"The RCMP say it appears a young driver who ran down a cyclist in Chilliwack on Tuesday had been distracted by her cellphone.

The 17-year-old female, who was driving eastbound on Luckakuck Way, drifted onto the shoulder of the road and struck a Chilliwack woman riding her bike westbound.


Police say the 33-year-old victim was taken to Chilliwack General Hospital, where she died of her injuries.


RCMP spokesperson Const. Steve Hiscoe said the accident should serve as a warning to other drivers not to use the cellphones while driving.


"When a driver takes their eyes off the roadway for whatever reason, and in this case it is the cell phone, we're not paying attention to our driving anymore."


Hiscoe said driver should find a safe area to pull over before using their cell phones."


Anyone hear more about this or know how the driver has been charged?

I heard about it on the local news (Penticton) - but no.. nothing about the obvious manslaughter charges that should be filed

Please do keep us informed if you find anything further.

Also, there is something to be said against the idiots who use thier cell phones while biking. Yes, Ive seen it several times. Insane.

This is so tragic, for both the innocent victim and the young driver. It is also so familiar as this is exactly what happened to "Sydney" who was such a fixture on this forum. A young driver drifts across to the opposite shoulder while yapping on the cell and hits an innocent person.

Cell phones and cars dont mix.

I read in the Province this morning that the driver will be charged.

However, given that the victim was a 'street person' and the 'youth and inexperience' of the perpatrator, it is unlikely that the sentence will be particularly substantial. It would appear that while "ignorance of the law is no excuse", ignorance in general will get you off with community service.

Personaly id love to see cell phone jammers used at short ranges along the highways. Ive been in way to many close calls with my dad and people cutting us off cause their to busy with their cell phone. Corse thats not possible as cell phones are to blasted important in a emergency or break down situation. I dont think we cold realy have short range ones with open cell spots. Hell ive used my dads and neices numerous times. Its funny but on over cast days the signal strerenth just shoot up on them. I guess the coud cover is helping to bounce stray signals back down? Im sure a short range jammer would experiance the same effect.

Legaly the penalties for driving while celling should be more in line with drunk driving charges as it very similar or worse than driving drunk.

As for hands free including head set and voice dialing set ups they dont work for crap to lower the attention loss problem ither.

Please do keep us informed if you find anything further.

Also, there is something to be said against the idiots who use thier cell phones while biking. Yes, Ive seen it several times. Insane.
I've been known to use the cell while riding, but on hands free speakerphone mode. Makes for the occasional odd look, apparently riding down the road and talking to myself, but at least I can keep my attention where I need to.

Sigh... another case of blaming the poor cellphone, rather than the "user."

Cellphones as of yet cannot determine when and how they will be used... although certainly the technology exists to render the cellphone unusable if it is moving (perhaps even at some pre-set speed).

The user is the issue... the lack of judgment on the user's part of when and where to use the cell phone is the key ingredient to both issues like distraction when driving and poor cell phone etiquette in restaurants and other public spaces.

Carry a cell phone if you wish, but learn how and where to use the darn things. And if you are a new driver (such as a 17 year old)... Focus on acquiring good driving habits rather than what your friends are wearing to the dance.

However, given that the victim was a 'street person' and the 'youth and inexperience' of the perpatrator, it is unlikely that the sentence will be particularly substantial.....
Is it open season on 'street people'?

Try shooting someone and then telling the judge you were distracted by your cellphone.
That should be good for a few years off your sentence.

Enjoy

A couple of questions/thoughts.

1. From the OP it is hard to determine whether the driver drifted into the shoulder, hitting the cyclist going the wrong way on the shoulder, or drifted all the way across the oncoming traffic lane.

2. This is a true tragedy. As is the case for any accident that could have otherwise been avoided.

3. I am a very very heavy cellphone user. Part of my job. I go through several thousand minutes per month. Probably 80% while in my car. I can safely say I have had no close calls that were a result of my cellphone use. However

* I always use a headset. To the reply above they definitely DO help in the car. Maybe not for paying attention (I will get to that in a minute) but they help in keeping both hands on the wheel and unrestricted movement, allowing me to see side to side.

* I also use voice dialing, and my phone voice announces incoming calls. I never have to touch or look at my phone to dial or answer calls.

* While I talk a ton in my car, driving ALWAYS comes first. I will regularily not pay attention to the call, prompting the other caller to say something like "are you still there?" and make them repeat their statement.

* I will hang up on a caller without warning if traffic becomes difficult. Again, driving comes first.

* If a call becomes too involved, I will inform the caller that I will have to call them back when I can focus better on their issue.

* All of the above calls are business related. I have suffered no negative feedback based on my phone habits. I am always up front with my clients that I am in the car and that driving comes first.

Why do I bring this up? Because I truly believe that both can go hand in hand. In general, the people that I have seen that get distracted by their cellphone are the same ones that tend to do things in the car anyhow.

Similar to another age old adage. Cellphones don't cause accidents. Idiots who cannot stay focused on driving do.

I don't think cellphones should be banned. But I do believe cellphone attributed accidents should be dealt harsh penalties.

Still a damn tragedy.

-D

This same story is being debated in this forum under the header 'sensationalism?' if anyone wants to see the original text of the article, and a strong "blame the victim" angle.

As for cell phone use in cars, I strongly believe that it should be limited to back-seat passengers ONLY. If you're important enough to be moving and talking constantly, you'd probably either be better off with a driver, OR do like most people, and set aside 10-15 minutes of non-rolling talk-time at a couple of points in the day to answer voice mail and follow up.

As for cell phone use in cars, I strongly believe that it should be limited to back-seat passengers ONLY. If you're important enough to be moving and talking constantly, you'd probably either be better off with a driver, OR do like most people, and set aside 10-15 minutes of non-rolling talk-time at a couple of points in the day to answer voice mail and follow up.

I tend to agree... the best cell phone conversation in a car is "I'll call you back when I stop."

You can promote this by asking folks that call you if they are in a moving car... if they answer yes... tell them to call you back when they have stopped.

This same story is being debated in this forum under the header 'sensationalism?' if anyone wants to see the original text of the article, and a strong "blame the victim" angle.

I don't think it's a blame the victim, I think it's a blame the cell phone, the cycl;ist was wearing a helmet and in a bike lane, so it can't be in any way partly his fault

...

3. I am a very very heavy cellphone user. Part of my job. I go through several thousand minutes per month. Probably 80% while in my car. I can safely say I have had no close calls that were a result of my cellphone use. However



Not that you're aware of. "But officer! I never saw him!"

Not a personal attack, this just sounds like a typical statement ... "It's not me, I'm not like that!".

I don't own a cell phone ... don't plan on getting one. If I'm not home ... leave a message.

jw

Totally off subject, but one more reasons I am ambivalent about cellphones is that they've caused the disappearance of public PAY phones.

Not that you're aware of. "But officer! I never saw him!"

Not a personal attack, this just sounds like a typical statement ... "It's not me, I'm not like that!".

I don't own a cell phone ... don't plan on getting one. If I'm not home ... leave a message.

jw


Take it for whatever you want. I am honestly saying in the past XX years I cannot remember a time that I have said "damn I realy shouldn't have been talking then"

I have avoided numerous close calls while on my phone however because I remain an alert driver. But then again I have to. I regularily drive 25-30k per year for work. So I have to be diligent and careful. But then again I am rarely a guy you even see in the left lane.

As I said before, my driving comes first. The only reason I even posted was to say it is not just cellphones per se. It is the driver. And generally in my experience, the driver that would be that distracted on the phone would be distracted with something else even if off the phone.

Personally I have found my Ipod to be FAR more dangerous to use in the car. Trying to fiddle with that click wheel while driving is far more distracting. Which is why I now set my playlist before getting in the car.

Plus you could never effectively ban cellphone use. With my small bluetooth headset you couldn't even tell I was on the phone. But I have no problem with stiff penalties when cellphone use contributed to an accident.

-D

Take it for whatever you want. I am honestly saying in the past XX years I cannot remember a time that I have said "damn I realy shouldn't have been talking then"

I have avoided numerous close calls while on my phone however because I remain an alert driver. But then again I have to. I regularily drive 25-30k per year for work. So I have to be diligent and careful. But then again I am rarely a guy you even see in the left lane.

As I said before, my driving comes first. The only reason I even posted was to say it is not just cellphones per se. It is the driver. And generally in my experience, the driver that would be that distracted on the phone would be distracted with something else even if off the phone.

Personally I have found my Ipod to be FAR more dangerous to use in the car. Trying to fiddle with that click wheel while driving is far more distracting. Which is why I now set my playlist before getting in the car.

Plus you could never effectively ban cellphone use. With my small bluetooth headset you couldn't even tell I was on the phone. But I have no problem with stiff penalties when cellphone use contributed to an accident.

-DFrom your previous description, it sounds like you use your phone responsibly. Unfortunately, you can't legislate responsibility. A law that says "Use your cell phone responsibly" is meaningless. A law that bans cell phone use while driving is the only way to enforce responsible use of a cell phone.

The problem with attaching stiff penalties to cell phone use that contributes to an accident is that it only addresses behavior after the accident. Banning cell phone use is a preventative measure, just like banning drunken driving is a preventative measure. Sure, we can allow drunken driving, and just attach stiff penalties to any accidents that result, but we don't, because we prefer prevention. If I'm a "distracted driving" accident victim, which do you think I would have preferred-- not to have been hit by a distracted driver in the first place, or "stiff penalties" after the fact?

Punishing this girl won't bring the victim back to life. This girl is young, and I doubt she'll ever use her cell phone while in traffic again because of this experience. Do you think she ought to spend 5-10 years in jail for what has already got to be the worst experience of her life?

Punishing this girl won't bring the victim back to life. This girl is young, and I doubt she'll ever use her cell phone while in traffic again because of this experience. Do you think she ought to spend 5-10 years in jail for what has already got to be the worst experience of her life?I don't know what an appropriate penalty might be for reckless homicide, if that's the appropriate charge, but yes, she should be punished. There was a kid who was texting and killed a cyclist (and BF member); he got what I felt was a very creative and appropriate sentence.

Cell phones, cup of coffee, pulling out a map, they're all distractions with the same potential of disaster. All covered by driving without due care and attention laws.

There are always going to be things like this happen, question is, are they happening more now than they have in the past?

Cell phones in cars are not good, but they even have DVD players in them now and a Big Gulp between the knees is just as bad. A ban wouldn't work because all you have to do is put in an earplug and no one would even know you're on the phone. What's the difference between talking to your wife in the front seat or your wife on the phone?

A ban wouldn't work because all you have to do is put in an earplug and no one would even know you're on the phone. A ban on open containers wouldn't work because you can always conceal it in a brown paper bag. Except the bans on open containers do work. Most people abide by the law. A few don't. When they're caught, they get charged with a violation.

From your previous description, it sounds like you use your phone responsibly. Unfortunately, you can't legislate responsibility. A law that says "Use your cell phone responsibly" is meaningless. A law that bans cell phone use while driving is the only way to enforce responsible use of a cell phone.

Thank you, I am. But then again it is because I have to. No phone call is worth dying over (or killing someone else). Much the same way getting there on time is. Which is why I don't drive aggressively either.

The only problem I see is that it is virtually impossible to enforce a cellphone ban. With a small bluetooth headset or handsfree you wouldn't be able to tell in any effective way in the first place.

The problem with attaching stiff penalties to cell phone use that contributes to an accident is that it only addresses behavior after the accident. Banning cell phone use is a preventative measure, just like banning drunken driving is a preventative measure. Sure, we can allow drunken driving, and just attach stiff penalties to any accidents that result, but we don't, because we prefer prevention. If I'm a "distracted driving" accident victim, which do you think I would have preferred-- not to have been hit by a distracted driver in the first place, or "stiff penalties" after the fact?

Same problem with drunk driving. With the exception of the occasionaly roadblock around the holidays, or the guy who gets pulled over for driving erratically, the only deterrent to drunk driving is the penalties incurred. Of course if you have to ban cellphone use to gain the penalties so be it.

-D

Punishing this girl won't bring the victim back to life. This girl is young, and I doubt she'll ever use her cell phone while in traffic again because of this experience. Do you think she ought to spend 5-10 years in jail for what has already got to be the worst experience of her life?

But if drivers faced approriate penalties for killing cyclists there'd be a fear of engaging in high risk behavior. It might save the next cyclists from another cell phone driver.

'situational blindness' incurred while talking on a cellphone, even with a hands free device is a documented and proven human failing.

Watching a tv show or a sports event on a cellhone while driving? Texting? It IS more dangerous out there, distracted drivers are on the rise.....

Cell phones, cup of coffee, pulling out a map, they're all distractions with the same potential of disaster. All covered by driving without due care and attention laws.

There are always going to be things like this happen, question is, are they happening more now than they have in the past?

Cell phones in cars are not good, but they even have DVD players in them now and a Big Gulp between the knees is just as bad. A ban wouldn't work because all you have to do is put in an earplug and no one would even know you're on the phone. What's the difference between talking to your wife in the front seat or your wife on the phone?

I think you and I are in fair agreement over this subject as we have both participated in similar discussions in the past. Mobile phones are yet another form of distraction. I think many people have lost sight of the fact that it's not so much that there is a distraction but how a driver deals with it.

It's all about training. Communicating while in the process of operating a vehicle or a piece of machinery is a skill that needs to be developed. Most people talking on the phone do not have this skill. Do you think the guy left-seat in the cockpit of the 777 is gesturing wildly and yelling into his mic as he's making for the numbers on short final? Do you think the guy on SEAL team 5 engaged in a CQB action isn't constantly aware of what's going on around him while at the same time talking to his teammates so they coordinate their fields of fire? What makes these guys different? They've received proper training. The subject of the conversation is contextually related to the situation at hand. Even in general aviation, you're taught how to act on the radio. You're taught how to form your sentences and phrase things in a manner which can be easily deciphered during a high-stress situation. Information is tokenised and related in a format that provides for proper context-flow. There is even built-in verbal error correction procedures to minimise one party mishearing or misunderstanding the other.

Now normal day-to-day conversation isn't going to be as structured or formal. However, nothing in life is always structured or formal and this goes for driving too. In general, people are bad at context switching and need to be trained to handle it. If it's not the mobile phone that can cause a person to context switch then it's the baby in the backseat or something on the radio. Driver training is really poor in preparing the driver for dealing with a multitasked environment. I posted on this a while ago in a previous thread.

It's called context switching and many of us are very bad at it. It can be overcome with training however. Pilots undergo this sort of training... emergency response folks do too. Perhaps rather than enacting laws to ban this, that and the other thing, we should revise our training to take into account the fact that one needs to be able to maintain situational awareness as well as context switch between several tasks in today's modern driving environment. Rather than spend all of our efforts attempting to eliminate distractions (an exercise in futility as far as I'm concerned), I think some amount of effort should be made in teaching drivers how to better deal with them. Now I'm not advocating that everyone go out and gab on their phones in the middle of traffic but I am advocating that everyone know how to handle the situation. Whether to answer or make a call while driving should be a matter or priority management and it should be the case that either decision should leave the driver with a fair margin of safety.

But if drivers faced approriate penalties for killing cyclists there'd be a fear of engaging in high risk behavior. It might save the next cyclists from another cell phone driver.

Maybe. Or maybe, like the death penalty, it would have no effect on related crime rates. Punishment often has no correlation to a reduction in undesirable behavior. The Rockefeller Drug laws of New York were instituted in 1973 (mandatory 15-to-25-to-life sentence for 2 ounces sale or 4 ounces possession of "hard drugs"), but drug sales only increased in the '70s and '80s here.

What I'm saying is--I don't know if jail time would be more of a deterrent than living with accidentally killing a person alone. If you are inclined to drive recklessly in the first place, is your head going to be in the right place to properly interpret consequence whether jail is an option or not?

Is jail really for deterrence, or for vengeance?

I think getting the general public up to the competency of airline pilots or UDT teams is specious.

Situational blindness. documented result of cellphone use while driving. it is much different than an 737 cockpit on final approach. I wonder what would happen if a cellphone rang on the flight deck of jumbo liner in the last 500 feet? would a pilot talking about where to go for dinner or their broker about a bad week be a bit more distracted?

I feel that no distraction is an excuse for murder. If the kid is screaming, you dropped your cigarette, someone calls your cellphone, or you spilled scalding coffee right over your privates or whatever the case may be, you pull over and deal with it WITHOUT going hell for leather down the road. And if you cause an accident due to your own idiocy, you pay the price. Drivers licence revoked permanently, prison for a long time, and damages to person and vehicle (bike or car, whatever,) covered. If you murder someone, you pay for funeral expenses PLUS their estimated income for the average human lifespan, 73 for men and 82 for women, if I remember correctly. This assumes an average payscale according to educational level. In short, you suffer just as much if not more than the victim, or their families who lost a loved one due to you being stupid.
This will never happen, of course. At least not here in America, where driving a ton of polluting machinery at 60 miles an hour is a right, not a privilege, given to little 16 year old kids who aren't old enough to vote, drink, or carry guns. No matter how many people you maim and kill here in America they give you your license back, and even help you with credit to get another killing machine if you need one.
All we can hope for is that these polluting lunatics kill themselves and others of their kind before more good people become victimized.

And if you cause an accident due to your own idiocy, you
pay the price. Drivers licence revoked permanently, prison for a long
time, and damages to person and vehicle (bike or car, whatever,) covered.

How severe an accident are we talking here?! If some guy knocks me off my bike, he's an idiot. But if I can walk away from it, does he deserve a felony conviction on his record, ensuring he will have an impossible time finding a good job once he leaves his "very long" prison sentence? Forget eye-for-an-eye, you're proposing "head-for-an-eye"!

If you murder someone, you pay for funeral expenses PLUS their estimated income for the average human lifespan, 73 for men and 82 for women, if I remember correctly. This assumes an average payscale according to educational level. In short, you suffer just as much if not more than the victim, or their families who lost a loved one due to you being stupid.


That implies incentive for more murder and recklessness where the majority of it already exists--poor areas.

This idea was considered after 9/11--paying more reparations to the families of those who lost a wealthy loved one than those who lost a poor loved one. It's putting a price tag on human life, and it's unethical.

I think getting the general public up to the competency of airline pilots or UDT teams is specious.
That's an extreme but even a little bit of training will go a long way.

But let me turn around the discussion points a little bit. We as a society are letting too many people behind the wheel wo simply cannot cut the mustard. Banning a potential distraction is a plucking of the low hanging fruit and not even a very effective plucking at that as it's difficult to enforce. Why do we consider the safety environment of our public roads to be any less important or warrant any less skill/training than air travel? I'd like to see a higher level of screening and training to weed out those who are simply unfit to handle operation of a motor vehicle. This should go beyond just knowing how to execute a manuever but also deal with the person as a competent driver who is capable of handling a high stress environment in which reaction times are tested on a regular basis. Pilot have to undergo constant training to deal with their situations. Why not drivers? In many ways, they are all operating equipment that has more potential for a catastrophic incident and their "points of presence" within the scope of day-to-day soceity is actually higher.

I have always liked the motto printed on every cover of Flight Training magazine which says, "A good pilot is always training." This is something most drivers don't relate to. Many think that driver training stops as soon as they get their license. Afterall they no longer have a need for that learner's permit thus they must not ever need to learn anything more, right? I do think that many cyclists however can relate more to the concept of always training. We as a group are constantly attempting to find ways to make our riding better either through physical conditioning, equipment evaluation or just changes in our lifestyle. In general, drivers couldn't care less about their driving performance. They just want to get from point A to point B. The love affair with cars and driving is pretty much a myth. People in reality do not like driving. Why else are cars chock full of distractions such as DVD players, radios with multicolour graphics scrolling across the faceplate? Even the ubiquitous cup-holder can be considered representative of a need to create an atmosphere in the automobile that seperates the driver from actual operation of the vehicle. People only like the idea of being in love with driving. Those few who really do like driving and cars are pretty concerned with proper operation of their vehicles. They will study and train to improve their skills much like the pilot. Much like the avid cyclist. What is needed is to get the people who don't care out from behind the controls of a vehicle that needs a lot of care to be operated safely.

A long time ago, one of my first flight instructors imparted this little gem of wisdom upon me while urging me to be thorough during a preflight walk around: "Always act professionally even if you're not one."

Situational blindness. documented result of cellphone use while driving.
And my above arguments do not contradict that.


it is much different than an 737 cockpit on final approach. I wonder what would happen if a cellphone rang on the flight deck of jumbo liner in the last 500 feet? would a pilot talking about where to go for dinner or their broker about a bad week be a bit more distracted?
Likely not. And that's also due to the training involved with task prioritisation and management. So it is not different. The same principles apply. An operator of any vehicle must constantly assess the situation around them and make tasking decisions based on it as well as taking into account workload and performing a "threat analysis".

Punishing this girl won't bring the victim back to life. This girl is young, and I doubt she'll ever use her cell phone while in traffic again because of this experience. Do you think she ought to spend 5-10 years in jail for what has already got to be the worst experience of her life?

Yes.

If young people knew that they wre going to jail if they hit someone while being distracted, they'd probably pay attention. Giving them a slap on the wrist is like telling them it's ok.

Send that heffa to jail- give her a few years to think about the years she took from the cyclist and the family of the cyclist.

I got no pity or patience for kids who can't drive responsibly. I think they make it WAAAAAAAAY too easy for people to get their drivers license here. In other countries, you get a permit, the tests are way harder, you have to drive on probation, etc. We don't have any real tests- we just give them some easy multi-choice test and take them out back and have them ride around cones or some crap like that. Make it much harder and raise the limit for youngsters to drive by themselves to 21, and I bet we wouldn't have half the problems with young drivers that we have right now.

Koffee

Yes.

If young people knew that they wre going to jail if they hit someone while being distracted, they'd probably pay attention. Giving them a slap on the wrist is like telling them it's ok.

Send that heffa to jail- give her a few years to think about the years she took from the cyclist and the family of the cyclist.

I got no pity or patience for kids who can't drive responsibly. I think they make it WAAAAAAAAY too easy for people to get their drivers license here. In other countries, you get a permit, the tests are way harder, you have to drive on probation, etc. We don't have any real tests- we just give them some easy multi-choice test and take them out back and have them ride around cones or some crap like that. Make it much harder and raise the limit for youngsters to drive by themselves to 21, and I bet we wouldn't have half the problems with young drivers that we have right now.

Koffee

I agree. What does the age of the driver matter in punishment? A car is not a toy.

I have always liked the motto printed on every cover of Flight Training magazine which says, "A good pilot is always training." This is something most drivers don't relate to. Many think that driver training stops as soon as they get their license.

Many reach the height of their performance during their drivers test.

Sure (some) people do get better at driving as they gain experience but, very few drivers out on the road perform as safely as when they take that test because if they drove they way they do now and a driving inspector with the power to refuse to grant them a licence is in the car with them, they wouldn't have their licence anymore. They take risks they would never take during an exam.

After the exam, it's one distraction from the road after another.

How severe an accident are we talking here?! If some guy knocks me off my bike, he's an idiot. But if I can walk away from it, does he deserve a felony conviction on his record, ensuring he will have an impossible time finding a good job once he leaves his "very long" prison sentence? Forget eye-for-an-eye, you're proposing "head-for-an-eye"!


OK don't go overboard... but on the other hand, stop treating errant motorists who kill, as "victims." Far too often the local DA announces that they are not persuing a case as it was "just an accident" yet someone is dead! And far too often the police and DA suggest that the "driver will suffer for the rest of their lives with this..."

Oh BS... the driver used poor judgement. Period. Take away their license. Period.

Stop treating driving as a right... make getting a license more difficult and increase the amount of training one has to have to EARN a license. It's that simple. More time is spent teaching "health" than driving...

People have forgotten that driving is transportation... it is not all about some wonder machine (the ultimate driving machine) that will wisk you away to some wonderful place (zoom zoom) while magically increasing your sexual attraction. (Engineered like no other car in the world).

Madison Ave is busy "selling the sizzle, not the steak." Ever see a car ad that mentioned the milage you would get while sitting in bumper to bumper traffic? And the American public is sold on their vision of that dream. Addicted to it.

Yes.

If young people knew that they wre going to jail if they hit someone while being distracted, they'd probably pay attention. Giving them a slap on the wrist is like telling them it's ok.

Send that heffa to jail- give her a few years to think about the years she took from the cyclist and the family of the cyclist.

I got no pity or patience for kids who can't drive responsibly. I think they make it WAAAAAAAAY too easy for people to get their drivers license here. In other countries, you get a permit, the tests are way harder, you have to drive on probation, etc. We don't have any real tests- we just give them some easy multi-choice test and take them out back and have them ride around cones or some crap like that. Make it much harder and raise the limit for youngsters to drive by themselves to 21, and I bet we wouldn't have half the problems with young drivers that we have right now.

Koffee


Agreed Koffee... heck go you one further... teach bicycling and "traffic" in elementary and middle schools... get the kids exposed to both alternate forms of transportation and implant the idea of how to behave in traffic at an early age, then offer motor vehicle training in high school... a full year of lessons, simulator, and ethics. Then a provisional license such as much of Europe and much of Asia offer.

Then make losing a license easier... if you mess up... you don't drive. How many times does one have to get a DUI before you permanantly lose your license? How many people do you have to "accidently" kill?

It's too darn easy in this country to get behind a wheel.

Yes.

I got no pity or patience for kids who can't drive responsibly. I think they make it WAAAAAAAAY too easy for people to get their drivers license here. In other countries, you get a permit, the tests are way harder, you have to drive on probation, etc. We don't have any real tests- we just give them some easy multi-choice test and take them out back and have them ride around cones or some crap like that. Make it much harder and raise the limit for youngsters to drive by themselves to 21, and I bet we wouldn't have half the problems with young drivers that we have right now.

Koffee

Koffee, FYI, the jurisdiction where this crime happened has graduated licensing, with restrictions placed on new drivers regarding top speed, driving hours, number of passenegers and a zero-tolerance ban on alcohol for the first couple of years, until a series of examinations are passed. There's talk now of extending the bans to include cellphone use for novice drivers as well.

I agree with you though that ignorance and inexperience should be severely punished (particulalry if it causes a death) and that any trauma visited on the perpatrator should not mitigate the sentence.

Koffee, FYI, the jurisdiction where this crime happened has graduated licensing, with restrictions placed on new drivers regarding top speed, driving hours, number of passenegers and a zero-tolerance ban on alcohol for the first couple of years, until a series of examinations are passed. There's talk now of extending the bans to include cellphone use for novice drivers as well.

Don't forget there has been downward movement in traffic accidents and deaths over the past number of years, despite an increase of drivers on the road.

Madison Ave is busy "selling the sizzle, not the steak." Ever see a car ad that mentioned the milage you would get while sitting in bumper to bumper traffic? And the American public is sold on their vision of that dream. Addicted to it.

Couldn't agree with you more. I don't drive. I know how to, but I choose my bike over cars (I don't own one; neither of my parents has owned one for decades) and it's much more logical in Manhattan. Replace cars with bikes and you destroy the obesity problem in the US, cut down on pollution, and could potentially save people from dying in crashes. The trade-off would be a more provincial lifestyle, as travelling by bicycle is far harder in long distances than driving.

But educating, campaigning, spreading awareness is how to reduce automobiles; perhaps even legislation against them in certain areas (to enter central London with a private automobile it is something like the equivalency of $20). But attacking individuals doesn't address the problem, only a symptom of it.

Yes. If young people knew that they wre going to jail if they hit someone while being distracted, they'd probably pay attention. Giving them a slap on the wrist is like telling them it's ok.

"Probably." I don't know; you don't know. It's all speculation in terms of deterrence, until someone can find a study corellating severity of motorist laws in a state with a reduction in accidents. Keep in mind, I'm only talking about deterrence. If the real goal is vengeance for the victim, or closure for the family, then let's call a spade a spade.

Send that heffa to jail- give her a few years to think about the years she took from the cyclist and the family of the cyclist.

If you don't think she'll be thinking about it already, you're mistaken. Or, she is a sociopath, with no remorse. If she shows outward sociopathic tendencies, don't jail her--institutionalize her.

A fairly balanced article relating to this tragedy, along with a video of the original CBC news story, can be found at the link below:

[url="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/04/driver-cellphone.html"]

I've posted this in the related "Sensationalism" thread as well...

OK don't go overboard... but on the other hand, stop treating errant motorists who kill, as "victims." Far too often the local DA announces that they are not persuing a case as it was "just an accident" yet someone is dead! And far too often the police and DA suggest that the "driver will suffer for the rest of their lives with this..."




Maybe what they are really saying is that the driver and the driver's family will continue to vote and pay taxes and might even campaign against me or donate to to another candidate's election. Maybe they are also saying that the driver and driver's friends and family will continue to shop and consume, including the future purchase of cars. The dead cyclist (pedestrian, driver, etc) on the other hand, tends to cut way back on civic involvement or economic activity. Maybe it's all politics or all economics.:mad:

If you don't think she'll be thinking about it already, you're mistaken. Or, she is a sociopath, with no remorse. If she shows outward sociopathic tendencies, don't jail her--institutionalize her.

Agreed there. As I posted in the other thread dealing with this event, the teenager in question will have to live with this on her conscience for the rest of her life. She will probably be shunned in the small community where she lives. She will have the image of that poor woman smashing into her windshield seared into her brain for ever. She will constantly relive the scene of paramedics frantically working on the cyclist, and of the final moments when they give up and cover her broken body with a sheet.

My heart goes out to the cyclist's family and friends, and I grieve for their loss. It is a great tragedy when this happens. Sending a young girl to jail will only make us, the collective hand-wringers and tsk-tskers looking on, feel better. It will not accomplish anything positive here. Jail as punishment, jail as a form of collective revenge, jail as a warning to others, these are all losing propositions. Has capital punishment reduced the incidence of murder in the US? It is still five times more common than in Canada, a very similar country without capital punishment. Has jailing pot smokers curbed drug use? Etc. Etc.

Education is the only tool that has been shown to work. Look at drinking and driving and seatbelts. What has ultimately made these issues no brainers? Certainly not law enforcement and jail.

I got no pity or patience for kids who can't drive responsibly. I think they make it WAAAAAAAAY too easy for people to get their drivers license here. In other countries, you get a permit, the tests are way harder, you have to drive on probation, etc. Koffee

Don't get me wrong, perhaps BC does make driving tests too easy to pass (I got my license many moons ago in Quebec, and it was no picnic at the time), but my understanding is there is a graduated system here. If you watch the Quicktime or Realplayer video of the CBC news story at the URL I posted above, you will see a shot clearly showing the green "N" in the youth's rear window. That would mean to me she has had her permit for less than a year, and that she is still on probation, with restrictions on when and where she can drive.

Basically, the way I see it, she was a beginner. I agree I can't abide by people not driving responsibly, but in this case, she unfortunately made a stupid decision (talking on her phone) right off the bat, and caused a fatality before ever having had the time to LEARN how to drive responsibly.

She wasn't street racing, she wasn't speeding (as far as anyone knows). She had no real life driving experience to speak of, and she let herself get distracted. Thinking of my first youthful days at the wheel, I cannot bring myself to throw the first stone. Who has not swerved once in their life while driving? We're just really fortunate a cyclist was not there on the shoulder of the road at that precise moment, or that there was no vehicle in the oncoming lane when we inched into it.

I just don't know that there is any answer to all this, any obvious solution... The whole thing fills me with sadness, but let's face it: driving in cars is an inherently dangerous activity, and it kills way more people in the world every year than all other forms of accident and murder and war combined. I would have to look in up, but I recall being horrified at the stats. We pay very dearly in blood for this freedom of movement, this right to drive automobiles.

And we cyclists share the road with them.

Agreed there. As I posted in the other thread dealing with this event, the teenager in question will have to live with this on her conscience for the rest of her life. She will probably be shunned in the small community where she lives. She will have the image of that poor woman smashing into her windshield seared into her brain for ever. She will constantly relive the scene of paramedics frantically working on the cyclist, and of the final moments when they give up and cover her broken body with a sheet.

My heart goes out to the cyclist's family and friends, and I grieve for their loss. It is a great tragedy when this happens. Sending a young girl to jail will only make us, the collective hand-wringers and tsk-tskers looking on, feel better. It will not accomplish anything positive here. Jail as punishment, jail as a form of collective revenge, jail as a warning to others, these are all losing propositions. Has capital punishment reduced the incidence of murder in the US? It is still five times more common than in Canada, a very similar country without capital punishment. Has jailing pot smokers curbed drug use? Etc. Etc.

Education is the only tool that has been shown to work. Look at drinking and driving and seatbelts. What has ultimately made these issues no brainers? Certainly not law enforcement and jail.


I am not so big on the jail aspect... but I do believe that the license issue AND education both need to be worked on. AND the public needs to be educated about any changes in the laws... such as enforcement regarding licenses... As well as the rights of cyclists. Too many motorists are driving around believing that their use of the road is their privilidge and too bad to anything/anybody that gets in their way. And of course that attitude is reinforced with overpowered "race" type cars. The emphasis needs to be on cars as transportation, not as "lifestyle" enhancers.... unless you consider "growing fat" as an enhanced lifestyle.

We've got lots of fuel here, so why not light this fire. Let's come up with a consensus on what would be an appropriate punishment for the young driver, assuming that the distraction from the cell-phone was the root case of this tragedy - no speeding, no sun in her eyes, no impairment other than a lack of experience. What do YOU feel would be the appropriate level of punisment?

- community service?
- jail time?
- financial restitution?
- lifetime ban on driving (for this person)?
- lifetime ban on cell-phone use (for this person)?
- a 5-year ban on driving, and then mandatory driver's ed training?

Then we can match up our consensus with the outcome of the case, and see if indeed, justice was served!

Lifetime ban on driving.

It's called context switching and many of us are very bad at it. It can be overcome with training however. Pilots undergo this sort of training... emergency response folks do too. Perhaps rather than enacting laws to ban this, that and the other thing, we should revise our training to take into account the fact that one needs to be able to maintain situational awareness as well as context switch between several tasks in today's modern driving environment. Rather than spend all of our efforts attempting to eliminate distractions (an exercise in futility as far as I'm concerned), I think some amount of effort should be made in teaching drivers how to better deal with them. Now I'm not advocating that everyone go out and gab on their phones in the middle of traffic but I am advocating that everyone know how to handle the situation. Whether to answer or make a call while driving should be a matter or priority management and it should be the case that either decision should leave the driver with a fair margin of safety.

While I tend to agree with what you are saying, I don't believe the general public is ready to make the commitment to be able to handle this... They have a "casual user problem."

The general public is only vaguely familiar with any of those things they are trying to do... drive, use the cell phone... etc. much as the general public is only vaguely familiar with how to use their computer. Add to that situation the addition of many distracters such as radio, food, passengers, and the situation becomes quite complex.

The average soccer mom is not going to train to meet the situational requirements for any particular moment... much less simply learn to drive defensively or even at the posted speed limit.

Perhaps then the better solution is to go back and limit the possible distractions; limiting the distractions in the vehicle... and the complexity of the road, by using traffic calming methods.

Perhaps in the future, the automobile will be an automatic device... where the passengers can indeed enjoy their distractions while the vehicle takes them safely to their destination.

We've got lots of fuel here, so why not light this fire. Let's come up with a consensus on what would be an appropriate punishment for the young driver, assuming that the distraction from the cell-phone was the root case of this tragedy - no speeding, no sun in her eyes, no impairment other than a lack of experience. What do YOU feel would be the appropriate level of punisment?

- community service?
- jail time?
- financial restitution?
- lifetime ban on driving (for this person)?
- lifetime ban on cell-phone use (for this person)?
- a 5-year ban on driving, and then mandatory driver's ed training?

Then we can match up our consensus with the outcome of the case, and see if indeed, justice was served!

I think your last suggestion is probably the best. A ban on driving for a fixed length of time, followed by extensive training seems to me a sane solution. A ban for life basically limits her employment potential (remember, she lives in Chilliwack, a small agricultural community more than an hour out of Vancouver). She would have to bike during that time to get around, and hopefully this would be a further eye opener for her. I'd also add some form of community service, speaking in high schools or to young driver classes about her experience.

Of course, even after five years, she may simply be unwilling to sit behind the wheel. It may well be that she will never be able to bring herself to drive again.

What do YOU feel would be the appropriate level of punisment?

- community service?
- jail time?
- financial restitution?
- lifetime ban on driving (for this person)?
- lifetime ban on cell-phone use (for this person)?
- a 5-year ban on driving, and then mandatory driver's ed training?

Then we can match up our consensus with the outcome of the case, and see if indeed, justice was served!

I'm for community service, financial restitution, and the 5 year ban. If she ever gets caught driving during the ban, it becomes lifetime. I don't think we utilize financial restitution as much as we could on this continent.