32 dies texting she's HAPPY

[Huntingwhale]

Thankfully no one on CP does this.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Thankfully no one on CP does this.

Seriously, what's the point of this post? I'm sure there's people on CP that drink and drive as well. That now makes it acceptable and we should be perfectly fine when it happens?

[pylon]

I personally think the fines for texting while driving should mirror impaired driving. Statistics are starting to prove it is actually more dangerous. This would be my solution.


You have one of 2 devices installed in the car.

A- Factory caliber, voice activated bluetooth hands free interface that is DOT approved.

B- A signal disruptor that kills any cell signal in the car.

It A or B. Every car has to have one or the other. Mandate it at the factory level, and give every other driver without one or the other, 24 months to adopt whichever device they choose. If you are caught driving without one in place after the adoption period. Your car is seized, until it's done.

[mustache ride]

Originally Posted by pylon

I personally think the fines for texting while driving should mirror impaired driving. Statistics are starting to prove it is actually more dangerous. This would be my solution.

Where?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-cr...-statistics-2/

This says that drinking and driving is equal with speeding and double distracted driving

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pre...reased+In+2012

This says distracted driving fell in 2012. Also that drinking and driving was responsible for three times as many deaths as distracted driving

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by strombad

Can you guys even read?
It's not even close bros. Not even close.

?

Actually the thread title is off. If it said 32 year old dies while etc. that would be ok. But the only hint it isn't one of the other things the other guys said is that it says dies instead of die. Then common sense can help us figure out what he really means.

But those comments are actually closer to the actual grammer that is up there. Whether they were just trying to be clever or funny I don't know, but they are fair comments.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by pylon

I personally think the fines for texting while driving should mirror impaired driving. Statistics are starting to prove it is actually more dangerous. This would be my solution.


You have one of 2 devices installed in the car.

A- Factory caliber, voice activated bluetooth hands free interface that is DOT approved.

B- A signal disruptor that kills any cell signal in the car.

It A or B. Every car has to have one or the other. Mandate it at the factory level, and give every other driver without one or the other, 24 months to adopt whichever device they choose. If you are caught driving without one in place after the adoption period. Your car is seized, until it's done.

I'm glad I don't live in the kind of society you advocate.

[Daradon]

While a bit extreme, it isn't unheard of to mandate safety over 'freedom'. If things are adapted at a factory level, it would just seem like regular daily life to us after a time. Lots of safety things in cars are mandated.

It's not like there is any reason to be texting while driving anyway.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Daradon

?

Actually the thread title is off. If it said 32 year old dies while etc. that would be ok. But the only hint it isn't one of the other things the other guys said is that it says dies instead of die. Then common sense can help us figure out what he really means.

But those comments are actually closer to the actual grammer that is up there. Whether they were just trying to be clever or funny I don't know, but they are fair comments.

Actually, "32 dies texting she's HAPPY" is pretty blatantly obvious even without the "year old".

The words "dies" and "she's" make it singular, so with both of those words there's no logical explanation why you would assume it was 32 people, or someone texting about 32 people without changing words that actually exist in the sentence.

But hey, I was just being a dink. I just find it funny when people say "I totally thought it said ______" when what they thought it said doesn't even resemble the sentence.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by mustache ride

Where?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/car-cr...-statistics-2/

This says that drinking and driving is equal with speeding and double distracted driving

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pre...reased+In+2012

This says distracted driving fell in 2012. Also that drinking and driving was responsible for three times as many deaths as distracted driving

This is being discussed in the automotive world at length right now. One of the big corporate big wig dudes said the problem they are having is determining a correct margin of error for distracted driving, because it is believed to not be reported in almost 70% of instances, and is incredibly difficult to prove. I will dig it up when I get a few minutes, but there is a test that was done showing that people were actually more dangerous behind the wheel trying to talk on the phone/text, while navigating an obstacle course, than they were with a BA of .08.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by pylon

there is a test that was done showing that people were actually more dangerous behind the wheel trying to talk on the phone/text, while navigating an obstacle course, than they were with a BA of .08.

I've seen this too. Pretty sure there's a video clip somewhere as well.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Should be a requirement that when GPS detects a phone is moving more than a few miles per hour along a roadway it automatically shuts down. Can't imagine that kind of a killswitch would be terribly difficult to develop.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'm glad I don't live in the kind of society you advocate.

Backup cameras were just made mandatory by the NHTSA for the 2017 or 2018 model year I believe.

You will see hands free joining that requirement very soon as well. Apparently it is the next one, and V2V is going to be not far behind. If you think my solution is too Alex Jones, tinfoil hat, big brother. Wait until your car automatically brakes and steers into the ditch to avoid you plowing into a mini van loaded with kids while you are instagramming a picture of your dessert you ate 5 minutes ago.

[Kjesse]

While we're at it, lets make it illegal for nice looking ladies (or men, I suppose) to walk down 17th avenue in shorts or a skirt. Because that causes driver-distracted accidents every year.

Of course, we could also force people to install blinders on their cars, kind of like horses wear in a race so they aren't distracted by the crowd.

If that doesn't work, we could always try the mandatory burka, after all, it could save lives! Iran could have had this figured out all along and we are just behind the times.

I'm sorry this dimwit lost her life, but more sorry that many whom possess more advanced synapses (which is obvious because they're still alive to post and haven't caused a deadly accident by texting) figure they can solve the problem by instituting even more government regulation.

Guess what? It only works until the next problem is found!

Require basic, human normal smarts, and recognize that everyone makes mistakes. You can't and shouldn't regulate out of everything.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by pylon

Backup cameras were just made mandatory by the NHTSA for the 2017 or 2018 model year I believe.

I have a backup camera on my Highlander, and I think its actually dangerous because it tends to make me think I don't have to shoulder check when backing up. I've learned otherwise. And I think I'm normally diligent... but I have to now remind myself to not rely upon the camera.

[dino7c]

every other vehicle I pass someone is texting or talking on their phones...I think its just getting worse as young people who have grown up with texting seem to think they are "better at it" than anyone else

need more serious laws and enforcement

[Kjesse]

And lets talk about those sensors on the new Acuras which tell you when a car is in your blind spot. That is an accident waiting to happen.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Should be a requirement that when GPS detects a phone is moving more than a few miles per hour along a roadway it automatically shuts down. Can't imagine that kind of a killswitch would be terribly difficult to develop.

Passenger's phone? Using windshield mounted phone for navigation?

It's easy to make a killswitch, but it would inconvenience a lot of users who aren't doing anything dangerous.

I like the idea of similar punishment as DUIs. I guess the problem is than while drugs / alcohol stay in somebody's system and can be detected, somebody can just toss their cell phone on the seat and claim they weren't using it if somebody reported them to police.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by pylon

This is being discussed in the automotive world at length right now. One of the big corporate big wig dudes said the problem they are having is determining a correct margin of error for distracted driving, because it is believed to not be reported in almost 70% of instances, and is incredibly difficult to prove. I will dig it up when I get a few minutes, but there is a test that was done showing that people were actually more dangerous behind the wheel trying to talk on the phone/text, while navigating an obstacle course, than they were with a BA of .08.

I've seen video that too, but I thought it didn't represent the reality of texting for a couple of reasons.

1. The people were forced to type the message, even though they seemed naturally want to focus on the obstacle course. In general, people will unconsciously stop texting when navigating difficult sections of the road. This is also true when talking on the phone and driving. It happens all the time that someone will unconsciously suddenly stop talking when navigating a corner, or something that requires additional attention and then resume once through it. As such, you may be more impaired for navigating an obstacle course when texting and driving than when drunk, but you can't quickly sober up if you find an obstacle course on your way home, while can you let your phone go and safely navigate it if your texting and driving.

2. Our roads aren't generally obstacle courses with tight corners and few straights. Its like talking on the phone with someone. It's normal that they periodically go silent as they navigate something that requires more attention, without them even being aware of it. I thought the obstacle course is the equivalent of trying to take a right angle turn, but all the time. I've observed plenty of people testing and driving, but not one was ever actively texting while traversing a difficult part of the roadway or sharp corner. It seems that many of the distracted driving cases are likely to be due to animals jumping on the road, rear ending people when traffic suddenly stops, and things like that where the 1-3 seconds people take theirs eyes off the road really make a difference (The younger the driver, the longer they look at their phone at a time), and as such, the obstacle course is not a representative sample of the conditions in which texting and driving takes place.

That's not to say texting and driving is safe. It's clearly not. However, as a whole, I think that for most experienced drivers it's still safer than driving drunk.

FWIW, I don't text and drive, but I do phone via bluetooth and drive. I used to occasionally phone handheld, and the difference in road awareness using handsfree devices instead of holding the phone is huge. I would expect that in the next few years, we'll start seeing technical solutions that prevent drivers from using their phone while driving. It would probably have to be an always position detecting system of some kind.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by strombad

But hey, I was just being a dink.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Passenger's phone? Using windshield mounted phone for navigation?

It's easy to make a killswitch, but it would inconvenience a lot of users who aren't doing anything dangerous.

I like the idea of similar punishment as DUIs. I guess the problem is than while drugs / alcohol stay in somebody's system and can be detected, somebody can just toss their cell phone on the seat and claim they weren't using it if somebody reported them to police.

Sounds like an anti-gun control argument. I'm not making a judgement on if it is right or wrong, but I don't see a whole lot of difference.