Biker vs. Driver Texting

[wideglide38]

Crazy approach trying to solve texting addiction while driving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ps8_xhFIq4

[kitabel]

Kids: don't try this at home.

When the government actually wants to do something about this, it's easily done.
But they don't, they get too many "favors" from telecom and social media.

[exeric]

I agree, kitabel. Even cell phone driving is drunk driving in my opinion.

[wideglide38]

Good points kitabel and Eric! I've had more close calls from texters drifting lanes than I care to remember.

[JoJo357]

The laws are all over the scale, when it should be mandatory in every state!

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/law...ndheldcellbans
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...y81P1XzFvAVFsb

*M.A.D.*

[Steve Swan]

i like this one that followed the phone disposal better - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aohXOpKtns0

[kitabel]

To me the first step is obvious: if a cop already has probable cause to stop the driver (speeding, weaving, phone is visible):
1. He has the right to ask her if she has a phone (AFAIK right now, they need not answer). Lying is a points violation and fine.
2. Ask for the phone. Refusal is same as refusal to take DUI test: instant license suspension.
3. Check the phone for last message.
3. If the time lines up with observed period (last 10 minutes?) she's guilty of distraction.
4. Regardless of Miranda, if she "explains" ("it was an emergency", "my phone rang") this is a voluntary admissible proof of guilt.
Now the tough one that may already be considered in State legislatures. New statutes:
VTL: speaking, listening, texting (any live phone call, with or without hands-free, speaker) is a moving violation, 3 points + $500 fine. Higher penalties for repeats, of course. Reporting a crime in progress, "my car is on fire", "I'm inside the kidnapper's trunk" etc. are all affirmative defenses: you can submit proof and the jury will decide if it abates the violation.
Civil law: Phone use with the vehicle in motion, regardless of purpose, shall constituted XX% contributory negligence on the part of the driver. This means that any award the driver may get from a jury is reduced by the specified degree of culpability. You get rear-end and the award is $1,000 but the contribution is 25%: you only get $750. The percentage can vary as the legislation is developed, also with personal injury different from property damage, etc.

Not perfect, but you have to start somewhere.

[wideglide38]

I like your thought process kitabel. Common sense is certainly a thing of the past.

[aumick10]

Tar and feathering is a good deterrent.

[Steve Swan]

Tar and feathering is a good deterrent.

that biker got that texting gal's attention; i wonder how soon she'll text and drive after having her phone grabbed from her in such an unforgettable manner..... but, not a solution, only a single case example of vigilante justice.

[Robert Luland]

First offence $500.00 fine, second offence $1000.00 fine and thirty day suspension. Third time $3000.00 fine and six month suspension and enforce it. You will watch that crap change fast enough. The only problem is they always mix in cell phone use with texting and there not the same. When I'm on the phone I'm looking out the window.

[kitabel]

Remember "multi-tasking"? How the super-mom can hold down a job, keep her marriage intact, raise two children, and get a doctoral degree at the same time? Lengthy studies 20 years ago firmly establish that: no such thing exists. It's (not quite, but almost) a ZERO SUM GAME. Effort, time, attention spent on B must be subtracted from A and C. It's similar to a vector with several elements: it doesn't produce the mathematical sum (by addition) of the forces.

What will be offered (and accepted by the State legislatures, because they want, as we say "something to hang their hat on" - an excuse for doing what they were bribed to do) as rebuttal for distracted penalties:
1. even watching the speedometer, listening to music, talking to passengers is "distracted" (viz. full attention not directed to vehicle operation)
2. no scientific studies shown to establish what % multi-tasking (distraction) is responsible for accidents, as opposed to driver error, mechanical failure, etc.
3. some distraction will always be present
4. lane awareness, etc. technology make this less significant

[Robert Luland]

I new they were lying to me about that rocket scientist stuff! I agree with you to an existent. There is a big difference between a distraction and looking straight down at your phone only coming up for air and a peek out the window.

[T. Cotten]

I new they were lying to me about that rocket scientist stuff! I agree with you to an existent. ...

I'm an existentialist, too, Folks!

Face it, all traffic is an existential threat.

....Cotten

[41craig]

The technology exists for the cell phones to go dark and you can't talk or use it after you reach about 5 m.p.h. I retired from Holland Motor Express in 2017. Our new phones-radios which were androids, would shut down after about 5 m.p.h. City dispatch could call out to us on the phone, but we could not answer until we pulled over and not moving. If cell phone companies would install this on all phones, the streets would be a lot safer.