Lawmaker Who Is Against Driving While Yakking Gets Into Car Accident... While Using Phone
from the whoops dept
Over the years, we've had many stories about the various efforts to ban "driving while yakking." While there's no doubt that driving while talking on a mobile phone can make you less aware, it's attacking the wrong problem, which is bad driving decisions. We already have laws against reckless driving, and the goal should be to enforce them, rather than focusing on banning every possible distraction one by one. The problem with banning each distraction, rather than focusing on educating drivers to be better drivers is that they just move on to other distracting activities. In fact, research has shown that since putting the various driving-while-yakking laws in place, there's been no decrease in accidents. Instead, it seems like most of these laws are passed not to protect people, but for political expediency. It's one of those laws that gets the politicians who support it plenty of attention. So, with that in mind, it can't look good that one of the backers of such a law in California crashed her SUV into another car while trying to answer a call, taking her eyes off the road (via The Raw Feed). The point here is that the law really isn't the issue: common sense is. Drivers shouldn't need laws to point out reasons why they shouldn't take their eyes off the road. Update: This story just gets better. It appears that her claim that she had just picked up the phone is now in question, as prior to the accident at least six drivers were so worried about the careening SUV with a driver talking on the phone that they had all called the police to report her bad driving -- including the fact that she'd bounced off the center median prior to the accident. Oops.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lawmaker's don't follow laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law isn't followed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law isn't followed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phone Accident
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Phone Accident
It's the famous Marin County Trotskyite, Carol Ruth Migden.
A woman who would like all of us to be "better controlled"...
Controlled? Her exact words.
Lionel Mandrake
Uncontrollable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ban cellphones, period
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just ban cellphones, period
What I fail to understand is how anything got done before we had mobile phones, given how many people seem to think the world will stop if they're not answering that call right now regardless of what else is going on, or that they absolutely must have their phone on as soon as the plane is on the tarmac?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just ban cellphones, period
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just ban cellphones, period
What about service technicians in any field? Don't you think it is so much easier when they can move to in front of the where they are working in case they need to call for support.
Cell phones are a great invention.
That being said,
I agree that people do abuse their right to yak on the phone while driving.
As an example, recently I found myself looking down at my cell looking up a contact phone #, and failed to notice the light turn red in front of me.
Lucky for me and any other pedestrian or driver in the area, I was able to avoid an accident. But boy did I feel stupid.
I realized then that not only is talking on a cell while driving is not only stupid, but it is a dangerous thing to do.
I think new cars should come standard with a setup where you could plug your phone into your radio, and have microphones either on the headrest or somewhere in the car...and of course some sort of kit to install in older cars as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Citation received
The senator was given a breathalyzer test, which showed she wasn't under the influence of alcohol. No citation were issued, which is typical for minor accidents like this that have no other independent eyewitnesses, [CHP spokesman Marvin] Williford said.
OK that's total BS. California will ticket you for laughing at the scene let alone being involved in the accident. Since its a tax-payer-provided SUV (ugh), who does he (the victim) sue for damages?
And to Kurt, go read the actual articles for details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While common sense comes up short...
Face it the whole article is invalidated by one obvious glaring problem
She crashed while she was messing with her phone - so the stats are wrong, they are measuring the wrong thing or something else has occurred
The one thing that this proves categorically is that using a mobile phone while driving causes accidents
Most countries, and as far as I am aware US states, already have laws against dangerous driving, and I agree with you that most people should have the common sense to see that driving whilst messing about with a phone constitutes this. Unfortunately as proven by this article common sense can be lacking
Using a mobile phone is not a necessary part of driving, is proven to distract people from driving and is easily distinguishable (and proven) as something you are either doing or you are not - it makes sense to ban it, if for no other reason than to reinforce the message
If laws against dangerous driving did not exist and this was the only one then yes it would be stupid, but as an addition to other laws it makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While common sense comes up short...
Idiots who bleat that we need a new law every time some jackass finds a new way to be stupid are just trying to pass the responsibility elsewhere.
Do you honestly believe that the mere existence of a law means that people will therefore adhere to it? We have speed limits, drink-driving and other laws, so clearly no one speeds or drives drunk any more...right? WRONG!
Law or no, most people should know how to behave. That is NOT where the problem lies. It lies with the morons who cannot think right and take appropriate decisions before acting. Legislation does not solve this problem, it just creates more damn lawyers and more crazy judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
Amen. And related to this topic, drivers education/testing in this country is joke. Making testing harder, maybe adding a commonsense section, would do wonders! But no, we can't do that because it would infringe on [stupid] people's RIGHT to drive. :rolleyes:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
Idiots who bleat that we need a new law every time some jackass finds a new way to be stupid are just trying to pass the responsibility elsewhere. I would agree to a point with this, it would be entirely true if it were just themselves they were injuring - hopefully Darwinism would start to kick in. Unfortunately as proven in this case it's often other people they injure and that's usually considered the point that the law starts to step in
Do you honestly believe that the mere existence of a law means that people will therefore adhere to it? We have speed limits, drink-driving and other laws, so clearly no one speeds or drives drunk any more...right? WRONG! Good point, no a law does not automatically mean people will follow it (although I'm assuming your right thinking folks will) It does mean however that people can be held accountable for their actions and gives clearer culpability in the case of an accident
Law or no, most people should know how to behave. That is NOT where the problem lies. It lies with the morons who cannot think right and take appropriate decisions before acting. Legislation does not solve this problem, it just creates more damn lawyers and more crazy judges. I fully agree more people should think right and I wish you every success with your campaign to make this happen, however in the meantime I would still rather people didn't talk on their phones whilst driving as in general I think it is an unnecessary distraction.
Since the people currently causing the accidents obviously can't think right and there is no sensible way to determine who did and didn't have a proper upbringing there are only two realistic alternatives
1) Ignore the problem and hope it'll go away
2) Do the best you can by adding amendments to existing driving laws (since that's all they really are) - no it won't be perfect but I genuinely believe if it saves a few lives its better than nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While common sense comes up short...
Putting on makeup, eating a cheeseburger and fries, disciplining children, whistling at women, dozing off, masturbating, watching video on an in-dash screen, fiddling with a GPS, and headbanging all meet those criteria, yet are perfectly legal. If you ban everything that might distract driving, then you'll be pulled over for just looking the wrong way while driving, giving already over-zealous traffic cops more reason to exert power.
There are also plenty of people who use cell phones while driving and behave perfectly safely. You don't notice them because that's the point - to not notice them. You only notice someone who talks on a cell phone when they cut you off while driving or get into an accident, yet plenty of people cut me off and get into accidents that aren't talking on cell phones. So, that rationale is akin to banning video games because they promote violence - there's a correlation that's not equal to causation and there are plenty of people who play Doom who don't kill people, but they aren't notice because the correlation only happens when someone does something bad.
The last thing we need is more laws. We've got plenty to enforce as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While common sense comes up short...
Putting on makeup, eating a cheeseburger and fries, disciplining children, whistling at women, dozing off, masturbating, watching video on an in-dash screen, fiddling with a GPS, and headbanging all meet those criteria, yet are perfectly legal. If you ban everything that might distract driving, then you'll be pulled over for just looking the wrong way while driving, giving already over-zealous traffic cops more reason to exert power.
There are also plenty of people who use cell phones while driving and behave perfectly safely. You don't notice them because that's the point - to not notice them. You only notice someone who talks on a cell phone when they cut you off while driving or get into an accident, yet plenty of people cut me off and get into accidents that aren't talking on cell phones. So, that rationale is akin to banning video games because they promote violence - there's a correlation that's not equal to causation and there are plenty of people who play Doom who don't kill people, but they aren't notice because the correlation only happens when someone does something bad.
The last thing we need is more laws. We've got plenty to enforce as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While common sense comes up short...
Putting on makeup, eating a cheeseburger and fries, disciplining children, whistling at women, dozing off, masturbating, watching video on an in-dash screen, fiddling with a GPS, and headbanging all meet those criteria, yet are perfectly legal. If you ban everything that might distract driving, then you'll be pulled over for just looking the wrong way while driving, giving already over-zealous traffic cops more reason to exert power.
There are also plenty of people who use cell phones while driving and behave perfectly safely. You don't notice them because that's the point - to not notice them. You only notice someone who talks on a cell phone when they cut you off while driving or get into an accident, yet plenty of people cut me off and get into accidents that aren't talking on cell phones. So, that rationale is akin to banning video games because they promote violence - there's a correlation that's not equal to causation and there are plenty of people who play Doom who don't kill people, but they aren't notice because the correlation only happens when someone does something bad.
The last thing we need is more laws. We've got plenty to enforce as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While common sense comes up short...
Yes, lets worry about cell phones and ignore the fact that the people JUST CAN NOT DRIVE! Most of these people who complain about being tailgated, passed, or distractions are the very people causing the problems. When you have a pathetic driver, who already should not be on the road, and add a cell phone, it is only making the root problem worse. Removing the cell phone doesn't solve this problem.
If someone passes you in the right hand lane on a freeway, you have done something wrong. No matter how fast they want to drive, you should not have been obstructing the fast lane. By forcing traffic to go around you, you have just added many more risks to the citation. If they are violating the law, then they will get a ticket, but you can not in turn violate the law by obstructing traffic because you don't think they should be violating the law by speeding.
I commute over 100 miles per day and I race cars on my free time. From my experience, the most dangerous people on the road are the ones who think they are being safe. They are the ones driving 10 under the speed limit, the ones slowing down to a near stop to make a turn, the ones who will not change lanes because they are going 3MPH faster then the people in the slow lane. These people cause by far the majority of the accidents I witness. Everything from people having to slam on their brakes to dodge them to cars actually leaving the road to avoid hitting these people.
Maybe one day we will figure out that not everyone should be handed a drivers license, and we will actually bring ability back into the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
Just because 55 is the speed limit doesn't mean you have to be a horses rear and drive 55 in the "passing" lane.
I think the point that the other guy was making was that people do things that are more dangerous than talking on the phone - like, being a self appointed traffic monitor holding up others just because he can.
With your attitude you would be well suited for a position as a bouncer at a night club. Think of the power you would weild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
Driving the "speed limit" during storms, at night and/or during highly congested periods is more dangerous than driving in excess of the "speed limit" during clear/bright conditions with no congestion. You cutting over 3 lanes of traffic to get into the "passing lane" (where you obviously take great joy and pride in doing you twit) will eventually get you (but hopefully not anyone else) killed.
To get back on point, talking on your phone while driving is pretty stupid for most people. I say most as there are people out there that can multitask. I'd say most cannnot, as most cannot catch a side line pass with a safety glued to you or toss a perfect no-look pass (I know I can't, which is why I don't). I try not to talk on the phone while driving, but sometimes it rings and I answer it. I give more attention to driving than to the phone though, so I usually tell the caller I'll call them back. Not that my personal solutions can be applied to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: While common sense comes up short.
Where does it say anything about cutting across three lanes? I mean WTF? That has no relevance and can not be inferred from what was posted. You obviously expect everyone to kiss your arse since you are King of the road and drive better than everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While common sense comes up short...
Forget about cell phones, how about women and old people? They are both more likely to crash at any given time than a 30 year old male. Why shouldn't only 30 year old men drive? How can I be allowed to drive first thing in the morning? How can someone drive after 3 beers but not 4?
Any law that is made will not protect against the real problem which is that people are too unpredictable. Fix the problem with technology.
A) Turn the price of gas up to $10 / gallon. This will cause a shift where people do their job from home through the magic of the internet. Society just hasn't realized that their physical presence isn't required on site every day anymore.
B) Use the tax money to research and retrofit the highway system with technology that cars could use to get themselves from point A to point B without human interaction. You can drink and talk on the phone in your car while it whisks you into the city for dinner, then home to bed. This is a technology that i could appreciate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why we need the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on...
The senator was given a breathalyzer test, which showed she wasn't under the influence of alcohol. No citation were issued, which is typical for minor accidents like this that have no other independent eyewitnesses, Williford said.
I'm with comment #5. This sounds like a Senator pulling rank on a cop. I live in NC mind you but I got rear ended back in Feb. 2006 and (in NC at least) if someone is rear ended the rear ender is almost always at fault. No citation my butt. That Senator more than likely intimidated the cop/trooper on the scene.
Now if that had been average Jane/Joe citizen that rear ended someone while yakking on a cell phone then you can best believe that they would have gotten a citation of sort and more than likely would have had to pay for the victims damages. But since politicians have an, "Everyone but me" attitude when it comes to obeying the law this does not suprise me at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might just be me...
I think she got into a car accident because she is an airhead and then blamed it on her cell phone to help out this law she is trying to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Might just be me...
Everyone does. There is no such thing as an "accident", they are crashes. In order for a crash to take place, someone has to screw up. Just because you don't mean to, doesn't mean it's not your fault.
Let's start making people learn how to actually "drive" before we tell them to navigate a vehicle from point a to point b.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving Under the Influence of Lenin
"Instant karma's gonna get you...."
LM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perfect solution
Many may object that passengers in cars, on trains and on buses should be able to make cell calls while in motion. I say put your ego in a box and wait until you reach your destination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perfect solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i have driven at least a million miles in my lifetime (years driving a taxi plus some hectic commuting). and (knock on wood), i have never had an accident.
and over these ... 30 years I've driven, i've driven while yakking. and eating. and smoking. and fiddling with the radio. and with kids in the car. and while tired. and yes, i've even driven while buzzed. oh the horror! but with a little luck and a *lot* of deliberate effort put into making sure that i kept my eyes on the road and my attention on those bad-driving idiots out there, i've managed to avoid running into anything, or letting anything run into me.
but i swear to god the next time one of those idiots has to swerve into the breakdown lane because they're not watching brake lights up ahead, which happens these about every other freakin' day these days, i'm gonna go off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you're given a license to operate several ton's at high speeds, where other people are out and about with their families, you'd better be focused exclusively on driving or someone may die.
Do we need laws to keep people off cell phones while driving? Absolutely. Regardless of what statistics say, people driving and talking on cell phones are NOT paying 100% attention to operating their vehicle. For some reason, their focus on driving is WORSE on the phone than when they're talking to a passanger in their car.
There's not 1 single argument that supports the need to talk on a cell phone while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failure to report
Ah, the wonders of modern mobile multitasking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this also proves how useless Midgen's law would be. She wasn't actually ON the phone, she was just distracted by it ringing. Maybe we should pass a law against having your phone on while in the car, even if you aren't using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Troopers Kiss Connected Ass
This reminds me of an incident from my youth. I was driving and was stopped on a two lane roadway waiting to make a left turn (signal and all) when I was rear-ended by a new Cadillac. My car was totally destroyed and I was almost killed. When the two state troopers got to the scene the driver of the Cadillac got out, could hardly walk and was so drunk he smelled like a brewery. The first thing he said to the troopers, as best he could through his drunken slur, was "I'm so-and-so, president of so-and-so oil company" and proceeded to try and hand them his business cards (which he dropped on the ground but they practically groveled to picked up). There were also independent witness to the accident at the scene who had been commenting oh how they couldn't believe how drunk he was. Now you might have expected the troopers to arrest him but nope, they didn't even give him a ticket. Instead they gave him a VIP ride home. Now when I see those billboards the state police put up warning people how drunk driving will not be tolerated I just have to laugh and think "Yeah right, depends on who you are".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving skills
Anyway, while driving around with my international license, I was just amazed at how many crappy drivers are out there on the road (compared with Belgium, and Western Europe in general, at least the countries I have been to). I really was amazed, that is until I applied for my US driver's license....
It started with the brochure one gets in preparation for the written test. My wife had picked it up and when she handed it to me, my first and only question was: is this all???
The manual I had to read (and know) in Belgium was far more elaborate and handled much more than that very general, very vague pamphlet (I refuse to call it a book or manual). The test itself, needless to say, was ridiculous as well.
For the actual driving test, it amounts to little more than a standard drive around the block, didn't take more than 5 minutes (might not have taken more than 3 if we hadn't had a red light). In Europe, the drive takes about 20 to 30 minutes, every DMV has a dozen different routes , every route incorporates non-standard situations and to pass you have to demonstrate not only acceptable (physical) driving skills but also show sufficient common (driving) sense.
This only after passing a test on the parking lot to show you handle 4 "standard" operational actions (including a parallel park and 3 point turn)...(you don't pass for the parking lot tests, you don't even get to take the road test.)
Bottom line: putting on make-up, tweaking your radio, talking on the phone (regardless of hands free),... all make anybody less focused on the road and driving, so obviously should not be done. However, the vast majority of accidents, especially in the US, is because of crappy drivers and/or people just being/acting stupid, regardless of whether that's a temporary or permanent condition.
So the most effective (as in would reduce the most) measure should be to drastically increase people's driving skills and be more strict on the driving test. Anything else can be a nice addition, but will amount to peanuts in comparison to this.
PS: the scariest thing is: I had a (European) license and had been driving for 14 years, I still had to take both tests. If we ever move to Europe, all my wife has to do is take her US driver's license and a certificate from the US Embassy and she will just get a Belgian (or which ever country) driver's license.
From safety perspective, it should be the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving skills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]