4 ms·

What would be the equivalent for cellphone use? Because the biggest threat for me while biking is not drunk drivers but those texting and fiddling with their ph

What would be the equivalent for cellphone use? Because the biggest threat for me while biking is not drunk drivers but those texting and fiddling with their phones.

jessaustin 11y ago
We've found that most "U" bike locks make a satisfying and attention-grabbing noise when hammered directly onto the roof of inattentively-driven autos. If there is occasionally a small dent or chip in the paint, even better... b^)
- jchendy 11y ago
  Where I'm from, that would be a great way to provoke a fist fight.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    And almost hitting someone because you're texting instead of paying attention to where you're going isn't?
    - kd0amg 11y ago
      I have seen that scenario play out lots of times, and it never ended in a fist fight (maybe because the initial offender could just keep the door locked?).
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        That's the trick: to get them out of the car. Ergo, the U-lock.
adventured 11y ago
The problem with this is mostly spotting people doing it, and then taking action against them. When you have N cops, versus a thousand plus times as many drivers, spotting and pulling over the people doing it becomes an extremely laborious process. There are three options that can be used alone or together. 1) Technology solution. Put digital eyes around the area of the steering wheel or otherwise pointing at the driver. Report drivers that frequently use a phone while driving. We can trivially build a phone identifier for a car today, given the drastic improvements in recognition technology. We could also easily judge drivers by their poor attentiveness to the road. This approach will freak people out in regards to being nanny state invasive. 2) Community shaming, education programs. This was half the battle with getting people to use seat belts regularly. 3) Traditional police enforcement. Cops start pulling people over for it more frequently, and hitting them with on the spot $100, $200, $500 fines. Perhaps it increases with each offense within a certain amount of time. The problem here is, the radical majority of people will simply slip through the enforcement cracks and not be caught. It would also be open to easy abuse, cops stuffing the budget with lots of fines. People see seat belts as a life saving device for the most part, so voluntary compliance mostly worked, but I'd wager most people do not see their phone habits as potentially life threatening. That requires greater disincentives to reach the same compliance, or a vastly larger shaming & education project.
- mentat 11y ago
  The current law enforcement milieu is simply revenue generation for the state and a lottery ticket for an addition road tax on violators. It just doesn't work. Until we decide what laws we really want and that we are ok with 90% enforcement of those laws, it will be a dangerous joke. A lot of the current scheme of law enforcement is based on most people being law abiding citizens. When you look at the road now, that's clearly not the case.
- politician 11y ago
  On the spot fines seem like a great way to encourage graft and corruption among the police. Let's leave Judge Dredd-style policing in the comic books.
DenisM 11y ago
How about this: If you're caught cell-driving, you either pay a large fine, say $750, or you submit to a program that bans talking while moving faster than 5mph for the next two months. The cell carrier will monitor the ban and issue citations by SMS. So if you opt into this program, and then you're driving down the road, start talking on the cell phone, and then 30 seconds later BANG! you get a text message: "That call was $75 payable to the city hall before the end of the day". Yeah, you can't talk on the bus and stuff, but that's the "punishment" part for ya. It's worth a try, I think.
- kanamekun 11y ago
  The trick with using technology to assess "driving while texting" is that texters are often the passengers in the car. Waze tries to deal with moving typers by having an alert that pops up thatsays (roughly), "You can't enter text while moving" - but has a button that says, "It's ok, I'm a passenger." The trick with a $75 fine for texting while moving is passengers. If you're willing to ban texting entirely while moving though, using technology to assess small fines could work!
  - DenisM 11y ago
    I'm not proposing trying to figure out who is driving and who is riding. Once a person got caught breaking the law, he can't use his phone while moving; passenger or driver is not important at this point. The key is to training new habit and making it stick, according to the article, is to make punishment moderate, certain, and immediate. We can't do that across the board due to the limitations of technology, legitimate use, privacy concerns, presumption of innocence and so on. But we sure can do that to those who broke the law, especially when they opt into it.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      What if the person is on a train? Spending the entire ride not being able to use one's phone?
  - slxh 11y ago

What would be the equivalent for cellphone use? Because the biggest threat for me while biking is not drunk drivers but those texting and fiddling with their phones.

jessaustin 11y ago

We've found that most "U" bike locks make a satisfying and attention-grabbing noise when hammered directly onto the roof of inattentively-driven autos. If there is occasionally a small dent or chip in the paint, even better... b^)

jchendy 11y ago
Where I'm from, that would be a great way to provoke a fist fight.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- s73v3r 11y ago
  And almost hitting someone because you're texting instead of paying attention to where you're going isn't?
  - kd0amg 11y ago
    I have seen that scenario play out lots of times, and it never ended in a fist fight (maybe because the initial offender could just keep the door locked?).
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      That's the trick: to get them out of the car. Ergo, the U-lock.

adventured 11y ago

The problem with this is mostly spotting people doing it, and then taking action against them. When you have N cops, versus a thousand plus times as many drivers, spotting and pulling over the people doing it becomes an extremely laborious process. There are three options that can be used alone or together. 1) Technology solution. Put digital eyes around the area of the steering wheel or otherwise pointing at the driver. Report drivers that frequently use a phone while driving. We can trivially build a phone identifier for a car today, given the drastic improvements in recognition technology. We could also easily judge drivers by their poor attentiveness to the road. This approach will freak people out in regards to being nanny state invasive. 2) Community shaming, education programs. This was half the battle with getting people to use seat belts regularly. 3) Traditional police enforcement. Cops start pulling people over for it more frequently, and hitting them with on the spot $100, $200, $500 fines. Perhaps it increases with each offense within a certain amount of time. The problem here is, the radical majority of people will simply slip through the enforcement cracks and not be caught. It would also be open to easy abuse, cops stuffing the budget with lots of fines. People see seat belts as a life saving device for the most part, so voluntary compliance mostly worked, but I'd wager most people do not see their phone habits as potentially life threatening. That requires greater disincentives to reach the same compliance, or a vastly larger shaming & education project.

mentat 11y ago
The current law enforcement milieu is simply revenue generation for the state and a lottery ticket for an addition road tax on violators. It just doesn't work. Until we decide what laws we really want and that we are ok with 90% enforcement of those laws, it will be a dangerous joke. A lot of the current scheme of law enforcement is based on most people being law abiding citizens. When you look at the road now, that's clearly not the case.
politician 11y ago
On the spot fines seem like a great way to encourage graft and corruption among the police. Let's leave Judge Dredd-style policing in the comic books.

DenisM 11y ago

How about this: If you're caught cell-driving, you either pay a large fine, say $750, or you submit to a program that bans talking while moving faster than 5mph for the next two months. The cell carrier will monitor the ban and issue citations by SMS. So if you opt into this program, and then you're driving down the road, start talking on the cell phone, and then 30 seconds later BANG! you get a text message: "That call was $75 payable to the city hall before the end of the day". Yeah, you can't talk on the bus and stuff, but that's the "punishment" part for ya. It's worth a try, I think.

kanamekun 11y ago
The trick with using technology to assess "driving while texting" is that texters are often the passengers in the car. Waze tries to deal with moving typers by having an alert that pops up thatsays (roughly), "You can't enter text while moving" - but has a button that says, "It's ok, I'm a passenger." The trick with a $75 fine for texting while moving is passengers. If you're willing to ban texting entirely while moving though, using technology to assess small fines could work!
- DenisM 11y ago
  I'm not proposing trying to figure out who is driving and who is riding. Once a person got caught breaking the law, he can't use his phone while moving; passenger or driver is not important at this point. The key is to training new habit and making it stick, according to the article, is to make punishment moderate, certain, and immediate. We can't do that across the board due to the limitations of technology, legitimate use, privacy concerns, presumption of innocence and so on. But we sure can do that to those who broke the law, especially when they opt into it.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    What if the person is on a train? Spending the entire ride not being able to use one's phone?
- slxh 11y ago