U.S. withheld data on risks of distracted driving

Dr_Patrick said:

Except for the fact that children and paper maps aren't unnecessary distractions. The other items you listed are. You also can't really compare talking on a cellphone or texting on a cellphone with simple stuff like children, paper maps and changing a radio station.

Click to expand...

What?? You've never seen anyone with a map unfolded across half the windshield. Or, trying to discipline kids in the back seat that are fighting??

If you have to look away from the road for a period of time, as when searching for a radio station, looking at a map, or reaching for a kid, you are distracted and a danger to other drivers.

Dr_Patrick said:

Except for the fact that children and paper maps aren't unnecessary distractions. The other items you listed are. You also can't really compare talking on a cellphone or texting on a cellphone with simple stuff like children, paper maps and changing a radio station.

Click to expand...

I ride a sport bike.... You would be shocked at what some people do behind the wheel.....


You know this as a rider, because that piggly wiggly putting her makeup on *IS* trying to kill you with her lexus......

Gill said:

What?? You've never seen anyone with a map unfolded across half the windshield. Or, trying to discipline kids in the back seat that are fighting??

Click to expand...

Of course I have, but trying to ban these things and even compare them to driving while talking on a cellphone is a bit absurd.

If you have to look away from the road for a period of time, as when searching for a radio station, looking at a map, or reaching for a kid, you are distracted and a danger to other drivers.

Click to expand...

I'd say that driving while texting is far more distracting than those things. Driving while talking on a cellphone can be. I've seen people do it just fine, but there are some people who have difficulty focusing while they are on the phone.

Dr_Patrick said:

Of course I have, but trying to ban these things and even compare them to driving while talking on a cellphone is a bit absurd.



I'd say that driving while texting is far more distracting than those things. Driving while talking on a cellphone can be. I've seen people do it just fine, but there are some people who have difficulty focusing while they are on the phone.

Click to expand...

They did a study, I saw it on speed tv...




http://www.informationweek.com/blog...l;jsessionid=QGALIASXGOTEQQSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN


Txting while driving is far worse than drunk driving.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

They did a study, I saw it on speed tv...




http://www.informationweek.com/blog...l;jsessionid=QGALIASXGOTEQQSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN


Txting while driving is far worse than drunk driving.

Click to expand...

:rofl At first I thought it said "Taxing while driving", like people doing their taxes. Though, considering some of the absurd crap that people do while driving it wouldn't surprise me.

That study doesn't surprise me at all. The most idiotic thing is I actually know a few people who proudly claim that they can text while driving like putting others at risk is something to be proud of.

Dr_Patrick said:

:rofl At first I thought it said "Taxing while driving", like people doing their taxes. Though, considering some of the absurd crap that people do while driving it wouldn't surprise me.

That study doesn't surprise me at all. The most idiotic thing is I actually know a few people who proudly claim that they can text while driving like putting others at risk is something to be proud of.

Click to expand...

you know it used to be shocking to see someone doing 40 in the fast lane swerving around txting.....



used to be....

bhkad said:

I think that is a rationalization which can't be proved.

Buzzed driving is drunk driving.

Click to expand...

Ok ok, i can see you are a bit sensitive here. How about getting blown while driving? Would you be willing to agree that some people can operate a vehicle better than others while receiving fellatio?

Or how about a mom smacking her daughter in the backseat for repeatedly kicking her chair? My mom was amazing at that!

Or how about being really tired?

I can go on and on, the point of the matter is; are we to create laws to stop this unsafe driving behavior:rofl

Drunk driving is a victim less crime, based on the assumption of injury. On the other hand, driving while drunk and killing an innocent person is at the very minimum, vehicular manslaughter.

IMHO of course!

I don't like any of these stupid laws anyway. From texting, to cell phone, to even drunk; don't like them. The specific laws you see put up, like bans on texting while driving, are for money purposes only. State fundraising. All of this can be covered by 1 law....reckless driving. Doesn't matter the reason, reckless driving. That's the real world effect we're all talking about here, and that's what I care about.

Goldenboy219 said:

Drunk driving is a victim less crime, based on the assumption of injury. On the other hand, driving while drunk and killing an innocent person is at the very minimum, vehicular manslaughter.

IMHO of course!

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that we shouldn't try to discourage any of this behavior, and only bother with it if someone dies as a result?

Thats absurd.

Ikari said:

I don't like any of these stupid laws anyway. From texting, to cell phone, to even drunk; don't like them. The specific laws you see put up, like bans on texting while driving, are for money purposes only. State fundraising. All of this can be covered by 1 law....reckless driving. Doesn't matter the reason, reckless driving. That's the real world effect we're all talking about here, and that's what I care about.

Click to expand...

Here we go with this again, Ikari and the money raising conspiracy.

Question, if it was all about money raising, why would the NHTSA withhold the results for so long?

Just think of all the money that could have been gained!!!

Caine said:

So what you are saying is that we shouldn't try to discourage any of this behavior, and only bother with it if someone dies as a result?

Thats absurd.

Click to expand...

Instead of giving someone 18 months suspend 9, and 5 years probation: Anyone found guilty of an alcohol/text/phone/sex/etc... related vehicular fatality should be given 20 years minimum.

On top of that, more funding should be given towards programs that remove of the possibility of drunk driving. Such as motor clubs that have designated driver's on call in specific areas. You pay a yearly fee, and can call and get picked up (only) so you do not have to drive, or get in a vehicle where someone has been drinking.

But.... Arresting someone for "what could" happen is what is absurd. How about spousal murder? Are we to slap an attempted murder charge or something of that nature, every time a married couple has an issue. That is usually how these murders begin, with a fight. I mean, why stop at discouraging behavior with criminality for driving.

/siren "John Spartan you are fined one credit for breaking the morality statute." Is this your wet dream?

Caine said:

Here we go with this again, Ikari and the money raising conspiracy.

Question, if it was all about money raising, why would the NHTSA withhold the results for so long?

Just think of all the money that could have been gained!!!

Click to expand...

Lots of laws are money makers. Why the texting bans? Because it's safer? No, because you get to give a ticket. If it wasn't about the ticket, you'd have only the one law; reckless driving. But making all the specific laws and giving license to arbitrarily search (such as check points, pulling people over at certain times of the night, etc) are just for raising money.

Ikari said:

Lots of laws are money makers. Why the texting bans? Because it's safer? No, because you get to give a ticket. If it wasn't about the ticket, you'd have only the one law; reckless driving. But making all the specific laws and giving license to arbitrarily search (such as check points, pulling people over at certain times of the night, etc) are just for raising money.

Click to expand...

Texting while driving does not fall under reckless driving.

Reckless driving requires specific driving behavior, as has been determined by the courts.

Caine said:

Texting while driving does not fall under reckless driving.

Reckless driving requires specific driving behavior, as has been determined by the courts.

Click to expand...

I agree. I got a careless/reckless driving ticket the other day. I was speeding about 10 miles over the limit, yes I admit it, and the car in the fast lane where I was driving was going about 40 (speed limit 60) so I changed lanes quickly and then went back in my lane. A cop saw and gave my a careless driving ticket instead of speeding because of the lane change. I was in control the whole time, just speeding a little. I would hate to think of myself in the same category as some jerk off who swerved into traffic and wasn't even paying attention to the road because they were texting.

Goldenboy219 said:

Instead of giving someone 18 months suspend 9, and 5 years probation: Anyone found guilty of an alcohol/text/phone/sex/etc... related vehicular fatality should be given 20 years minimum.

Click to expand...

Who gets this sort of penalty for DWI?

On top of that, more funding should be given towards programs that remove of the possibility of drunk driving. Such as motor clubs that have designated driver's on call in specific areas. You pay a yearly fee, and can call and get picked up (only) so you do not have to drive, or get in a vehicle where someone has been drinking.

Click to expand...

Why can't we already have that and not have to 'fund' it? Why must the government always spend the money for these things?

But.... Arresting someone for "what could" happen is what is absurd. How about spousal murder? Are we to slap an attempted murder charge or something of that nature, every time a married couple has an issue. That is usually how these murders begin, with a fight. I mean, why stop at discouraging behavior with criminality for driving.

Click to expand...

Its because it is what they have done. An argument doesn't mean that someone has attempted murder. When someone is charged with DWI they are not charged with "Attempted crashing into someone" although it may seem that way in your mind. If someone gets out and drinks and drives and crashes into someone and causes a fatality, they are charged with a felony. The problem is that drunk drivers cause alot more damage than you think. Their level of problems don't work on the same scale as the functionality of your on/off light switch. Its not "Killed someone, Or made it home without problems". Drunk drivers destroy government property such as road signs, crash into other cars causing property damage but no death, crash into other cars causing injuries and property damage but no death, crash into landscape causing property damage, crash into landscape causing property damage and injury to themselves, crash into landscape causing property damage and killing themselves, cause other vehicles to crash when trying to avoid/evade their actions, are a general menace to the motoring public who have to evade their way around them and attempt to not get into a crash with them.

All these incidents cost 'society' safety and money. Whether it be individuals, government, or business. If it is government or business, than it will indirectly cost individuals money.

Besides that, DWI laws are laws that actually work. Most people who get caught Driving while impaired do not offend a 2nd time.

/siren "John Spartan you are fined one credit for breaking the morality statute." Is this your wet dream?

Click to expand...

Umm.. no. That has nothing to do with anything.
DWI enforcement works to make the roads safer.

A place where police are too busy investigating 12 drunk driver crashes in a 2 square mile radius while armed thugs go robbing stores left and right because police coverage is so thin. Is that your wet dream?

americanwoman said:

I agree. I got a careless/reckless driving ticket the other day. I was speeding about 10 miles over the limit, yes I admit it, and the car in the fast lane where I was driving was going about 40 (speed limit 60) so I changed lanes quickly and then went back in my lane. A cop saw and gave my a careless driving ticket instead of speeding because of the lane change. I was in control the whole time, just speeding a little. I would hate to think of myself in the same category as some jerk off who swerved into traffic and wasn't even paying attention to the road because they were texting.

Click to expand...

Umm... what kinda douchebag wrote CnR for that?

I ignore people speeding unless they are going 15 over, or around that area. I'll stop for about 13 over depending on how calls are going.

In my state, this wouldn't fall under Careless/Reckless.

EDIT (again): This wouldn't fall under Careless/Reckless unless you got 1/2 car length off of the bumper of the slow car, changed lanes quickly without using a turn signal right in front of another car who had to brake to avoid a rear end collision, and then swerved back over in front of the slow car, missing its hood with your rear bumper by about 10 feet.

Add in honking a horn, throwing a cigarette at them and flippin' them the middle finger just for comic relief.

Caine said:

Texting while driving does not fall under reckless driving.

Reckless driving requires specific driving behavior, as has been determined by the courts.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Things of that nature are made specifically for making money. Texting bans are a great example of this. If you're not reckless driving, then I don't really care what you're doing. Stay in control and do whatever you want. You can be in control and texting, I've seen people do it. My buddy is permanently attached to his blackberry. But he'd get a fine, even if he's driving fine. The idea is to give yet another law by which cops can pull people over and ticket. The real world effect is reckless driving. Texting can be distracting, and that distraction causes people to drive recklessly, not slowing down, swerving, speeding, etc. That's what has the real effect, it's that reckless driving. The other specifics are made to give something else to pull people over for and ticket for. If it wasn't about the money, there wouldn't be the plethora of other laws associated with things which increase the probability of reckless driving; there would only be reckless driving.

Caine said:

Umm... what kinda douchebag wrote CnR for that?

I ignore people speeding unless they are going 15 over, or around that area. I'll stop for about 13 over depending on how calls are going.

In my state, this wouldn't fall under Careless/Reckless.

Click to expand...

I think he was new or something, cause he's like I'm going easy on you and putting it just as careless driving. Um yeah, a $200 careless driving class as opposed to the $85 speeding driving class is certainly going easy on me. :doh

Ikari said:

Exactly. Things of that nature are made specifically for making money. Texting bans are a great example of this. If you're not reckless driving, then I don't really care what you're doing. Stay in control and do whatever you want. You can be in control and texting, I've seen people do it. My buddy is permanently attached to his blackberry. But he'd get a fine, even if he's driving fine. The idea is to give yet another law by which cops can pull people over and ticket. The real world effect is reckless driving. Texting can be distracting, and that distraction causes people to drive recklessly, not slowing down, swerving, speeding, etc. That's what has the real effect, it's that reckless driving. The other specifics are made to give something else to pull people over for and ticket for. If it wasn't about the money, there wouldn't be the plethora of other laws associated with things which increase the probability of reckless driving; there would only be reckless driving.

Click to expand...

You can be in control and text while drive. I won't deny this, ive done it myself while transporting one to jail and trying to communicate with another officer when we are going to eat lunch :mrgreen:

The real world effect isn't reckless driving. Most distraction crashes happen because someone is distracted and fails to reduce speed as necessary to avoid colliding with another vehicle. If you are driving straight and not swerving but distracted by a blackberry device, you can still fail to slow down because your too busy looking at your blackberry. There are no outward indicators of this until after the crash occurrs.

This sort of thing will only be effectively enforced when investigating crashes.

The law should not be to allow for the exceptional situation or driver, it should be to accommodate most of the situations and most drivers most of the time to protect the greatest numbers of innocents.

Under this criterion no calling or texting should be allowed while driving.

Caine said:

You can be in control and text while drive. I won't deny this, ive done it myself while transporting one to jail and trying to communicate with another officer when we are going to eat lunch :mrgreen:

The real world effect isn't reckless driving. Most distraction crashes happen because someone is distracted and fails to reduce speed as necessary to avoid colliding with another vehicle. If you are driving straight and not swerving but distracted by a blackberry device, you can still fail to slow down because your too busy looking at your blackberry. There are no outward indicators of this until after the crash occurrs.

This sort of thing will only be effectively enforced when investigating crashes.

Click to expand...

Yes, which IMO makes the laws even more suspect. I would think stopping short, speeding, tailgating, etc. could be some form of reckless driving. I've had plenty of people nearly rear end me because they were doing something stupid in their car and not paying attention, you can usually tell because these people will stomp on their brakes and end up somewhat sideways in the lane. So instead, we make laws that outlaw certain activities in the car when first off it's not automatic that you'll get into trouble (in the driving sense) from that activity, or that accidents will ultimately be avoided. In the end, some of the things are hard to test for (like texting say), and you're just going to get some small percentage of people and not affect the accident rate because of it. Instead, you're just setting up some form of fundraising by being allowed to issue more tickets for crap. I put helmet and seatbelt laws into the same category.

bhkad said:

The law should not be to allow for the exceptional situation or driver, it should be to accommodate most of the situations and most drivers most of the time to protect the greatest numbers of innocents.

Under this criterion no calling or texting should be allowed while driving.

Click to expand...

Laws should deal with realities, not maybes and ifs.

The best idea I can think of is to pass a bill through congress funding free limo/taxi rides for people who want to use a cell or text/eat/sleep/read/watch TV/whatever while driving.


...

:mrgreen:



Yes, I'm joking.

Ikari said:

Yes, which IMO makes the laws even more suspect. I would think stopping short, speeding, tailgating, etc. could be some form of reckless driving. I've had plenty of people nearly rear end me because they were doing something stupid in their car and not paying attention, you can usually tell because these people will stomp on their brakes and end up somewhat sideways in the lane. So instead, we make laws that outlaw certain activities in the car when first off it's not automatic that you'll get into trouble (in the driving sense) from that activity, or that accidents will ultimately be avoided. In the end, some of the things are hard to test for (like texting say), and you're just going to get some small percentage of people and not affect the accident rate because of it. Instead, you're just setting up some form of fundraising by being allowed to issue more tickets for crap. I put helmet and seatbelt laws into the same category.

Click to expand...

If you could convince the legislature to change the elements of the offense of reckless driving, then you'd have a point.

Until legislators change the law, police can't make **** up and charge people with it. As the courts have demonstrated it takes certain actions to amount to reckless driving.