Text-messaging driver kills cyclist - Charged with misdemeanor in criminal coddler america

[Ken M]

Robert Uhl wrote:
> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
>>to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
>>impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
>>cell phone.
>
>
> Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
> stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
> This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.
>
Yeah it was an accident, caused by some young teenage yutz how deserves
more time to think about what he did than a year in prison.

Ken

 

[The Wogster]

Ken M wrote:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
>
>> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
>>> to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
>>> impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
>>> cell phone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
>> stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
>> This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.
>>
> Yeah it was an accident, caused by some young teenage yutz how deserves
> more time to think about what he did than a year in prison.
>

Like I said, pull his licence for 10 years, every day as he schleps
along on the bus, bike (wouldn't that be ironic) or on foot, or begs
rides from friends, yutz gets to think about what he did. Every time
someone asks him, why he doesn't drive and he has to explain, yutz gets
to think about what he did. This would be a far more fitting penalty,
and for a 17 year old, much more serious penalty then a year in jail.
Driving is a privilege not a right, and if you abuse that privilege then
it should be taken away from you. I think the same about drunk drivers,
get a DUI, lose your licence, period. This would also not cost the
state taxpayers much if anything.

W

 

[Ken M]

The Wogster wrote:
> Ken M wrote:
>
>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>>
>>> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
>>>> to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
>>>> impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
>>>> cell phone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
>>> stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
>>> This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.
>>>
>> Yeah it was an accident, caused by some young teenage yutz how
>> deserves more time to think about what he did than a year in prison.
>>
>
> Like I said, pull his licence for 10 years, every day as he schleps
> along on the bus, bike (wouldn't that be ironic) or on foot, or begs
> rides from friends, yutz gets to think about what he did. Every time
> someone asks him, why he doesn't drive and he has to explain, yutz gets
> to think about what he did. This would be a far more fitting penalty,
> and for a 17 year old, much more serious penalty then a year in jail.
> Driving is a privilege not a right, and if you abuse that privilege then
> it should be taken away from you. I think the same about drunk drivers,
> get a DUI, lose your licence, period. This would also not cost the
> state taxpayers much if anything.
>
> W
>
>
Ok, now your punishment sounds like a reasonable plan for the yutz. But
I also think that it should include going around the state / country
talking to the soon to be teenage drivers about what he did and why they
should not attempt to do something as stupid as he did!

Ken


--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

 

[Roger Houston]

"Robert Uhl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
> stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
> This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

The word "accident" is falling into disfavor in the context of this case.
"Crash" is now more prevalent. It implies a preventable incident to which
negligence contributed as a root cause.

People who use firearms used to refer to "ADs" for "accidental discharge".
That term is giving way to ND for "negligent discharge", for the same
reasons that "crash" is displacing "accident".

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Uhl wrote:
> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
> > to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
> > impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
> > cell phone.
>
> Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
> stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
> This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.

You must have seen some strange studies. Most of the ones I have seen
sugest that talking on a cell phone when driving is more dangerous than
driving while over the legal alcohol level. Actually text messaging
might be less dangerous.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada

 

[Robert Uhl]

Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:

> Robert Uhl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
>>> to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
>>> impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
>>> cell phone.
>>
>>Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
>>stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
>
> Then don't sign it ... and cite your source for that info, if you
> don't mind. I'm pretty incredulous.

My file just contains the following:

Distracting factors leading to traffic accidents:
- object or person outside the car 30%
- adjusting the radio or CD player 11%
- dealing with another occupant in the car 11%
- cellular phones 1.5%
--Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina

And on re-reading I'd actually support stiff penalties for accidents
which occur while using a cell phone. Let folks choose when to use it,
but if they make the wrong choice, slap 'em down.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
I'm against picketing; I just don't know how to show it. --M.H.

 

[Roger Houston]

"Robert Uhl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Distracting factors leading to traffic accidents:
> - object or person outside the car 30%
> - adjusting the radio or CD player 11%
> - dealing with another occupant in the car 11%
> - cellular phones 1.5%
> --Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina

Further thought about this should reduce the confusion. I would assume that
"cellular phones" in this tabulation would be defined by the use of a cell
phone as a phone. "Text messaging" is quite another thing altogether. It's
fussy and distracting. One must make multiple keystrokes, and I cannot
conceive of being able to do it while driving. The act requires a lot of
putzing with the buttons and looking at the screen. It would certainly take
one's eyes off the road a lot longer than would the act of adjusting a radio
or CD player, as distracting as those things are.

 

[The Wogster]

Ken M wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>> Ken M wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> One of the moderators of www.bikeforums.net started an online petition
>>>>> to ask Congress to ban cell phones while driving, enforce the ban, and
>>>>> impose stiffer penalties for hurting/killing people while using their
>>>>> cell phone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing
>>>> radio
>>>> stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the
>>>> point?
>>>> This is a horrible accident, but that's just what it is: an accident.
>>>>
>>> Yeah it was an accident, caused by some young teenage yutz how
>>> deserves more time to think about what he did than a year in prison.
>>>
>>
>> Like I said, pull his licence for 10 years, every day as he schleps
>> along on the bus, bike (wouldn't that be ironic) or on foot, or begs
>> rides from friends, yutz gets to think about what he did. Every time
>> someone asks him, why he doesn't drive and he has to explain, yutz
>> gets to think about what he did. This would be a far more fitting
>> penalty, and for a 17 year old, much more serious penalty then a year
>> in jail. Driving is a privilege not a right, and if you abuse that
>> privilege then it should be taken away from you. I think the same
>> about drunk drivers, get a DUI, lose your licence, period. This would
>> also not cost the state taxpayers much if anything.
>>
>> W
>>
>>
> Ok, now your punishment sounds like a reasonable plan for the yutz. But
> I also think that it should include going around the state / country
> talking to the soon to be teenage drivers about what he did and why they
> should not attempt to do something as stupid as he did!
>

I think yutz has driving privileges cancelled for 10 years for doing
stupid thing while driving as a headline in most newspapers, would be
sufficient, heck a few media interviews might do it. Of course a copy
of the CNN interview in every driving instructor class, might be sufficient.

W

W

 

[mark]

"Roger Houston" wrote:
>
> Further thought about this should reduce the confusion. I would assume
> that "cellular phones" in this tabulation would be defined by the use of a
> cell phone as a phone. "Text messaging" is quite another thing
> altogether. It's fussy and distracting. One must make multiple
> keystrokes, and I cannot conceive of being able to do it while driving.
> The act requires a lot of putzing with the buttons and looking at the
> screen. It would certainly take one's eyes off the road a lot longer than
> would the act of adjusting a radio or CD player, as distracting as those
> things are.
>
>

Actually, I'm told that there are people who can text message without
looking at the screen or the keypad, just as a good typist can type without
looking at the keyboard or the paper. This particular driver does not seem
to be one of those people, though.
--
mark

 

[Neil Brooks]

"mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Roger Houston" wrote:
>>
>> Further thought about this should reduce the confusion. I would assume
>> that "cellular phones" in this tabulation would be defined by the use of a
>> cell phone as a phone. "Text messaging" is quite another thing
>> altogether. It's fussy and distracting. One must make multiple
>> keystrokes, and I cannot conceive of being able to do it while driving.
>> The act requires a lot of putzing with the buttons and looking at the
>> screen. It would certainly take one's eyes off the road a lot longer than
>> would the act of adjusting a radio or CD player, as distracting as those
>> things are.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I'm told that there are people who can text message without
>looking at the screen or the keypad, just as a good typist can type without
>looking at the keyboard or the paper. This particular driver does not seem
>to be one of those people, though.

I think the studies are showing that it's not about the *eyes*, but
the mind. I'm frequently (reluctantly) on the phone with a cell phone
driver who--though using a hand-free--says "S*it! Just missed my
exit," or some similar thing.

Eyes on the road is nice. Eyes AND mind on the road (not on business,
the noisy kids in the back seat, the guy who cut you off two minutes
ago, etc., etc.) is the ticket.

This all should boil down to a sweeping "Distracted Driver" law, but
that's a tough one, ripe for hair-splitting and court-clogging....
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[Steve Koterski]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:28:16 -0600, "Roger Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>Here's the liberal party line: punishing the perpetrator doesn't bring
>>>back
>>>the victim, and letting the perpetrator go shows what good people we are.
>>
>> Lets take a look at the data (Percent of donations - 2004 campaign
>> contributions by ZIP for the area where Jim Price lived and died, and
>> from Douglas County, generally). Damned liberals.
>
><snip a table of ..... campaign donations by party -- of all things(?!?!?)
>
>Do you honestly believe that the predominance of RNC campaign donors in the
>county where this crime and "punishment" occurred has any relevance at ALL?
>
>How many activist judges does it take to subvert the will of the people and
>slap a convicted criminal on the wrist?
>
>In fact, how many liberals does it take to subvert the will of the people in
>general? Google California and "Proposition 187"...

Or Proposition 215, duly approved by the people but overridden by conservatives
in our federal government?

It is very clear to see by many examples that neither conservative nor liberal
politicians are interested in upholding the people's will--except when doing so
has a direct benefit to them or furthers the power of big government.
Professional American politicians--of the left and the right--are worthless
scoundrels, without integrity or honor, and unworthy of serving the people.

--
Steve Koterski
Atlanta, Georgia

"Hills are our friends. They make us better."

 

[[email protected]]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Roger Houston" wrote:
> >>
> >> Further thought about this should reduce the confusion. I would assume
> >> that "cellular phones" in this tabulation would be defined by the use of a
> >> cell phone as a phone. "Text messaging" is quite another thing
> >> altogether. It's fussy and distracting. One must make multiple
> >> keystrokes, and I cannot conceive of being able to do it while driving.
> >> The act requires a lot of putzing with the buttons and looking at the
> >> screen. It would certainly take one's eyes off the road a lot longer than
> >> would the act of adjusting a radio or CD player, as distracting as those
> >> things are.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually, I'm told that there are people who can text message without
> >looking at the screen or the keypad, just as a good typist can type without
> >looking at the keyboard or the paper. This particular driver does not seem
> >to be one of those people, though.
>
> I think the studies are showing that it's not about the *eyes*, but
> the mind. I'm frequently (reluctantly) on the phone with a cell phone
> driver who--though using a hand-free--says "S*it! Just missed my
> exit," or some similar thing.

There have been a number of quite good simulation studies done, and
there appears to be a very strong 'distaction' effect of speaking to
another person on the phone. Speaking to a 'passanger' is not as
distracting. I believe the informed speculation is that it takes more
concentration to talk on a phone since you lack the non-verbal cues
that you get with a person in the vehicle. Here are a couple of
studies.

Burns, P. C., Parkes, A., Burton, S., Smith, R. K. & Burch, D. (2002).
How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the
impairment to alcohol. Transport Research Laboratory, UK.

McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., McCartt, A. T., Woodward, M., Haworth,
C., Palamara, P. & Cercarelli, R. (2005). Role of mobile phones in
motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a
case-crossover study. Retrieved 19 Oct 2005 from
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38537.397512.55v1.


> Eyes on the road is nice. Eyes AND mind on the road (not on business,
> the noisy kids in the back seat, the guy who cut you off two minutes
> ago, etc., etc.) is the ticket.
>
> This all should boil down to a sweeping "Distracted Driver" law, but
> that's a tough one, ripe for hair-splitting and court-clogging....
> --
> Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[mark]

"Neil Brooks" wrote> I think the studies are showing that it's not about
the *eyes*, but
> the mind. I'm frequently (reluctantly) on the phone with a cell phone
> driver who--though using a hand-free--says "S*it! Just missed my
> exit," or some similar thing.
>
> Eyes on the road is nice. Eyes AND mind on the road (not on business,
> the noisy kids in the back seat, the guy who cut you off two minutes
> ago, etc., etc.) is the ticket.
>
> This all should boil down to a sweeping "Distracted Driver" law, but
> that's a tough one, ripe for hair-splitting and court-clogging....
> --
> Live simply so that others may simply live

I'm well acquainted with the studies, I hope you'll excuse my playing
devil's advocate there for a minute. My own experience confirms that it is
indeed the mind that matters at least as much as the eyes and the hands.
--
mark

 

[David J Bush]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:56:24 -0700, Robert Uhl <[email protected]> wrote:

|>>Considering that using cell phones is less dangerous than changing radio
|>>stations, according to the numbers I've seen, what exactly is the point?
|>
|> Then don't sign it ... and cite your source for that info, if you
|> don't mind. I'm pretty incredulous.
|
|My file just contains the following:
|
| Distracting factors leading to traffic accidents:
| - object or person outside the car 30%
| - adjusting the radio or CD player 11%
| - dealing with another occupant in the car 11%
| - cellular phones 1.5%
| --Highway Safety Research Center at the University of North Carolina

Your conclusion is not necessarily valid. Your statistics say what
percentage of accidents were caused by cell phones. But that is
very different from what percentage of cell phone uses lead to
accidents, something that would be very difficult to determine.
For example if only 10% of drivers use cell phones when driving
(A number I pulled out of the air,) but 80% change their radio
or CD while driving, then it could be argued that the smaller population
of cell phone users are getting involved in accidents at a higher rate
than the radio/CD adjusters.

Anyway, you may be ultimately right that changing the radio is
more dangerous, but why would that lead to the conclusion that
we shouldn't try to make driving and drivers safer? We can't stop
people from messing with the radio. We can legisltate against cell
phones.

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:21:51 -0500, David J Bush <[email protected]>
wrote:

>We can't stop
>people from messing with the radio. We can legisltate against cell
>phones.

Some jurisdictions have legislated against cell phone usage while
driving. Enforcement is lax as is the situation for many of the laws
enacted to improve road safety.

There are whole industries dedicated to providing on-board
distractions for drivers. (sippy drink cups and holders, auxiliary
gauges, electronic toys, etc.)

There are whole industries dedicated to glorifying reckless, dangerous
and aggressive driving. Hollywood, NASCAR, NHRA set bad examples yet
our society accepts it as entertainment.
--
zk