Fines for texting...

[SoooSIRIUS]

Re: Fines for texting...

So folks never scan through the stations and read the display while driving? Either way your eyes are off the road. You might as well be sending a short text!

All the best.

I guess they should take radios/cd players out of vehicles too.

As well as stop people from driving down the beach strip/lakeshore when the weathers 25*+, it can be difficult keeping you eyes on the road at all times over there.

[TENSNE1]

Re: Fines for texting...

I guess they should take radios/cd players out of vehicles too.

As well as stop people from driving down the beach strip/lakeshore when the weathers 25*+, it can be difficult keeping you eyes on the road at all times over there.

Hee-hee!

The laws just keep piling up!

All the best

[mpare]

Re: Fines for texting...

Some have suggested (more as a matter of personal desire than as a matter of empirical fact) that banning the use of cell phones and texting devices while driving is simply a tax grab. It has further been contended that laws which seek to prohibit such usage do not reduce the number of accidents on the highway. Not only are these allegations intuitively unconvincing, they also fly in the face of countless studies.

In 2011 the Governors Highway Safety Association in the United States "... released the first comprehensive overview summarizing distracted driving research for state officials. The report considered research from more than 350 scientific papers published between 2000 and 2011." (See the July 7, 2011 press release: http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/press...07_sfdist.html) Among the report's findings were the following:

"The report outlines the following certainties:

• Distractions affect driving performance.
• Drivers frequently are distracted, perhaps as much as half the time.
• Drivers adapt to some extent: they pay more attention to driving and reduce their distracting activities in more risky driving situations.
• Distractions are estimated to be associated with 15 to 25 percent of crashes at all levels from minor property damage to fatal injury.
• Texting likely increases crash risk more than cell phone use.
• Cell phone use increases crash risk.

Based on the existing research, the report urges states to implement the following countermeasures:

• Continue to leverage effective, low-cost roadway countermeasures such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips, which alert motorists when they are drifting out of their driving lane.
• Record distracted driving in crash reports to the extent possible, to assist in evaluating distracted driving laws and programs.
• Monitor the impact of existing hand-held cell phone bans prior to enacting new laws. States that have not already passed handheld bans should wait until more definitive research and data are available on these laws’ effectiveness.
• Evaluate other distracted driving laws and programs. Evaluation will provide the information states need on which countermeasures are effective and which are not.

The report also lists countermeasures that states should consider, such as:

• Enact a texting ban for all drivers and a complete cell phone ban (both hands-free and hand-held) for novice drivers.
• Enforce all existing cell phone and texting laws.
• Implement distracted driving communication programs.
• Help employers develop and implement distracted driving policies and programs. ...

"...[H]igh visibility texting and hand-held cell phone enforcement demonstration projects in New York and Connecticut, funded by the states and the U.S. Department of Transportation and modeled after the Click It or Ticket seat belt program, are proving to be effective in helping to change motorist behavior. “Our report includes the preliminary results of these cell phone crackdowns, which have prompted dramatic declines in hand-held cell phone use and texting behind the wheel. The final results are expected shortly and should be considered as states move forward with education and enforcement initiatives.” "

[TENSNE1]

Re: Fines for texting...

Yet another set of terrible ideas. There were accidents & distracted drivers long before cell phones and hand-held texting devices were part of our everyday lives. Do we give tickets out to folks looking for numbers on buildings or checking out the extremely good looking woman on the sidewalk?

We already had charges that apply to those who are distracted while driving. More government intervention was not necessary. Period!

I recently attended a function at the Balmy Beach Club for recent retirees from 55 Division. This topic came up in conversation. Not only does law enforcement hate giving out that ticket.....most of the time they look the other way or give you "the wagging finger of shame" rather than a ticket. There was complete agreement though that the legislation as it stands has not enhanced road safety in any way, shape or form. Sorry but there are countless stats to back that up. The legislation is nothing more than another revenue generator and pays lip service to road safety.

The GHSA is nothing more than a bad joke. Insolvent jurisdictions would, of course, support those skewed stats as they need the revenue. According to the BLS there are around 15 million American's out of work. Yet there are over 80 million people without jobs. I wouldn't trust a single statistic from the American government.

Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes. All the best!

Some have suggested (more as a matter of personal desire than as a matter of empirical fact) that banning the use of cell phones and texting devices while driving is simply a tax grab. It has further been contended that laws which seek to prohibit such usage do not reduce the number of accidents on the highway. Not only are these allegations intuitively unconvincing, they also fly in the face of countless studies.

In 2011 the Governors Highway Safety Association in the United States "... released the first comprehensive overview summarizing distracted driving research for state officials. The report considered research from more than 350 scientific papers published between 2000 and 2011." (See the July 7, 2011 press release: http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/press...07_sfdist.html) Among the report's findings were the following:

"The report outlines the following certainties:

• Distractions affect driving performance.
• Drivers frequently are distracted, perhaps as much as half the time.
• Drivers adapt to some extent: they pay more attention to driving and reduce their distracting activities in more risky driving situations.
• Distractions are estimated to be associated with 15 to 25 percent of crashes at all levels from minor property damage to fatal injury.
• Texting likely increases crash risk more than cell phone use.
• Cell phone use increases crash risk.

Based on the existing research, the report urges states to implement the following countermeasures:

• Continue to leverage effective, low-cost roadway countermeasures such as edgeline and centerline rumble strips, which alert motorists when they are drifting out of their driving lane.
• Record distracted driving in crash reports to the extent possible, to assist in evaluating distracted driving laws and programs.
• Monitor the impact of existing hand-held cell phone bans prior to enacting new laws. States that have not already passed handheld bans should wait until more definitive research and data are available on these laws’ effectiveness.
• Evaluate other distracted driving laws and programs. Evaluation will provide the information states need on which countermeasures are effective and which are not.

The report also lists countermeasures that states should consider, such as:

• Enact a texting ban for all drivers and a complete cell phone ban (both hands-free and hand-held) for novice drivers.
• Enforce all existing cell phone and texting laws.
• Implement distracted driving communication programs.
• Help employers develop and implement distracted driving policies and programs. ...

"...[H]igh visibility texting and hand-held cell phone enforcement demonstration projects in New York and Connecticut, funded by the states and the U.S. Department of Transportation and modeled after the Click It or Ticket seat belt program, are proving to be effective in helping to change motorist behavior. “Our report includes the preliminary results of these cell phone crackdowns, which have prompted dramatic declines in hand-held cell phone use and texting behind the wheel. The final results are expected shortly and should be considered as states move forward with education and enforcement initiatives.” "

[mpare]

Re: Fines for texting...

Simply because you claim something to be a fact does not make it so. Simply because you don't embrace an established correlation doesn't destroy the correlation. Unlike you, I am not prepared to blithely dismiss the findings of 350 reports and studies, because they don't resonate with my world view.

You appear to confuse the wisdom of the law with whether or not there exists a correlation between the use of hand-held wireless devices and an increasing risk of accidents. The evidence establishes that their use increases the risk of accidents when one considers the class of users generally. That's a fact. The evidence also suggests that banning such uses reduces the incidence of accidents. That too is a fact.

What isn't a fact is whether a law banning the use of such devices while driving should be enacted. That appears to be where your real concern lies. The wisdom of bringing into force such a law is a policy decision, which can be the subject to varying and conflicting views. In order to win the policy debate, though, it is disingenuous to obscure or mistate the aforementioned facts. If that is the only way to win the day, then your policy arguments cannot be very strong or persuasive.

If your argument is that you really don't care if the law has some salutary effect, because any benefits do not outweigh the invasive nature of the law or the unjustified encroachment of government on the actions of drivers, then come out and say it. Then we can debate what's really in issue. As I have said, though, trying to torpedo the law by making up facts just won't cut it.

... The GHSA is nothing more than a bad joke. Insolvent jurisdictions would, of course, support those skewed stats as they need the revenue. According to the BLS there are around 15 million American's out of work. Yet there are over 80 million people without jobs. I wouldn't trust a single statistic from the American government.

Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes. All the best!

[TheSaxemachine]

Re: Fines for texting...

Yet another set of terrible ideas. There were accidents & distracted drivers long before cell phones and hand-held texting devices were part of our everyday lives. Do we give tickets out to folks looking for numbers on buildings or checking out the extremely good looking woman on the sidewalk?

We already had charges that apply to those who are distracted while driving. More government intervention was not necessary. Period!

I recently attended a function at the Balmy Beach Club for recent retirees from 55 Division. This topic came up in conversation. Not only does law enforcement hate giving out that ticket.....most of the time they look the other way or give you "the wagging finger of shame" rather than a ticket. There was complete agreement though that the legislation as it stands has not enhanced road safety in any way, shape or form. Sorry but there are countless stats to back that up. The legislation is nothing more than another revenue generator and pays lip service to road safety.

The GHSA is nothing more than a bad joke. Insolvent jurisdictions would, of course, support those skewed stats as they need the revenue. According to the BLS there are around 15 million American's out of work. Yet there are over 80 million people without jobs. I wouldn't trust a single statistic from the American government.

Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes. All the best!

Clearly mpare should stop confusing you with the facts.

[Fredk]

Re: Fines for texting...

Agreed. I didn't intend to only single out Salton, all politicians seem to enjoy any cash grab they can dream up.

Mike

You're absolutely right. Trash that law and give cops the power to destroy the phones of offenders on the spot. No new taxes, no more texting while driving. Makes perfect sense to me.

... or do I misunderstand and you think texting while driving is a good thing?

[DanMingo]

Re: Fines for texting...

Clearly mpare should stop confusing you with the facts.

Clearly mpare should attempt to post a reliable fact!. Too funny. Nice try Saxe.

[Bellyhungry]

Re: Fines for texting...

Clearly, mpare is too much of a gentleman to be engaged in interweb debates.

[DanMingo]

Re: Fines for texting...

Clearly, mpare is too much of a gentleman to be engaged in interweb debates.

LOL! I see with nearly 5000 posts it would be beneath him to engage in an interweb debate!

Thanks for the good laugh Bellyhungry.

Take care.

[TheSaxemachine]

Re: Fines for texting...

Clearly mpare should attempt to post a reliable fact!. Too funny. Nice try Saxe.

Not being an expert in the subject at hand, I can't attest to the reliability of mpare's facts, but I will take a cited document with links to other articles and studies over:

I recently attended a function at the Balmy Beach Club for recent retirees from 55 Division. This topic came up in conversation. Not only does law enforcement hate giving out that ticket.....most of the time they look the other way or give you "the wagging finger of shame" rather than a ticket. There was complete agreement though that the legislation as it stands has not enhanced road safety in any way, shape or form. Sorry but there are countless stats to back that up. The legislation is nothing more than another revenue generator and pays lip service to road safety.

The GHSA is nothing more than a bad joke. Insolvent jurisdictions would, of course, support those skewed stats as they need the revenue. According to the BLS there are around 15 million American's out of work. Yet there are over 80 million people without jobs. I wouldn't trust a single statistic from the American government.

Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes. All the best!

[mpare]

Re: Fines for texting...

I thought that this debate was about the wisdom of the law banning the use of hand-held wireless devices, not economics. As for whether you believe that I have been owned, I really don't care. What I do care about is having a thoughtful, well-grounded and logical debate. In that regard, if you think that I have not lived up to my objective, I am sorry. As for the facts relevant to this particular issue, I prefer to rely on the apparent conclusions of more than 300 studies and reports rather than the assertion of any one individual who claims that these findings are all fictions.

...

Mpare, you're out of your league in a discussion involving economics. ...

[TENSNE1]

Re: Fines for texting...

I thought that this debate was about the wisdom of the law banning the use of hand-held wireless devices, not economics. As for whether you believe that I have been owned, I really don't care. What I do care about is having a thoughtful, well-grounded and logical debate. In that regard, if you think that I have not lived up to my objective, I am sorry. As for the facts relevant to this particular issue, I prefer to rely on the apparent conclusions of more than 300 studies and reports rather than the assertion of any one individual who claims that these findings are all fictions.

It all comes down to economics. The sad reality is that with zero interest rates....WE THE SAVERS.....have been thrown under the bus, while gamblers have been rewarded with low interest rates....so they can continue to throw money down the rat hole.

It isn't surprising that municipalities are strapped for cash and support legislation that will help bolster their coffers. (Municipal gov't incompetence certainly doesn't help). Freeloading corporations have been given the key to the vault while many folks are having a difficult time making ends meet.

A law for talking or texting while driving does NOTHING to improve road safety. I'm sure many of the other nuts will attest to the fact the roads in the GTA have deteriorated badly over the years, poorly painted lines in the road, poor signage, idoitic HWY numbers, etc....and not to mention a general lack of driving skill......many drivers of many different ages.

This legislation is a cash grab and nothing more. There has not been any reduction in accidents since this legislation came into effect. Check the stats for yourself.

TTFN

[ProAc_Fan]

Re: Fines for texting...

+1. There are a whole slew of tasks many people do while driving that could rightly be construed as more distracting then talking on the phone. But with the explosion in smartphones the politicos grasp onto that cash cow and milk it for all it's worth. Yes some people can barely drive and chew gum at the same time and hopefully they are wise enough to not multitask. However for the able minded amongst us, choosing when to use a cellphone should be left up to us and not mandated by the govt.

Mike

[TheSaxemachine]

Re: Fines for texting...

+1. There are a whole slew of tasks many people do while driving that could rightly be construed as more distracting then talking on the phone. But with the explosion in smartphones the politicos grasp onto that cash cow and milk it for all it's worth. Yes some people can barely drive and chew gum at the same time and hopefully they are wise enough to not multitask. However for the able minded amongst us, choosing when to use a cellphone should be left up to us and not mandated by the govt.

Mike

Almost all people, yourself included, are not as able minded, nor as good a driver as you believe. As soon as someone picks up a phone, to talk or text while driving, they become a much worse driver. FACT. Prove me wrong with a peer-reviewed study.

It isn't a tax. It is a deterrent. A $155 fine is hardly a "cash grab" and most of it probably goes to administering the fine, which is meant to keep drivers safe and therefore SAVE money.

Of course there are other things that are distracting for drivers, but we can't exactly fine people for driving with their children, can we?