Texting while driving

[Middle Age Russ]

Risk mitigation -- trying to do inherently high-risk things in a way that lowers the risk -- is not the same as risk avoidance. While behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, there are plenty of risks to contend with, including the risks you pose to others. Avoiding unnecessary risks in a relatively high-risk environment is always a good idea, so texting while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle is never preferred.

[bizarrenormality]

It would be much more effective than a youtube video if we had a minimum one year license suspension for drivers who do things like this:

[Oldgringo]

It would be much more effective than a youtube video if we had a minimum one year license suspension for drivers who do things like this:

[ Image ]

[Oldgringo]

My employer's company provided cell phone policy states that I can be terminated for just answering my phone while driving even hands free. I must pull off the road to a safe location to talk or text.

Pretty severe, but then we take safety seriously.

Obviously others do not.

Anygunanywhere

[ghostrider]

Who else among us text while driving?

not I.
I ride a motorcycle......

[paperchunker]

Who else among us text while driving?

not I.
I ride a motorcycle......

If you did it might give new meaning to your screen name

[The Annoyed Man]

It would be much more effective than a youtube video if we had a minimum one year license suspension for drivers who do things like this:

[ Image ]

And as I recall, the driver of that black SUV was the chief of police of the town where he did that.

[chasfm11]

The unfortunate part of our society is that the consequences of one's actions no longer apply.

Our son was going to work and was stopped at a red light, behind another car. The road is three lanes in each direction. A distracted driver approached our son's car from behind and, without braking, slammed into the car so hard that the trunk and backseat all but disappeared. Our son's car jumped the median and ended up in it, having only grazed the car in front of him because the hit from behind was obviously on an angle, suggesting that the driver at fault was also changing lanes. Our son's neck was broken at C5 and only the fact that a nurse was traveling in the opposite direction and stopped to help stabilize him kept him from being paraplegic or quadriplegic today.

The resulting operations cost over $80,000. Our son was off work for nearly 2 months in the recovery, loosing the pay involved. We were fortunate to get the loan of a hospital bed when he came home or the costs of the medical devices that he needed would have also been significant.

The costs to the other driver? He was not cited and was on a three year probation in the DPS system for having been involved in an accident with serious consequences. Ironically, our son was on that same probation. The other driver had the minimum insurance which only paid out $20,000. Our son's car was obviously totaled and he lost personal items that had been in his trunk. The advice from the lawyer that we hired was that the other driver didn't have any assets worth pursuing in a civil trial and the attorney fees also had to come out of the small insurance settlement.

The costs to our son? He had neck fusion surgery and has lost some of the movement in his neck permanently. The pain continued for many months after the surgery. He had to buy a new car. He was out of work. The medical insurance company tried to sue him to recover the costs of the operation from the insurance settlement.

I don't think that laws which prohibit texting while driving or even talking on cell phones while driving will be effective. Drunk driving is illegal and sometimes even carries with it significant penalties but those laws seem to have had limited effect on that practice. Call me old fashioned but I think there should be consequences for those who engage in high risk behavior and end up causing physical harm, significant property damage or death. Our current system does not yield those results. The driver who hit our son had little consequence. An "accident" isn't accidental if a risky behavior is involved. Until that distinction is made and the consequences are significant, the behaviors will continue. While I would hope that the OP video might open some peoples eyes, I don't hold a lot of hope.

My cell phone does not include texting capability.

[TexasCajun]

I come across several people each day that are hopelessly mired in their hand-held devices while trying to drive. There's the swerver - gets to close to the adjacent lane & jerks the wheel in the opposite direction (sometimes this happens when the road curves but the texter/driver does not). Then there's the pinballer - drifts from one edge of the lane to the other while trying to text with the phone up at eye-level. But my favorite is the speed-bump-in-the-making: the driver talking on their phone while driving 20mph slower than everyone else.

Unenforceable laws won't do the trick. Frothy emotional appeal won't do it either. People like madmonkey will do what they do, falsely believing that they are more skilled at their risky behavior than the rest of us mere mortals, until they cause a tragedy.

The only thing that I can think of for prevention is to hold the cell phone carriers and phone makers partially responsible when a distracted-driving accident occurs. Technology can be built into phones that make them inoperable by a driver, but the manufacturers and carriers are hesitant to incorporate it. I hate having to make a call to legislate what should be common sense. But the problem is getting worse with each passing day despite the overwhelming facts out there.

[MadMonkey]

People like madmonkey will do what they do, falsely believing that they are more skilled at their risky behavior than the rest of us mere mortals

*sigh*

I had a long post written out, but decided it's not worth it. I'm no different from you, I don't think I have Godlike driving skills (except on the autocross course ) or am anything special. However, many people have a tendency to put everyone else into broad groups without taking into account that those groups contain a vast range of behavior. For example, one person might hate people that drink, regardless of whether they have a special glass of eggnog once a year or drink heavily every day... or a person might hate gun owners, regardless of whether the person is a grandma who happens to have a .38 she never touches in a drawer somewhere or a person who shoots up street signs for fun.

Painting people with a broad brush is one of the big problems that we have today. I've had 3 or 4 driving trips since I last posted on here... guess how many texts I've written while on the road.

1.

That's a far cry from someone who is barely able to function because they have their nose buried in their phone for the entire trip. However, those same people who paint with a broad brush will be saying "NOPE, STUDIES SHOW TEXTING IS DANGEROUS YOU'RE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE IT'S NOT A MATTER OF IF BUT WHEN" and so on, throwing out what-ifs the same way that lefties do to show why gun owners are dangerous. I've already stated my case on my methods. If I'm putting anyone at risk, it's me, and I wouldn't have it any other way, and I'd hope everyone else would do the same.

[cb1000rider]

I don't think that laws which prohibit texting while driving or even talking on cell phones while driving will be effective. Drunk driving is illegal and sometimes even carries with it significant penalties but those laws seem to have had limited effect on that practice. Call me old fashioned but I think there should be consequences for those who engage in high risk behavior and end up causing physical harm, significant property damage or death. Our current system does not yield those results. The driver who hit our son had little consequence. An "accident" isn't accidental if a risky behavior is involved. Until that distinction is made and the consequences are significant, the behaviors will continue. While I would hope that the OP video might open some peoples eyes, I don't hold a lot of hope..

I'm sorry to hear about your son. I was hit by a drunk driver (50mph) while stopped at a stop light. I woke up across the intersection in a bank parking lot. My injuries were not as serious as your sons. My point is that I understand the circumstance personally.

You've got a bit of a paradox going on. You want serious consequences for those who engage in high risk behavior that causes harm, but admit that drunk driving already has serious penalties and those consequences aren't effective.

I think the problem is simply: you can get away with it. That is, most people blowing .08 or more aren't going to get caught. And most people sending texts while driving aren't going to get caught. You can get away with it for a very long time in many cases. Every now and then it has a serious consequence.

Personally, I don't think that tying more serious consequences - say a life sentence to someone that causes a serious accident while doing either are going to make a difference. A life sentence is just another tax burden. It's just another otherwise productive member of society that now can't ever have a job. It's another family ruined. No, I'm not talking about serial drunk drivers, I'm talking about the high school girl that hits a motorcycle while she's texting someone on the phone. She's responsible. She engaged in a high risk behavior. Why not punish her severely? Because I, like you, don't think it would make a difference.

What would make a difference? We have the technology to preventing texting while driving. Why don't we do that? It's relatively simple.
Drunk driving? We've been trying to solve that for years. My guess is that we've made some ground, but it's never going to be good enough.

[sjfcontrol]

I don't think that laws which prohibit texting while driving or even talking on cell phones while driving will be effective. Drunk driving is illegal and sometimes even carries with it significant penalties but those laws seem to have had limited effect on that practice. Call me old fashioned but I think there should be consequences for those who engage in high risk behavior and end up causing physical harm, significant property damage or death. Our current system does not yield those results. The driver who hit our son had little consequence. An "accident" isn't accidental if a risky behavior is involved. Until that distinction is made and the consequences are significant, the behaviors will continue. While I would hope that the OP video might open some peoples eyes, I don't hold a lot of hope..

I'm sorry to hear about your son. I was hit by a drunk driver (50mph) while stopped at a stop light. I woke up across the intersection in a bank parking lot. My injuries were not as serious as your sons. My point is that I understand the circumstance personally.

You've got a bit of a paradox going on. You want serious consequences for those who engage in high risk behavior that causes harm, but admit that drunk driving already has serious penalties and those consequences aren't effective.

I think the problem is simply: you can get away with it. That is, most people blowing .08 or more aren't going to get caught. And most people sending texts while driving aren't going to get caught. You can get away with it for a very long time in many cases. Every now and then it has a serious consequence.

Personally, I don't think that tying more serious consequences - say a life sentence to someone that causes a serious accident while doing either are going to make a difference. A life sentence is just another tax burden. It's just another otherwise productive member of society that now can't ever have a job. It's another family ruined. No, I'm not talking about serial drunk drivers, I'm talking about the high school girl that hits a motorcycle while she's texting someone on the phone. She's responsible. She engaged in a high risk behavior. Why not punish her severely? Because I, like you, don't think it would make a difference.

What would make a difference? We have the technology to preventing texting while driving. Why don't we do that? It's relatively simple.
Drunk driving? We've been trying to solve that for years. My guess is that we've made some ground, but it's never going to be good enough.

And how do you tell if the person doing the texting is the driver or a passenger? Or are we preventing EVERYBODY in a moving car from texting just to prevent the driver from doing that?

[TexasCajun]

People like madmonkey will do what they do, falsely believing that they are more skilled at their risky behavior than the rest of us mere mortals

*sigh*

I had a long post written out, but decided it's not worth it. I'm no different from you, I don't think I have Godlike driving skills (except on the autocross course ) or am anything special. However, many people have a tendency to put everyone else into broad groups without taking into account that those groups contain a vast range of behavior. For example, one person might hate people that drink, regardless of whether they have a special glass of eggnog once a year or drink heavily every day... or a person might hate gun owners, regardless of whether the person is a grandma who happens to have a .38 she never touches in a drawer somewhere or a person who shoots up street signs for fun.

Painting people with a broad brush is one of the big problems that we have today. I've had 3 or 4 driving trips since I last posted on here... guess how many texts I've written while on the road.

1.

That's a far cry from someone who is barely able to function because they have their nose buried in their phone for the entire trip. However, those same people who paint with a broad brush will be saying "NOPE, STUDIES SHOW TEXTING IS DANGEROUS YOU'RE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE IT'S NOT A MATTER OF IF BUT WHEN" and so on, throwing out what-ifs the same way that lefties do to show why gun owners are dangerous. I've already stated my case on my methods. If I'm putting anyone at risk, it's me, and I wouldn't have it any other way, and I'd hope everyone else would do the same.

Well pardon me if I interpreted your well defined method as that of a serial driving tester. And you are absolutely DEAD WRONG on your last point. You are not just putting yourself at risk. Everyone that you share the road with is at risk whenever you engage in such behavior. Or does your superhuman texting-while-driving ability also include the power to magically insulate the car next to/in front of yours from impact?

[MadMonkey]

And you are absolutely DEAD WRONG on your last point. You are not just putting yourself at risk. Everyone that you share the road with is at risk whenever you engage in such behavior. Or does your superhuman texting-while-driving ability also include the power to magically insulate the car next to/in front of yours from impact?

Again, it's clear that you didn't read what I already posted. I don't text in traffic.

[CoffeeNut]

I keep my bluetooth in my ear and turn driving mode on. It'll read out text messages into my ear and if one is absolutely necessary to reply to then I can just say "reply" and speak it. I've tried to send a text the normal way while driving and I simply can't do it safely so I won't ever try it again. If you don't have the bluetooth option then you honestly need to wait because nearly all of the horrible drivers I've encountered over the last few years have all been texting or something that involved looking at a screen.