Advocacy & Safety - The problem of texting and driving is getting worse... according to NHTSA...

About two out of 10 drivers overall — and half of American drivers between 21 and 24 — say they've thumbed messages or emailed from the driver's seat, according to a survey of over 6,000 drivers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

And what's more, many drivers don't think it's dangerous when they do it — only when others do, the survey found.

At any given moment last year on America's streets and highways, nearly one in every 100 car drivers was texting, emailing, surfing the Web or otherwise using a hand-held electronic device, the safety administration said. And those activities spiked 50 percent in over the previous year.

From this article about a texting motorist causing injuries to 38 people... http://news.yahoo.com/driver-texting-missouri-traffic-pileup-201841737.html

From the NHTSA... At any given moment last year on America's streets and highways, nearly one in every 100 car drivers was texting, e-mailing, surfing the Web or otherwise using a hand-held electronic device, the safety administration said. And those activities spiked 50 percent over the previous year, even as states rush to ban the practices. http://www.dailynews.com/ci_19501242

How does the agency know what you are doing behind the wheel... their data was derived using a new methodology aimed at getting a more precise picture of distracted-driving deaths and can't be compared with tallies from previous years, officials said.

The agency takes an annual snapshot of drivers' behavior behind the wheel by staking out intersections to count people using cellphones and other devices, as well as other distracting behavior.

Yup, the NHTSA is counting errant motorists... at least those using distracting hand held "toys" vice actually driving.

Those are mean streets out there folks... motorists can't avoid you if those motorists don't look down the road and see you. (think about that the next time you "take the lane...")

A friend who works at another company told me that a manager chastized others on an internal company email list for over-using the list for what he deemed to be unimportant purposes and causing him to crash his car as he was attempting to catch up on messages. True story.

I bet its a lot higher than 1 in every 100 drivers texting at any given time, judging by my unofficial observations of drivers.

don't need the NHTSA to indicate texting and driving is a growing problem.

I'm concerned people are watching movies, sports and television shows while driving, not just texting. Its difficult to gauge which is more egregious.

Cell phone use while driving isn't just 'distracted driving', it's RECKLESS driving! Complete disregard for other road users! So self-centered and self-important, they cannot fathom the potential for carnage they can cause by regarding driving as a casual afterthought activity.

1 in 100? I saw a report a few weeks ago that it was 1 in 6!

Cell phone use while driving should result in immediate arrest, impounding of the vehicle, and confiscation of license until settled at trial. (but then, cops are doing it, too.....)

Cell phone use while driving isn't just 'distracted driving', it's RECKLESS driving! Complete disregard for other road users! So self-centered and self-important, they cannot fathom the potential for carnage they can cause by regarding driving as a casual afterthought activity.

1 in 100? I saw a report a few weeks ago that it was 1 in 6!

Cell phone use while driving should result in immediate arrest, impounding of the vehicle, and confiscation of license until settled at trial. (but then, cops are doing it, too.....)

+1

They are one reason why, I 'take the lane'. Because I don't trust that, motorists won't pull that garbage.

Since cell phone use or texting causes DUI-level impairment, the penalty should be comparable.

Those are mean streets out there folks... motorists can't avoid you if those motorists don't look down the road and see you. (think about that the next time you "take the lane...")

Their ignorance, is why, I 'take the lane'. Because, I don't want some texting moron to run me off the road, if it happened that I 'hugged the curb' and they were focused on texting.

Also, By 'taking the lane', unless the driver is homicidal maniac, I will make sure they see me, which will force them to slow down.

The agency takes an annual snapshot of drivers' behavior behind the wheel by staking out intersections to count people using cellphones and other devices, as well as other distracting behavior.


They should stake out the intersection by my daughter's school. Way more than 1 in 100...

Since cell phone use or texting causes DUI-level impairment, the penalty should be comparable.

I like.

Yep, 2 dead
http://news.yahoo.com/driver-texting-missouri-traffic-pileup-201841737.html

From this article about a texting motorist causing injuries to 38 people... I agree that the texting pickup driver is at fault for his own death, but the buses seem to have been following too close, making the other death and injuries the fault of the bus drivers.

I bet its a lot higher than 1 in every 100 drivers texting at any given time, judging by my unofficial observations of drivers.

don't need the NHTSA to indicate texting and driving is a growing problem.

I'm concerned people are watching movies, sports and television shows while driving, not just texting. Its difficult to gauge which is more egregious.

+1

When I count the motorists who are using hand-held electronic entertainment I generally observe active toy use in more than one in ten of the motorists that I can actually see. However, a sizable number of motorists hide their hands. If the NHTSA folks are just making a total car count and a total electronic toy user count, then all the folks with their toys in their crotches would show up as non-distracted. That's like doing a political poll and counting non-responders as non-supporters of whatever one's candidate/issue is.

Using a cellphone while driving is now illegal here in New Zealand. Get caught and you get fined and get demerit points. Acculated a ceratin number of demerit points (cant recall how many) and you lose your licence. You can still drink a coffee while driving, eat a hamburger...

Using a cellphone while driving is now illegal here in New Zealand. Get caught and you get fined and get demerit points. Acculated a ceratin number of demerit points (cant recall how many) and you lose your licence. You can still drink a coffee while driving, eat a hamburger...

But the key is getting caught. It is a 'by chance' law. Not something that can be reported by someone else.

From this article about a texting motorist causing injuries to 38 people...

Those are mean streets out there folks... motorists can't avoid you if those motorists don't look down the road and see you. (think about that the next time you "take the lane...")


Their ignorance, is why, I 'take the lane'. Because, I don't want some texting moron to run me off the road, if it happened that I 'hugged the curb' and they were focused on texting.

Also, By 'taking the lane', unless the driver is homicidal maniac, I will make sure they see me, which will force them to slow down.

Nobody is gonna convince me that 38 people weren't injured this year as a result of cell phone use while driving JUST IN MY CITY! Nationwide? probably 38 THOUSAND....

Chris, not trying to start an argument here, but genec's point is correct -- if they don't see you while you take the lane, there's no FORCING them to notice you. You WILL be roadkill. There is NO lane position that FORCES a driver to pull his eyes out of his lap (or head out of his ass), m'friend.

I'm not telling you to hug the curb, either; I don't. But don't delude yourself and get killed.

I agree that the texting pickup driver is at fault for his own death, but the buses seem to have been following too close, making the other death and injuries the fault of the bus drivers.

Seems to be a related problem... I know I see it all the time... it is called lack of driving skills coupled with a bad dose of "I don't care." The 10 second rule seems to have been long forgotten... right up there with speeding and texting. A national epidemic.

The 10 second rule seems to have been long forgotten...

I don't recall being taught the 10 second rule, but recall only the 2 second rule or at least 1 car length for every 10mph in speed.

(think about that the next time you "take the lane...")


Chris, not trying to start an argument here, but genec's point is correct -- if they don't see you while you take the lane, there's no FORCING them to notice you. You WILL be roadkill. There is NO lane position that FORCES a driver to pull his eyes out of his lap (or head out of his ass), m'friend.
I'm not telling you to hug the curb, either; I don't. But don't delude yourself and get killed.

The section I bolded is true of course, but I believe taking an assertive lane position along with high visibility clothing and lights, makes it LESS likely that a distracted driver will hit me, not more. Even texters have to look up every few seconds for a glimpse… When they do I want them to see something that demands their attention and care. A well lit cyclist assertively positioned in the lane sets off a much louder 'action must be taken' alarm in the distracted drivers wandering brain than a cyclist trying to stay out of the way, or ‘just another car’ ever could.

I don't recall being taught the 10 second rule, but recall only the 2 second rule or at least 1 car length for every 10mph in speed.

You're right... I wrote that before my eyes were open this morning... it is a 2 second rule. (the "10" comes from the 10 mph of speed that you need to leave one car length for... as you pointed out.


What reminded me of it was watching the AM news about local rain... the news folks had a camera right on the highway near my house, and it was very easy to see the spacing of the motorists... and indeed it was just like what I often think I see... far too many motorists tailgate. The scene on the news was really eye opening as they were discussing wet roads and the dramatic increase in "accidents;" as I was hearing their report, I was watching the visual, and I was just amazed at how many motorists were right on the bumper of the car ahead... even in this rain.

The section I bolded is true of course, but I believe taking an assertive lane position along with high visibility clothing and lights, makes it LESS likely that a distracted driver will hit me, not more. Even texters have to look up every few seconds for a glimpse… When they do I want them to see something that demands their attention and care. A well lit cyclist assertively positioned in the lane sets off a much louder 'action must be taken' alarm in the distracted drivers wandering brain than a cyclist trying to stay out of the way, or ‘just another car’ ever could.

The problem is, will the distracted motorist looking every few seconds (or with an even longer time gap) really see you in time, and will their brains properly process the situation? Being assertively positioned in the lane doesn't work unless you are seen. YOU MUST BE SEEN, for any of the tricks you mention to keep you safe. YOU ARE DEPENDING ON THE MOTORIST!

Nobody is gonna convince me that 38 people weren't injured this year as a result of cell phone use while driving JUST IN MY CITY! Nationwide? probably 38 THOUSAND....

Chris, not trying to start an argument here, but genec's point is correct -- if they don't see you while you take the lane, there's no FORCING them to notice you. You WILL be roadkill. There is NO lane position that FORCES a driver to pull his eyes out of his lap (or head out of his ass), m'friend.

I'm not telling you to hug the curb, either; I don't. But don't delude yourself and get killed.

I am not deluding myself. I know the potential risk doesn't really change. But by 'taking the lane', I remove the possibility of getting sideswiped again. I FORCE them to notice me by not allowing them to pass me in the same lane, if the lane is standard(there is one local lane that is extra-wide for about a block). I am always thinking about the possibility of getting killed. So I don't 'take the lane' lightly.

Just a couple of days ago, I was going in the direction of my house in the midst of afternoon rush-hour. I was on six-lane divided road. At one point there was road crew blocking off one lane. I hadn't reached the beginning of the construction zone when the driver started honking at me repeatedly. I just rode into the construction zone and stopped because the lane was merging with the middle lane, I wanted to wait for all the right-turn traffic to pass me, before I came out of the construction zone. Once they were gone, I proceeded back into the lane. I am always listening for, and looking at, the traffic. That never stops.

NTSB recommends ban on driver cell phone use


States should ban all driver use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices, except in emergencies, the National Transportation Board said Tuesday.

The recommendation, unanimously agreed to by the five-member board, applies to both hands-free and hand-held phones and significantly exceeds any existing state laws restricting texting and cellphone use behind the wheel.

http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-recommends-ban-driver-cell-phone-172412513.html

The section I bolded is true of course, but I believe taking an assertive lane position along with high visibility clothing and lights, makes it LESS likely that a distracted driver will hit me, not more. Even texters have to look up every few seconds for a glimpse… When they do I want them to see something that demands their attention and care. A well lit cyclist assertively positioned in the lane sets off a much louder 'action must be taken' alarm in the distracted drivers wandering brain than a cyclist trying to stay out of the way, or ‘just another car’ ever could.

That 'action must taken' alarm is something I make sure to set off, every single time there is a car behind me. Because, When I have 'tried to stay out of the way' by FRAP, I have been side-swiped.

Even yesterday while I was out doing an errand, a motorist commented on how motorists' around here drive like maniacs, when they understood why, I 'take the lane'.

NTSB recommends ban on driver cell phone use



http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-recommends-ban-driver-cell-phone-172412513.html

Fantastic. Sadly, It takes someone dying as a result of someone else's stupidity, before people(and government) finally say that something needs to be done.

The problem is, will the distracted motorist looking every few seconds (or with an even longer time gap) really see you in time, and will their brains properly process the situation? Being assertively positioned in the lane doesn't work unless you are seen. YOU MUST BE SEEN, for any of the tricks you mention to keep you safe. YOU ARE DEPENDING ON THE MOTORIST!

You’re not understanding my point. I believe taking the lane makes it more likely I’ll be seen, seen earlier, and seen as relevant enough to cause the brain drifting motorist to take a break from their all important crack toy and concentrate on the truly important task at hand. If you know a better way to jolt these impaired folks back into reality I’d like to hear it. If you are looking for a money back ‘they can’t hit me’ guarantee, of course there is none. I just think taking the lane is often (not always) better than the alternatives.

For what it’s worth (probably about 2 cents) I always monitor overtaking traffic with a mirror and have never had to fully bail because I thought a driver was going to run me over. I have partially glided right a few times when a motorist failed to change course or slow down until the last few seconds.

You’re not understanding my point. I believe taking the lane makes it more likely I’ll be seen, seen earlier, and seen as relevant enough to cause the brain drifting motorist to take a break from their all important crack toy and concentrate on the truly important task at hand. If you know a better way to jolt these impaired folks back into reality I’d like to hear it. If you are looking for a money back ‘they can’t hit me’ guarantee, of course there is none. I just think taking the lane is often (not always) better than the alternatives.

For what it’s worth (probably about 2 cents) I always monitor overtaking traffic with a mirror and have never had to fully bail because I thought a driver was going to run me over. I have partially glided right a few times when a motorist failed to change course or slow down until the last few seconds.

+1

My favorite motor morons are the ones' I tick off just enough to get their attention, who become '*******'(borrowing George Jefferson reference yet, not relating to race but to the drivers reaction). Because the '*******', will have honked. Which means, while I ticked them off, I also got there attention. If they don't honk, I can tell I got their attention by the gunning of the engine.

Fantastic. Sadly, It takes someone dying as a result of someone else's stupidity, before people(and government) finally say that something needs to be done.

Otherwise, is it a problem. I mean, if people aren't dying, what's the issue?

Call or write your congresscritters and tell them to act on this NTSB recommendation...

You’re not understanding my point. I believe taking the lane makes it more likely I’ll be seen, seen earlier, and seen as relevant enough to cause the brain drifting motorist to take a break from their all important crack toy and concentrate on the truly important task at hand. If you know a better way to jolt these impaired folks back into reality I’d like to hear it. If you are looking for a money back ‘they can’t hit me’ guarantee, of course there is none. I just think taking the lane is often (not always) better than the alternatives.

For what it’s worth (probably about 2 cents) I always monitor overtaking traffic with a mirror and have never had to fully bail because I thought a driver was going to run me over. I have partially glided right a few times when a motorist failed to change course or slow down until the last few seconds.

No, you are not understanding my point. You are assuming the motorist sees you first, then makes the decision to then either not text or to delay texting. I am saying the motorist looks up, doesn't see you as they are already mentally distracted, and then they continue their distraction, fully unaware that you are RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.

Or, they are blindly following another vehicle, using the logic that following that vehicle means they are going to avoid anything ahead... only they are the 3rd or 4th car in a small platoon of vehicles, moving down a 50MPH arterial road with a few bends in the road... the driver is texting and glancing ahead only enough to maintain distance and speed on the car they are following. The driver in the lead car sees you up ahead, checks his left, and changes lanes, the next driver only then sees you, also has to check left, and changes lanes, you are now right in front of the texting motorist, who only barely looks up as the car in front of him moved away... now that third driver has to see you, process your presence, check left and then move away... only his brain is still processing the text or phone call... unless you are staring at your mirror the whole time, you have no idea driver 3 has not seen you.

The only solution to the above scenario is for cyclists to not be on the road right in front of motor vehicles.

We know what inattentional blindness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4) is, now compound it will cell phone distraction and high speed roads.

No, you are not understanding my point. You are assuming the motorist sees you first, then makes the decision to then either not text or to delay texting. I am saying the motorist looks up, doesn't see you as they are already mentally distracted, and then they continue their distraction, fully unaware that you are RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.

Or, they are blindly following another vehicle, using the logic that following that vehicle means they are going to avoid anything ahead... only they are the 3rd or 4th car in a small platoon of vehicles, moving down a 50MPH arterial road with a few bends in the road... the driver is texting and glancing ahead only enough to maintain distance and speed on the car they are following. The driver in the lead car sees you up ahead, checks his left, and changes lanes, the next driver only then sees you, also has to check left, and changes lanes, you are now right in front of the texting motorist, who only barely looks up as the car in front of him moved away... now that third driver has to see you, process your presence, check left and then move away... only his brain is still processing the text or phone call... unless you are staring at your mirror the whole time, you have no idea driver 3 has not seen you.

The only solution to the above scenario is for cyclists to not be on the road right in front of motor vehicles.

We know what inattentional blindness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4) is, now compound it will cell phone distraction and high speed roads.

I'm not convinced that staying further right does too much to protect from this kind of distracted driving and inattentional blindness, though. You might have a good point if there were serious evidence of that, but I don't believe that there is. A distracted driver could just as easily drift over to the right and hit you from behind that way as hit you from behind while taking the lane. I see a disturbing number of cell phone using drivers who drift back and forth across the bike lane boundaries when I ride on streets with bike lanes. You paint a vivid picture, and you're absolutely correct that that is one scenario in which distracted driving could put a cyclist in a no-win situation. But there are many other such scenarios, too, and not all of them are mitigated by "staying out of the way".

Bottom line is, if many drivers are severely distracted, there is NO strategy that can keep you completely safe. That's why we need severe law enforcement action on this issue, and not just cyclist education. However, in some traffic situations, I do feel that taking the lane is safer than not doing so. At least in the situation you describe, SOMETHING would be happening in the road in front of the distracted driver. That might grab their attention just enough to stop them from doing something tragic. Plus, positioning further left gives you more room to perform an emergency maneuver.

I'm not convinced that staying further right does too much to protect from this kind of distracted driving and inattentional blindness, though. You might have a good point if there were serious evidence of that, but I don't believe that there is. A distracted driver could just as easily drift over to the right and hit you from behind that way as hit you from behind while taking the lane. I see a disturbing number of cell phone using drivers who drift back and forth across the bike lane boundaries when I ride on streets with bike lanes. You paint a vivid picture, and you're absolutely correct that that is one scenario in which distracted driving could put a cyclist in a no-win situation. But there are many other such scenarios, too, and not all of them are mitigated by "staying out of the way".

Bottom line is, if many drivers are severely distracted, there is NO strategy that can keep you completely safe. That's why we need severe law enforcement action on this issue, and not just cyclist education. However, in some traffic situations, I do feel that taking the lane is safer than not doing so. At least in the situation you describe, SOMETHING would be happening in the road in front of the distracted driver. That might grab their attention just enough to stop them from doing something tragic. Plus, positioning further left gives you more room to perform an emergency maneuver.

Yeah, moving to the far right isn't much of a solution either... the best solution in this no win situation is a separate but equal bike path. That has long been my battle cry with regard to high speed roads. When it comes to high speed roads, there is little a cyclist can do to avoid problems... even vehicular cycling has limits; cyclists find it difficult to negotiate with motorists when the speed differential is greater than 15MPH. If road engineers insist on high speed roads, I insist that a suitable MUP has to accompany such a road. No one outside an automobile fares well on high speed roads... neither Amish buggies, nor horses, nor pedestrians, nor cyclists. Couple speed with distraction and you have a real nightmare.

Otherwise, is it a problem. I mean, if people aren't dying, what's the issue?

Call or write your congresscritters and tell them to act on this NTSB recommendation...

We all should.

Call or write your congresscritters and tell them to act on this NTSB recommendation...

yes, not only the NHTSA, the National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday called for a COMPLETE BAN ON ALL HAND HELD ELECTRONIC DEVICES WHILE DRIVING, INCLUDING HANDS FREE DEVICES

CNN REPORTS NTSB calls for complete ban on cellphone use while driving (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html)

Fantastic. Sadly, It takes someone dying as a result of someone else's stupidity, before people(and government) finally say that something needs to be done.

Unfortunately, it hasn't gotten to the point of the government actually taking action. It's a major step in the right direction for the NTSB to make this recommendation, as now at least we have government safety experts making a recommendation based on the mounting evidence about how dangerous cell phone use while driving really is. But it's up to lawmakers to actually act on those recommendations, and I'm not all optimistic there. Lawmakers will likely just ignore the NTSB's recommendations, because they are mostly motorists and likely suffer from the usual delusion about how THEY are safe drivers when on the phone. Add to that the potential unpopularity of such a law, along with corruption/lobbying efforts by cell phone makers and car makers, as well as general anti-regulation ideology, and I'd say the chances of much new law are slim.

yes, not only the NHTSA, the National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday called for a COMPLETE BAN ON ALL HAND HELD ELECTRONIC DEVICES WHILE DRIVING, INCLUDING HANDS FREE DEVICES

CNN REPORTS NTSB calls for complete ban on cellphone use while driving (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html)

Even with auto accidents, injuries and deaths being lower in 2009 than for many decades, you have to wonder how much safer the roadways would be with this ban in place.

A couple folks here have cited "FRAP" and "far right" riding, with the implication that it takes them out of the direct lane of traffic, enabling the classic 'sideswipe'.

Proper FRAP can easily be as far into the lane as the right-tire track; remember, it's up to the RIDER how far out in the lane "practicable" is; no one else can make that call, because no one else sees what the rider sees -- debris, roadkill, potholes, etc. Given the 'right' tire size, even chip & seal gravel is a hazard.

Since 'adopting' the right-tire track as my FRAP line, I have yet to have a car come within 3 feet of me; only when I "wobble" out of that line (going uphill, or the bike wants to act up a little, or my quads are flipping me the bird) do they get opportunistic.

Unfortunately, it hasn't gotten to the point of the government actually taking action. It's a major step in the right direction for the NTSB to make this recommendation, as now at least we have government safety experts making a recommendation based on the mounting evidence about how dangerous cell phone use while driving really is. But it's up to lawmakers to actually act on those recommendations, and I'm not all optimistic there. Lawmakers will likely just ignore the NTSB's recommendations, because they are mostly motorists and likely suffer from the usual delusion about how THEY are safe drivers when on the phone. Add to that the potential unpopularity of such a law, along with corruption/lobbying efforts by cell phone makers and car makers, as well as general anti-regulation ideology, and I'd say the chances of much new law are slim.

Yes, It is a RECOMMENDATION, not a law....YET.

A couple folks here have cited "FRAP" and "far right" riding, with the implication that it takes them out of the direct lane of traffic, enabling the classic 'sideswipe'.

Proper FRAP can easily be as far into the lane as the right-tire track; remember, it's up to the RIDER how far out in the lane "practicable" is; no one else can make that call, because no one else sees what the rider sees -- debris, roadkill, potholes, etc. Given the 'right' tire size, even chip & seal gravel is a hazard.

Since 'adopting' the right-tire track as my FRAP line, I have yet to have a car come within 3 feet of me; only when I "wobble" out of that line (going uphill, or the bike wants to act up a little, or my quads are flipping me the bird) do they get opportunistic.

I go between being, in the left-tire track and, between the left n' right tire track.

When I was out yesterday, just before I had entered a construction zone, I gone through a green light. Immediately after the light, I almost crashed from a giant pothole being in the right tire track. I had to react quickly when I saw the pothole.

The only solution to the above scenario is for cyclists to not be on the road right in front of motor vehicles.

This is also my opinion. When you are directly in front of a fast-moving vehicle, the slightest lack of attention of the driver will almost surely cause a serious/fatal accident. If you are riding on the side, chance of survival is a little better.

This is also my opinion. When you are directly in front of a fast-moving vehicle, the slightest lack of attention of the driver will almost surely cause a serious/fatal accident. If you are riding on the side, chance of survival is a little better.

Of course. That is why, I aim to keep the driver's attention. In a backwards way, not going as fast as the motorized vehicles forces a potentially errant driver, to pay attention. Because they can't 'step on the gas' and forget about what they are doing by texting.

I disagree 100%, that riding on the side is better. It just gives the driver ample ammunition to lie to the cops when the driver hits/kills a cyclist, with the standard 'I did not see him/her' line.

I'm all for this, passengers can operate cell phones to their heart's content. Otherwise pull into a parking lot and use your phone when your vehicle is completely stopped in a parking space. On the highways, there are enough rest stops to make your phone calls or whatever from a parking spot. I miss calls by refusing to answer the phone all the time because driving a car is my job when I'm doing that. The delays create more traffic congestion and that results in wasted fuel and time. It's absurd that it takes as long as it does to get anywhere any more and all it takes is one of them. As a motorist I'm tired of driving by some punk studying for an exam or having their cell phone pressed up against their head while they average 5,10, 15 mph on a highway, even come to a complete stop. And in city traffic, having to drive a car, even ride a bike more cautiously because some jerk is talking away obliviously on their cell phone.

In Australia, operating a mobile phone whilst in control of a motor vehicle is 3 demerit points out of a licence that can have a max of 12 points. Provisional licence holders have 4 points.

I recall, that the equivalent blood alcohol content is 0.08 and the legal limit in Australia is .05


I’m astounded that it isn’t illegal everywhere

Unfortunately driving is usually treated as a right, not a responsibility and privilege. There is usually very little penalty for absurdly incompetent and dangerous driving. $100 fines are not a deterrent. Often we see reports of deaths caused by drunken and otherwise impaired drivers, no license of course, after multiple previous convictions. Until our culture decides that eye-opening penalties are likely and enforced we will continue to see 40k-ish deaths and however-many injuries and maimings per year. Cellphone abuse is merely the latest bad-guy, although probably the most widespread these days.

In Australia, operating a mobile phone whilst in control of a motor vehicle is 3 demerit points out of a licence that can have a max of 12 points. Provisional licence holders have 4 points.

I recall, that the equivalent blood alcohol content is 0.08 and the legal limit in Australia is .05


I’m astounded that it isn’t illegal everywhere

Americans love their mobile phones, too much. They are always advertised with the projection of the 'I must have' mentality here. Then that mentality translates to the cell phone owner not wanting to stop their bad behavior with their cell phone.

Allow me to suggest that police already have the two best technologies for changing driver behavior--night sticks, and guns. Treat texters like eastern Oregon ranchers are alleged to treat wolves--shoot, shovel, and shut up.

The problem can easily fixed. Since most cell phone have a built in GPS, a small change could be made so that the GPS section turns off the cell phone if it is moving faster than 5 mph.

The problem can easily fixed. Since most cell phone have a built in GPS, a small change could be made so that the GPS section turns off the cell phone if it is moving faster than 5 mph.

I agree that that would solve the problem, and that solution has been discussed here before. The issue is it would also block passengers in cars from using their phones while the car is moving. While I personally think that that would be worth it to stop all the drivers from chatting while operating their vehicles on public roads (and I think that motorists have proven that they can't handle the responsibility of being treated like an adult and trusted to stay off the phone while driving), I can only imagine what the howls of indignation would be like if we were to go to that solution. Motorists would scream and cry about how it's taking away their freedom, their ability to use the phone in "emergencies", etc. No phone carrier or handset maker would ever implement it voluntarily, because of the outrage it would generate. So the only way it would ever happen is if these companies were forced to, either by successful lawsuits holding them responsible for deaths and injuries caused by chatty drivers or by legislation. I don't see either of those things happening anytime soon, since the companies are covered by disclaimers they distribute with phones and since legislators have shown remarkable reluctance to attach anything other than token penalties to existing anti-cell-phone laws.

One more realistic way to go, perhaps, would be to encourage such a feature as a voluntary safeguard for parents of teenage drivers. You could enable parents to toggle the ability to talk on the phone and/or text while moving at the account level, or maybe at least have cell phone bills prominently tag which calls and texts were made while moving so that parents could have a "chat" with their children about the necessity of those calls/texts. The problem goes far beyond teenagers, of course, but maybe doing this could break them of the habit early on (as well as provide a basis for the technical implementation of it, so that it could later be expanded). If it were very successful in reducing accident rates among that age group, it could also provide stronger arguments for expanding it.

Meanwhile "experts" are denying the NHTSA recommendations...


"There is no doubt that cell phone use and texting is a problem. But the simplistic studies that have been done by the government do not account for the situational use of cell phones," said Fred Mannering, professor of civil engineering at Purdue University and associate director for research at the Center for Road Safety. "The government really does not know if cell phones are being used in traffic situations that require high attention or are high risk, for example, merging on a congested freeway, or in low risk situations, for example on an rural freeway with no surrounding traffic."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ntsb-recommends-banning-texting-cell-phone-calls-driving/story?id=15147547#.TuovllbkZ8E

So who has it right... the NHTSA or a professor from Purdue? How many "studies" do we need to tell us that distractions behind the wheel are not a good thing... especially when a motorist takes their eyes off the road?

How many "studies" do we need to tell us that distractions behind the wheel are not a good thing... especially when a motorist takes their eyes off the road?

+1

Probably not until more MOTORISTS die. Because they certainly don't care about how many BICYCLISTS die.:notamused:

Allow me to suggest that police already have the two best technologies for changing driver behavior--night sticks, and guns. Treat texters like eastern Oregon ranchers are alleged to treat wolves--shoot, shovel, and shut up.

If only that was nation-wide.

There is this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214151144.htm

"...the crash risk for cellphone conversation while driving is one-fourth of what was claimed in previous studies, or near that of normal baseline driving."