Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications United States Handhelds Hardware

State Bans Texting While Driving 329

netbuzz writes "The state of Washington yesterday became the first in the nation to ban text-messaging while driving. The law could use sharper teeth, but it's a natural and necessary progression of the movement to clamp down on those who find the need to constantly communicate more important than the safety of their fellow travelers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State Bans Texting While Driving

Comments Filter:
  • by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Saturday May 12, 2007 @10:21AM (#19095511)
    Whatever happened to common sense?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12, 2007 @10:55AM (#19095769)
    In Europe, it has been forbidden for years to use a cellular for text messaging or calling while driving.

    According to wikipedia, Israel, Japan, Portugal and Singapore all prohibit mobile phone use while driving.
    Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom require the use of a hands-free kit.
  • by x_MeRLiN_x ( 935994 ) * on Saturday May 12, 2007 @11:41AM (#19096111)
    A man driving a lorry in the UK who was sending a test message to his girlfriend and killed another driver received 5 years in prison back in 2001. Not paying due care and attention to the road has long been a crime in the UK and more recently this has been extended to no use of mobile phones unless you make use of a hands-free kit.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1166267.stm [bbc.co.uk]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12, 2007 @12:14PM (#19096335)
    a lady just like that killed two friends of mine on their motorcycle.

    she wasn't brushing her teeth, instead she was wrapping a gift for her grandchild's friend, and talking on a hand's free.

    it was out in the suburbs and she pulled her car out from a side street onto a non-divided highway of 4 lanes, and the speed limit is 65mph.

    my friends goldwing was going about that speed when the lady pulled out suddenly with only 20 feet to spare.

    he pulled a nearly miraculous maneuver to miss the woman, leaning the goldwing to max lean angle...but they left the road, bodies separated from the bike, and two humans and a motorcycle tumbled into a convenience pole, and fence at high speed. helmets were of no use.

    lady claimed that she never saw them. grandchild in the car, gave the cops very detailed info on what happened right before the accident.

    jury will probably give her a years probation...if that.

  • by glenstar ( 569572 ) on Saturday May 12, 2007 @12:50PM (#19096653)
    Hey, you know what? I am a smoker (obviously) and I can't stand the smell of smoke (rather, I can't stand the smell of other people's smoke). I am sympathetic to your cause except for one thing: There were plenty of places in Seattle (and throughout Washington) that were non-smoking. It's not like someone chained you to a barstool in a smoky bar.
  • by Tuoqui ( 1091447 ) on Saturday May 12, 2007 @01:45PM (#19097165) Journal
    Actually theres a study out that equates driving while on the cell phone being 400% more likely to get into an accident.

    Forbes Article [forbes.com]
    400% more likely claim supported by Berkely Lab [lbl.gov] Of course there is the psudeo-science of the Mythbusters as well where they placed a sober driver on the cell phone and a 'drunk' but under the legal limit of 0.8% blood alcohol level and put them both on a closed course and had them navigate it. They did it both sober with no distractions as a control as well I believe. Turns out they both did equally bad. I am not saying it is a perfect experiment (such would require more than 2 test cases) but it does illustrate that distraction or inebriation = bad for driving ability regardless of the exact percentages involved. and another article from The Straight Dope [straightdope.com]
  • by dunkelfalke ( 91624 ) on Saturday May 12, 2007 @02:47PM (#19097645)
    yep, it is a satirical site, but a quite realistic one.
  • by mqduck ( 232646 ) <(ten.kcudqm) (ta) (kcudqm)> on Saturday May 12, 2007 @06:18PM (#19099283)
    It's definitely satire. This [shelleytherepublican.com] article (among others) proves it. What I find hilarious is how they get flooded by comment from people seriously trying to debate with the site.
  • by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <greg@gksnetworks.com> on Saturday May 12, 2007 @06:42PM (#19099437) Homepage
    I can only hope that it is a hummer or dump truck coming the other way that you end up eventually hitting, and not a pedestrian or cyclist. Hurt yourself all you want, but stop endgangering everyone else. How about you change and study at your house, and pull over to talk on the phone or txt?
  • by freeweed ( 309734 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @12:56AM (#19101367)
    I, for one, am automatically suspicious of arguments that begin with "people have done research." Who are these anonymous people? Where was the research published? Has it been repeated? You're appealing to a nonsense authority.

    Traffic safety institues. Automobile associations. Insurance companies. There's an entire field of research dedicated to this sort of study called "Risk Management". Pretty much weekly another study is released showing similar results. You want citations of peer-reviewed studies? Sorry, I was posting to an Internet discussion forum. I'll remember to bring my proper references next time I'm testifying in front of a Senate committee.

    And I bet 90% of the bad drivers you see are listening to music. Let's ban that in cars too. The fact is that when you notice that somebody is driving badly, you tend to look for someone to blame that driving on. ...

    But you don't notice all the poor, black, or female people who are in fact excellent drivers. The same idea applies to cell phones. Most people can drive well and use cell phones responsibly. You just don't notice these people.


    People listening to music don't typically focus most of their concentration on the music. Cell phone users do. Most people cannot drive well while using a cell phone, they just think they can. Hell, most people think they're perfectly good drivers after a few drinks. Ever watch someone on a phone call closely? People tend to focus most of their attention on the conversation, oftentimes blocking out the rest of their environment. Just watch someone sitting at their desk chatting - it's common enough to have to jump around and wave your arms just to get enough attention that they even realize you're standing right in front of them. Incidentally, I don't notice good drivers, that is correct. I do notice every time some asshat cuts me off, wanders between lanes, or trundles along doing 20 under the limit in the passing lane. 90% of the time they're on a cellphone. Most people aren't on cellphones when they drive. Anecdotal, but again, I'm posting to Slashdot.

    Anyway, there's a reason a lot of companies ban the use of cellphones for their employees while driving on company business. It's not some silly moral play, it's not that the CEOs are all 70 years old and hating new technology. It's because when you put the average driver behind the wheel and stick a cellphone in their hand, they drive with the same degree of carelessness as if they were legally impaired. We've been seeing this in driving simulators for years now, and it's a good thing the law is finally catching up.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...