rydabent

How about creating a law that says anyone that causes an accident who was found to be on a cell phone will have his or her penality doubled. This would apply both to car, property and cycling accidents.

spdracr39

Rather than creating more laws how about just making the devices inactive while moving unless on hands free.

RPK79

How about just enforcing current law, tacking on a distracted driving ticket, leaving cell phones alone, and moving this thread to A&S?

fietsbob

So what is the current vehicle code where you live?

Homebrew01

Any minute now.

Or is this about the "mechanics" of creating laws ?

FBinNY 

What about those on a bus or train? Or even passengers in a car?

Make all the laws you want, or apply technical fixes like this but it won't change anything. Cell phones are the latest issue and it's trendy to blame them for everything, but there has always been distracted driving. Things like trying to read a map, eating/drinking (coffee/soda), children/pets, tuning the radio/adjusting the a/c, applying makeup, daydreaming, even reading the morning paper propped up on the steering wheel.

If I had to name the single biggest problem, I'd say it's that we've socialized the cost of driving stupidity (or lack of skill) through insurance. Folks are nearly 100% insulated from the harm they cause. IMO the way to get drivers to be more responsible isn't through technology or criminalization, but by making them more exposed financially. Things like higher minimum deductibles, and/or co-insurance for liability (up to a limit) would lower driving costs for responsible drivers and put more of the cost of poor driving back on those who are the problem. I'm not saying it would magically solve the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.

spdracr39

A hands free headset would still be a good idea even in those situations but you make an excellent point. You can't make anything idiot proof because they just come up with better idiots.

RPK79

Solid argument, but what wrench would be proper for this?

CbadRider

Moved from Mechanics to A&S.

bmontgomery87

Because it's a terrible idea. If that we're the case:
You couldn't report reckless drivers and be able to get their plate number.
You couldn't call 911 while escaping from a robbery,mugging,assault, etc.

There are loads of other situations but I don't feel like typing a list.

sauerwald

The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of drivers know that their driving skill is well above average, and that driving does not require 100% of their attention. I still believe that the best solution would be to mount a 6" long, sharpened steel spike to the center of the steering wheel of every vehicle - it would make drivers pay more attention, and those who didn't wouldn't become repeat offenders.

mconlonx

How 'bout actually pursuing legislation in real life instead of harping about it online? Have you contacted your state legislators regarding this?

RPK79

Don't forget bicycles are vehicles, too.

sauerwald

I believe that a bicycle is a vehicle in MN, but if you ride it into CA, it is no longer a vehicle. - but point taken.

wphamilton

It's possible to disable cell service but still have them 911 capable.

bmontgomery87

I guess if you could also make it to where you could call 1 emergency contact on your contact list + local police (non emergency numbers).
Just from personal experience, I encountered a very reckless motorist a few weeks ago (I was driving as well) that was running red lights and changing lanes erratically. I was able to telephone the police, follow them at a safe distance, and relay their direction of travel and vehicle description so that the local police could stop them.

In instances like that, crazy drivers get away with crimes.

I'm all for stopping distracted driving, but I think it would be better to tackle the problem with high fines and strict enforcement versus putting people at risk by taking away cell phones.

wphamilton

Yes I'd rather see legitimate enforcement triggered by bad behavior than restrictions on everyone - in fact, there are a lot of "victimless crimes" on the books that shouldn't be infractions until someone's actions are actually dangerous or are an active infraction (rather than potentially lead to an infraction). But if people are unwilling to exercise care, and law enforcement unwilling to enforce, then maybe some pragmatic approach is in order. Maybe not this one, but when ideas like this get traction someone somewhere will come up with a better one.

dabac

I dunno.
Usually, probability of "getting caught" is a much more important factor for behaviour modification than the severity of the punishment. You could have instant beheading with a rusty saw as punishment for an offense, but unless people acknowledge the possibility that it could happen to them, it won't matter.
So sure, a steep cost MIGHT reduce the number of repeat offenders, but it won't do much for the first timers. And among those, it'll hit equally hard regardless if it's an accident stemming from avoidable carelessness, or from truly unforeseeable circumstances.
A less painful, but more frequently applied correction will be kinder on the "innocents" and still provide good reason for the deliberate sinners to get their act together.

ItsJustMe

That's going to be great for people riding busses and trains, and passengers. We were recently on vacation and had a 10 hour drive each way with 6 people in a van across hundreds of miles of interstate. Using the phone was great, including texting, catching up on various sites, etc.

You can't legislate away stupidity. People will just root their phones and work around the block.

ItsJustMe

That's the thing. Any cop could issue as many tickets as he could write in a day if he just decided to actually enforce this. It's almost to the point where it's unusual to see someone on the expressway that is NOT holding a phone to their ear.

turbo1889

It's not the cell phone that is the problem. If it weren't the cell phone it would be something else.

How about instead of doing this piece meal and banning this and that specific behavior we just start treating driving an automobile on the public right of ways as the narrow privilege it legally is and start charging those who willfully engage in criminal negligence in the operation of a highly dangerous lethal machine around other innocent people with exactly that along with full civil liability along with the criminal charges ? Showing that the driver was drunk or high or texting would only serve as evidence of being willfully criminally negligent and the resulting public endangerment.

As to insurance that should be about ensuring victims and/or their families are compensated. Anything major and its a one time payout because your not going to be allowed to drive ever again because you have proven you can't handle the responsibility of the narrow privilege of being permitted to operate a dangerous lethal machine around other innocent people on the public right of ways.


I look forward to the day when the self driving car technology gets good enough and wide spread enough that the scales get tipped far enough that manually driving such a dangerous machine around other innocent people on the public right of ways actually gets treated like the narrow privilege with full responsibility that it actually is.

Keith99

Wrong. Bikes are vehicles in California and in most states.

Vehicle =/= Motorvehicle.

sauerwald

California Vehicle Code, section 670, definition of a vehicle:

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Section 231 defines a bicycle:

231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.

So although in most states a bicycle is a vehicle, in California, it is a device.

Chicago Al 

How about creating a law (or at least a stipulation on this forum) that says that anyone who spends much of his time complaining about overreaching 'gubmint' and 'bureaucrats' should not be promoting impractical, impossible to enforce ordinances, which would be a matter for local government anyway, and which he has no intention of actually making the slightest effort to get introduced?

Also, anyone who posts about cycling advocacy matters (like legal ones) in a forum other than A&S (like, say, Bike Mechanics) should be horse-whipped.

rydabent

chicago

Wrong. I have talked to my legislators about this.