Distracted driving

[John S-B]

Just the other day while a significant amount of snow was falling, I passed THREE PEOPLE IN A ROW, on a Cloverleaf on the interstate that were texting. They're working on more legislation to try an combat this. The thing is they already have two laws on the books they can use. The only thing I'd say is that if you're caught driving distracted to the point that you're noticeable, or you cause an accident, you ride the bus for a year. That's the only thing that will get their attention. If people are so STUPID that they can't comprehend the message that has been put out for YEARS, then extreme pain or suffering is the only thing that they will understand. And I don't have a lick of sympathy for them.

 

[Another Ahab]

Just a safety bump and some fresh info on how we're progressing with our new technologies. Alberta is being forced to 'look at' adding demerits and a pile of other legislation because we're not learning.
If the phone addicts just put the phone away until they're home we wouldn't need to add yet another level of legislation to the pile. Coming to a community near you unless folks voluntarily give up the phone, I promise.

The phones are here to stay and not likely to go away. Voluntary abstention ain't going to happen. Solution lies somewhere else likely:

- The self-driving car is one solution (and it's on the way).

What to do in the meantime? That's a good question.

 

[John S-B]

The phones are here to stay and not likely to go away. Voluntary abstention ain't going to happen. Solution lies somewhere else likely:

- The self-driving car is one solution (and it's on the way).

What to do in the meantime? That's a good question.


View attachment 546336

I'll NEVER get in a self driving car unless it's a Disney World ride. As for what to do? Take their license to drive and make them walk. Until then just keep publicizing that stupidity cost another person texting their life.

 

[tim292stro]

Yeah, I think the Canadian threat of reckless driving is where to go, we just need to tweak what we consider reckless...

From Wikipedia:

"...Reckless driving is often defined as a mental state in which the driver displays a wanton disregard for the rules of the road; the driver often misjudges common driving procedures, often causing accidents and other damages..."

Sounds like it fits already, but might as well spell it out - if you're doing something other than driving while behind the wheel, you lose the privilege since you directly demonstrate the lack of willingness to play by the rules of the road.

My

 

[dmetalmiki]

Well over here, It has been found the texting or phoning causes accidents. So drive and phone = penalty..simple.

 

[tim292stro]

Here in California we have a fine for texting ($20-$76 first offense, $50-190 for each subsequent), and you can be cited for being "distracted" if you manage to make a convincing argument to the officer that it's not a phone - but defining texting/phone-use as reckless would make you subject to arrest and jail, fines in the thousands, and vehicle impoundment here - with words like "misdemeanor" attached it would send a much stronger message that it is not something you should do EVER... The only criteria is that you have to know you shouldn't have done it - everybody admits that already.

 

[Another Ahab]

Just the other day while a significant amount of snow was falling, I passed THREE PEOPLE IN A ROW, on a Cloverleaf on the interstate that were texting. They're working on more legislation to try an combat this. The thing is they already have two laws on the books they can use.

What stuns me - as many other drivers as I see texting, while i'm driving- is why I don't read about more accidents and fatalities from all of it going on.

Maybe the statistics just haven't caught up yet.

 

[98G]

I'll NEVER get in a self driving car unless it's a Disney World ride...

I have no doubt the government will mandate the technology as a safety measure.... with draconian penalties for disabling it. You won't have much of a choice....

 

[Another Ahab]

- The self-driving car is one solution (and it's on the way).

I'll NEVER get in a self driving car unless it's a Disney World ride.

I have no doubt the government will mandate the technology as a safety measure.... with draconian penalties for disabling it. You won't have much of a choice....

Must be over 10 years ago I read a science article (Scientific American, I think it was), that said making commercial flights totally automated was the safest innovation to add to commercial airline travel.

Research confirmed that nearly all accidents were due to pilot error.

Article acknowledged though that the problem is:

- The human reluctance to enter an airplane (or any vehicle for that matter) without a "driver".

The emotional factor overrides the science: even though proven safer, no one will ride it.

 

[tim292stro]

Yeah and it's sad that many of the human-error crashes and accidents that happen now are the result of the human pilots over-reliance on automation (when the automation stops working, they don't know what they're doing), or the incorrect operation or interpretation of what the automation is doing.

Hard to disable the self-driving feature if there is no accelerator/brake pedal or steering wheel: http://ibnlive.in.com/photogallery/16016.html

 

[m1010plowboy]

There has always been an impressive driving responsibility in the MV crowd and encouraging best driving practices is a foundation.

It's a good thing to re-visit from time to time so thanks for tossing it around gents. Even if we had an impact on one kid to put his phone down while he's driving we'd be ahead. Maybe preventing the impact would be a better way to look at it.
That means I'll be bringing it up on my regular 33 day cycle, rant.

The U.S. will be close to 1 distracted driving incident per minute by the end of 2015. oop, another one just happened.

Somewhere around 525,600 minutes in a year and the incident numbers were pushing 421,000 / yr already.

Mostly preventable incidents where the solution was simple. Put down the phone until you're home!

 

[m1010plowboy]

Distracted Driving

Just a little update and safety bump as a reminder to focus on the task at hand.

This is my little 5 year old nephew playing hockey. He wears 53 on his jersey to match the year of our favorite old 6x6.



When he's focused on playing hockey, he'd never grab his cel phone to see who just sent him a text message. He's always considerate of the other little kids playing around him and focuses on the task at hand. He simply puts his phone away until the game is over. Driving isn't a game. Are you smarter than a 5 year old? Is it okay to text and drive? Ask them.

I guess all the old geezers and anyone that's been hit by a distracted driver are serious.
This is just the beginning to gain media attention for driver awareness campaigns.

This is bill 204 which goes to a second reading this week and includes;

$250.00 fine and 3 demerits.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADD...egislature_28/session_3/20141117_bill-204.pdf

 

[m1010plowboy]

The stats are out....Nearly all distracted driving incidents, penalties and deaths are with distracted drivers ALONE in their vehicle.

The peer pressure of passengers force drivers to......DRIVE.

If you're still not completely focused on driving when you drive........Get a Friend or pretend you have one!

Alberta's bill passed! There will be a monitoring period and if the moral doesn't improve, the beatings will continue.
http://www.insurancehotline.com/alberta-toughens-laws-against-distracted-driving/

The saddest part of this are the beautiful young people that have had their lives altered, forever...and the guilty party would receive a $172.00 fine.
If this young lady wasn't worth having all those around her completely focused on helping her get to her destination, then our love for life is truly gone.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...auded-by-police-and-accident-victim-1.2993370

There is one more level of 'penalty increase' which will occur if 'police observations' (intersection cameras, static observations and patrols) aren't seeing a reduction in users.

It is again the action of a few that will dictate the rule design for the rest of us. If we simply volunteer to use our phones when we are NOT driving, the next action-plan will not kick in. These guys are serious, if distracted related accident rates don't stabilize, draconian men like this one...who actually only cares that his kids and other people get to where they are going without a distracted driver impacting their lives.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/devi...ed+driving+says+developer/10931478/story.html

Think you're good at texting and driving.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sjp8fYZg1I

 

[98G]

A couple of comments and questions....


What about the cellphone that's also the GPS guidance device? Are we going to ban all GPS navigation, or just the ones attached to the phone?

Are we really better off giving a larger incentive to gold the device below dash level so as not to get caught?

If someone is unthinking enough to text and drive, a simple fine increase and some points won't be enough to dissuade them.

I see law enforcement as the worst offenders on this one - my observations include occasional use of (presumably personal) cellphones while driving, and use of the computer in the front seat. If it's a bad idea for the average Joe to multitask, then it's an equally bad idea for LEO..... or is this one of the many laws from which LEO is exempt?

Don't get me wrong, distracted driving is a problem. I'm just not at all convinced that yet more government intervention is the optimal solution....

 

[rhurey]

or is this one of the many laws from which LEO is exempt?

In WA. Exempt. Because professionally trained.

The special snowflakes who are late for meetings are worse than the cell phone crowd, imo. Near a large cooperate campus I work at the most dangerous time to arrive is ~10 minutes before the hour in the mornings.

 

[98G]

In WA. Exempt. Because professionally trained.

s.

maybe we can all get this professional training and we can then all multitask while driving in perfect safety. .... is it perhaps Special High Intensity Training?

 

[Another Ahab]

Don't get me wrong, distracted driving is a problem. I'm just not at all convinced that yet more government intervention is the optimal solution....

 

[m1010plowboy]

A couple of comments and questions....
What about the cellphone that's also the GPS guidance device? Are we going to ban all GPS navigation, or just the ones attached to the phone?
Are we really better off giving a larger incentive to gold the device below dash level so as not to get caught?
If someone is unthinking enough to text and drive, a simple fine increase and some points won't be enough to dissuade them.
I see law enforcement as the worst offenders on this one - my observations include occasional use of (presumably personal) cellphones while driving, and use of the computer in the front seat. If it's a bad idea for the average Joe to multitask, then it's an equally bad idea for LEO..... or is this one of the many laws from which LEO is exempt?

Don't get me wrong, distracted driving is a problem. I'm just not at all convinced that yet more government intervention is the optimal solution....

I really don't have answers to those questions and you're not alone with the thought. I completely agree with your last sentence.

The solution seems logical to a guy that doesn't text while driving or use nav. I looked at the map, know where I'm going and I'll call ya when I get there.
The other toys in the truck are all volunteer so it'll always be a drivers choice if he uses them, however reads thy law. It's bad enough that I have to scan the gauges and rear-view mirror every ten seconds. Can't imagine taking my eyes off the road unless Jennifer Aniston jumped in the truck with me.

I know many LEO's and can't think of one........wait, maybe I know one...... that would mistake his primary objective of driving, from his secondary objective of comms or nav. Law enforcement needs to do this to function and the public should make sure they have the tools and training to do it better than the bad guy. I'd love to see feedback from some LEOs but if an officer is being negligent, a supervisor needs to know so the officer can get support and get better.

We're all thinking the same thing when we're sitting at the green light for an extended period of time while the driver in front finishes that last sentence, changes channels or hits the nav button. """"What a revoltin' development this is, there should be a law"""""

I make mistakes while I'm driving but it embarrasses me enough to keep trying to be better for the drivers around me. I always hope that when I make that mistake, the other guy has his "A" game on.

A part of the strategy is regular interval media releases with driver awareness campaigns to simply state the facts. Focused drivers play well together.

This is a very cool and very current site with a breakdown of the different laws in the United States of America as of April 2015.

"""""""This chart outlines state distracted driving laws. Some localities have additional regulations. Enforcement type is shown in parenthesis.""""""
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

-- Hand-held Cell Phone Use: 14 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from using hand-held cell phones while driving.

-- 38 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers,

-- Text Messaging: Washington was the first state to pass a texting ban in 2007. Currently, 45 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers.

I just hope everyone has a safe journey as we enjoy this long Easter Weekend......call us when you get there.

 

[m1010plowboy]

Does everyone 'know' their local law when passing Emergency Services Vehicles or Rescue Vehicles??

I thought I'd be bumping this post to encourage everyone to drive focused and have a peak at the distracted driving enforcement that Alberta is doing already.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/04/17/rcmp-and-edmonton-cops-hold-roadway-safety-blitz

Instead I'm bumping this to point out that even the media is confused. The local media released tv and newspaper reports saying """Vehicles must Slow to 60 km/hr when passing emergency or rescue vehicles""". The Law reads """"and the passing vehicle is in the adjacent lane, then that vehicle must slow down to 60 km/h or the posted speed limit""""""..,
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ts-sr/emer-urg-vehics-eng.htm

Do you see the problem they created here? If a transport driver who knows the law, is in the 'fast lane', in a three lane scenario...two lanes away from the emergency vehicle..... he may think everyone else knows the law and will maintain or slightly reduce speed. A driver that read this article will think he should slow to 60km/hr and not be aware that the law for "immediate adjacent lane", is in place. The misleading information could get someone hurt so I contacted the town crier and we're going to go yell at someone. The letters and emails went out immediately.

Watching my buddies do rescue and emergency work along a highway and having people confused about this is not an option. We're immediately asking for a correction in addition to pushing for a change to the law to say either

1) slow to 60 km/hr in all lanes while passing emergency or rescue services

2) slow to 1/2 the posted speed limit in all lanes while passing emergency, rescue or construction vehicles

...................all fines double, distracted driving fines double

What do your local laws say about passing Emergency Vehicles when parked on the side of the road?

 

[98G]

I'm pleased to report that the local law says you must slow down or move over for ANY vehicle on the side of the road with hazards or other lights flashing.

It seems that the state here values the life of the ordinary citizen as much as the LEO or first responder, requiring precautions be taken to avoid squashing us as well...