A new low point in distracted driving...

David S. Wallens wrote: My friend was telling me about her son's 4x4 and 5x5 Rubik's Cubes.

I'm pretty sure that it was one or the other of those.

JamesMcD wrote: I'm baffled as to why cops aren't going after these people. They could get un-marked cars, cruise down the interstate going ten-over, and pull over every fifth person. I really really really don't understand why that isn't happening. I am all for bringing some serious financial pain upon these inattentive morons.

Just because you don't see it wherever your at doesn't mean it's not happening elsewhere. Around here the police have distracted driving "details" regularly and it's broadcasted on the local media to give people a heads up beforehand. Like crime in general, they are never going to arrest their way, or in this case, ticket their way out of the problem.

Using a hand-held device while driving is illegal in my city. I think it's ridiculous. As already pointed out, the cop pulling me over has likely been interacting with, lets be real here, a fuggin laptop computer screwed to his dashboard all day, and while he almost certainly has a worse safety record than me, he's still considered ok by the government that wants my fine money.

Cell phones have changed the world. I think it is foolish to believe in a future where we legislate them right out of people's hands. I do think that making drivers better in general will reduce problems related to cell phone usage. I read a statistic that the average person spends something like 6 seconds reading a text. That's probably highly misrepresentative or at least an average number dragged WAY up by a bunch of people who are barely literate or didn't start navigating GUIs until they were 40, but it bothered me anyway. It bothers me because it's being presented as if texting is the problem. My take is that if you can forget that you're driving a vehicle for 6 consecutive seconds, you are a bad DRIVER.

You may be a bad reader, a bad texter, a bad cell-phone user, and any number of other things, but i don't care about those things because they're not what's going to kill me. The bad DRIVER part is what i care about. I don't care what's taking up your 6 seconds, i just care that you can be driving a car and forget you're driving it for 6 seconds at a time.

I think if people were forced to go through scenarios that proved to them with THEIR own driving and THEIR own numbers what dangers they create through distracted driving, they'd either police themselves out of doing it as much, or up their game and get better at it. I'd prefer to give drivers first hand proof of their own frailty during training and let them recognize the need for improvement themselves, rather then slap the odd 1 in 1000 with a fine for doing something they're just not going to stop doing. I want people to be better at what they do, not tell them what they can't do.

People don't like enforcement that is based on the lowest-common-denominator driver anyway. I don't respect it. I fully believe that i am a better driver while texting than half the population is while not texting. I can also say with almost total certainty that i have hurt less people in my life than any cop who's about to pull me over for a cell phone lecture, and certainly less while behind the wheel (unless his number is also 0, then we are tied). Society doesn't need ME to stop texting. It needs to raise the MINIMUM standards for driver awareness training.

Vigo wrote: Using a hand-held device while driving is illegal in my city. I think it's ridiculous. As already pointed out, the cop pulling me over has likely been interacting with, lets be real here, a fuggin laptop computer screwed to his dashboard all day, and while he almost certainly has a worse safety record than me, he's still considered ok by the government that wants my fine money. Cell phones have changed the world. I think it is foolish to believe in a future where we legislate them right out of people's hands. I do think that making drivers better in general will reduce problems related to cell phone usage. I read a statistic that the average person spends something like 6 seconds reading a text. That's probably highly misrepresentative or at least an average number dragged WAY up by a bunch of people who are barely literate or didn't start navigating GUIs until they were 40, but it bothered me anyway. It bothers me because it's being presented as if texting is the problem. My take is that if you can forget that you're driving a vehicle for 6 consecutive seconds, you are a bad DRIVER. You may be a bad reader, a bad texter, a bad cell-phone user, and any number of other things, but i don't care about those things because they're not what's going to kill me. The bad DRIVER part is what i care about. I don't care what's taking up your 6 seconds, i just care that you can be driving a car and forget you're driving it for 6 seconds at a time. I think if people were forced to go through scenarios that proved to them with THEIR own driving and THEIR own numbers what dangers they create through distracted driving, they'd either police themselves out of doing it as much, or up their game and get better at it. I'd rather give drivers first hand proof of their own frailty during training then slap the odd 1 in 1000 with a fine for doing something they're just not going to stop doing. I want people to be better at what they do, not tell them what they can't do. People don't like enforcement that is based on the lowest-common-denominator driver anyway. I don't respect it. I fully believe that i am a better driver while texting than half the population is while not texting. I can also say with almost total certainty that i have hurt less people in my life than any cop who's about to pull me over for a cell phone lecture, and certainly less while behind the wheel (unless his number is also 0, then we are tied). Society doesn't need ME to stop texting. It needs to raise the MINIMUM standards for driver awareness training.

As both an enthusiast and driver educator I find your opinion (and it is just that) far out of whack from the truth. I agree that drivers need to be better, that driver education needs to be more equitably made available and more evenly presented, and the DMV test needs to be over hauled and made more difficult. What you have wrong is that you can be a better texting driver than a non distracted driver. Your premise is false and I don't have the desire to link every bit of research to show you. Simply put when a person is driving that is what they should be focused on and nothing else. No excuses.

"Simply put when a person is driving that is what they should be focused on and nothing else. No excuses."

Truth

They have "Hobocop" out here in Langley.

It's a traffic cop, dressed like a homeless guy who's out panhandling in traffic.

What he's really doing is telling his buddy down the road which driver is using their phone.

I ride a motorcycle. If you text and drive, you're a careless sack of E36 M3, plain and simple.

This will soon be my reality.

What you have wrong is that you can be a better texting driver than a non distracted driver. Your premise is false

That's funny, because a large part of my post was about how YOUR premise is false. I didn't say someone not texting was non-distracted. I made a whole post about how focusing on texting/phone use to the exclusion of all else was inadequate, and I was comparing myself to drivers as they are, not as an idealized non-distracted straw-man driver. I said that texting was a scapegoat for a broader problem, and just like the study i mentioned, you latched onto the catchwords as a cue to trot out popular oversimplifications, such as that someone not texting is not distracted. It's called tunnel vision.

In any event, it'll be pretty hard to guilt trip me about my perfect record. Those who've watched my user status creep to PowerDork have seen the number i use keep changing as it consistently grows. 17 years and counting of always being right enough when it matters. I've been pissing off my fellow GRM Forumers for 8 of them!

Let's be real here: the only reason there is legislation in place for cell phone operating drivers is for accountability, not prevention. For instance, It's "illegal" to Steal. That's been a law since ancient times. Law enforcement, again, since ancient times, has yet to be able to stop theft. So why have the laws? Because when you do get caught, they can hang yer ass from a tree. Accountability folks. Not prevention.

Appleseed wrote: This will soon be my reality.

Loved that game growing up

Many quality hours were spent playing "Road Rash" with my roommates in college.

NYS Northway, I-87 has lots of signs designating "Texting Stops".

In reply to rob_lewis:

I had a new Ford van from Uhaul this weekend that had the backup camera in the rearview mirror. I didn't trust it. Looking through a fish eye lens while backing up just didn't feel right. Gave a false sense of distance.

Trans_Maro wrote: If you text and drive, you're a careless sack of E36 M3, plain and simple.

I've been debating on whether or not to post this here for the last couple days:

A few days ago my friend was hit by a "distracted driver" (probably texting/phone related, but that's for the police to look into) while AAA was working on her overheated car that was pulled to the side of the road. She ended up pinned between the two vehicles (passenger side).

She and her friend are still in the hospital. Neither work in jobs that offer insurance, neither have savings to cover rent etc while they're in the hospital, and I'm sure neither can really afford a new car (they're not "poor", just young. Like early 20's ish).

It's incredible the amount of damage someone can cause by not paying attention to what the berk they're doing.

shameless link to GFM where you can read more about it if you're interested.

In reply to chuckles:

I have an unshakable distrust in back-up camera displays.

I feel like they're purposely lying or not showing me everything. I have to see for myself.

Mirrors to a lesser extent.

There are ways to take the law into your own hands and stop the texting while driving madness...

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/fcc-seeks-48k-fine-for-driver-using-cell-phone-jammer/

Its expensive to get caught though.

On the backup cameras, I believe they're only intended to cover the blind spot immediately behind the car, so to fill in what the mirrors are missing. People may not realize that and use them differently, but they're still fundamentally a good idea. Something like 500 children a year are injured in backup accidents so it's a serious issue.

In reply to Hungary Bill:

That's horrifying. Thanks for sharing, I hope she recovers and isn't financially ruined for life by it. Too bad she wasn't covered by her parent's insurance. What a nightmare for everyone involved.

Aaaannnnd I JUST witnessed another one. Honda Accord vs. mid-sized SUV/CUV/Crossover (hard to tell what exactly, since it was knocked over onto its right side) starts to turn left, across traffic, out of a strip mall parking lot. Apparently the Crossover driver has no clue that a late model Honda Accord driver also has no clue that someone is turning out of the lot directly in front of her. Accord hits Crossover, dead square on the crossover driver-side, at about 45 mph without ever touching her brakes. The impact was hard enough to knock the crossover right-the-hell over onto it's right side and shorten the nose of the Accord by about three feet. This Accord went from 40-45 mph to zero in about 20 feet.

How in the berkley both drivers were so in-attentive as not see the other one cannot be much of a mystery. The sad part is, all that was needed to prevent this smashup was for just ONE of the two drivers to have their head in the game. It wouldn't have even mattered which one, in this case.

Vigo wrote: I read a statistic that the average person spends something like 6 seconds reading a text. That's probably highly misrepresentative or at least an average number dragged WAY up by a bunch of people who are barely literate or didn't start navigating GUIs until they were 40, but it bothered me anyway. It bothers me because it's being presented as if texting is the problem. My take is that if you can forget that you're driving a vehicle for 6 consecutive seconds, you are a bad DRIVER.

Again, I present a study.
http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/the-impact-of-hand-held-and-hands-free-cell-phone-use-on-driving-performance-and-safety-critical-event-risk.pdf

If you don't like to read, just check out page 28.

I came into work one morning with a Volvo in the parking lot with the grille neatly center punched, bent hood, and leaking fluid. I asked the service manager, "Please tell me that wasn't a 7 o'clock waiter?" and he told me the car was just towed in. I get a phone call a few minutes later, with an angry customer berating me about how unsafe the car we sold him was. He said "I was on the phone, smoking a cigar, when the pizza slid off the front seat. I reached down to get it, and when I looked up, there was a tree in front of me, and I couldn't miss it." I asked him "Who was driving the car?" He replied "Weren't you listening? I said I was." I said, "No, you were on the phone, smoking and rescuing a pizza. That takes 3 hands, and you need at least one to steer. Who was driving the car when it hit the tree?" He paused for a minute, then said "Oh yeah." To his benefit, he recognized that the car saved him from serious injury that could have been caused by his actions, and bought a new one.

Vigo wrote:

To be honest, I read your post several times and am still not sure what you were saying...apparently, distracted driving is bad, but you can text and drive and haven't had an accident so that's good, and because you're a PowerDork that makes it even better?

I'm ready for harsher laws against the phone-drivers, too. I say make it a Driving Under the Influence of a Distraction, or DUID, and make it berkeleying STING. $500 fine the first time around and a big pile of points in states that do that. Second time around you get a bicycle and a bus pass.

berkeley em'.

Burrito wrote: Second time around you get a bicycle and a bus pass.

I see plenty of people on bicycles texting as well...

stuart in mn wrote:

Vigo wrote:

To be honest, I read your post several times and am still not sure what you were saying...apparently, distracted driving is bad, but you can text and drive and haven't had an accident so that's good, and because you're a PowerDork that makes it even better?

What it probably makes him is so addicted to his phone nothing else matters and seeing his comments in print makes him feel superior to everyone else! How else can you explain the comments that texting/dialing a phone is not a distraction.

stuart in mn wrote:

Burrito wrote: Second time around you get a bicycle and a bus pass.

I see plenty of people on bicycles texting as well...

The good news is the bicycle isn't a 4000lb cage traveling at 70mph.