Penalizing Dangerous Driving
Elisabeth Rosenthal reports on the UK’s crackdown on texting while driving:
Inside the imposing British Crown Court here, Phillipa Curtis, 22, and her parents cried as she was remanded for 21 months to a high-security women’s prison, for killing someone much like herself. The victim was Victoria McBryde, an up-and-coming university-trained fashion designer. [...] The crash might once have been written off as a tragic accident. Ms. Curtis’s alcohol level was zero. But her phone, which had flown onto the road and was handed to the police by a witness, told a story that — under new British sentencing guidelines — would send its owner to jail.
In the hour before the crash, she had exchanged nearly two dozen messages with at least five friends, most concerning her encounter with a celebrity singer she had served at the restaurant where she worked.
A few thoughts on this. One is that if Curtis had been walking down the street firing bullets into the air at random, and one fell and killed someone, I think she would have been sentenced to a lot more than 21 months. Another is that despite the cliché about car “accidents” the fact of the matter is that fatal motor vehicle collisions typically involve someone breaking the rules. This, after all, is why the rules are there. The traditional social convention in the United States (and apparently the UK as well) that the rules governing the safe operation of fast-moving incredibly heavy pieces of equipment should be routinely ignored or treated as no big deal is really crazy.
As I noted almost 100 people per day die in car wrecks in the United States. Fortunately, thanks in part to increased attention to the need for sensible, well-enforced rules, driving is becoming less fatal:
This trend is great, and we should be trying to continue it. One way to do so is to get serious about the dangers involved in cell phone use, including texting, while driving. Since these technologies are new, we know for certain that people are perfectly capable of getting along in life without using mobile phones while driving their cars. We also know that using them is very dangerous. Under the circumstances, fairly harsh, well-publicized penalties are called for. This is a situation where deterrence really ought to work extremely well.
66 Responses to “Penalizing Dangerous Driving”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
Why is crashing because you were texting any worse than crashing because you were reading a book, shaving your legs, plucking your eyebrows, eating, drinking, reaching back to whack your kids, etc?
The only time I was ever rear-ended it was by a women who had been raching back to slap one of her kids. Should she have gotten into more trouble if she was txting? In either case, if you need to txt or if you need to disapline your children you should do so when stopped at a suitable safe location.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
One is that if Curtis had been walking down the street firing bullets into the air at random, and one fell and killed someone, I think she would have been sentenced to a lot more than 21 months.
Not a good analogy, for what should be pretty obvious reasons.
Under the circumstances, fairly harsh, well-publicized penalties are called for. This is a situation where deterrence really ought to work extremely well.
Were “fairly harsh, well-publicized penalties” the cause for the reduction in drunk-driving fatalities?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
This trend is great, and we should be trying to continue it. One way to do so is to get serious about the dangers involved in cell phone use, including texting, while driving.
Agreed. The government ought to begin funding a massive public education effort with the very simple message: TURN OFF AND PUT AWAY YOUR PHONE WHEN YOU’RE IN YOUR CAR.
Still, I’m somewhat skeptical we’ll ever be able to get the genie back in the bottle. Does anybody know if a technological solution is possible, ie., having some sort of a signal killing system as mandatory equipment on all vehicles? It seems to me theaters were experimenting with this, but I haven’t heard much about it recently.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Does anybody know if a technological solution is possible
I guess I can google as well as anybody else:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_times_news_details/article/28/2009/august/31/device-would-kill-cell-phone-reception.html
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Chris- there’s good evidence that taking drunk driving seriously, including harsh penalties, has contributed greatly to the reduction in deaths from drunk driving.
JMO- the fact that other things are dangerous, too, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop this dangerous behavior. That’s a complete non-sequitur.
I’m not sure what a “high security” prison is like in the UK and how it compares to one in the US, but if it is like one in the US it does seem needless to put this person, morally blameworthy though she is, in one. At least from the story there’s nothing to indicate she’s violent or a flight risk. We can think that serious deprivation of liberty is a rightful response to the grossly negligent taking of life but not think the person involved needs to be in a “high security” facility.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
having some sort of a signal killing system as mandatory equipment on all vehicles?
What about manditory bluetooth?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
One is that if Curtis had been walking down the street firing bullets into the air at random, and one fell and killed someone, I think she would have been sentenced to a lot more than 21 months.
Based on what do you think this? Your vast knowledge of the British legal system?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
Under the circumstances, fairly harsh, well-publicized penalties are called for. This is a situation where deterrence really ought to work extremely well.
Just to clarify, the reason for my skepticism is the size of the problem. How can Big Gummint possibly make serious inroads when there are, like, 200 million vehicles on the road? Not saying we should do nothing, mind you, with respect to penalties and (as mentioned above) public education. I’m just saying the challenge is utterly vast in scale, and if technology could simply obviate the problem, we’d save a lot more lives.
And I do realize, of course, that there’s a legitimate civil libertarian argument to be made against such measures. But the thing is, one can always pull over if one has to make (or receive) an important phone call.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
JMO- the fact that other things are dangerous, too, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop this dangerous behavior. That’s a complete non-sequitur.
No, try and cut down on all dangerous behavior not just target any one thing. For example, if you drive down 128, or the 405, 101, Georgia 400 whatever, some workday morning- you will see people reading the paper, reviewing contracts with a highlighter, putting on makeup, etc. etc. There should be cops in unmarket cars pulling these people over and slapping them with $100 tickets.
We need to reduce distracted driving in all its forms, not just focus on any one thing.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Al, remarkably, has a point. Given the absurd laxity in British criminal sentencing, if you did walk down a street firing into the air and you killed someone, 21 months would be more or less what I’d expect to see in actual time served.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
What about manditory bluetooth?
Besides the fact that Bluetooth is probably on the way out as a viable technology, I’m pretty sure ample evidence exists that hands-free cell phone use is just as dangerous while driving as using a handset.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 am
I’d disagree that stricter drunk driving laws save lives.
Clearly, if you look at the numbers, there has been a decrease in the number of FATALITIES involving drunk drivers. From about 25K a year in the 1980s to about 15K a year now.
But the reason driving has become safer is CARS have become safer. They are larger, have better crash protection, as well has better brakes and steering.
IN addition, accidents are more survivable because trauma doctors are a lot better than they used to be.
When you look at non-fatal accidents, you don’t see an alcohol related reduction.
Drunk driving may get you into an accident, but what will kill you is speed and not wearing a seat belt. And yes, by the way, most drunk drivers just end up killing themselves.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 am
This is one of those areas where serious but brief sanctions applied to nearly everyone caught would be a much better deterrent than the current “a few people get really long sentences” one.
I like the model where a first offense is treated with some sort of sub-week community service, which gets wiped from your record if you go some period of time (1-5 years) without a second offense. The trick is to really get traffic violations taken more seriously. As Navy subs have proven, you don’t get people taking safety seriously until near misses are punished at the same rate as actual accidents.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Jasper,
I didn’t mean the specific technology but the general concept.
That being said, is it reasonable to trade 200 million people using cell phones behind the wheel if it leads to 1000 more death a year? I’d say it might be worth it.
If all cars were Mercedes S550s electronically limited to 35mph traffic fatalities would fall by +95%. The fact that we let people drive faster than 35mph and in cars less safe than an S550 means we are willing to trade lives to convenience and economy.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Actually, the real cliché is car-safety experts who don’t know the difference between the terms “accident” and “act of God”. The word “accident” is about intent, not about whether or not rules were followed. And, indeed, when drivers are following the rules but something bad happens anyway (such as 5000 lb. piece of poorly-secured bridge repair work falling your car), the term “accident” is not used.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Deterrence works much better when there is certainty that you will be punished. I don’t think we have the ability to consistently punish everyone who drives while talking on the phone. Do we have any real evidence that shows how much punishment is required to save a certain number of lives?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Based on what do you think this? Your vast knowledge of the British legal system?
Trust us on this, Al: it’s best when you don’t remind us that you’re a shining example of the American legal profession.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I’d disagree that stricter drunk driving laws save lives.
Clearly, if you look at the numbers, there has been a decrease in the number of FATALITIES involving drunk drivers. From about 25K a year in the 1980s to about 15K a year now.
Charlie: I reckon you’re wrong to posit the notion that stricter drunk driving laws save no lives, but you probably are validly pointing out that the statistics tend to overstate the case.
Given my starry-eyed, lefty faith in governmental power to solve all ills, here too, I believe is an area where government-mandated technology will eventually save lives: I suspect that, eventually, highly sophisticated driver impairment sensing technology on all vehicles will make it impossible to start up or operate a vehicle if one is buzzed. At least I hope this is the case. This would really be a game-changer when it comes to the utterly tragic, continuing carnage on our roads.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Re jmo
Restricting vehicle speeds to 35 mph might make for fewer fatal crashes but it is counterproductive in terms of vehicle fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions. Modern cars are at their most efficient at around 55 mph.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Chris- there’s good evidence that taking drunk driving seriously, including harsh penalties, has contributed greatly to the reduction in deaths from drunk driving.
Sure, but for most people the “oh my god I might kill someone” factor is much more powerful than the “oh my god if I kill someone I will go to prison factor.” Instead of sending this woman to prison for five or ten years, she’d be much more useful as an object lesson on university tours, TV commercials, posters, etc. That’s a much more direct, cheaper, and humane way to treat the situation than just to hope that your target audience will browse the headlines on the day she is sentenced.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Modern cars are at their most efficient at around 55 mph.
If 35 was the legal max I’d assume cars would be optimized for that speed. But, even limiting cars to 55mph would still reduce accidents by perhapse 80% – so the theory stands.
Is it OK to let people drive while using their cell phones if it costs a couple 100 lives a year. I say sure – that seems like a fair trade.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Also shouldn’t speed limits vary with different traffic conditions. It would be crazy to go 80 on the freeway into Cincinnati during rush hour, but on weekends it would be significantly safer. Despite this obvious fact the speed limit is always 65. Likewise interstate 80 in Wyoming and Nebraska probably shouldn’t even have speed limits at all.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The fact that we let people drive faster than 35mph and in cars less safe than an S550 means we are willing to trade lives to convenience and economy.
jmo: there are obviously tradeoffs, and these decisions have to be taken with rigorous cost-benefit analysis. It just seems to me the basic functionality of automobiles, transportation, really isn’t degraded in the least if we separate that function from communication in the interest of safety. Again, people can always pull over to use a phone, just like they did for the first hundred years or so of motoring. I’m not really a zealot when it comes to this issue — and I’ve made/received hundreds of calls myself while driving. But this texting while driving business…er…that’s some scary shit.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I have often thought that speed limits should really be adaptively determined by consensus. That is to say, speed limit signs should measure the speed of the cars in the road and display the median. Significant outliers in either direction should be penalized, though speeders should be punished more severely.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Also shouldn’t speed limits vary with different traffic conditions.
craig: They do vary. The conditions one encounters on Main Street are pretty different from those one encounters on I95. And some interstates in densely populated areas are set at 55mph, while other stretches featuring different conditions are set at 65MPH or higher. Similarly, if road conditions on the latter are degraded because of, say, construction or weather, lower speed limits are often temporarily imposed.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I agree that we should try hard to deter texting and hands-on
phone use. But I would question the interpretation of the
fatal-accident figures: quite apart from changes in laws and
law-enforcement policies, the fact is that cars have got much
safer since about 1980, with the combination of anti-lock
brakes, crumple zones, and airbags. Those technical advances
alone have probably done a lot to reduce fatalities -
fewer collisions due to anti-lock brakes, better chance of
surviving a collision due to crumple zones and airbags.
And since the age of the cars on the road varies roughly
from 0-10+ years, changes in fatality rates will lag several
years behind improvements in vehicle design.
It’s a good thing to try to deter behaviors which are likely
to cause accidents. But changing behavior is really
really hard – lots of people still drive without seatbelts,
40+ years after “Unsafe at Any Speed” – compared to
changing technology.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
People texting while driving should, of course, be shot on sight.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Jasper,
Volvo, Mercedes, Toyota and others are rolling out their radar cruise control systems that can automatically stop the car if traffic slows or stops while you’re not paying attention. As this technology is rolled out cars can do more and more of the driving – I don’t see why we can’t allow people to do more multitasking.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
This is, of course, the twenty-trillionth reason it would be nice to have more alternatives to driving, and more walkable communities. Also, more and faster mass transit. I am so sick and tired of taking my life in my hands every time I cross the street. They’re like “free fire” zones in front of every goddamned house.
And yes, if there were stiffer penalties, most people would drive better. I can’t tell you how often as a young adult I had friends sleep over on my couch because there was a really active anti-drunk driving program on the roads in my town. It only took one of them on probation to get all the others in line.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“The traditional social convention in the United States (and apparently the UK as well) that the rules governing the safe operation of fast-moving incredibly heavy pieces of equipment should be routinely ignored or treated as no big deal is really crazy.”
If you don’t like my driving stay off the sidewalk!
Seriously, to paraphrase Larry Niven, a motor vehicle is a kinetic energy weapon. What it takes to make people less casual is beyond me.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I should say that 200 million people do not talk on the cell phone while driving. Most of us don’t do that. Texting while driving is even crazier. We are talking about a very small minority here. Thats why the 35 Mile per hour speed limit is a bad example. Lots of people benefit from not having that rule and not that many people would be saved by having it. That said someday cars will drive themselves and that will fix this whole thing.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Multitasking itself is evil shit, even if you’re not in a car.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I should say that 200 million people do not talk on the cell phone while driving. Most of us don’t do that.
No, you’re in the minority. Nearly everyone makes calls from the car all the time.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
31: Until the cars rebel and drive us all over cliffs.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
@ Craig: A very small minority? Are you kidding? Where I live, every third or fourth driver I see is on the phone.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
The other issue here is that banning texting and cell phone driving may not really reduce accidents. For example, Hahn and Prieger 2007 find that people who frequently use their cell phone while driving are more likely to get in accidents even when not on the phone. This suggests that accidents and cell phone use may correllated, but not causal. In other words, people’s attitudes towards the casual use of their “kinetic energy weapons” might be the real issue. Some preliminary research on the California cell phone ban in July 2008 has found basically no effect of the ban.
I think this is an important issue to consider, and I’m skeptical of these studies that find that cell phone use is as bad as drunk driving in simulator studies (Strayer 2006). If this was true, and 90% of americans have cell phones and say half of them use them while driving, it would be a bloodbath on the freeways. That we don’t see a bloodbath out there suggests that these simulation studies are perhaps not applicaple to real driving conditions (for one thing, you can become undistracted by a cell phone when driving conditions require it, but it’s a lot harder to become undrunk). In any case, it’s important to really get at the causal mechanisms here – is cell phone use causing accidents, or is cell phone use and accidents just symptoms of careless drivers who don’t take driving seriously?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
People texting while driving should, of course, be shot on sight.
If they were shot on sight, just think of the accidents that would be caused. They should be pulled over first, and then shot.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“That said someday cars will drive themselves and that will fix this whole thing.”
Metro Trains in DC drove themselves, which worked quite well up until the moment when it didn’t.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
38: Granted. But do me a favor and compare the number of metro crashes in DC to the number of automobile crashes. One is probably larger than the other.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
As this technology is rolled out cars can do more and more of the driving – I don’t see why we can’t allow people to do more multitasking.
JMO: Well, in the very long term, no doubt cars will do all the driving. And at that point you can make phone calls, or nap, or read, or watch movies, or make love, to your heart’s content while “driving.” But that day isn’t here yet, and the main task should be getting from point A to point B safely. I mean, automobile accidents aren’t some obscure, rarely encountered cause of death or injuries. They’re the the largest factor in premature deaths in the US by far.
“Multi-tasking” — literally doing other things at the same time you’re supposed to be undertaking the central task of driving — seems to me something we ought not to be encouraging.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I drive a lot and my feeling is that about 90% of the car drivers on the road are lousy drivers to begin with. These lousy drivers are even worse when texting or on the cell phone, but that doesn’t mean it’s the cell phone’s fault. The same folks that are crashing with cell phones would be crashing for some other reason. If police actually enforced the on-the-books traffic laws they would have no time for anything else. For that matter, I keep reading about police getting into accidents because they weren’t paying attention. And, how about GPS navigators? I see more folks punching the screen, or being completely blinded at night by an eye-level screen that lights up the whole car. Oh yes, was it Freakonomics (not to be trusted, I know) that pointed out that it is even more dangerous to walk home drunk than it is to drive home drunk?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Driving in the US is amazingly SAFE!
1.4 deaths per 100M vehicle miles is around
130 years of 60mph/24hr day/ 365 days/ yr
driving before you expect to die in a motor vehicle
crash.
If you do little things to avoid being killed, like not being
a drunk driver, not driving predominantly at 3am, not being 16 years old and inexperienced, wearing a seatbelt,
you improve your odds even more.
Why is Matt so worried about it?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I think this is an important issue to consider, and I’m skeptical of these studies that find that cell phone use is as bad as drunk driving in simulator studies (Strayer 2006). If this was true, and 90% of americans have cell phones and say half of them use them while driving, it would be a bloodbath on the freeways.
TheF79: Your skepticism may be warranted. But then again, I’ve read that for every drunk driving fatality, there are zillions and zillions of incidents of drunk driving that go undetected. I mean, just spend an hour at any suburban chain restaurant. Pretty clearly, driving over the legal limit in America is an incredibly commonplace activity.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Driving in the US is amazingly SAFE!
Compared to driving in Brazil, maybe. But not compared to other, comparably wealthy and developed nations.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
TheF79: Hahn and Prieger 2007 find that people who frequently use their cell phone while driving are more likely to get in accidents even when not on the phone. This suggests that accidents and cell phone use may correllated, but not causal. In other words, people’s attitudes towards the casual use of their “kinetic energy weapons” might be the real issue.
One of the reasons we make certain things crimes punishable by incarceration is to remove dangerous people from society. Similarly, I could see how getting people who don’t take safe driving seriously out from behind the wheel is useful.
In the U.S. this tends to be forgotten, but driving is a privilege granted by the state. The state has the right and I would say the duty to suspend this privilege when it is not exercised responsibly.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
if you need to disapline your children you should do so when stopped at a suitable safe location.
Spoken like somebody who hasn’t driven with kids much. News flash: kids don’t wait till you are in a “suitable safe location” to have in-car meltdowns.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I mean, just spend an hour at any suburban chain restaurant. Pretty clearly, driving over the legal limit in America is an incredibly commonplace activity.
As Alec Baldwin notes “Business drunk is just like regular drunk, only you’re allowed to drive.”
Seriously though, it would be interesting to see some figures on what percentage of drivers are over the limit (obviously going to vary by location and time) and compare it with cell phone use. While you’re certainly right that there are over the limit drivers that we never observe because they make it home in one piece, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s at least an order of magnitude more drivers on cell phones.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
But this isn’t really the issue. The problem is that no matter what the rules are, cell phones will be used anyway because people self-regulate. Even really strict punishment of offenders when accidents happen isn’t going to stop that, and catching people using phones in their cars is going to be too widespread for any kind of enforcement regime. Even a jammer inside cars is not going to happen because a typical car can carry 3-4 people who are not driving and therefore may legally use a cell phone.
Then you have the fact that the times this is punished is more about the times that, well, cell phones skid across the pavement and are examined. A built-in cell phone with speakers isn’t going to be as obvious, and a handheld cell could be passed to a passenger, and so forth.
Even careful drivers will have that one emergency call they have to take or “important” text messages (not about meeting celebrities), and judge the risk worth it. And some of those people will have accidents.
The only way to eliminate th eproblem entirely would seem to be mass transportation alternatives (as anonymous noted above). But yes, Britain already has a train system Americans lust after. And we’ve had cell phone-related tragedies on trains.
And of course you also have the increasingly mobile web and smartphones offering everything from “how to get unlost” to “nearest tavern with my friends in it”.
(But is that any more distracting than the movie cliche of the wind-blown road map in a driver’s face?)
So it all comes back to enforcement and incentives. How do we make sure that we’re getting people to keep their eyes on the road, and incentivizing them to self-regulate their usage.
I ought to point out here that I’m thinking of this as an impossible task even as I simmer with anger against a teenage driver who smashed into my niece-in-law’s car, with her infant son in it, while talking on his cell.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Jasper@46:
Driving in the US is amazingly SAFE!
“Compared to driving in Brazil, maybe. But not compared to other, comparably wealthy and developed nations.”
1.Where are your stats?
2. I live in the US, so if I am in Brazil I might
behave differently.
3. I was arguing that is absolutely safe. Driving
in the US is safer than LIVING in the US overall.
(130 yrs life expectancy at 60mph all the time)
Therefore it is safer than living in any other
country as well ( except those with life expectancy greater than 130 years). All the less reason for someone
to worry about safety in England if driving there is even safer
than in the US. – as Matt’s original
post refers to that island nation.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Even a jammer inside cars is not going to happen because a typical car can carry 3-4 people who are not driving and therefore may legally use a cell phone.
Depends on A) how serious we are about dealing with the issue and, B) the level of sophistication of the technology.
It doesn’t seem to me to be impossible to imagine a scenario whereby people simply get used to not using cell phones in motor vehicles, because technology won’t allow them. It also doesn’t seem to me impossible to imagine signal jammers that don’t affect backseat passengers.
The only way to eliminate th eproblem entirely would seem to be mass transportation alternatives
Agreed, if you really do mean “entirely.” But I think effective, mandatory signal jamming technology would reduce the problem by 99%.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Where are your stats?…Driving in the US is safer than LIVING in the US overall.
Why would anybody perform free research for somebody as stupid as you?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
But I think effective, mandatory signal jamming technology would reduce the problem by 99%.
Cost wise I’d think it would make more sense to make lane departure warning and radar brake assist manditory. That would also help those who are busy beating their kids or plucking their eyebrows.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It doesn’t seem to me to be impossible to imagine a scenario whereby people simply get used to not using cell phones in motor vehicles, because technology won’t allow them.
I’m imagining a different scenario in which politicians pass draconian legislation forbidding all cell phone use in cars (which also spills over as any area with roads in it because the car jammers are jamming the phones of everyone they pass as well). Then the politicians who passed the legislation get voted out by the furious citizenry.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
So it all comes back to enforcement and incentives. How do we make sure that we’re getting people to keep their eyes on the road, and incentivizing them to self-regulate their usage.
By revoking the driving licenses of anyone who drives unsafely (including drunk or distracted), for a minimum of a month for the first offense, rising sharply for repeat offenders. And increasing enforcement rates. (Obviously we need people to have ways of getting to work other than driving themselves, but that’s going to be the case anyway as fossil fuels become scarcer and more expensive.)
People who handle firearms unsafely are not permitted to handle them at all, but when it comes to the deadlier weapons on four wheels, anything goes? Madness.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
To make a general point, this sort of thing is why I really disagree with the inclination to make up new crimes. What this woman did, in a US legal terms, is cause the death of another person by recklessness, carelessness or unreasonable risk. That’s second degree manslaughter, and penalties are plenty harsh. If she hadn’t caused the death of another person, you would still have her dead to rights on reckless endangerment and/or reckless driving. There’s no need to define a new crime that will sweep up people who are engaged in non-culpable activities (e.g. sending a text message while stopped in a traffic jam). Moreover, the already established crimes have the advantage of being general in nature (so we won’t need a new one for recklessly sending video messages) and of having been refined by centuries worth of case law.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
One key problem is that when you make the punishments more severe, law enforcement often eases off the prosecution. The way it works is that what Mr. Distract Driver perceives as an ‘unfair’ punishment makes him appeal the hell out of the charge, tying up the court system and making prosecutors and even cops less likely to throw the book at people – why do you want the hassle.
This can obviously be overcome with a full-on commitment to prosecute from on-high, but there are no guarantees that will happen: you can imagine the complaints of ‘why are we going at these people when the rapists and child murderers and scary muggers are out there?’ Thus there’s a move to, in fact, come up with lighter punishments that will be enforceable and, perversely enough, acceptable to the guilty.
None of this has to be the case, and I’m not sure it is the right approach, but it’s natural enough that it pans out this way.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
@southpaw; I wholeheartedly agree!
I continue to believe that no one should be given a driving license until they can handle the NJTP merge/split without panicking.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Reminds me of a NYT piece from a while back about how breathalyzer ignition-interlock devices on cars could save lives.
http://bit.ly/4brvHo
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
While I can see why texting is obviously dangerous (you have to take your eyes off ther road for exdtended periods of time) no one has ever explained why just talking on a cell phone is similarly dangerous, unless we’re talking about finding the number and initiating the call, which also involve looking away from the road. Why should a phone conversation be any more distracting than a conversation with a passenger?
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I’m imagining a different scenario in which politicians pass draconian legislation forbidding all cell phone use in cars (which also spills over as any area with roads in it because the car jammers are jamming the phones of everyone they pass as well).
I think it’s possible the relevant federal authority could simply issue regulations requiring the implementation of the relevant safety devices. Also, my sense is that public irritation with distracted drivers — especially cell phone users — is at least as high as the public’s purported love of making cell phone calls while driving.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
An article on distracted driving had stats, if I recall, that more than 10% of time people spend driving they talk on their cell phones, and 8% of accidents involve such people. So it is well possible that on the average, the explosion of cell phone use decreased the number of accidents.
The possible mechanism is as follows: mildly distracted drivers are more cautious and less aggressive. They can also behave in a predictable way, if annoying to less distracted drivers.
Of course, then there are super-distracted drivers. If I had my way, the British girl would be guilty of driving while brainless.
On the other hand, I had some lengthy discussions with friends conducted when they were in traffic jams. I think that judicious use of phone is possible for drivers, it is not like my favorite self-help book “How to Binge-Drink Responsibly and Other Advises for Successful Living”.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
If one really wanted to reduce (actually practically eliminate) deaths from cars, all you’d have to do is put a governor in them to make the maximum speed 30mph. It would have a lot of other benefits too.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
“Accidents” are an event over which we have no control. Traffic collisions are not accidents; they are the result of a driver making a poor choice that leads to a collision. Studies have shown that more than 80% of traffic collisions take place within 3 seconds of a driver distraction. Drivers need to realize the distance their car can travel while their eyes are off the road for just a second or two. So much can happen in that short amount of time.
Making cars safer leads to a false sense of security that results in drivers taking more chances (the Peltzer Effect). Drivers need to understand that, in spite of all the great technology, control of the car and avoiding collisions is ultimately their responsibility alone.
It is sad to see otherwise responsible individuals going to jail for what seems to be a momentary lapse but something needs to be done to make drivers aware that driving requires full time concentration to remain safe on the road.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
[...] I wrote yesterday, legal crackdowns on distracted driving are a public health no-brainer. When you try to pilot a fast-moving and extremely heavy vehicle while also sending and receiving [...]
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
@58: I briefly imagined building some kind of hand-eye coordination test into cars before allowing them to start, but unfortunately, while it’s rare to suddenly become much more drunk after starting the car, it’s easy and common to become much more distracted in between starting the car and causing the accident.
@59: I don’t know, maybe conversing with passengers *is* distracting and a source of accidents. But the passengers can also observe road conditions and know when they need to shut up for a minute and let the driver drive, which might reduce the effect.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
My concern about the trend in phone-use-while-driving laws is where the line is between “restricting dangerous activity” and “making everyone feel better with good nanny laws.” For example: in my car, I use my iPhone to listen to music. So occasionally I’ll pick it up and flip a button to skip a song I’m not in the mood for. How is this different than changing the station on a radio?
Increasingly, I hear anecdotal reports that seem to indicate that even using a hands-free device is dangerous, because the problem is as much distraction as occupied hands. But how is talking on my speakerphone or bluetooth headset any different than talking to my son sitting in the backseat?
I only text with my phone if I’m at a redlight. The only real risk is that I fail to notice the light turned green and somebody behind me honks. This is enough of a deterrent (I suffer actual physical pain if I hold up traffic for any reason) that I’m careful about doing it. I think most “texting” traffic laws would still cite me for doing it, though. No law is perfect, and I think in this case a “texting” law is imperfect enough to be more trouble than it’s worth.