Fun with numbers

[Occhidiangela]

A little statistical tidbit from the State of Texas.

Number of vehicle accidents in Texas (reported/documented) in 2000: 318,990.

Number of (reported/documented) accidents where cell phones are listed as a contributory factor. 716.

Accidents where unsafe speed (relative to posted limit) contributed: 102,915.

Cell phone driving bills introduced in Texas legislature: 4.'

Bills passed: 0.
=====================================================

I wonder if the data for 2001 and 2002 will show a rising trend regarding the 716 number. It strikes me as odd that the presented data lacks the inputs from the time period that only increases the density of cell phones per person and hence per driver.

I wonder if the cell phone will be slowly but surely tied into legislation the same way seat belts were. That took a generation or so. We've lately, here in South Texas, had the usual summer 'wear your seatbelts roadblocks' increase, however, the real fun with that is that some of the local LULAC mouthfoamers insist that racial profiling, toward Hispanics and illegals, is being used unfairly. The police departments point to data to show why they are targeting the areas they do, based on seat belt usage trends. (Guess what the data shows: where high density of illegals/non English speakers, non grew up inundated with 'wear your seatbelt influences' folks live, seat belt use is dramatically lower. Go figure.)

Is a law really necessary?

Only 5 states have laws on the books that restrict to one extent or another the use of cell phones while driving:

Maine, Nevada, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas.

Funnily enough, I doubt those states have the same prohibitions regarding CB radios. :)

More numbers.

Senator Clinton got an 8 million dollar book advance. Maybe now she can afford her house in Chapaqua, a house that it took in excess of $1,000,000 in co signing by a wealthy Democrat to afford for herself and the President. Between her book and his, maybe they can be liquid enough to remove the 'dad cosigned my loan' stigma from their moving into an incredibly wealthy neighborhood.

Maybe we ought to raise the pay for the President. I have been a proponent of that for about 10 years. Is a million a year to much to pay the guy with the most important job in the world? Considering what some CEO's make, it's still a pittance, though the perks are pricey. :)

[Roland]

Add Massachusetts to that list, as of over a year ago. I forget the specifics, but the fine is pretty steep. Worse, IIRC, than not wearing your seat belt, although I could be wrong on that.

[ShadowHM]

I find it amusing that the outcry against Cell Phones goes on at all. As Occhi pointed out, they don't account for a significant proportion of the accidents reported. It may well be that they are just a much more visible item.

I see folks driving and talking on their cell phones all the time. I also see folks reading newspapers and maps, adjusting make-up, driving while looking directly at the front seat passenger for conversation, yelling at kids in the back seat, etc. etc. I see people passing on hills. I see people driving way too fast for the road conditions. Heck, I read this weekend about someone getting caught on radar driving at 140 km per hour in dense fog on a freeway near here.

But the cell phone users stick out like sore thumbs, just because it is so much more visible - a focus for all the other road rage?

My mother and step-father have HAM radio licences and each have hand held ones in their cars, as well as the larger home units. (That, btw, is going to be my next project - I want to be able to talk to my mother during those four months a year she goes wilderness camping. :blink: Recent technical developments mean that I will be able to use the internet from my home computer to get into the HAM system and not even have to buy the radio itself. :D ) I am very glad they have them, and for them, they serve much the same purpose as many (most?) cell phones that are carried in cars do - get them in touch with help if they need it.

Just like so much else in life, the fact that a small group of people abuse a privilege is no reason to yank it for everyone else.

[Jeunemaitre]

Add Massachusetts to that list, as of over a year ago.

I think New York has a similar law, but it may be that that cell phone use while driving without a "hands-free" device is prohibited, but use of a cell phone with a "hands-free" is permitted while driving. Again, it's been a while since I've done much driving in New York, but I got an ear-full from my wife (until recently a New-York resident) when I went to call her parents to let them know we were running behind schedule in our trip to visit them [insert Tangent if desired].

Tangent: That was a great conclusion to the previous 5.5hrs of driving to visit my in-laws for the first time since the wedding... 30 minutes of arguing (about something I felt was trivial, which she felt was integral to the fabric of existence, and my inability to recognize that was representative of my lack of value for our lives) capped by a "We'll talk more about this later..." as we were pulling into her parents driveway. Fun week-end...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Hmm, 1 in 450 auto accidents involve cell phones? And, though you don't say so, about 1 in 2 involve alcohol.

I'd be more interested in seeing injury and fatality figures than just reported accidents. First, because a fender bender is just an inconvenience (who was the celebrity airhead who said "When you lose your life, you lose something important", or words to that effect). But, second, a large percentage of fender benders don't get reported. If there are injuries involved, that percentage gos way down.

I'd say *enforcing* the DWI laws might be a tad more important than passing new cell phone laws. Of course, doing both would be good, if they can figure out how to enforce the cell phone law.

As to seat belts, I'm all for laws requiring that the manufacturers install an adequate seat belt system. That is consumer protection. I'm against laws requiring people to use them. That is government parenting. If a person is stupid enough to drive around without a seat belt, then it is a good thing for them to die -- preferably before reproducing. And the old "but if they get injured society has to take care of them" argument is best answered with "why?"

Maybe we ought to raise the pay for the President.

Maybe. Or maybe we only need to stop harassing the sitting president with politically motivated personal suits that are dropped as soon as he leaves office. BTW, does a "retired" president get any kind of benefits other than a lifelong secret service escort?

--Pete

[Kevin]

The president draws a life long pension starting as soon as he leaves office. I believe this is currently the same monetary value as the salary ($200,000 a year). Maybe I heard something wrong on that, but I thought we paid our presidents until they die.


I agree that DWI enforcement needs to be better, and the DWI penalties in many states probably should be higher. I am all for a 2 strike policy. 1st time offense if 6 months without a license, and stiff fines. 2nd offense and you lose the priviledge of driving forever. If you are caught driving after having your license yanked, then you get some nice jail time.

Cell phones are a little different than CB's as well. Many cell phone users don't have hands free sets, or any other additions and they have to put the phone to the ear and put their hand in an odd positions. Most CB, while needing a hand to operate, don't require as much attenion to use as a cell, and you can often still have both hands on the wheel while using since you don't have to hold it right by the mouth to use. Now I still don't think cells are a big deal, and I don't have a big problem with them, especially if they are used hands free. I don't think it is worth the effort to legislate against them. Enforcing the current laws would be a better use of resources.

[ShadowHM]

And the old "but if they get injured society has to take care of them" argument is best answered with "why?"

For a citizen of Canada, growing up with the dream of universal health care, it is a tad hard to shed the knee-jerk reaction that health care (especially traumatic injury care) should be a right of citizenship.

For good or ill, that is what we have here. The discussion of the merits of the system has been covered before. However, given that is the system, then the old adage fits: He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

[--Pete]

. . . goes down the tubes.

Hi,

Once again, the question is what position away from both extremes is "correct".

Letting people suffer and die simply because they are too poor to receive aid is not much of a tenable position (I think). Covering all injuries, even those beyond the norm because of foolishness or stupidity on the part of the injured is also untenable (again, IMO).

Somehow, a "happy" medium needs to be achieved. And legislation trying to force people not to be fools is a waste of time and money. And that is *our* money. And for the most part doomed to failure. Those too stupid to use seat belts will be stupid enough to break a seat belt law.

Actions have consequences. If those consequences are not passed back at least in part to the one who acted, then there is no need for personal responsibility. We see this in many places: the judge who gives a criminal a suspended sentence or the parole board that lets a criminal out early are not held responsible for the actions of that criminal. The hiker who goes off into the wilderness alone and unprepared isn't charged for the cost of the great search and rescue effort his getting lost engenders. Ditto the climber and the sailor.

So, somewhere between "let them stew in their own juices" and "no worries, we'll take care of everything" lies the answer. The USA does not have it, but I don't think Canada does either. Indeed, I can think of no place that does.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

So, somewhere between "let them stew in their own juices" and "no worries, we'll take care of everything" lies the answer.

That happy medium sure is a hard place to find.

[Feryar]

We have public healthcare over here, and after you've spent a certain amount of money on medicines and fees (during 1 calender year) you get the rest for free, but you have to be prepared to wait for a long time for most of the surgery and stuff.
If you choose to go to a private clinic, it is more expensive, you don't get the free stuff after spending a certain amount of money, but you usually don't have to wait very long.

I think that works just nice. Personally I go to private doctors because I need to get things fixed fast, but those who can't (or doesn't want to) spend the extra money can still enjoy the public service.
I prefer spending a months wage on getting it done quick rather than wait for a long time. The fact that I can actually choose which way to do it is good enough for me.


edit: over here == Norway

[smegged]

Hi Occhi,

Over here in Australia (well at least in Queensland and I think New South Wales), we've had driving/cell phone laws for a little while now. Unfortunately it seems that the laws aren't enough to dissuade people from using cell phones while driving. Probably a big part of the problem is that the fine is only $75AU, whereas a carphone costs $300AU. People can't justify the cost of the carphone.

Another problem that we've had is that it's a very difficult law to enforce. If you see a cop, you simply say goodbye, hang up, put the phone away, deny you were using it and the cop can't prove anything.

still, I'm sure the law does deter some people from using mobiles while driving. So in that respect it is doing its job. I've always though that it's stupid to try and use a mobile while driving. It is a distraction that a driver concentrating on driving does not need.

-Smegged

[Roland]

Hands-free kits are required if you are driving and operating your cell phone. Otherwise, you better be pulled off to the side of the road, or able to pull a hefty fine out of your wallet. They slap you with a serious fine for first offense; I don't even want to think about how bad it is for repeat offenses. ;)