6 ms·

I ride a motorcycle ~daily. I'm acutely aware of drivers on their phones. Probably one in six drivers that I see are holding their phone, looking at their phone

I ride a motorcycle ~daily. I'm acutely aware of drivers on their phones. Probably one in six drivers that I see are holding their phone, looking at their phone, or otherwise distracted by their phone. Besides being aware of what folks are doing around me, I routinely use my shoulder checks to peek at whether the drivers adjacent to me are distracted so I can be more prepared if they do something stupid. The fix for this is easy: pull people over. When I was a teenager, cops met their quotas by watching for people with a phone (back then folks were talking, not typing). This is a big part of what drove people to get bluetooth earpieces: you wouldn't get pulled over for having one and talking on the phone (and cars didn't have microphones yet, so there wasn't another option). People will be pissed that they're getting pulled over for using their phone while driving. But if there's no expectation of punishment for breaking the law, people will continue breaking the law. And texting and driving is breaking the law. And if I can spot half a dozen people texting and driving on my way to the gym, cops can definitely spot folks texting. Hell, if I could apply for the special cop job of "pull people over for texting" and nothing else, I'd do it purely out of resentment for distracted driving.

hmottestad 3y ago
They pull people over in Norway and give them hefty fines (~1000 USD). We don’t have any statistics for number of car accidents where the driver was “probably” using their phone, so it’s hard to say if it works. So same issue was the article brings up. I feel that the media is partially to blame too. They like to victimise drivers who are caught using their phones, or driving over the speed limit for that matter. Or maybe it’s just my point of view.
browningstreet 3y ago
I can guess with a very high probability that a driver in front of me is on their phone just by the way they move in their lane. I hate driving behind distracted drivers -- they tend to do things suddenly (stop, steer, or crash).
- prirun 3y ago
  Don't forget about the back though: I had a driver slam into me while stopped at a light. She wrecked 4 cars including her own and sent me to the hospital with a $25K ER bill. Took 2 years to resolve that. I get so sick of hearing people say "It's okay: my car lets me talk hands free!" It isn't just the hands that are a problem ... it's your brain being disengaged that's the problem. No hands-free phone fixes that. The bottom line is, no one should be using their phone and driving. If you have to use the phone, pull over.
  - cvwright 3y ago
    The new thing around here is people driving along while carrying on a video call. Usually holding the phone up in their hand, but sometimes with the phone in a holder on the windshield.
prof-dr-ir 3y ago
> The fix for this is easy: pull people over. Or, as is currently being tested in many European countries, cameras above the road that automatically detect drivers on their phones. But I am not optimistic about that taking off in the US, where even speed cameras are a rarity (although I do not really know why).
- a_gnostic 3y ago
  Because Americans have a right to face their accuser, making it easier to just send the cop that caught them. That's the short version. There's been plenty of "scamera" activism and cases won if you want more info. Try 4409
- VyseofArcadia 3y ago
  Camera traffic law enforcement in the US has historically been abused to generate revenue rather than used to increase safety. There was, for example, a wave of states and municipalities that banned red light cameras about a decade ago because cities were illegally shortening the yellow light timing to catch more red light runners. See the links on https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/03/24/145247/mississippi-passes-law-to-ban-traffic-light-cameras https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/03/24/145247/mississippi-p...
  - dabinat 3y ago
    Some places in the US use third-parties to enforce traffic laws. I was once in a park and I got a ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign by a third-party company employed by the park. I looked into the legality of receiving a ticket from someone who is not a cop and I was under no legal obligation to pay it. However, they can ruin your credit if you refuse to pay, so I just went ahead and paid it. I did not seek legal advice and maybe I should have, but the fee was less than a lawyer would have cost.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    People say this all the time, but I've yet to see this demonstrated. I am extremely skeptical of it, since it seems to comport with people wanting it to be true. I think the biggest issue here is simply that the United States has created a transportation system that is inherently unsafe and ungovernable. By universalizing the automobile as the only de facto mode of transportation, we have made revoking a bad driver's license a hardship. The only way to fix the problem is fixing the infrastructure which is extremely expensive, and politically would be wildly unpopular. We are currently doing the exact opposite -- increasing vehicle size and weight in a myopic arms race -- which means we will likely live with the scourge of traffic deaths (100+ dead per day) for the rest of our lives...
ryandrake 3y ago
Phone use should be treated just like DUI. You don't need a chemical intoxication for your attention and reaction time to be impaired. In CA, this means first offense: 1 year suspension of license, second offense: 2 years, third offense: 3 years. Honestly, I don't understand why people shouldn't lose their license permanently for such repeat offenses but I'm not a lawmaker.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  I can tell you that the Tavern League in the state of Wisconsin plays a huge role in why DUI's are enforced like shit here: they want people in bars, drinking. Not necessarily driving but they're fine with it if it means their member establishments make more money.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Rather than draconian punishments that ruin people’s lives for something that millions of people evidently have little executive control over, we could just have a technological solution: have Android and iOS disable the screen on any phone moving faster than 5mph. This would inconvenience passengers of all sorts but it would immediately eliminate all phone related accidents without getting people with bad impulse control license suspensions. Most people with license suspensions continue driving anyway. It’s hard for me to see any other solution that really changes anything. Millions of people have a phone addiction and punishing them for using their phone while driving may be just but it won’t be effective. To me this is more than worth the very minor inconvenience of not being able to use my phone while riding in a bus, car, or train.
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
    The increased likelihood of negative consequences, like police action, is a deterrent. The comparison with drug use can only go so far. And even in that domain, despite what harm reduction purists will tell you, supply reduction DOES work to an extent, in that it dissuades casual users. Looking back at phone use, a casual distracted driver really only differs from an addict in how often they’re doing it. If you hear about your friend being raked over the coals by the cops because of distracted driving, I honestly do believe that you’d be less likely do to it yourself. Where I live, cops routinely drive through lakes of traffic on motorbikes and will tap on your window and signal for you to take the next exit if they see you on your phone. It works. Even with all the imperfections present, it’s still worlds better than less-than-half-baked ideas like disabling phones travelling beyond a certain speed. Christ. Guess I’ll just never catch a train again.
CalRobert 3y ago
It's bizarre how culturally accepted it is. I think I'd rather be in a car with someone drinking a beer than dicking around on their phone.

hmottestad 3y ago

They pull people over in Norway and give them hefty fines (~1000 USD). We don’t have any statistics for number of car accidents where the driver was “probably” using their phone, so it’s hard to say if it works. So same issue was the article brings up. I feel that the media is partially to blame too. They like to victimise drivers who are caught using their phones, or driving over the speed limit for that matter. Or maybe it’s just my point of view.

browningstreet 3y ago

I can guess with a very high probability that a driver in front of me is on their phone just by the way they move in their lane. I hate driving behind distracted drivers -- they tend to do things suddenly (stop, steer, or crash).

prirun 3y ago
Don't forget about the back though: I had a driver slam into me while stopped at a light. She wrecked 4 cars including her own and sent me to the hospital with a $25K ER bill. Took 2 years to resolve that. I get so sick of hearing people say "It's okay: my car lets me talk hands free!" It isn't just the hands that are a problem ... it's your brain being disengaged that's the problem. No hands-free phone fixes that. The bottom line is, no one should be using their phone and driving. If you have to use the phone, pull over.
- cvwright 3y ago
  The new thing around here is people driving along while carrying on a video call. Usually holding the phone up in their hand, but sometimes with the phone in a holder on the windshield.

prof-dr-ir 3y ago

> The fix for this is easy: pull people over. Or, as is currently being tested in many European countries, cameras above the road that automatically detect drivers on their phones. But I am not optimistic about that taking off in the US, where even speed cameras are a rarity (although I do not really know why).

a_gnostic 3y ago
Because Americans have a right to face their accuser, making it easier to just send the cop that caught them. That's the short version. There's been plenty of "scamera" activism and cases won if you want more info. Try 4409
VyseofArcadia 3y ago
Camera traffic law enforcement in the US has historically been abused to generate revenue rather than used to increase safety. There was, for example, a wave of states and municipalities that banned red light cameras about a decade ago because cities were illegally shortening the yellow light timing to catch more red light runners. See the links on https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/03/24/145247/mississippi-passes-law-to-ban-traffic-light-cameras https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/03/24/145247/mississippi-p...
- dabinat 3y ago
  Some places in the US use third-parties to enforce traffic laws. I was once in a park and I got a ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign by a third-party company employed by the park. I looked into the legality of receiving a ticket from someone who is not a cop and I was under no legal obligation to pay it. However, they can ruin your credit if you refuse to pay, so I just went ahead and paid it. I did not seek legal advice and maybe I should have, but the fee was less than a lawyer would have cost.
- scoofy 3y ago
  People say this all the time, but I've yet to see this demonstrated. I am extremely skeptical of it, since it seems to comport with people wanting it to be true. I think the biggest issue here is simply that the United States has created a transportation system that is inherently unsafe and ungovernable. By universalizing the automobile as the only de facto mode of transportation, we have made revoking a bad driver's license a hardship. The only way to fix the problem is fixing the infrastructure which is extremely expensive, and politically would be wildly unpopular. We are currently doing the exact opposite -- increasing vehicle size and weight in a myopic arms race -- which means we will likely live with the scourge of traffic deaths (100+ dead per day) for the rest of our lives...

ryandrake 3y ago

Phone use should be treated just like DUI. You don't need a chemical intoxication for your attention and reaction time to be impaired. In CA, this means first offense: 1 year suspension of license, second offense: 2 years, third offense: 3 years. Honestly, I don't understand why people shouldn't lose their license permanently for such repeat offenses but I'm not a lawmaker.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I can tell you that the Tavern League in the state of Wisconsin plays a huge role in why DUI's are enforced like shit here: they want people in bars, drinking. Not necessarily driving but they're fine with it if it means their member establishments make more money.
Amezarak 3y ago
Rather than draconian punishments that ruin people’s lives for something that millions of people evidently have little executive control over, we could just have a technological solution: have Android and iOS disable the screen on any phone moving faster than 5mph. This would inconvenience passengers of all sorts but it would immediately eliminate all phone related accidents without getting people with bad impulse control license suspensions. Most people with license suspensions continue driving anyway. It’s hard for me to see any other solution that really changes anything. Millions of people have a phone addiction and punishing them for using their phone while driving may be just but it won’t be effective. To me this is more than worth the very minor inconvenience of not being able to use my phone while riding in a bus, car, or train.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  The increased likelihood of negative consequences, like police action, is a deterrent. The comparison with drug use can only go so far. And even in that domain, despite what harm reduction purists will tell you, supply reduction DOES work to an extent, in that it dissuades casual users. Looking back at phone use, a casual distracted driver really only differs from an addict in how often they’re doing it. If you hear about your friend being raked over the coals by the cops because of distracted driving, I honestly do believe that you’d be less likely do to it yourself. Where I live, cops routinely drive through lakes of traffic on motorbikes and will tap on your window and signal for you to take the next exit if they see you on your phone. It works. Even with all the imperfections present, it’s still worlds better than less-than-half-baked ideas like disabling phones travelling beyond a certain speed. Christ. Guess I’ll just never catch a train again.

CalRobert 3y ago

It's bizarre how culturally accepted it is. I think I'd rather be in a car with someone drinking a beer than dicking around on their phone.