Texting fines

[storytimewithjoe]

Republicans and I don’t often agree. I think that is a safe statement. However, when it comes down to the most basic philosophy of Lincoln’s party, I do subscribe to the idea that the government that governs least, governs best. Or, to put it in Joe-speak, “Gubment, back the f$*% out of my face!” This came screaming through the other day as I was driving to the gym.

 

I have a confession to make, peeps. I text while I drive. GASP!!!!!! Oh, I know that political correctness has now pointed out that this is an evil thing. But guess what, kittens? I am a multitasking kinda person. I can drive and change the radio station, too! I can drive while eating a burger, too!

 

Now, I understand the concept behind the anti-driving-and-texting campaign. They are focused on the teenage girls who are busily twittering and twatting over their totally-hot-crush from the newest Twilight movie, not paying attention to traffic. Me, on the other hand, I can drive and watch the road while my non-driving hand is busily firing away in response to a text that I read while at a stop sign. Here in California, they created a slap-on-the-wrist fine for texting. Officers would pull you over, say “now-now, bad you”, and give you a $20 fine. Annoying, yes? Well, nowhere NEAR as annoying as the sign I read the other day stating that texting fines have now gone up to $160.

 

What-what-WHAT?!!!!!!

 

Now frankly, I am a major proponent of being responsible. I know what my limits are, and I know what I am capable of. And it really PISSES ME OFF to have a law in place telling me what I can and cannot do. For crying out loud, it is bad enough that I cannot legally hold a cellphone to my ear while driving. Now I can’t text, either? Yet, where is the campaign against the chickie putting on her mascara? Or the person flipping through their ipod selection? Let’s face it, folks, there are all kinds of driving distractions out there. For me, I am far, FAR more distracted by glowing billboards or road-side sign-twirlers. THOSE, I believe, are far more likely to be the cause of an accident than me responding to a text when I believe it to be safe.

 

Yes, I know I probably sound like grumpy old man here. Yes, I realize that the law ain’t perfect, and it is designed to address the population in general, and not just me. But still… it pisses me off!

 

Comments

[aofe.livejournal.com]

Yes, I realize that the law ain’t perfect, and it is designed to address the population in general, and not just me. But still… it pisses me off!

Do you think the fine went up because (a) they feel that a higher fine will serve as a better deterrent, or (b) because they want to make some money off this infraction as the state is in economic poopy-town?

Yeah, I know they didn't increase just this fine to fix the budget, but I'd guess there has been an increase across the board for infractions like this.

[aeddie.livejournal.com]

Sorry Joe. I don't agree. You may know your limits but the 16 year old with a brand new license probably doesn't.

Also, I think the answer is to go after all of the distractions not just the hot button ones. Besides, if they go after make-up, reading, eating and lots of others then they can lower the fines on individual offenses and still rake take in money.

[aliskye.livejournal.com]

Sorry Joe, I frequently agree with you, but on this I can't.

Research on distracted driving reveals some surprising facts:
•20 percent of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving. (NHTSA).
•Of those killed in distracted-driving-related crashed, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction (18% of fatalities in distraction-related crashes). (NHTSA)
•In 2009, 5,474 people were killed in U.S. roadways and an estimated additional 448,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved distracted driving. (FARS and GES)
•The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the under-20 age group – 16 percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. (NHTSA)
•Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
•Using a cell phone use while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)

[joeguppy.livejournal.com]

OK, I bow to the statistics and wisdom of my friends.

But I don't like it. Is that a fair compromise? :-)

[xrian.livejournal.com]

I agree that the problem is *distracted* driving, not just texting. But it seems to me that studies back up the idea that cell phones or texting are proportionately MORE distracting than most other distractions. Apparently the fact that you are interacting with someone else who is not physically present calls additional areas of your brain into action (possibly because you involuntarily visualize the other person, though they're not sure). So you have less brain left over to pay true attention to the road and exercise common sense with ;)

The experiment I remember most vividly has to do with clowns in a plaza: scientists interviewed people who had been engaged in various activities while walking past the clowns, and those who were engaged in cell phone conversations showed a significantly higher incidence of not having even *noticed* the clowns than people doing everything else -- walking, eating, or even conversing with a companion who was walking with them.

In my book, anything that lessens your ability to watch and intellectually process the road around you counts as "distraction". So I'd definitely fault the mascara-appliers, the texters and the woolgatherers (though that's hard to measure) but not the eaters or (nonalcoholic) drinkers. But that's IMHO.

Also, IIRC the ticket you actually get is for "distracted driving" not specifically for texting.