bound lane. I see the woman in the approaching car realize there was something in the road ahead, drop her cell phone, and slam on the brakes. She hit the stopped car at between 45 and 50 MPH (estimated later by the police, based on skid marks). The speed limit on this road was 45 MPH. When she made her statement to the police, she said "the other car just stopped in front of me for no reason". She was unaware that she had been speeding, and that there was a traffic light at that point. I know that one incident is nothing more than a single point on a data plot, but it showed me personally how dangerous it is to talk on a cell phone while driving. My cell either gets turned off when I drive, or I have a passenger answer for me. I am not going to be that person who smashes into a car load of teenagers stopped at a traffic light.
Ei-yi-yi! Was anybody killed?
-------------------- "We're all entitled to a few eccentricities, provided they don't harm anyone, break the law, or cause a public nuisance"--James Qwilleran, The Cat Who Dropped A Bombshell(Lillian Jackson Braun) Member AAMAH Posts: 352 | From: Seneca Falls, NY | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Surprisingly, no one was even seriously injured. The car with the distracted driver had one adult passenger and two infants in car seats in the back seat. After hitting the stopped car, it traveled another 150 feet before spinning out onto the shoulder. The passenger had a bruised should and bloody nose from being bounced against the passenger door. No other injuries in that vehicle. The stopped vehicle was spun around two times and slid off into a low ditch. Luckily the passengers in the car were all in the front seat. The car had a stereo system with a huge bass box in the trunk. The box was pushed into the back seat of the car, and the seat jack-knifed closed. As the first person to reach the car after the impact, I started to tell everyone to not move until the ambulance got there, when I saw that the gas tank was split open and pouring gas out. A couple of other drivers and myself got everyone out of the car and moved far enough away in case the gas ignited. The only injuries were some minor cuts and scratches, although one girl (14-16 years old) had a panic attack and went into hysterics, believing she had bitten her tongue off. She had to be sedated by the EMS crew. All in all, the police, EMS, and firemen alike were amazed that there were deaths or major injuries in the accident.
Posts: 724 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend of mine just lost her leg (7/18/05), when she was hit while riding her motorcycle by a girl who was talking on her cell. The girl didn't even get out of the car to see what happened till she finished her conversation.
I think talking on cell phones while driving should be illegal.
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sorry to hear about your friend. This will be a disorientating and painful time for her - I hope she gets the help and care she needs. It's a long road too and at the risk of entering the Glurge gallery, I wish her nothing but support from friends like you along the way.
posted
I used to talk to a friend on speaker phone in "parking speed" traffic on the interstate. I don't think it distracted me too much since I usually ignore what he says anyway. I'd even complain about people using cell phones (held up to their ears) because I could see a drastic decrease in their control over their vehicle.
Now I find I don't do it anymore, which is probably good no matter how minimal the distraction seemed.
OMG Donna, That driver sounds like a pathetic excuse for a human being . I have a feeling that driver would have been a danger without the cell phone too. Maybe cell phones should be banned after all just to cut down on the chances of idiots like those losing what little control they have.
-------------------- Bender: Though you may have to make a metaphorical "deal with the devil". And by "devil", I mean the robot devil, and by "metaphorically" I mean get your coat. ------------ My sad site: A new way to be bored. Posts: 722 | From: Colorado | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
THOUGHT 1: When this whole "driving while talking on a cell phone is bad, mmkay?" issue hit big some years ago, I started a little (very unscientific) experiment. I FORCED myself to notice every occurence of a cell-phone-talking driver (CPTD) who was driving normally/safely. And when I saw someone driving unsafely, I FORCED myself to notice whether or not s/he was a CPTD.
Despite the previously-related anecdotal (and horrific to be sure) instances, it took FIVE YEARS for me to see an intersection of a CPTD and bad driving (last month a CPTD started to change lanes right into me -- but I was able to dodge him). It reminds me somewhat of the "full emergency room during a full moon" UL: we tend to disregard the unsafe drivers who are not CPTD, and watch with extra scrutiny the CPTDs, regardless of how they're driving. (IMO).
THOUGHT 2: If CPTDs are X times (pick your source) as likely to cause an accident, given the absolute EXPLOSION in the number of cell phones in this country, shouldn't there have been an increase (if not X times, then at least SOMEthing) in accidents? But, as I recall, the accident rates and totals are declining somewhat. (I suppose you could make the point that, without CPTDs, the decline would be even greater).
THOUGHT 3: Don't get me wrong -- I'm a huge personal responsibility nut, especially when it comes to driving. I just wish Big Brother would crack down on drunk drivers (a much bigger problem, methinks) with the same fervor and resources they're apparently ready to unleash on CPTDs.
I hereby stand ready to accept flamage.
-------------------- -------------------------- There are no stupid questions, only stupid people -------------------------- Posts: 32 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Neffti and Tantei for your thoughts and concerns. My friend, her name is Sheila, has come out of her coma, after about 2 weeks. She is coping and she has a very supportive husband. Unfortunately, they live in IL and I am unable to go to see her, but we get reports from Bob (her husband) on a weekly basis and he is becoming somewhat of an advocate to stop CPTDs (as Davey puts it). They haven't decided if she will be getting a prothesis.
Davey, the problem isn't stopping CPTDs OR drunk drivers, it's stopping people from doing ANY other distracting activities while driving, i.e putting on make-up, shaving, combing hair, changing clothes, changing seats with a passenger and such. I've seen all of things and more. I know there are a lot more things that can be distracting such as other drivers, billboards, etc.. but these things don't generally require taking your hands off the wheel and are part of everyday driving and should be dealt with as part of defensive drivers training courses. They don't teach you about applying make-up or shaving in drivers training.
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by snopes: Using a cell phone - even a hands-free one - while driving quadruples the risk of getting into a crash with serious injuries, a study finds.
A couple weeks ago, I was almost hit by a person using a cell phone who was pulling out of a gas station. She was at a complete stop and started going when I (who had the right of way) walked by on the sidewalk. She started to pull out, I jumped quickly out of the way in the direction I was already walking. She was holding her cell phone when she apologized. I didn't yell at her, though I certainly would have been right to do so.
I was also cut off in what appeared to be a person who wasn't paying attention...about 4 or 5 times in the last few months by people who were talking on the cell phone. I was cut off in the same manner maybe once by someone who was not using a cell phone in the same time period.
Life is not so dang fast the you need to be called every #$%^& part of the day. Whatever the #$%^ you are talking about, unless it is a dire emergency, put your #$%^ phone down and wait. For decades this was just fine wasn't it?
Why do you think you all of a sudden have to be fully accessible? Get a clue, put your @#$% machine down while you're driving!
Posts: 736 | From: Maryland | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: Davey, the problem isn't stopping CPTDs OR drunk drivers, it's stopping people from doing ANY other distracting activities while driving, i.e putting on make-up, shaving, combing hair, changing clothes, changing seats with a passenger and such. I've seen all of things and more. I know there are a lot more things that can be distracting such as other drivers, billboards, etc.. but these things don't generally require taking your hands off the wheel and are part of everyday driving and should be dealt with as part of defensive drivers training courses. They don't teach you about applying make-up or shaving in drivers training.
I disagree slightly, but before I get to what I think the problem IS, an aside:
When I'm given %'s or rates or factors, I want to know real numbers. For example, back in the very beginning of the AIDS crisis years ago, when it was becoming non-PC to associate AIDS w/ homosexuality and drug use, there was a news report that said something like "the AIDS rate among white hetero males increased 100% last year" (clearly wanting us to believe that ALL groups were EQUALLY susceptible to AIDS) -- turned out the # went from something like 8 to 16 (those are not the actual numbers, but they reflect what was reported). Also, I like to know comparisons. For example, let's say CPTDs really ARE 4x more likely to crash. What is that number for someone who's changing the radio? Talking to a passenger? Drunk? (What if the "drunk" factor was 40... or 400?) Also, what are the age breakdowns. I've seen zero research, so these are just "it wouldn't surprise me" thoughts, but I'd be willing to bet the factor among sub-19 year old CPTDs is more like 6 or 8, while 20-40 year old CPTDs is more like 2, or maybe 1.5 or something. (My reasoning -- if you can call it that -- is that new drivers have not gained enough experience to relatively safely multi-task; many states are now enacting laws to stop new drivers from having teen-aged passengers). But I digress.
Now, for the real problem: resource allocation. I used to work at a company that ran a cleanup of a toxic waste site (it was a site that made, among other things, agent orange). The government funded cleanup spent hundreds of millions over several years to clean it up. I got to be good friends with one of the smarter chemical engineers there. He told me that the stuff that was being cleaned up posed a miniscule threat -- he estimated that maybe 5 people would die or get sick over 10 years. But his main point was: how many lives could we save by putting that same money elsewhere... better bridges, more highway speed enforcement, etc. etc... the answer was obviously WAY WAY more than 5.
Similarly, are we going to spend way more "resources" (not so much in terms of money, but rather "energy", attention, enforcement efforts, etc.) on CPTDs than is warranted by lives/injuries saved? Imagine if a commercial jet crashed and killed > 300 people ONCE PER WEEK. The outcry would be enormous... flights would be grounded, a congressional investigation would be launched, and so on. Well, that's how many people DIED due to drunk drivers each week in 2004 (and that's not counting injuries). Do you think anywhere NEAR 300 people are killed by CPTDs each week? I'm guessing not that many in a year, maybe 2 (emphasis on "guessing").
And I'd really really like someone to address my 2 "thoughts" in my original post.
Finally, I agree that driver's ed should be made much better and mandatory (the key that I'd like to see emphasized is: "slow down" -- I've read about real-world demonstrations where one professional driver took a cross-town route as fast as he could... running yellow lights, speeding as safely as possible, etc; and another non-professional driver took the same route and TOTALLY obeyed ALL traffic laws. The professional beat the non-professional by something like 1 minute out of a 20+ minute drive. Not that that would likely make a dent in the thick heads of teenagers, but...).
Thanks for your time this time, till next time.
-------------------- -------------------------- There are no stupid questions, only stupid people -------------------------- Posts: 32 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The next time you see a really stupid and/or dangerous manuver on the road, and you probably won't have to wait long, chances are the driver will be either on the phone or an Asian woman. Or both.
Not racism, just a fact.
Posts: 5 | From: Bellevue, WA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to plagiarize a post of Barbara's here:
50s kid, in your first post you've acquainted the boards with one aspect of yourself. Now show us the better side.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 50s kid: The next time you see a really stupid and/or dangerous manuver on the road, and you probably won't have to wait long, chances are the driver will be either on the phone or an Asian woman. Or both.
Not racism, just a fact.
Either that or it's some old fart.
Jeffrey
-------------------- A little nonsense now and then... Posts: 478 | From: Wonder Lake, IL | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay I Don't Know Davey! I'll address your points -
Point 1 - Nice anecdote and lucky you! Not much I can add to that - always happy to gain insight from personal experience, but your personal experience is a singular one and conflicts with all (yes ALL) the others I've heard. So that's my anecdote out of the way (flame ---HERE--- )
I agree however that we are always more sensitive to something once we are told it might be a threat.
Point 2 - As you say in a later post, "show me the actual numbers." Road deaths and serious injuries here (UK) have failed to drop significantly at a national level since 2000 - about the time when mobile phones became something available to more people than Michael Douglas on his private beach in Wall Street!
I'm not saying mobiles are entirely responsible, but consider this - road deaths/serious injuries had been cut by a third (from 6000ish pa to 4000ish pa) in the 20 years previous to 2000, thanks in the main to better vehicle, road and signage standards, plus the gradual intolerance of driving under the influence.
However, since 2000 and the boom in mobile phone usage, fatalities and injuries have remained constant. When you baalnce this against the projected continued decrease that we expected to see due to ever-increasing safety measures in other areas, it's quit plain that SOMETHING in the last 5 years has held things up.
Road Safety Units and police traffic units all over the country are targeting mobile phone users in an effort to start getting the stats going down again. So they must feel that mobile phone usage in vehicles contributes directly to death and injury.
And point 3 - I'm delighted that you're a huge personal responsibility nut and saddened to think that in your neck of the woods drink-driving is still a significant problem. I agree that resources should go to the area of greatest need, and I am convinced that here in Britain, the MCD (mobile chattering driver!) is currently the most common threat on the roads - so let's zero-tolerance it to pieces.
Now for a point of my own. If you're able to notice that someone is using the phone in the car during the split second you have to glance at them, the chances are it's noticeable because they're not using a hands-free and have the thing clamped to their ear. And I bet there isn't anyone out there willing to defend the point that driving with one hand on the wheel is as safe as with two.
When I notice someone with a phone to their ear, (especially on a roundabout) I slow down and give way, because I know that they do not have full control of the car.
Anyway nice ranting with you and I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Posts: 1157 | From: Westcountry UK "It's Bootiful" | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BeachLife: [QB] Umm welcome to the board I think.
Not racism, because some of your friends are asian women I suppose.
Not close friends, but I know a few. So what? Even the cops have a term for it: DWO...Driving While Oriental. If you expect squeaky-clean goody-goody mamby-pamby responses, you are not used to hearing the truth.
Sorry
Posts: 5 | From: Bellevue, WA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 50s kid: The next time you see a really stupid and/or dangerous manuver on the road, and you probably won't have to wait long, chances are the driver will be either on the phone or an Asian woman. Or both.
Not racism, just a fact.
Either that or it's some old fart.
Jeffrey
I have heard the stereotype that Asians can't drive, partictularly Asian women. What I would like to know, is are there any verifiable facts to back that up? Statistically, do Asians have a greater risk of getting into or causing an accident? Again, objective verifiable facts with lots of pretty numbers only.
Posts: 736 | From: Maryland | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that talking on the phone while driving should be illegal just because it can distract the driver, but I do think people should know their limits when it comes to how distracted the other day. Just last week I was driving in the second-to-right lane on the freeway with another car right behind me and a bus to me left. A driver who was a bit ahead of me in the far right lane but still next to 1/3 of my car decided, logically, to merge into my lane so as not to take the next exit. However, she decided the best way to do this would be to do it very slowly, without signaling or acknowledging that I was there. She then proceeded to do just that, directly into the spot my car was currently in. Slowing down was not an option and I still wasn't positive that she wasn't just drifting to the left a little, so was basically forced into the lane to the left of me, which the bus had vacated just a few seconds before. I sped up to catch a glimpse of the driver who decided my car would look better crushed between her and a bus only to see her chatting on her cell phone. Granted, I drive a VW Rabbit convertible which is fairly small and a bit easier to miss than some other cars, but if she had actually paid attention to the road, which is her primary job as a driver, that near-accident would have never occured. I think people should be able to talk on the phone in the car because of the convenience and helpfulness it can cause, but that doesn't give them an excuse to ignore the rest of the world around them.
Posts: 417 | From: Escondido, California | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK Why is it against the law not to wear your seat belt, which BTW doesn't effect anyone but the driver, but it's not against the law to be so distracted that you are a hazard to others?
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, an unbelted human body hurtling through the windshield of a car makes a pretty good meat missile.
Has there been documentation of someone flying out of a car and causing extra damage to another car, say, in a head-on? I'm not even sure what search terms I would start in Google with...
Posts: 2787 | From: California | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Others are motivated by avoidance of fines, points and penalties. Let's call these people, line-toers. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And there are still others who don't give a damn.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Was anybody killed?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
