Texting while driving

StewartR

StewartR

Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Did anyone see the news about the big crash in the USA last week? It doesn't seem to have been widely reported in the UK, but I saw it on the TV news whilst on holiday...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4368020/Callers-reported-swerving-pickup-deadly-bus-crash.html

Short version: a young lad, driving a big pick-up truck very fast on winding rural roads in Texas, crosses the centre line and hits a mini-bus head-on. The bus is full of elderly folk coming back from a church-related retreat and 13 of them are killed. The pickup truck driver, who survived, had been seen driving erratically for several miles and seems to have been texting on his phone immediately before the crash.

Interestingly, Texas has no state-wide law against texting while driving. The Texas legislature approved a ban several years ago but the Governor vetoed it.....
 
I saw this on Sky News last week although texting wasn't mentioned as the cause at the time.

You'd have to question why the Governor would want to veto the ban.
 
The recent change in the law relating to use of a mobile phone in the car is good, but I still see people doing it.
 
Recently, Devon and Cornwall police have been using a double decker bus as an observation platform to catch people using phones etc. while driving. Not sure how many they've caught or what they've done about it.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The recent change in the law relating to use of a mobile phone in the car is good, but I still see people doing it.
Click to expand...


Same as speeding then...I see people doing that all the time

Just because its against the law wont stop many people from doing it.

No point changing a law unless we re-educate people too.

Something the Gov are trying to do
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Recently, Devon and Cornwall police have been using a double decker bus as an observation platform to catch people using phones etc. while driving.
Click to expand...

Doesn't even need to be a double decker. Last time I was on a National Express coach I couldn't believe the number of drivers I saw with phones in their hands.


Stve.
 
mattyg said:
Same as speeding then...I see people doing that all the time

Just because its against the law wont stop many people from doing it.

No point changing a law unless we re-educate people too.

Something the Gov are trying to do
Click to expand...
Some speed limits are ridiculously low though so although you are breaking the law you are not necessarily driving unsafely. Texting whilst driving however isn't safe at anytime so I would liken it more to driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
 
nilagin said:
Some speed limits are ridiculously low though so although you are breaking the law you are not necessarily driving unsafely. Texting whilst driving however isn't safe at anytime so I would liken it more to driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
Click to expand...

It's not only when driving though. The law also covers being stationary say at a set of lights. Thats hardly dangerous.

Speed limits are also there for a reason. That reason may not be obvious to you and I but chances are there will be a safety reason.
 
fabs said:
You'd have to question why the Governor would want to veto the ban.
Click to expand...
mattyg said:
Just because its against the law wont stop many people from doing it.
No point changing a law unless we re-educate people too.
Click to expand...
The Governor's argument which I saw reported was that it was unnecessary micro-management and that driver education was a better approach. Presumably he took the view that the state already had laws about dangerous driving, and they were sufficient for the cause provided that drivers could be educated into understanding that texting is dangerous. I realise I'm putting words into his mouth here, though I can't see any other reasonable explanation for his stance.

If I've inferred the Governor's stance correctly, I can see where he's coming from, but I think he's mistaken. Sadly there are a significant number of people out there for whom the educational approach won't work; typically they're the ones who think they know better, and that texting "just this once, driving slowly on a quiet road" is OK, and then they're on the slippery slope. Banning the activity might be micro-management, but at least it removes any ambiguity.
 
StewartR said:
Interestingly, Texas has no state-wide law against texting while driving. The Texas legislature approved a ban several years ago but the Governor vetoed it.....
Click to expand...
There's folks in the states that Really hate Big Bad Gubmint passing laws that take away their Freedoms. I believe former Governor Rick Perry is one of them.

IMO it's a pig-headed and often self destructive mentality; the leader of a group who won't wear motorcycle helmets for no other reason than the law mandates it, died from head injuries in an RTA a few years back. :rolleyes:
 
nilagin said:
Some speed limits are ridiculously low though so although you are breaking the law you are not necessarily driving unsafely. .
Click to expand...

How utterly irrelevant.
It doesn't matter that you believe the law to be wrong, the fact remains that it's the law.
Or do you just stick to the ones you find agreeable?
 
viv1969 said:
How utterly irrelevant.
It doesn't matter that you believe the law to be wrong, the fact remains that it's the law.
Or do you just stick to the ones you find agreeable?
Click to expand...
I take it you have never broke a speed limit then.
 
StewartR said:
The Governor's argument which I saw reported was that it was unnecessary micro-management and that driver education was a better approach. Presumably he took the view that the state already had laws about dangerous driving, and they were sufficient for the cause provided that drivers could be educated into understanding that texting is dangerous. I realise I'm putting words into his mouth here, though I can't see any other reasonable explanation for his stance.

If I've inferred the Governor's stance correctly, I can see where he's coming from, but I think he's mistaken. Sadly there are a significant number of people out there for whom the educational approach won't work; typically they're the ones who think they know better, and that texting "just this once, driving slowly on a quiet road" is OK, and then they're on the slippery slope. Banning the activity might be micro-management, but at least it removes any ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Just curious, who was the Governor and I wonder is he still in office and which party ~ might a little context to his stance then and whether he has been followed on the matter as a result of the incident?
 
I see there is a £75 fine for motorists caught chucking rubbish out of there car windows.
 
What can we do to pedestrians on their mobiles. Just this afternoon a woman just walked straight out on a pelican crossing without looking whilst the traffic was on a green light. Probably frightened the life out of the poor learner in front of me who had to slam their brakes on.
 
nilagin said:
I take it you have never broke a speed limit then.
Click to expand...

Honestly?
Not to my knowledge.
It's not hard, really.

Edit, ...if I have, I've never been ticketed.
And if I had I'd not be bitching about it.
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
Just curious, who was the Governor and I wonder is he still in office and which party ~ might a little context to his stance then and whether he has been followed on the matter as a result of the incident?
Click to expand...

Rick Perry was the Governor at the time the legislation was proposed (2011). He became Governor in 2000 when the previous Governor (George W Bush) was sworn in as President, and held the office until resigning from it in 2014. Perry is a Republican and his successor, Greg Abbott, is also a Republican.

The Texas Senate has had a Republican majority since 1996 and the Texas House of Representatives has has a Republican majority since 2002. So the original texting legislation was drawn up by a Republican legislature and vetoed by a Republican Governor; the new texting legislation has been passed by a Republican House and is awaiting approval from a Republican Senate and a Republican Governor.

Basically 'Democrat' is a dirty word in Texas.
 
StewartR said:
Rick Perry was the Governor at the time the legislation was proposed (2011). He became Governor in 2000 when the previous Governor (George W Bush) was sworn in as President, and held the office until resigning from it in 2014. Perry is a Republican and his successor, Greg Abbott, is also a Republican.

The Texas Senate has had a Republican majority since 1996 and the Texas House of Representatives has has a Republican majority since 2002. So the original texting legislation was drawn up by a Republican legislature and vetoed by a Republican Governor; the new texting legislation has been passed by a Republican House and is awaiting approval from a Republican Senate and a Republican Governor.

Basically 'Democrat' is a dirty word in Texas.
Click to expand...

As are the words "federal" and "law".
 
photogwannabe said:
You just have to shake your head at the pigheadedly entrenched political viewpoints they take.
Click to expand...
Which pigheadedly entrenched political viewpoint is that? The one about specific legislation on texting being unnecessary?

I'm not sure that's a fair description of it. You might be right, but with respect I don't think you have the evidence to support your point of view. And the fact that it was a Republican Governor vetoing legislation which had been passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate suggests that it wasn't a simple party political issue.

I think it's possible to interpret Governor Perry's act as that of a responsible man who knows of the adage "legislate in haste, repent at leisure". Perhaps he was worried that this could have had all the hallmarks of a Dangerous Dogs Act, and didn't want to be responsible for a "poorly thought-out knee-jerk reaction to tabloid headlines", as the DDA has been described. If that's the case then I think his judgement was wrong - in the sense that I think legislation is required in addition to education - but I don't feel a need to impugn his motives without more information.
 
Last edited:
I probably had one of the first car phones. Could not call it mobile. That was in 1998. Now we all have at least one some have two. But we are addicted to them. We need to grow up and learn that it is very dangerous to use one while driving our roads are very busy and a anything that distracts you can lead to death.
IMHO it's not the fines that will cure this it is total reeducation. I see so many people in a car with a phone in there hand it is frightening
 
British Columbia passed a distracted driving law in 2010. Along with it came a public relations blitz. It didn't seem to do much so in 2016 the penalties were increased. There are still way too many people driving while using a cell phone or doing other things to distract from driving. If you can hit someone in their pocket before they kill someone then I'm all for it, even if it one ends up that I'm the one getting the fine.
 
wave01 said:
I probably had one of the first car phones. Could not call it mobile. That was in 1998. Now we all have at least one some have two. But we are addicted to them. We need to grow up and learn that it is very dangerous to use one while driving our roads are very busy and a anything that distracts you can lead to death.
IMHO it's not the fines that will cure this it is total reeducation. I see so many people in a car with a phone in there hand it is frightening
Click to expand...


What I find amazing is the number of people I see talking on their mobiles whilst driving cars that most definitely have hands free fitted.
 
it took years, almost a generation to change the view on drink driving.

The same time it will take for Drug driving and using a mobile to sink in. Eventually it will become a social stigma.
 
andyscott said:
it took years, almost a generation to change the view on drink driving.

The same time it will take for Drug driving and using a mobile to sink in. Eventually it will become a social stigma.
Click to expand...
I think drug (other than alcohol) driving already is isn't it? People committing those offences are very often those who aren't going to be reached by driver education, or the risk of a fine though. i.e they're addicted drug users who need help.

You do get the party drug idiots as well of course, I put them in the same category as the thousands of people who still drink and drive here every week. They're self-centered egotists who think they're special in some way.

Extended driving bans, and vehicles being sold for charity is the way to go.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The recent change in the law relating to use of a mobile phone in the car is good, but I still see people doing it.
Click to expand...
Same.

I can quite often glimpse in my mirror when down to a crawl on the motorway and see the person behind looking down at their lap. It's no mystery what they're up to.

On a similar note there was a young couple behind me on the M3 this weekend who were more interested in giving each other googly eyes and kissing than they were looking forward at the flow of traffic.

It's ridiculous.
 
andyscott said:
it took years, almost a generation to change the view on drink driving.

The same time it will take for Drug driving and using a mobile to sink in. Eventually it will become a social stigma.
Click to expand...
There's still plenty of people who's view on drink driving hasn't changed in the slightest.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wgw4Fg8Vuw

Even having her toddler in the car didn't put her off having a drink. Her injuries are undisclosed, but thankfully her son was unharmed.
 
How hard is it to turn the phone to voicemail or switch it off whilst driving?
We did manage to survive before everyone was potentially contactable every hour of the day and night.

Doesn't anyone value peace and privacy anymore?
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
How hard is it to turn the phone to voicemail or switch it off whilst driving?
We did manage to survive before everyone was potentially contactable every hour of the day and night.

Doesn't anyone value peace and privacy anymore?
Click to expand...
Problem is that way too many people can't exist without their phones, they go into virtual meltdown if they forget it and they have to be on it all the time and let it rule their lives.
I have hands free in my car, but I don't use that either, if the phone rings or I get a text, it get's answered when I arrive at where ever I'm going and not before. I can't believe the number of people who stop on slip roads to answer their phones.
 
nilagin said:
I have hands free in my car, but I don't use that either, if the phone rings it get's answered when I arrive at where ever I'm going and not before.
Click to expand...
I think that's very sensible. The trouble with hands-free phoning is that the person you're speaking to has no awareness of the road situation, and doesn't know to shut up when you need to concentrate. (You know that of course, but all those millions of people who use the hands-free kit apparently don't.)
 
I think it has to a combination of tougher penalties and education. In the past I've suggested the instant impounding of the vehicle and/or the phone. Impounding vehicles could be a logistics problem but I think it would get the message across.

The problem with education is people's attitude. For some the mobile has almost taken over their lives and it appear impossible for them not to use it, and respond to it, at all times.

Before my wife retired she was the head of a primary school. One day a parent asked if she could come in and chat about her child because she was concerned about the child's progress. During the chat the parent's mobile rang. The parent didn't ignore it and let voicemail take it or answer it briefly and say she was busy. Instead she answered it and had what was clearly a social call from a friend.

It is ironic that the freedom and convenience the technology has given us, has for some, had the opposite effect - they aren't using the technology, the technology is using them.

I'm not suggesting there should not be education but it could be quite difficult to get across the message that just because you have the ability to phone/text/ at anytime it doesn't mean should do it at anytime.

Perhaps we need some graphic safety advertisements, like this one-
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
- about rear seat belt use. Though I can't imagine anything much more graphic some of the footage we have seen on the news.

Dave
 
StewartR said:
I think that's very sensible. The trouble with hands-free phoning is that the person you're speaking to has no awareness of the road situation, and doesn't know to shut up when you need to concentrate. (You know that of course, but all those millions of people who use the hands-free kit apparently don't.)
Click to expand...

And you think a passenger would? I actually concentrate on the road more when I'm using hands free if anything!
 
Tori_T said:
There's folks in the states that Really hate Big Bad Gubmint passing laws that take away their Freedoms. I believe former Governor Rick Perry is one of them.

IMO it's a pig-headed and often self destructive mentality; the leader of a group who won't wear motorcycle helmets for no other reason than the law mandates it, died from head injuries in an RTA a few years back. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I remember stumbling across a blog a few years ago, very anti Obama and was along the same pig headed lines - was outraged at there being a law to wear seatbelts in cars as they DIDN'T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY STINKING GOVERNMENT - so would rather fly through the windscreen than be told to wear seatbelt.

---------

@Tringa i always think of that advert, i think of people of similar age to me, you just have to say 'julie knew her killer' and they're right at that ad.
 
fabs said:
And you think a passenger would? I actually concentrate on the road more when I'm using hands free if anything!
Click to expand...

I think it depends. If the passenger was also a driver then I think its fairly likely. If the passenger was like my MiL then you are correct. Combining the inability to stay quiet for more about 5 seconds with a view that appeared to be the Universe ends about an inch in front of her nose meant the chances of her taking in anything about the road situation were about zero.

dan_yell said:
I remember stumbling across a blog a few years ago, very anti Obama and was along the same pig headed lines - was outraged at there being a law to wear seatbelts in cars as they DIDN'T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY STINKING GOVERNMENT - so would rather fly through the windscreen than be told to wear seatbelt.
Click to expand...

True, even when what the "STINKING GOVERNMENT" is saying is obviously sensible.

dan_yell said:
i always think of that advert, i think of people of similar age to me, you just have to say 'julie knew her killer' and they're right at that ad.
Click to expand...

Yes, same here. When I was writing my post I was going to try and describe it but the video is far better.

One thing I don't understand about people who use a handheld mobile (though I'm more than a bit concerned about hands free too) is that even if they don't care a hoot about the damage, injury or death they might cause to others, don't they care about themselves and their families?

Dave
 
wave01 said:
I probably had one of the first car phones. Could not call it mobile. That was in 1998. Now we all have at least one some have two. But we are addicted to them. We need to grow up and learn that it is very dangerous to use one while driving our roads are very busy and a anything that distracts you can lead to death.
IMHO it's not the fines that will cure this it is total reeducation. I see so many people in a car with a phone in there hand it is frightening
Click to expand...

'98....about a decade after they began to be attainable to the masses. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top