News Banning texting causes more car crashes

[Scouse]

According to some yankee research.

Texting bans did not reduce accident rates, and in some states the accident rates increased after the bans went into effect. "In California, Louisiana and Minnesota," the HDLI reports, "the bans are associated with small but statistically significant increases in collision claims (7.6%, 6.7%, and 8.9%, respectively)

Good old Labour. They couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery could they.

Legislation by superstition eh? That's what I suppose we should have expected from a Prime Minister who converted to catholicism after he left office.

Maybe there should be a law saying we shouldn't pass laws unless there's evidence that they'll be effective and useful?




Edit: Gah. No italics in thread topics. I should fucking remember that by now. It's only been about fifteen years or so...

 

[nath]

I dunno - I'm all for reasonable laws with reasonable evidence, but a ban on texting while driving seems to make an awful lot of sense. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the ban on texting was responsible for increased crashes, just that the number of crashes where a ban was in place, or after the ban was in place increased.

Was the text ban the only road safety law enacted in that time, was there anything else going on?

I don't think those results really say much at all tbh.

 

[Scouse]

a ban on texting while driving seems to make an awful lot of sense

Lots of things seem to make a lot of sense. That's why we've got science to check whether they actually work.

0.999999 and 1 are the same thing after all...

 

[nath]

That's all well and good, but there's insufficient information in the article you linked to draw a reasonable conclusion.

 

[ST^]

The HLDI offered one possible reason for the rise in accidents after texting bans: "This unexpected consequence of banning texting suggests that texting drivers have responded to the law, perhaps by attempting to avoid fines by hiding their phones from view. If this causes them to take their eyes off the road more than before the ban, then the bans may make texting more dangerous rather than eliminating it."

This just provides further proof that texting while driving is fucking dangerous. Fuck fines, take their license away.

 

[Raven]

I don't see how not looking at the road when driving can not be considered stupid.

 

[Jeros]

Smells strongly of bullshit

 

[Sparx]

3 times last year i was almost hit everytime was by someone else using a mobile phone

 

[nath]

This just provides further proof that texting while driving is fucking dangerous. Fuck fines, take their license away.

It would also imply that while a ban may make things worse initially, perhaps in the long term it will result in fewer accidents as people gradually accept that they can't text and drive.

 

[cHodAX]

Yep, texting while driving should definately be banned, it not only takes your eyes off the road but also diverts your attention. It is definately a major danger. Personally I would ban all mobile usage when the car is in motion, it is the only way to legislate it properly and create a definitive law.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This just provides further proof that texting while driving is fucking dangerous. Fuck fines, take their license away.

Then remove fiddling with the radio, drinking, eating, and all activities that might in any way hinder the drivers attention to the road *nod*

The driver shall not even speak! Distraction!

I got a right mobsquad on me for saying the following; texting isn't safe, but it can be done safely.

Which means that if you use common sense, you can easily read a text etc.

Hiding the phone on your lap = stupid.

Checking it like checking a tomtom = not stupid.

 

[Scouse]

You're all missing the point.

They haven't said "texting is safe". They've said "legislating against texting has caused no decrease and possibly an increase in crashes".

Very different things.

HLDI's new findings about texting, together with the organization's previous finding that hand-held phone bans didn't reduce crashes, "call into question the way policymakers are trying to address the problem of distracted driving crashes," ...

"They're focusing on a single manifestation of distracted driving and banning it. This ignores the endless sources of distraction and relies on banning one source or another to solve the whole problem."

The research comes from the HDLI - Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - "an independent, nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries, and property damage — from crashes on the nation's highways"...

(Although I hate "the nation's highways" as a phrase)

The point of texting bans is to reduce crashes, and by this essential measure the laws are ineffective, Lund points out. He cautions that "finding no reduction in crashes, or even a small increase, doesn't mean it's safe to text and drive, though. There's a crash risk associated with doing this. It's just that bans aren't reducing this crash risk.

Which makes perfect sense to me.

The banning of texting and the demonising of mobile phone use whilst driving is counterproductive. In much the same way that focussing on a "speed kills" message has done nothing but encourage dangerous driving...

All I'm arguing for is for science-led policymaking...

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's all the same, kids, stereo, music, wife nagging, texting, scratching your crotch etc.

All are distractions, all take your attention away, no one keeps it a 100% and if in that moment there's a sudden run in on the street or some -accident- happens, then it happens.

Trying to find a culprit with such a variation of driver skill and multitasking talent is pointless.

 

[Calaen]

Then remove fiddling with the radio, drinking, eating, and all activities that might in any way hinder the drivers attention to the road *nod*

The driver shall not even speak! Distraction!

I got a right mobsquad on me for saying the following; texting isn't safe, but it can be done safely.

Which means that if you use common sense, you can easily read a text etc.

Hiding the phone on your lap = stupid.

Checking it like checking a tomtom = not stupid.

I think.... and correct me if I am wrong! You actually said "you didn't have a problem with people drinking and driving as long as they didn't hurt anyone".

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think.... and correct me if I am wrong! You actually said "you didn't have a problem with people drinking and driving as long as they didn't hurt anyone".

I think...that has nothing to do with this.

And it was "If it had happened already, i wouldn't get angry at someone", that doesn't mean i condone drink driving.

 

[Bugz]

I think.... and correct me if I am wrong! You actually said "you didn't have a problem with people drinking and driving as long as they didn't hurt anyone".

You are very correct Calaen.

Drink driving is bad, but it's understandabe since you're...well...drunk!

Also i think drink-driving is ok unless you hurt someone.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah i can find quotes and take them out of discussions too.

Funny how you only grabbed the text and left out the quote-send button, wouldn't want people to actually read explanations or anything.

 

[ST^]

Then remove fiddling with the radio, drinking, eating, and all activities that might in any way hinder the drivers attention to the road *nod*

Writing a text takes far, far more concentration than pressing a button on a radio or drinking something. It isn't just about your eyes being distracted, but your mind. Though I also say that if people are taking their eyes off the road for a long time to fiddle with their radio, that is also stupid and shouldn't be done.

 

[Bugz]

Sorry Toht,

I'll quote the whole first post you made on that particular topic:

Drink driving is bad, but it's understandabe since you're...well...drunk!

We've all been in the situation where we do stupid things/people while drunk.

If he knows he f*cked up, be a friend.
If he thinks he did nothing wrong, decide.

Personally i've had friends of mine drive drunk and i have thought nothing of it since nothing happened, and i will ALWAYS let it go if they know they f*cked up.

I'm all for circumstances, if it's ok in your mind, let it go.

Also i think drink-driving is ok unless you hurt someone.

If shit doesn't happen, it doesn't. No point in "what if?".

Better?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Writing a text takes far, far more concentration than pressing a button on a radio or drinking something. It isn't just about your eyes being distracted, but your mind. Though I also say that if people are taking their eyes off the road for a long time to fiddle with their radio, that is also stupid and shouldn't be done.

I'd say it depends on the person, timing, place, etc.

Driving a 110mph through london may not be the best place to check a text, but for example driving on the freeway, with nothing but straight road for miles, a look at a text or even texting isn't that big a deal.

Sorry Toht,

I'll quote the whole first post you made on that particular topic:

Better?

Could just post the thread and the silly shitstorm that caused(yes people were being silly), but yes that's better then a single line. Even if it's still no f*cking relevance, but when there's nothing else to grasp on, hey go for it.

 

[Bugz]

To be honest - I agree we were all major pricks in that thread. But I think what pricked most of us (pun totally intended! ) was the fact you never know if drink driving is going to end safely when you first get in the car, so based on that, you shouldn't drink drive full stop. The same applies with texting I think. Both stir up your concentration a lot more than switching radio or telling the children in the back to shut up.

 

[Ch3tan]

Bugz, you should know by now that everything Toht posts comes with a disclaimer. If it does not get the response he wants, or his position is compromised, then the original post has been misinterpreted, or taken out of context. Sometimes the entire meaning of the post can change.


Anyone doing anything that distracts their attention from driving is an idiot, and should be banned. It's dangerous enough as it is.

 

[Scouse]

Jeesus fucking christ people. This wasn't supposed to turn into a "lets bash Toht" rant.

I posted that you'd all missed the point - and you had. Care to comment on the science?

 

[Scouse]

Anyone doing anything that distracts their attention from driving is an idiot, and should be banned. It's dangerous enough as it is.

I'd take task with this tho - driving isn't dangerous in the UK. 2200 deaths a year. It's both "fuck" and "all".

Smoking is much more dangerous.

 

[old.Tohtori]

To be honest - I agree we were all major pricks in that thread. But I think what pricked most of us (pun totally intended! ) was the fact you never know if drink driving is going to end safely when you first get in the car, so based on that, you shouldn't drink drive full stop. The same applies with texting I think. Both stir up your concentration a lot more than switching radio or telling the children in the back to shut up.

I agree(doubt i did) that at a starting scenario = bad idea. No condoning of bad ideas(those that hurt others possibly, hurting self is your own f*cking life really ). I should've explained more clearly, in the starting post, that it's only after it's been done and done, that i don't mind it(if no one hurt etc).

So guess there's fault in all and my bad was not making the position clear that it's post-non-caring and not pre-non-caring.

On the texting though, like i said earlier, i think it's up to the situation and person.

Ofcourse sh*t can happen, but then again sh*t can happen while you turn around to tell the wife to cram it up her bunghole too.

 

[Calaen]

I think...that has nothing to do with this.

My apologies I read the same thing in so many threads I must have gotten the two mixed up.

Anyway a non driver giving tips about how you can safely drive with distractions Trollololololoolololololl.

 

[Krazeh]

I'd take task with this tho - driving isn't dangerous in the UK. 2200 deaths a year. It's both "fuck" and "all".

Smoking is much more dangerous.

What about when you take into account injuries? And out of the number of driving related deaths how many are the driver and how many are bystanders (i.e. pedestrians, passengers in the car, people in other cars etc)?

 

[old.Tohtori]

My apologies I read the same thing in so many threads I must have gotten the two mixed up.

Anyway a non driver giving tips about how you can safely drive with distractions Trollololololoolololololl.

Then stop posting the same sh*t in every thread?

Anyway, don't need to drive to know about driving. elseway it would pretty much make every thread in here redundant. Unless ofcourse people here are peace talk ambassadors and multimillion moviemakers

But i'll remember that when you have an opinion about games next time, you can't know sh*t 'cause you haven't made any.

 

[Calaen]

Then stop posting the same sh*t in every thread?

Anyway, don't need to drive to know about driving. elseway it would pretty much make every thread in here redundant. Unless ofcourse people here are peace talk ambassadors and multimillion moviemakers

But i'll remember that when you have an opinion about games next time, you can't know sh*t 'cause you haven't made any.

Playing said game would allow me to have an opinion on whether it was good or bad, regardless of whether I made it or not, simply because I had an experience with it. I do try to not comment on things I have no real personal experience with.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Playing said game would allow me to have an opinion on whether it was good or bad, regardless of whether I made it or not, simply because I had an experience with it. I do try to not comment on things I have no real personal experience with.

Well you've commented on, let's see, for example me not being able to know myself so fully that i know what i want from life(or don't want).

Hey, how more "non personal" can you get when you tell other people what they know about themselves?