Study: Distracted driving laws don't stop crashes

[Rey C.]

It's stupid that there was even a study done on this. I'm no credited expert on the subject, but I'm fairly certain that implementing laws won't prevent people from being stupid and dangerous morons. Especially behind the wheel of a car.

I mean, there are laws that are in put in place that make it illegal for a 12 year old to walk into a bar and start ordering beers. But, those laws don't prevent those 12 year olds from getting drunk.

Laws don't prevent people from doing stupid/illegal things. But strict enforcement and heavy penalties often do serve as deterrents. The law doesn't prevent the bar owner from serving the 12 year old. But the high probability that he'll lose his liquor license probably explains why I've never seen a 12 year old drinking a brew at the next table over. He might still have access to alcohol in his house, but if he shows up in public or at school plastered, Mom & Dad might have to make a trip (or ten) down to Social Services.

Let Cindy Lou Pom-Pom Girl spend the weekend picking up trash on the side of the road after being caught & convicted of texting while driving. I guarantee she'll be less likely to be thumb fucking her cell phone while driving again.

 

[Facetious]

Personally I believe that hands free devices allow for their users to ''float off into space'' more easily than those with non hands free devices. You see, when you have a flip phone to have to 'juggle' while driving, you're more likely to keep your focus on 'things' simply because of necessity, whereas hands free communication allows us to drift off because of the fact that there is less attention required in the realm of the physical aspects (handling of the phone) of the communication. e.g. The physical phone becomes almost another added item that is required to keep the car on the road, does that make sense ? sorta like if you got your windshied wipers stolen and during a downpour, you had to periodically lean out your side window with your arm extended to function as a windshield wiper arm :laugh:

The reality is that we're supposed to keep our undivided attention on the road, godammit !!!


Ahhh, the wonders of technology ! :bowdown:
Yes, that very technology they said would come back and kill us ...technology !

 

[Rey C.]

Anything that takes your attention away from the road is a bad thing. Whether it's a hands free phone or a chatty passenger. But if you're talking AND you're driving with only one hand (while you hold the phone in the other), you're just asking for that much more trouble, IMO. Unless you're shifting, there's no reason NOT to have both hands on the wheel and your attention fully devoted to the road ahead of you.

I can't count the number of times that someone has unexpectedly made a hard stop in front of me. And the only thing that saved me from plowing into them was the fact that I was paying attention... and I had both hands on the wheel and could maintain control of the car.

Edit: When I was living in NoVA, I used to get a kick out of the idiots I'd see eating breakfast and putting on makeup on their commute. I don't do it anymore, but I used to be really bad about brake-checking people who were tailgating me and not paying attenetion. My sick thrill of the day was making someone moron's eyes bulge out when I'd tap my brakes just to fuck with them.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Laws don't prevent people from doing stupid/illegal things. But strict enforcement and heavy penalties often do serve as deterrents. The law doesn't prevent the bar owner from serving the 12 year old. But the high probability that he'll lose his liquor license probably explains why I've never seen a 12 year old drinking a brew at the next table over. He might still have access to alcohol in his house, but if he shows up in public or at school plastered, Mom & Dad might have to make a trip (or ten) down to Social Services.

Let Cindy Lou Pom-Pom Girl spend the weekend picking up trash on the side of the road after being caught & convicted of texting while driving. I guarantee she'll be less likely to be thumb fucking her cell phone while driving again.

Yes, certain laws serve as a deterrent, which can lower the number of cases in which a certain activity happens, but that's not what this study is saying. This studying is saying that it doesn't STOP crashes from happening, which is something that I would think to be fairly obvious to everybody in the world, whether they studied it or not.

 

[Supafly]

If we take Willies point to other laws, there would be an argument for the laws against, say mentally unstable or plain insane people being allowed firearms to be withdrawn as those laws don't stop them getting those weapons in many cases.

I am sure that that special someone I am thinking of now has a semiautomatic or two in his pocket and under his pillow.

Maybe he is not to be pitied, after all.

 

[knowone]

^^^I think that explains why there hasn't been a successful American in F1 for decades.

j/k... If we have more accidents per mile, I'm not sure what the cause of that would be. Lack of driver training maybe? :dunno:

There hasn't been a successful American in F1 for decades because of:
1 no solid development ladder.
2 Except for the top few spots in F1, there's more money to be made in Nascar Cup, and the can generally make that money for a decade longer.

 

[HELLRAISER]

If you ask me I'll say that texting while driving should be considered a Felony!

 

[Supafly]

If you ask me I'll say that texting while driving should be considered a felony!

It is not? Wow, Texting while driving is essentially like driving blind. Eventually, you will hit somebody with a deadly weapon - the car. thats a ton or two of metal and steel hitting an unprotected body.

Certainly a crime.

 

[HELLRAISER]

^ I don't think it's a felony in California but if it isn't it definitely should be changed becoz what you said there is the reason why I think texting & driving is as dangerous and deadly as drinking & driving

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

Dear Members,
If you go up a little (or down, if you have chosen to see the last-posted post first) you will find that there are a number of posts those are addressed towards persons and not on the topic. This means you have discussed the topic enough. So, it may be the time to close the thread.

But, just to make certain that, off topic posts are not allowed on the board, it is left open. Any post directed towards personalities will be deleted. Repetition of the same will earn infraction as per Board rules.

Thanks and regards. ​

 

[Rey C.]

Yes, certain laws serve as a deterrent, which can lower the number of cases in which a certain activity happens, but that's not what this study is saying. This studying is saying that it doesn't STOP crashes from happening, which is something that I would think to be fairly obvious to everybody in the world, whether they studied it or not.

Actually that is exactly what the study is saying (didn't happen):

The organization found that claims rates did not go down after the laws were enacted. It also found no change in patterns compared with nearby states without such bans.

No one should be under the impression that a law would STOP all incidents or crashes. Nowhere in the article is that even mentioned. That's not the conclusion of the study, nor was that the point. But one would expect that an effective law (with proper enforcement) would shift the claims mean down in favor of states with laws vs. states without laws, or down in favor of the time after the law was passed vs. the time before it was passed. According to this study, that didn't happen. The question would be why?

Without mean studies and trend analysis, there would be no way to confirm that laws and enforcement are effective.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Actually that is exactly what the study is saying (didn't happen):

No one should be under the impression that a law would STOP all incidents or crashes. Nowhere in the article is that even mentioned. That's not the conclusion of the study, nor was that the point. But one would expect that an effective law (with proper enforcement) would shift the claims mean in favor of states with laws vs. states without laws, or in favor of the time after the law was passed vs. the time before it was passed. According to this study, that didn't happen. The question would be why?

Without mean studies and trend analysis, there would be no way to confirm that laws and enforcement are effective.

I was looking at the title...

Study: Distracted driving laws don't stop crashes

And, I agree that laws can make a positive difference, but only if it's effective. The law that bans driving while talking on a cell phone is a totally ineffective law though and it's only ineffective for one reason and one reason only - the punishment is a joke. I mean, what is the fine for that? Like $50-100? That's a joke. If the statistics show that driving while talking on a cell phone can be just as dangerous as driving while drunk, then why aren't the punishments anywhere close to being similar?

DRUNK DRIVING - you lose your license, you go to jail, you attend AA and MADD meetings, you pay a hefty fine and you're put on probation.
TEXTING WHILE DRIVING (which has been argued to be just as dangerous as drunk driving) - you pay a $50 fine.

In all honesty, nobody is intimidated by that. Are they going to bitch if they have to pay it? Yes. But, they're not scared of it. Maybe if jail time is threatened or if the fine was much heftier, maybe the law would turn out to be more effective. But, as it is, it's pointless because nobody fears the consequences.

 

[Rey C.]

^^^ I think we're in agreement. I'm not sure of the penalties, but I suspect they're pretty light in most states.

P.S. The article doesn't mirror the study's conclusions. Poor writing. Our public schools could be the subject of another study.

 

[thenar]

it doesnt matter how well a law works once its on the books they never get rid of it