Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-01-2016, 09:57 AM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponyboy View Post
Why not slap someone with a $10k fine if they're caught using a smart phone...kind of like what they do when you get busted for a dui.

I was driving on the highway the other day and a big billboard with a dui message: "you just blew $10,000." I thought it was great.

I would say its more excusable to drive while intoxicated than playing with a cell phone when you're sober and driving. When you're drunk a chemical is destroying your body. When you're sober and texting you're just being a &%#@ and there is no excuse. And no...I dont care if you're waiting on a call from the hospital about a family member who is on deaths door...I would rather you not kill someone else in the process of taking a call.
Well, that chemical you refer to was ingested on a voluntary basis..so no IMO it's not more excusable....
__________________

__________________
ivinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-01-2016, 09:59 AM   #42
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Steve View Post
Define distracted driving, if I take a sip of coffee or water while driving then that could be distracted driving, I think the nanny state is getting carried away. Why not take all radios out of the cars and ban all conversation while driving. Oh and can I bound and gag my kids with duct tape because they can be pretty distracting sometimes?
Agree. I believe it has been shown that having a conversation of any kind, be it with a passenger or on a hand-free device, increases accident rates. Certainly the complexity of instrumentation on the dash seems to have increased dramatically in the last 10 years. Speeding is a leading cause of accidents, wouldn't it be wise to put limiters on all cars at some selected speed. Say 75 or 80 mph or some set amount above the state speed limit. Speed limiters are mandatory on transport trucks in Ontario. Set at 105 kph (65.5 mph). The speed limit is 100 kph (62.5 mph) on major highways.

My cop friends say that in our jurisdiction they just fall back on the dangerous driving laws. It isn't really necessary to prove that someone was texting or reading the newspaper or whatever if they were operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner. Now they would have to witness that incident to ticket someone. But perhaps, looking at the phone usage would be a way to go if people got serious (as pointed out in other posts). I recall at least one publicized accident in which the driver was texting with friends right up to the impact. In the end, there is no way to legislate common sense.
__________________

__________________
6miths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2016, 12:37 PM   #43
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Tadpole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Steve View Post
Define distracted driving, if I take a sip of coffee or water while driving then that could be distracted driving, I think the nanny state is getting carried away. Why not take all radios out of the cars and ban all conversation while driving. Oh and can I bound and gag my kids with duct tape because they can be pretty distracting sometimes?
If you or yours was ever a victim of someone driving irresponsibly, you'd probably not only feel differently but be screaming bloody murder for people to listen before more victims are created. Think Russian roulette, not open carry. It's a closer analogy.
__________________
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2016, 01:55 PM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
If you or yours was ever a victim of someone driving irresponsibly, you'd probably not only feel differently but be screaming bloody murder for people to listen before more victims are created. Think Russian roulette, not open carry. It's a closer analogy.

If I'm ever in an accident caused by some a-hole on a phone, they'd better kill me. Otherwise, said driver's phone will be relocated next to where their head was at the time of the accident...

As for drinking coffee while driving, I can pretty much do that on autopilot.
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 01:47 PM   #45
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6miths View Post
Speeding is a leading cause of accidents
Nonsense. Certainly the severity of the accident increases in direct proportion with the velocity at impact, but speed alone is rarely responsible for causing the accident in the first place. Nobody is out there doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, then suddenly losing control of their car and wrapping it around a baby carriage full of puppies. That's nanny-state propaganda.
__________________
kombat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 02:27 PM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombat View Post
Nonsense. Certainly the severity of the accident increases in direct proportion with the velocity at impact, but speed alone is rarely responsible for causing the accident in the first place. Nobody is out there doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, then suddenly losing control of their car and wrapping it around a baby carriage full of puppies. That's nanny-state propaganda.

Perhaps "excessive speed" or "unsafe speed for the prevailing conditions"?
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 03:09 PM   #47
Full time employment: Posting here.
Just_Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Dutchess County
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
If you or yours was ever a victim of someone driving irresponsibly, you'd probably not only feel differently but be screaming bloody murder for people to listen before more victims are created. Think Russian roulette, not open carry. It's a closer analogy.
Unfortunately I was rear ended by a women on a cell phone about 10 years ago.
I still think the nanny state is getting carried away. We don't live in a cocoon.
__________________
Just_Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 05:36 PM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Perhaps "excessive speed" or "unsafe speed for the prevailing conditions"?
Thank you HFWR. I seem to have touched a nerve. Five years ago, two of my 23 year-old students were killed in a single vehicle MVA not far from my home. Perfect road conditions, no drugs or alcohol, no other vehicles... speeding. I don't really consider 35 in a 30 or 75 in a 65 'speeding' as that is the prevailing traffic speed under normal conditions.
__________________
6miths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 07:20 PM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 17,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombat View Post
Nonsense. Certainly the severity of the accident increases in direct proportion with the velocity at impact ...
Violating the laws of physics is against community rules.

Sorry, it is not in 'direct proportion'. Impact forces increase with the square of the increase in speed. IOW, a 50 mph impact has 4 times the forces of a 25 mph impact, not 2 times.


https://driversed.com/driving-inform...of-impact.aspx

Quote:
Force of impact is the force generated when objects meet. The faster you drive, the greater the impact or striking power of your vehicle. The laws of physics determine that the force of impact increases with the square of the increase in speed.
-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 07:43 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Violating the laws of physics is against community rules.



Sorry, it is not in 'direct proportion'. Impact forces increase with the square of the increase in speed. IOW, a 50 mph impact has 4 times the forces of a 25 mph impact, not 2 times.





https://driversed.com/driving-inform...of-impact.aspx







-ERD50

A similar thing happens to braking distance. Then add increased reaction time due to distracted driving...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 08:23 PM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,612
This may belong in the "Books you read" section, but have any of you read the book about Reggie Shaw, the young man who was texting while driving and killed two rocket scientists in Utah back in 2010?


https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Wander..._strp_1#navbar
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2016, 08:28 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 17,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
A similar thing happens to braking distance. Then add increased reaction time due to distracted driving...
Related to that, LED brake lights turn on faster than the old filament bulbs:

https://chemlinks.beloit.edu/BlueLig...p/an1155-3.pdf

Quote:
Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) illuminate 200 milliseconds faster than
incandescent bulbs –

For an automobile this means a faster braking distance response time, about a full car length of extra stopping distance at 65 MPH.
-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 07:49 AM   #53
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
A similar thing happens to braking distance. Then add increased reaction time due to distracted driving...
Right. So was the accident "caused by" distracted driving, and was aggravated by speed, or was it "caused by" speed, and aggravated by distracted driving? I would argue it's the former, which is why I took issue with the claim that speed alone is the "leading cause" of accidents. Had they not been distracted, the accident likely would not have happened at all.

If you're going to get into an accident, certainly you're better off the slower you're going. But I disagree with the claim that the speed itself is the root cause of the accident, more than all other factors.
__________________
kombat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 08:04 AM   #54
Moderator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee Bah Gum
Posts: 20,383
Even professional truck drivers crash and kill people while texting.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...cambridgeshire

Quote:
Thursday 4 August 2016 14.14 BST
A lorry driver has been found guilty of looking at a text message while at the wheel and causing a crash that killed a police officer.

Danny Warby, 28, was driving the 13.6-tonne light goods vehicle along the A141 in Cambridgeshire when it veered into oncoming traffic, seconds after he looked at the message on his iPhone, Peterborough crown court heard.

He clipped a lorry and showered two cars with debris before crashing into a Renault Clio driven by Cambridgeshire police officer Sharon Garrett, 48.

Garrett, a mother of two, who was on her way home from work, was pronounced dead at the scene on 6 June 2014.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55
Now it's adventure before dementia
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 09:04 AM   #55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by kombat View Post
Right. So was the accident "caused by" distracted driving, and was aggravated by speed, or was it "caused by" speed, and aggravated by distracted driving? I would argue it's the former, which is why I took issue with the claim that speed alone is the "leading cause" of accidents. Had they not been distracted, the accident likely would not have happened at all.

If you're going to get into an accident, certainly you're better off the slower you're going. But I disagree with the claim that the speed itself is the root cause of the accident, more than all other factors.
If you read what I wrote it said, "a leading cause" not "the leading cause". So I didn't in any way assert that speeding was the leading cause and quite agree with you that other factors, usually related to poor or impaired judgement are usually the root cause. If you feel better with the term 'excessive speed' or 'inappropriate for road conditions' then that is fine with me. I think a common saying is 'speed kills'. It didn't originate with me and while it is true that Mario Andretti didn't get into many accidents, he was driving on roads designed for high speed, with other drivers trained to drive at high speed, in vehicles designed... well you get where I am going. The average 20 year old male doesn't need a car that goes 150 mph. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
__________________
6miths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 09:06 AM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,529
A proposed law in New Jersey would ban drinking and driving. Drinking anything: coffee, water, etc. Also eating anything. More here.

I'm doubt it will pass--Starbucks, Tim Horton's McDonalds et al have soom pretty deep pockets.

I can see the argument for either side. But I also think drinking caffeinated beverages or even water can have a positive impact on driver alertness and safety. Clearly the danger of lifting a cup to your mouth differs a lot based on conditions at the time--busy city intersection/parking lot filed with pedestrians vs wide open highway in Montana.

I wonder how else we can improve safety. There are plenty of tradeoffs, and anyone who says "if a measure saves just one life, it is worth it" isn't thinking things through. If that were the standard, we'd be driving at 10 MPH max and swaddled in bubble wrap.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 05:29 PM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 17,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
... Clearly the danger of lifting a cup to your mouth differs a lot based on conditions at the time--busy city intersection/parking lot filed with pedestrians vs wide open highway in Montana.

I wonder how else we can improve safety. ...
Like I've commented on the 'self driving car' threads, I think that along with as much warning technology that is feasible at a good proce point, there should be tech that monitors the driver, to be sure they are focused on the road.

Check that the wheel is being attended to, check that the eyes are scanning the road, and looking to the side and in the rear-view mirror occasionally. So if you take a few seconds to take a sip of water, fine, but it would start warning you if your eyes were off the road for more than a few seconds.

That's a lot less variables than having these systems try to watch the road (and miss a Semi-Truck!). Just a video system looking into your eyes and monitoring eye movement. That should catch a lot of distracted driving. I'd like one for myself, I'm not perfect in this regard, and I sure would like one for my (adult) children.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 05:39 PM   #58
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RobbieB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Central CA
Posts: 2,061
You just use the hands free wi-fi speakerphone widget and press the big button.
__________________
Retired at 59 in 2014. Should have done it sooner but I worried too much.
RobbieB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 05:47 PM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,261
'a few seconds'

Our perception of time can be funny. 3 seconds at 60 mph is 264 feet! That's a long way! Given that humans have only traveled at these kinds of speeds autonomously for the last 100 years and at all for 200 years we just aren't really well designed to handle them. People really need to be paying close attention when driving. And because they often aren't or won't, I'm looking forward to self-driving cars and agree that most of the developing tech is good. Especially things that compensate for inattention like automatic braking.
__________________
6miths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 06:41 PM   #60
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 567
Many use phones for map function or replace crap radio with podcasts. Cars have wifi built in. They can even summon help, if ads can be believed. My ten year old car has a plug for a phone dongle. I never have used it. Car companies enable it, not that it would matter.

I started driving a taller truck. I was amazed how many more I saw texting from my better view. I quit riding my bicycle on streets. Motorcycle? No freaking way. I drive the slow lane, let the speedsters race, and go the flow.
__________________

__________________
“When a person with money meets a person with experience, the one with experience ends up with the money and the one with money leaves with experience.” W. Buffet
devans0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News Article on Distracted Driving Includes Distracted Driving TromboneAl Other topics 3 10-25-2015 11:56 AM
What do you do to be treated nicely? Lsbcal Other topics 48 08-14-2013 09:36 AM
Am I Being Forgetful or Distracted? easysurfer Health and Early Retirement 60 08-05-2012 01:17 PM
VGHighyieldcorporate treated as equity in portfolio. Crazy talk? cashflo2u2 FIRE and Money 28 01-04-2009 07:29 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.