What I don’t get with people using phones while driving is that for years experts have said that it is as debilitating as driving under the influence. Regularly this is proven to be true even by our friends on Mythbusters. However the penalties, in Australia at least, are equal to those for minor traffic infractions. I would think that driving home from work in rush hour traffic I would be generous to say that one day a week I don’t see someone talking on the phone, sometimes for many miles.
So why doesn’t the penalty match the crime? Here in NSW 99% of DUIs will result in loss of licence for a first offence. I think a similar penalty for using a phone would act like random breath testing did here. A few weeks ago the police conducted an arbitrary “blitz” on phone usage and booked hundreds of drivers in 2 days. If they had all lost their licences for 3 months it may have had a more salient effect.
One: A motorist is driving drunk.
Two: A motorist is driving while playing with his cell phone (in this case, text messaging).
In neither case does the motorist intend to injure, let alone kill, anyone. Why, then, does the first case get a more severe penalty than the second in the event someone is actually killed?
Years ago if you were too drunk to drive when pulled over, more likely then not the officer would take your keys, tell you to come pick them up when you sober up, and usually just hide them in the back seat assuming when you find them you will have sobered up enough. OK this was just a true story from way back, but the point is it was not a big deal back then.
Someone who lost a loved one started a campain to increase penalities for DWI, and the squeaky wheel gets the oil, so fines increased, prison time increased, to what we see today.
No squeaky wheel has emerged for cell phones (and txt msgs). One reason could be that the average Joe can see how he might be caught with such a law. Even if one really tryed not to drive and talk, there are some times where that person may break his own rule.
Also I think that the average Joe theory is part of the problem of getting jury conviction on DWI’s as well. The jurors have seen that over their lives they might have driven drunk, perhaps once or 2x in 10 years, perhaps more often, and they see it as really part of being human in modern society, and they wouldn’t want to be convicted for DWI with such strict penelities.
Taking a life through negligence is generally regarded as prosecutable at felony level. One need not have formed a positive intent to commit a criminal act; all that is required is that one fail to use the prudence that might be reasonably expected of someone in the appropriate situation.
Why? I mean, the driver in this case has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and at the cost of someone else’s life, that he can’t handle the responsibility which comes with owning a car. Why should he be granted this responsibility - and, along with it, the chance to mow down some other innocent bystander while txting - ever again?
In my opinion lifetime bans, as punishment for driving infractions, aren’t used anywhere near enough. When I’m King and rule the world anyone guilty of vehicular manslaughter or similar offences, as well as anyone caught driving drunk, would receive an instant lifetime ban. We don’t need careless, clueless dumbfucks like that on the road.
There is a difference between pondering what you’ll cook for dinner, or if that really cute person likes you, and conciously picking up a device which requires most of your visual attention while driving Cheesesteak. One takes more willful disregard than the other. Even arguing with your SO who is in the vehicle with you isn’t so willful IMO.
Driving drunk eventually became heavily campaigned in the US- and then the punishment became steeper. MADD (mothers against…) literature, films- have been spread throughout schools once we began to realize the issue. kanicbird brings out the exact point. When it first began to happen, the punishment was hardly anything. Police would throw your keys below your seat and send you home.
One: and Two: are equally negligent and deserve equal punishments, but not yet today.
Our country is focused on punishment over prevention. Look at the louisiana floods, look at the motor industry creating suvs for short term profits (and now years later people are pissed because of gas mileage and environmental issues) and look at the young men in prison for crimes that their community basically raised them to live by. If our governments actually attempted to find the real source of problems and assist them prior to them happening, punishment would come second.
But what does it come down to in the end? Citizens. Hundreds of horrified mothers who have had to lose their children for something to change. for someone to wake up and finally say, oh yeah.
the kid was an idiot. the situation, a tragedy. but let’s get a grip on what is really going on here. (just speaking in general, not directly to you mont )
I agree with the harsher penalty crowd, for one simple reason…
this accident was preventable
all the stupid moron would have had to do to prevent the accident from occuring was to NOT PICK UP THE BLOODY CELL PHONE and actually PAY ATTENTION TO CONTROLLING HIS MULTITHOUSAND POUND PROJECTILE CAPABLE OF UNSAFE VELOCITIES
the kid made a concious decision to take his attention off his primary focus of the safe operation of a motor vehicle
he didn’t have to use the fucking phone, another man is dead due to his stupidity and shortsightedness in a completely preventable accident
lock him up and throw away the key, let him rot in the slammer
I’m of the opinion that, rather than punish more severely people whose reckless actions resulted in severe harm or death, we should rather punish more severely people who engage in such reckless actions, even when it resulted in no harm.
Morally, they’re guilty of exactly the same thing: disregard for the life of others in favor of making some more bucks (say, a company that doesn’t follow the safety rules) or having fun, or doing something vitally urgent like sending a text message, etc…
Besides, it would hit closer to home. I don’t think most people are going to seriously ponder the remote risk of killing someone. They probably will pay more attention if they risk having their license suspended, spending some time in jail, paying really heavy fines, etc… each time a police officer will notice they’re using a cell phone behind the wheel. That they might consider as a real risk, something that could actually happen to them.
It might even make them understand that they’re as guilty as the guy who actually killed someone doing exactly the same thing. Giving a slap on the wrist for such things just reinforce the idea that it’s no big deal.
I just want to post that when I was 15 (in Idaho it was legal to drive at 15 back then) I got in a stupid accident in my highschool parking lot. I was trying to beat the buses out of the lot on a snowy day and hit an old Blazer with my Isuzu Amigo. This was three months to the day after I received my license and the accident injured no one, but caused about 2,000 dollars worth of damage. The police arrived and charged me with reckless driving which, while still a misdemeanor, is considerably worse than careless driving and really only a notch below DUI as far as insurance companies are concerned.
I’m pretty incensed that this kid kills someone and gets charged with an offense of lesser severity than mine for merely denting another car (the damage to my Amigo was much more severe).
Problem is, how do you catch people who are text messaging while driving? Or doing some of the other dangerous in-car activities that have been discussed in this thread?
For the most part, law enforcement can’t be expected to peer into every moving car in an attempt to see what’s going on. Not only would that compromise their own ability to handle their car, but would distract them from other duties. They can really only react when they see the car itself doing things that it shouldn’t be doing—speeding, swerving, driving recklessly, etc.
The difference is that you intentionally went past the cars ability to be handled safely. I have to admit that there is a fuzzy line between reckless and distracted driving, but a distinction has to be made.
Yes your right, eating could be much more distracting, your cellphone is in one place and can be held up so you can get a better view out the winshield.
So, you’re saying that checking out a message is more distracting than dropping a Big Mac or a Big Gulp in your lap and trying to clean it up while going 70mph? I once swallowed my coffee the wrong way while driving and, rather than going into a coughing fit at highway speeds, I spat out the entire mouthful of coffee all over my windshield. How the hell was that as safe as using a cellphone? I was honestly on the razors edge of losing control of the car, all I was doing was drinking a coffee. Apparently, that’s A-OK, until someone gets hurt, then I deserve a lynching.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of drivers on the road today have, at some point, driven while distracted, and not accidentally. If you are without sin in this regard, cast your stone, but I will still think you’re full of it. Or, are you going to say that you distraction was less distracting, so it’s ok.
Eating and drinking risks spilling food and drink, when this occurs the driver’s mind automatically switched to evaluation and containment of the spill to know where it is and prevent stains and mess. When this happens the drive is looking down and feels a need to fix the spill ASAP much easier to ignore the task of driving.
A drive can stop txt msgs whenever he feels that more attention must be paid to driving. There is nothing time critical with it.
)