Advocacy & Safety - The biggest danger out there...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090520/lf_nm_life/us_driving_texting

Americans still texting while driving despite bans


A quarter of American cell phone users admit to texting while driving, despite bans in seven U.S. states and several serious accidents recently, according to a report on cell phone use released on Wednesday.

Text messaging has been blamed for a number of recent high profile accidents, including a train crash in the Los Angeles area last September in which 25 people were killed, and a Boston trolley crash this month in which almost 50 people were injured.


I don't care if you take the lane, ride in a bike lane, have a thousand blinkies, wear the brightest clothing or whatever... if drivers are NOT watching the road, you don't have a chance.

there is no sense of responsibility

I don't care if you take the lane, ride in a bike lane, have a thousand blinkies, wear the brightest clothing or whatever... if drivers are NOT watching the road, you don't have a chance.

Not all bike lanes are on the road. It's pretty hard to get hit by a drive-by-texter while riding on a segregated lane.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2925556294_b6bcc83d50.jpg?v=0

In the US, the closest equivalent we have to them are MUPs--which are why I ride those whenever I can.

Not all bike lanes are on the road. It's pretty hard to get hit by a drive-by-texter while riding on a segregated lane.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2925556294_b6bcc83d50.jpg?v=0

In the US, the closest equivalent we have to them are MUPs--which are why I ride those whenever I can.

Is she one-hand-texting?

Not all bike lanes are on the road. It's pretty hard to get hit by a drive-by-texter while riding on a segregated lane.

In the US, the closest equivalent we have to them are MUPs--which are why I ride those whenever I can.

And just so you know, those are usually called bike PATHS... not bike lanes.

These days I prefer a good path too... too bad they are so few and far between.

And just so you know, those are usually called bike PATHS... not bike lanes.


BTAIM, if you're on them, driving texters aren't a problem. If you use the road, you take the risk of being run down. That's a given.

Text-drivers are more of a hazard than the occasional elderly driver you hear about plowing through the front window of a McDonalds or farmers' market.

The solution is simple -- check the telephone log of everyone involved in a traffic collision. Anyone using the phone is prosecuted as a drunk driver, with even stiffer penalties for anyone caught texting.

Its easy enuff to make carmakers install OEM scrambling devices that energize once a
cars ignition is turned on. Im sure some cell fone advocacy lobbyists will say ppl
need to be able to drive and talk for some reason, or check to see if the cop thats
pulling the over is "real", but that minutiae can be worked out later given the urgency
of the matter.

BTAIM, if you're on them, driving texters aren't a problem. If you use the road, you take the risk of being run down. That's a given.

I tend to agree, but I know of few places in the US where you can get from A to B using paths alone.

Its easy enuff to make carmakers install OEM scrambling devices that energize once a cars ignition is turned on. Im sure some cell fone advocacy lobbyists will say ppl
need to be able to drive and talk for some reason, or check to see if the cop thats
pulling the over is "real", but that minutiae can be worked out later given the urgency
of the matter.

I often talk, and even browse the web while my wife drives... a scrambling device would make that impossible.

"I don't care if you take the lane, ride in a bike lane, have a thousand blinkies, wear the brightest clothing or whatever... if drivers are NOT watching the road, you don't have a chance."

And that is the risk we take every time we take to the road... legislation will not stop people from doing this.

I often talk, and even browse the web while my wife drives... a scrambling device would make that impossible.

Unfortunately, laws are made when people do stupid stuff to other people, en masse.
Texting/driving has become a huge problem. People have to weigh whether the need
to use the web and ability to have a passenger talk supersedes the problem.
Going into AngryOldeMan mode, I did cross country trips regularly in different eras
and never remember a phone factoring into 'necessity' items for those trips. Even
during the CB craze of the 70's, I dont remember people hitting other stuff for imitating
big rig drivers :)

It often amazes me that people MUST do things when they drive, even if it means the possible death or injury of someone else. You don't HAVE to do things when you drive, just concentrate, have we all become so attention deficit that we cannot concentrate on something for a few minutes / hours?

When I am cycling I cannot think about other things, I can begin to think about them but then the road takes all my attention away from it because I know that I could get seriously hurt if I am not paying attention. All these airbags etc. are doing more harm than good, it makes people feel invulnerable. Like someone on here said, put nails in their steering wheel and people will NEVER crash, they will be very attentive and never lose concentration :D

Unfortunately, laws are made when people do stupid stuff to other people, en masse.
Texting/driving has become a huge problem. People have to weigh whether the need
to use the web and ability to have a passenger talk supersedes the problem.
Going into AngryOldeMan mode, I did cross country trips regularly in different eras
and never remember a phone factoring into 'necessity' items for those trips. Even
during the CB craze of the 70's, I dont remember people hitting other stuff for imitating
big rig drivers :)

Sure, and during even the '80s while bike touring, I never had a cell phone, and I was able to keep in touch just fine.

But have you looked for a pay phone lately?

The problem is that Texting, unlike CB for instance, requires you to take your eyes off the road... and now at higher speeds. (back in part of the 70s, the national speed limit was 55MPH... today I ride local arterial surface streets with a 55MPH speed limit... )

Not all bike lanes are on the road. It's pretty hard to get hit by a drive-by-texter while riding on a segregated lane.

Nonsense. It only takes around 2-3 seconds for someone to hop a curb onto a sidewalk due to needless distractions, whether by virtue of a cell phone conversation, texting, or general inattentiveness.

-Kurt

It only takes around 2-3 seconds for someone to hop a curb...

But how often does this happen in comparison to hitting and killing cyclists on the road?

But how often does this happen in comparison to hitting and killing cyclists on the road?

On "famed" Calle Ocho down here (8th Street, for you gringos), one driver or another - roughly once a month if not more frequent - will hop the curb and and slam into something. Often a human being, amongst other objects.

Case in point, a '95 Town Car once jumped said curb, and ended up dragging a homeless woman under, from the sidewalk bus shelter. Needless to say, the fellow also dragged half of the bus shelter, a hedge, and a fire hydrant under him as well. Suffice it to say that everything in the path of that automobile was flattened.

There have been others, though this is the only fatal example that I, personally, witnessed.

-Kurt

Unfortunately, laws are made when people do stupid stuff to other people, en masse.
Texting/driving has become a huge problem. People have to weigh whether the need
to use the web and ability to have a passenger talk supersedes the problem.
Going into AngryOldeMan mode, I did cross country trips regularly in different eras
and never remember a phone factoring into 'necessity' items for those trips. Even
during the CB craze of the 70's, I dont remember people hitting other stuff for imitating
big rig drivers :)

I'm glad you aren't in charge of legislating my area. The world is an uncertain and sometimes dangerous place. Any number of accidents may occur, and there is no way to prevent all of them. Heavy-handed attempts at "accident prevention" like what you are suggesting have enormous social costs and can even wind up increasing the number of injuries. Off the top of my head, here are some problems with radio scramblers in cars:
Would prevent passengers from safely using these devices.
Would interfere with systems such as OnStar
Would interfere with people using their phone to call 911.
Would be difficult/impossible to contain radio jamming to the car. Nearby pedestrians on phones would be affected as well. A crowded freeway packed with these devices would be a nightmare in this regard.
These devices would probably be very easy to disable.

My point is not that we should simply accept all accidents as inevitable, but that we need to maintain a sense of personal responsibility. Blanket restrictions/technological solutions will not solve this problem.

On "famed" Calle Ocho down here (8th Street, for you gringos), one driver or another - roughly once a month if not more frequent - will hop the curb and and slam into something. Often a human being, amongst other objects.

Case in point, a '95 Town Car once jumped said curb, and ended up dragging a homeless woman under, from the sidewalk bus shelter. Needless to say, the fellow also dragged half of the bus shelter, a hedge, and a fire hydrant under him as well. Suffice it to say that everything in the path of that automobile was flattened.

There have been others, though this is the only fatal example that I, personally, witnessed.

-Kurt

Yeah but the question that was posted was "How often does this happen compared to hitting a person ON THE ROAD?"

Sure, cars hop curbs from time to time, and even drive through store windows... but how often does this occur, compared to the 45,000 motorist deaths, 1400 pedestrian deaths and 700 cyclist deaths that occur annually?

I'm glad you aren't in charge of legislating my area. The world is an uncertain and sometimes dangerous place. Any number of accidents may occur, and there is no way to prevent all of them. Heavy-handed attempts at "accident prevention" like what you are suggesting have enormous social costs and can even wind up increasing the number of injuries. Off the top of my head, here are some problems with radio scramblers in cars:
Would prevent passengers from safely using these devices.
Would interfere with systems such as OnStar
Would interfere with people using their phone to call 911.
Would be difficult/impossible to contain radio jamming to the car. Nearby pedestrians on phones would be affected as well. A crowded freeway packed with these devices would be a nightmare in this regard.
These devices would probably be very easy to disable.

My point is not that we should simply accept all accidents as inevitable, but that we need to maintain a sense of personal responsibility. Blanket restrictions/technological solutions will not solve this problem.


The real problem is that all too often these are not "accidents," but easily preventable "collisions."

The real problem is that all too often these are not "accidents," but easily preventable "collisions."

Yeah, my choice of language there was poor. Regardless, my point stands.

The real problem is that all too often these are not "accidents," but easily preventable "collisions."
Must we go over the ridiculousness of this statement.

If you go with that, NOTHING is an accident, ever. This ****ty argument over semantics just makes cyclists look ********.


Anyway, **** it, lets integrate TTS, speech to text and MMS messaging with vehicles, eliminate problem completely.

Must we go over the ridiculousness of this statement.

If you go with that, NOTHING is an accident, ever. This ****ty argument over semantics just makes cyclists look ********.


Anyway, **** it, lets integrate TTS, speech to text and MMS messaging with vehicles, eliminate problem completely.

Fine call it a semantic argument, but even police reports are discontinuing the use of the term "accident" over "collision."

An accident is when unavoidable events occur. There is a difference when the events are not "unavoidable."

An accident is when two vehicles collide in an uncontrolled parking lot. A collision is what happens when someone chooses to pay attention to a device instead of driving.

I tend to agree, but I know of few places in the US where you can get from A to B using paths alone.

Also agreed. The path is great where it exists, but there are still too many places it doesn't reach for me to ever be able to use it completely for practical rides; I imagine most paths are like these.


Yeah but the question that was posted was "How often does this happen compared to hitting a person ON THE ROAD?"

Sure, cars hop curbs from time to time, and even drive through store windows... but how often does this occur, compared to the 45,000 motorist deaths, 1400 pedestrian deaths and 700 cyclist deaths that occur annually?

Thank you.

But how often does this happen in comparison to hitting and killing cyclists on the road?

How often does someone get hit by a texting driver?

My point is not that we should simply accept all accidents as inevitable, but that we need to maintain a sense of personal responsibility. Blanket restrictions/technological solutions will not solve this problem.

And where in the USA do you live that this "sense of personal responsibility" might exist ?
the fact that this thread, and the zillion other/newspaper article etc, legislation on this already
show the aforementioned to 'not solve the problem'.
As mentioned, ppl bring laws on themselves by not using "sense of personal responsibility" .
How did we survive pre-1995 ??

An accident is when unavoidable events occur. There is a difference when the events are not "unavoidable."

An accident is when two vehicles collide in an uncontrolled parking lot. A collision is what happens when someone chooses to pay attention to a device instead of driving.

Nonsense. "Accident" just means there was no intent, not that it was unavoidable or that there was no negligence involved. Most accidents are caused at least partly by negligence of the parties involved. Police may be getting away from using the term because they don't know the intent of the driver.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accident
Accident –noun 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

I get your point though, which is to quit letting off people who harm others through their negligence by saying "it was just an accident," or "I didn't see him" etc.

Yeah but the question that was posted was "How often does this happen compared to hitting a person ON THE ROAD?"

Sure, cars hop curbs from time to time, and even drive through store windows... but how often does this occur, compared to the 45,000 motorist deaths, 1400 pedestrian deaths and 700 cyclist deaths that occur annually?

But what we want to get at is the relative risk. How do paths affect the mortality totals quoted above? For instance, I don't think that separate paths are going to affect the 45K -- ... did total motorist mortality drop last year? I think so -- you quote above. It isn't clear what the relationship between separate facilities and pedestrian/cyclist mortality is either. If you agree, then this whole separate facility blip is simply a red herring. What would happen if separate paths lead to less driver awareness?

Anyway, you began by writing that texting -- I'll generalize this to driver distraction and overall awareness -- is the greatest danger ... presumably to cyclists given that this is bikeforums.net. My interpretation is that we should be advocating street design, legislation, and enforcement that promotes greater driver/cyclist/pedestrian awareness if the primary concern is safety.

the most distracted driving i see is being done by cellphone using or hand held electronic device somethings. this is anecdotal of course. they usually seem to be delaying traffic flow at lights and mucking things up at four way stops.

railroad and commuter trains have crashed as a result of operators texting, certainly road collisions result from electronic distraction devices.

Anecdotally, the biggest danger to my cycling so far, in almost forty years of riding, has been my own stupidity.

Nonsense. "Accident" just means there was no intent, not that it was unavoidable or that there was no negligence involved. Most accidents are caused at least partly by negligence of the parties involved. Police may be getting away from using the term because they don't know the intent of the driver.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accident
Accident –noun 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

I get your point though, which is to quit letting off people who harm others through their negligence by saying "it was just an accident," or "I didn't see him" etc.

Exactly... on top of that add the fact that the choice to divert one's attention to something other than driving is a consious choice... and any "accident" that results from that choice is clearly preventable. If that choice of diversion isn't "intentional" I don't know what else to call it.

Anecdotally, the biggest danger to my cycling so far, in almost forty years of riding, has been my own stupidity.

I almost wish I could say that... then I would have the means to correct the situation. But I have had far too many near misses recently to people distracted by some device (or other thing) in their vehicle.

Why are these "near misses," it is because I have realized that some motorist wasn't paying attention and taken evasive action that I otherwise would not have had to do. That consitutes a "near miss" in my book.

And where in the USA do you live that this "sense of personal responsibility" might exist ?
the fact that this thread, and the zillion other/newspaper article etc, legislation on this already
show the aforementioned to 'not solve the problem'.


Are you familiar with the term "security theater?" It was coined (I believe) to describe the security measures implemented at airports after 9/11 that were designed to give the appearance of security, while in reality they were ineffective and hassle many people without making us any safer.

The law you propose is the same thing. It will not make people safer and comes at a large social cost. I have listed a number of reasons why this is the case. Do you recognize the flaws I have listed with your proposed law?



As mentioned, ppl bring laws on themselves by not using "sense of personal responsibility" .

People bring the law on themselves by violating it and acting unsafely. Some of these people are punished, and things would be better if more of them were caught. Reactionist, nanny-state attitudes such as yours bring the law onto the rest of us. I hope you understand the difference.

I just bought a new cell phone, and did some research on phones to help me decide what to get, so I read some reviews of different phones. One reviewer gave one of the phones a low rating, because the ergonomics didn't facilitate texting while driving.

Anecdotally, the biggest danger to my cycling so far, in almost forty years of riding, has been my own stupidity.I've had three solo falls in 35 years (not even close to as many miles as you've put in, though), all of them due to my own stupidity.

One close call with a right hook, due solely to the driver's stupidity.

Are you familiar with the term "security theater?" It was coined (I believe) to describe the security measures implemented at airports after 9/11 that were designed to give the appearance of security, while in reality they were ineffective and hassle many people without making us any safer.

The law you propose is the same thing. It will not make people safer and comes at a large social cost. I have listed a number of reasons why this is the case. Do you recognize the flaws I have listed with your proposed law?



People bring the law on themselves by violating it and acting unsafely. Some of these people are punished, and things would be better if more of them were caught. Reactionist, nanny-state attitudes such as yours bring the law onto the rest of us. I hope you understand the difference.

All the stuff you write is baseless supposition. Opinion of "what if", nothing more.
I can drive down a back road in WV and get abducted and probed by aliens,
too....So I should stay out of WV ???
There is a real, ie; quantifiable issue to deal with.
You are misinterpriting my disdain for stupid, self centered "me" oriented people
with 'Nanny State'.
People who violate even the basic rules of common sense and decency to other people
bring these rules on, not people like me who support moderating stupidity.
The former are the majority in todays society and the stuff they do has actual quantifiable
effects on society. Unfortunately these psychological shortcomings need to be dealt with at
everyones expense.
Why should I worry about the rights of cellfone idiots when my own wellbing is at
stake by thier selfish actions ??
Personal responsibility doesnt exist anymore. To base an argument on a passe theory
is not dealing with the real issue.

nanny-stateA law that is intended to prevent me from foolishly killing myself could be called a nanny-state law, if one is so inclined. A law that is intended to prevent a fool from killing me is not a nanny-state law.

All the stuff you write is baseless supposition. Opinion of "what if", nothing more.
Are you referring to my list of criticisms of your law? Or something else I have written? I am having a hard time finding anything I have written in this thread to be "baseless supposition." Please be specific, I am curious here.



I can drive down a back road in WV and get abducted and probed by aliens,
too....So I should stay out of WV ???

No, you should not stay out of WV because of aliens. What have I said that is analogous to this? My arguments have been against "safety" measures that do not actually make us safe. Staying out of WV to avoid aliens is just such a measure - giving up freedom in a futile attempt at safety.



People who violate even the basic rules of common sense and decency to other people
bring these rules on, not people like me who support moderating stupidity.

You are arguing in support of a rule. I assume your intent in arguing for this rule/law is to see it passed. Thus, you are attempting to enact a law. Do not claim that you have no involvement in this, it is clearly false.



Why should I worry about the rights of cellfone idiots when my own wellbing is at
stake by thier selfish actions ??
As you may recall, I listed a number of reasons why your plan would impact the wellbeing of people who are not cellfone (sic) idiots. As a refresher, here is a list of some of the other people whose wellbeing would be negatively impacted by your plan:

passengers using phones
pedestrians using phones
anyone using a radio device near a highway
drivers who need emergency assistance

These are not ambiguous categories of people. Your plan would undeniably harm all of these people. If you would like me to explain any of these further I will do so.



Personal responsibility doesnt exist anymore. To base an argument on a passe theory
is not dealing with the real issue.

I guess I should not be surprised that you believe this. After all, you don't think that you are responsible for the arguments that you are making on this forum!


[edit]:


A law that is intended to prevent me from foolishly killing myself could be called a nanny-state law, if one is so inclined. A law that is intended to prevent a fool from killing me is not a nanny-state law.

I don't think it matters how the law was intended. The effects of the law are what matter. In this case, the law suggested will not improve safety, unless you think that texters won't distract themselves with CDs, makeup, or whatever other irresponsible things drivers do that would not be prevented. Enacting this law would be onerous on a large number of people who are not acting irresponsibly. I consider this a legitimate use of the term "nanny-law." I understand if you disagree with the semantics of my argument, but what about the substance? Do you take issue with any of the actual points I have made?

I don't think it matters how the law was intended.There's a reason I said "intended"-- it's because no law, no matter how well-crafted, no matter how strict, can guarantee compliance with the desired behavior. The law can only "intend" to achieve the desired behavior.


The effects of the law are what matter. In this case, the law suggested will not improve safety, unless you think that texters won't distract themselves with CDs, makeup, or whatever other irresponsible things drivers do that would not be prevented. Enacting this law would be onerous on a large number of people who are not acting irresponsibly. I consider this a legitimate use of the term "nanny-law." I understand if you disagree with the semantics of my argument, but what about the substance? Do you take issue with any of the actual points I have made?First, I think "acting responsibly" and "texting while driving" are mutually exclusive, so I disagree that any "no texting" law would "be onerous on a large number of people who are not acting irresponsibly." In my opinion, texting while driving IS acting irresponsibly.

Second, I disagree that such a law would "not improve safety." There's no doubt that the roads would be even safer if nobody fiddled with the stereo (young woman killed two cyclists in Santa Clara County while fiddling with her radio, another driver killed a Kansas LEO/cyclist while simultaneously fiddling with his radio and talking on his cell), applied makeup (woman painting her nails killed a motorcyclist a couple of weeks ago), or did any of the other things that drivers do that distract them from the task at hand. Nevertheless, the fact that a cell phone law doesn't provide complete safety does not mean that it doesn't provide a significant measure of safety. Therefore, I don't think there's a good argument that it "does not improve safety."

Finally, comparing cell phone use to distracted driving is the wrong comparison-- it's more like DUI than distracted driving-- and I think one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that DUI laws do "not improve safety," even if they don't address all unsafe driving practices, or achieve 100% compliance.

BTAIM, if you're on them, driving texters aren't a problem. If you use the road, you take the risk of being run down. That's a given.

For the record, I've been hit more times this year on the bike paths (4X) than I have on any street. Way too many riders get into the same sort of inattention when they're on the trail, and whammo...

The law I was discussing was the one proposed by -=(8)=- that would use radio signals to jam cell phone use in cars. I agree that texting while driving is not responsible. I have no problems with a law against texting while driving, except that it might prove difficult to enforce. As for the question of intent, I think that if there are known consequences of a proposed law they should be considered. Anyways, it seems we are mostly on the same page. :thumb:

[edit] - This was in response to Blue Order, if it wasn't clear.

The law I was discussing was the one proposed by -=(8)=- that would use radio signals to jam cell phone use in cars.Oh, I missed that.


I agree that texting while driving is not responsible. I have no problems with a law against texting while driving, except that it might prove difficult to enforce.Yes, I agree. People who have some degree of common sense and a sense of personal responsibility would comply with the law; other people would continue to text if they think they could get away with it.

I think the real value of such a law would be not so much to ticket people who are texting, but rather, to drop the hammer down hard on texters who injure or kill, the way we do with DUIs. And of course, when you drop the hammer down hard on a few of these people, word gets around, and people start to take it seriously. Even then, you'll still get some numbskulls who won't stop being numbskulls, the same way we still have people who drink and drive. But most people will get it, and those who don't get it will be dealt with appropriately when their behavior kills. Hopefully.


As for the question of intent, I think that if there are known consequences of a proposed law they should be considered. Anyways, it seems we are mostly on the same page. :thumb:Agreed. :thumb:

The law I was discussing was the one proposed by -=(8)=- that would use radio signals to jam cell phone use in cars. I agree that texting while driving is not responsible. I have no problems with a law against texting while driving, except that it might prove difficult to enforce. As for the question of intent, I think that if there are known consequences of a proposed law they should be considered. Anyways, it seems we are mostly on the same page. :thumb:

[edit] - This was in response to Blue Order, if it wasn't clear.


I want to move to wherever you live or take whatever you're on.
The reality you exist in is very far from the one I suffer. :)

For the record, I've been hit more times this year on the bike paths (4X) than I have on any street. Way too many riders get into the same sort of inattention when they're on the trail, and whammo...

And how many times that you were hit was by a vehicle faster and with many times more mass than you?

How many bikes or bones were broken in those "bike path" hits?

I want to move to wherever you live or take whatever you're on.
The reality you exist in is very far from the one I suffer. :)

Alright - I'm done being trolled by you. If anyone wants to seriously discuss ways to reduce the danger of inattentive drivers, I'm still game.

i saw a few people what looked like watching television on their handhelds during this evenings' commute- i took a break at 6pm at sat on a bench watching traffic at a five way stop. lots of people on cellphones.

i want people to stop watching TV on their cellphones while driving. this is serious.

jamming cellular wireless signals in moving vehicles except 911 calls would be approp IMO.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090520/lf_nm_life/us_driving_texting

Americans still texting while driving despite bans




I don't care if you take the lane, ride in a bike lane, have a thousand blinkies, wear the brightest clothing or whatever... if drivers are NOT watching the road, you don't have a chance.

I agree with the article !00%!!

I do disagree with the above statement that, a cyclist doesn't stand a chance with a driver that is texting while they are driving.

If a cyclist only rides 'reactively', of course, they don't stand a chance. But, If they ride 'proactively', they definitely stand a chance.

ive seen people on bikes texting here

jamming cellular wireless signals in moving vehicles except 911 calls would be approp IMO.

Not possible. RF jamming works by emitting "junk" radio waves at a greater power than the device being jammed. Basically the jammer works by "yelling" louder than your phone, so it cannot communicate with the cell tower. The jammer has no way of selectively allowing some calls but not others. This is effect is what leads to most of my other objections to jamming - the jammer's effect would not be contained within the car, and all of the junk radio waves would be polluting the spectrum for everyone else who is trying to use a phone.

what are you being driven by, dirtyhippy? you feel drivers. texting, watching television while driving doesn't impact public safety?

does it impact public safety?

the technology exists to 'jam' cell phone use in cars. saw it on 60 minutes, a source I'll trust over a dirtyhippy in an internet forum anyday.