Driver Using Two Cell Phones Gets Year-Long Driving Ban 478
coondoggie writes "This guy is the poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned in more places. According to press out of the United Kingdom, a man who was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another has been banned from driving for a year. Initial reports said that the driver, David Secker, was apparently using his knees to steer the car, an accusation he tried to refute in court."
Diving with your knees is not dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And the sad part is... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about having your hands on the wheel. It's about having your mind on the road.
Anyone who thinks it's okay to divide their attention when they are supposed to be controlling a lethally dangerous machine surrounded by innocent bystanders is a selfish prick. If that's how you drive it's sheer dumb luck which has thus far stopped you killing someone, and that may not hold out forever.
Re:I'm impressed (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact he was caught proves he is a terrible driver, but the fact everyone around him can actually drive and was paying attention to the road is what prevented this from becoming a pileup. Someone who willingly ignores not only road rules but basic common sense should not be driving, let alone teaching other people how to drive.
People like him rarely injure themselves. It's the people they hit that get killed.
What the FUCK is wrong with some people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And the sad part is... (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of morons with bad habits are going to ruin it for the vast majority who know better than to take their hands off the wheel.
He didn't just take his hands off the wheel - he took his eyes off the road. There is no safe way to drive without being able to see the road. Nobody that I know of considers it a good idea to have people who cannot see allowed to drive; but this person is for all intents and purposes blind while writing or reading a text message.
This is equally as dangerous to the public as driving drunk, and should be handled the same way the rest of the industrialized world handles DUI - mandatory felony for the first offense.
That said I am not aware of "nanny states" looking to use this to take away reasonable cell phone usage privileges from drivers. You can still talk on your phone, but for the sake of everyone on the road don't take your eyes off the road. Reading and writing text messages is simply not safe while driving. You can't read the newspaper while driving and expect to get away with it, there is no reason why a text message should be any different.
Re:Wrong conclusion! (Score:1, Insightful)
I *DO* professional driver training. At absolutly NO point is using a phone at any time regarded as approriate. All good trainers and people that know how to drive (you dont or else you wouldnt have said what you did) know that ANY distraction while driving is not on at all.
I tell my passengers to keep it quiet, I also dont drive with a radio on. I have no gadgets. I do what I'm supposed to be doing and that's called driving.
Re:And the sad part is... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you measure the impairment of a person after you've stopped them?
By their actions before you stop them. Crossing the yellow line multiple times, failure to maintain a constant speed, not noticing that the cop put his lights on until a minute later when he finally hits the siren. Breathalyzer or blood test if the impairment is alcohol or drugs. Those kinds of things.
Just as you can generalize and say that someone with a blood alcohol content of .10 or .08 is "impaired" in the eyes of the law, texting while driving is also impaired at any level, and simply talking on a cell phone has been shown to be just as dangerous (4x) as driving drunk, so it is easy to conclude texting is worse.
With the availability of hands-free options, there is no excuse to talk while holding the phone anyway. Or pull over. More importantly, there is never a justification for texting while driving. I'm a Libertarian at heart, but that goes beyond personal freedom and enters into the "acts that affects others", and needs a heavy fine, to discourage those activities.