

Please, Just Put The Phone Down And Drive - adampopescu
http://readwrite.com/2012/11/12/texting-while-driving-please-just-put-down-the-phone

======
itcmcgrath
I moved from a place where it was illegal (NSW, Australia) to somewhere it
wasn't (Colorado, USA).

People still did it in Australia, but no where near as much as here.

My biggest peeve is actually because of the people who are holding the phone
to their ear. I have almost been sideswiped a stupid amount of times because
someone is holding the phone/hand/arm up on the left side and decides to
change lanes without looking, while talking and with body position blocking
vision. It makes me angry that mine and others lives are less important than
delaying their conversation.

~~~
pyrotechnick
This is one of the only "nanny state" laws I find reasonable.

People genuinely need saving from themselves.

~~~
noonespecial
I don't consider it a nanny state law. Its not you I want saved from you, its
_me_.

Even with insurance, most people are not prepared (or often required) to bear
the full cost of the damage they can cause with their cars. Because they
cannot shoulder the responsibility, they should not be allowed to take the
risk. They are risking other peoples' property (and lives) for their own
stupid behavior. We don't let people drive as fast as they want or ignore stop
signs for the same reason.

~~~
pyrotechnick
Of course this depends on your definition of "nanny state".

Here my definition is: laws that cover specific behaviour otherwise already
covered by law.

I'm no lawyer but can I imagine it has all kinds of fancy things written about
it in Latin.

Maybe

[http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_specialis_derogat_legi_general...](http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_specialis_derogat_legi_generali)

or

<http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejusdem_generis>

~~~
noonespecial
Sometimes the law covers something, but only thinly. The law in most states in
the USA(1) surely states that any damage you cause should be paid in
recompense. So technically "distracted driving" is "covered by existing law".
In practice this does not work out. Its easy to be in an accident that causes
more damage than an individual's net worth and insurance coverage combined. If
the only people allowed to drive cars were the ones able to afford enough
insurance to guarantee recompense(2) in any situation, there would be very few
cars on the road indeed. So sometimes existing laws need "helping", as
imperfect as that may be. Society subsidizes the risk in exchange for a little
cooperation to reduce that risk.

(1) Excepting all of that "no fault" nonsense that a few try to monkey-patch
into working.

(2) It gets even more complicated when people die.

~~~
pyrotechnick
_So sometimes existing laws need "helping", as imperfect as that may be._

Sounds like you've been indoctrinated good and proper. I'll write this one off
as job creation.

 _If the only people who were allowed to drive cars were the ones able to
afford enough insurance to guarantee recompense(2) in any situation, there
would be very few cars on the road indeed._

I fear you've severely underestimated the nanny-ness of the state I'm
referring to: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance#Australia>

Nevertheless, the "helping" you refer to isn't helping in reality. The first
layer making it illegal doesn't work. Neither do the others layered over that.

~~~
noonespecial
I'm not entirely closed to your point of view. I admit to playing a bit of
devil's advocate in the above but, dude:

 _Sounds like you've been indoctrinated good and proper._

That kind of thing just shuts debate off cold.

~~~
pyrotechnick
Only if you let it.

Sometimes God needs an advocate too :)

------
ryandvm
I'm just glad that the same advances in high performance computing that make
smartphones possible will also bring us self-driving cars.

Want to text while you drive? Fine, but you must own a car that has self-
driving capability. Problem solved.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Self-driving cars can't get here fast enough. How can we get them here faster?

Google folks: There are people out there willing to work _for free_ to help
self-driving cars get here faster. Make a way for them to be able to
contribute (I volunteer to help push legislation in the 47 states that don't
allow self-driving cars yet).

~~~
ryangallen
Right there with you, I think about this everyday I drive to and from work. It
is absolutely insane to have millions of people "in control" of their cars.
Where do I sign up?

------
flexxaeon
Maybe I'm just anti-social, but I _love_ that I can use driving as an excuse
to ignore calls & texts, will envoke it every chance I get, and still haven't
adopted a hands-free solution so I can continue doing so.

~~~
gte910h
Hands free solutions do not help according to studies.

That's the ironic thing about many laws requiring them.

[http://www.baldwinandlyons.com/publications/quill/2011/04/in...](http://www.baldwinandlyons.com/publications/quill/2011/04/inattention_blindness.html)

~~~
clarkevans
I like the direction of his broader category, "distracted driving". For years
I always thought that "baby on board" was pretentious and meant that you
should be careful, because if you cause an accident you might kill a baby. Now
I'm older, wiser (and have a child now). What "Baby on Board" means is that
the driver is _seriously_ distracted.

edit: I'm being sarcastic; I don't see any difference between a properly
implemented hands-free environment and having a passenger: you must still keep
your eyes on the road, your ears listening for interesting events, and your
mind tracking all the vehicles and pedestrians near you.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _I like the direction of his broader category, "distracted driving"._

I understand the sentiment, but that's too broad for me. I don't like giving
the police unlimited discretion in determining whether I have broken the law
or not. Tell me what I can and can't do, and I'll act accordingly.

~~~
ensignavenger
Police never have unlimited discretion in determining whether or not you have
violated the law- that is for a judge and/or jury to determine. Still, I agree
with the sentiment- I think we need to focus on the sociology of distracted
driving, rather than the criminology.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"Police never have unlimited discretion in determining whether or not you
> have violated the law- that is for a judge and/or jury to determine."_

Maybe it's up to the judge/jury to determine if you _broke_ the law, but this
certainly gives police the right to pull you over because you looked
"distracted". That's too ambiguous for me.

------
k3n
If I had a dollar for every soccer-mom in an SUV or minivan that was oblivious
to the world as she cut me off, I'd be rich.

Not to mention that even when my life isn't jeopardized, these same yappers
are the ones most likely to hold up traffic (like by going -5 in the "passing"
lane for miles on end) or something else equally moronic.

------
leoedin
Teenagers send and receive an average of 167 messages a day? Is that not a
huge number? I suppose we had MSN when I was a teenager. I'm not sure if I'm
patient enough to send hundreds of text messages on a touchscreen phone.

~~~
itcmcgrath
I send/receive about that in emails a day. On top of that you have IM's,
Twitter, Facebook, Phone calls, etc. In short, that number is not surprising.

------
majormajor
When it comes to distracted driving, is talking to a passenger in the car any
different than talking on the phone on a hands-free device? Is there something
weird going on in the brain when it comes to having a conversation with
someone not physically present?

~~~
redler
One theory is that, yes, something different is going on in the brain when
speaking on a phone, as opposed to speaking with a passenger.

 _"It may be that talking on the phone generates mental images that conflict
with the spatial processing needed for safe driving. Eye-tracking studies show
that while drivers continually look side to side, cellphone users tend to
stare straight ahead._

 _"They may also be distracted to the point that their engaged brains no
longer process much of the information that falls on their retinas, which
leads to slower reaction times and other driving problems._

\-- New York Times, "A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group Urges Phone
Ban for Drivers" [0]

[0] <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13well.html?_r=0>

Edit: clarity.

~~~
majormajor
Interesting. They eye tracking stuff is especially fascinating.

------
Dirlewanger
That one visceral UK anti-texting PSA needs to be mandatory viewing like,
everywhere.

~~~
bryanlarsen
This the one? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E>

I couldn't make it through to the end.

~~~
lancewiggs
New Zealand did similar advertisements a few years back, setting up car
crashes with actors and not telling the emergency services that they were not
real.

But this recent campaign about telling your mates not to drink and drive is
far more clever. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRzlAiLr2M>

The logic is that changing behaviour relies on helping people understand what
is 'cool' and what is not cool with their friends. As anti-tobacco campaigns
or anti-drug campaigns should also know, this is far more effective than the
scare tactics.

~~~
pyrotechnick
I've been patiently waiting exactly 12 months for this precise moment.

Here goes nothing...

YOU KNOW I CAN'T GRAB YOUR GHOST CHIPS!

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsFlVWqWHlA>

For a year now, I've been internalizing this really complicated situation in
my head.

Wondering why this phrase has stuck with me so very much. Why? What does it
all mean?

It all makes perfect sense now.

Pack it up folks. The Internet is over.

Take me now, God. It is done.

------
CodeMage
I once worked with a guy who rigged his phone and car with a gizmo that would
allow him to send texts that he would input using just one button that he
wouldn't even have to look at: he would just use it to tap out Morse code and
when he was finished, the message would be sent via SMS. I don't remember
whether he could listen to inbound messages in Morse code, but it would be a
logical conclusion.

I imagine it's still somewhat distracting, but a lot less than actually
looking at the phone.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The biggest problem with texting or talking while driving is that your
attention is focused on texting or talking rather than on the road. Adding the
additional cognitive load of interpreting Morse code may make things worse
rather than better.

~~~
gknoy
If he were a HAM operator, or someone with experience doing Morse Code for a
living, I expect it would probably be as nearly automatic as typing would be
for you or me.

~~~
jff
Ham is not an acronym.

------
tehwebguy
I predict that self-driving cars will take care of this before we come up with
another realistic solution.

(Posted from FL, which has no distracted driving state laws)

~~~
ableal
"Pick up the phone and let the car drive."

Actually, it will not be an option. Once it is possible, it will be mandatory.

------
adampopescu
We need to have cars that WON'T LET US use our outside tech devices when we're
in the driver's seat. That kind of design functionality would HELP this
problem. Also, in-dash GPS and the like, it's hurting more than it's helping
IMO. 10 years ago, no one had this stuff. Look at a map people, or better yet,
know where you're going!!!

~~~
mirkules
Absolutely not. These "restrictive" vehicle systems are horrible, for the
simple fact that they don't distinguish between driver and passenger. Being in
some more modern vehicles which do exactly as you say is infuriating when you
have to ask your passenger -- instead of pulling up the GPS turn-by-turn on
the large in-dash screen -- to instead pull out the iPhone 5 because the nav
won't let you set a waypoint while you're in "drive".

Artificially restricting controls only results in a user bypassing those
controls in some way, which could do more harm than good (e.g. forcing you use
your phone instead).

------
marknutter
Terrible drivers are terrible at driving while talking on a cell phone. Go
figure.

------
enraged_camel
Maybe it's just me, but when I drive, I turn off _all_ distractions: radio
off, iPhone on DND mode and not playing any music, GPS voice off, and
passengers hushed.

I want to be able to not just see the other vehicles on the road, but also
_hear_ them. I've avoided a couple of accidents that way. This is impossible
to do with music blasting or other people in the car talking loudly.

------
drivebyacct2
Sadly, the people that can't talk and drive can't do anything and drive well
simultaneously. Further, they're likely unaware of their shitty driving and
will replace "Being on the phone" with something else: eating, makeup, futzing
with the radio, otherwise not paying attention to what they're doing.

How about: people pay the hell attention to the roader. As both a driver and
biker, I'd be DEAD several times in the last two months and I'm in a medium
sized city in the Midwest, it's not like there's an excuse for the times when
bad drivers have been a risk to me.

