Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,075

    Cell Phone caused accidents should be charged the same as DWI's

    I mean they both take a conscious decision to do.

    What is the diff between getting rag dolled by either?

    Either way the cyclist is usually f#cked!


    I'm not finding a reason one is worse than the other.


    A cell phone incident is Not an Accident I M O.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,164
    Quote Originally Posted by factory feel View Post
    I'm not finding a reason one is worse than the other.

    Legislators, however, see big differences if jobs in their district depend on cell phones at almost any level...

  3. #3
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,449
    Quote Originally Posted by factory feel View Post
    I mean they both take a conscious decision to do.

    What is the diff between getting rag dolled by either?

    Either way the cyclist is usually f#cked!


    I'm not finding a reason one is worse than the other.


    A cell phone incident is Not an Accident I M O.
    I totally agree. It really bothers me when they're described as an 'accident'. Definitely an act of negligence, nothing accidental about it. Same as an 'accidental discharge' of a gun...no such thing, it's a 'negligent discharge'.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  4. #4
    I love to climb!
    Reputation: Jwiffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,942
    Unfortunately, you are preaching to the choir. But, yes, people need to not be let off for cell phone or other distracted driving.
    Stop in at Element Sports. www.elementsport.com
    Get Out! Have Fun!

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    8
    I've been harping on this like a broken record well before it led to a collision. Distracted driving accounts for 25% of all crashes now (according to the NHTSA). Imagine if a quarter of all crashes disappeared tomorrow. It is so easy to not touch your phone; you waste no calories. Granted, drunk driving still kills more people because drunk drivers tend to speed, whereas texting/talking drivers tend to slow down. Somehow they think it compensates for their self imposed distraction, but it only lessens the impact when they inevitably crash.

  6. #6
    Huge in Japan
    Reputation: craiger_ny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    383
    DWI enforcement is a cash cow first and foremost. The ratio of dollars gained versus enforcement effort spent is very high for DWIs. Unless distracted driving can be the same sort of low effort revenue generator I don't see it being on the radar for reform. Unfortunately it's probably an issue of more people dying or the 'right' person dying (i.e. the kid of a legislator) in order to facilitate a change.

    I might be a bit of a pessimist though.
    Interwebs bumpersticker goes here

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: OldZaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,175
    Really? Kids getting gunned down in high schools isn't enough to change a law. You think a few cyclists - "who shouldn't be on the damn roads anyway" - getting hit will move the needle?

    We're all just going to have to keep playing the numbers game (that it'll be you and not me) until the computers drive the cars.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Oxtox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,097
    if revenue was a motivation, you'd think LE would be all over citing cell phone users...

    a few people drive drunk, EVERYONE is on a phone.
    Ancient Astronaut theorists say, 'YES!'

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,075
    If someone gets mangled by a vehicle while riding legally in a bicycle lane, would knowing the driver was texting instead of having a B A C over the legal limit make the sufferering more tolerable?

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxtox View Post
    if revenue was a motivation, you'd think LE would be all over citing cell phone users...

    a few people drive drunk, EVERYONE is on a phone.
    To expand on the subject of law enforcement, should police be exempt from cell phone use laws?

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    I totally agree. It really bothers me when they're described as an 'accident'. Definitely an act of negligence, nothing accidental about it. Same as an 'accidental discharge' of a gun...no such thing, it's a 'negligent discharge'.
    In order to secure payment under someone’s else’s policy there has to negligence on their part. The alternative is intentional act which voids coverage.

    The term accident refers to the result. In other words the act of using a cell phone while driving is both an intentional choice, and negligent. This choice is the basis for a finding of liability which requires a showing of negligence, resulting in an unintended result . The unintended result is the definition of an accident.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by craiger_ny View Post
    DWI enforcement is a cash cow first and foremost. The ratio of dollars gained versus enforcement effort spent is very high for DWIs. Unless distracted driving can be the same sort of low effort revenue generator I don't see it being on the radar for reform. Unfortunately it's probably an issue of more people dying or the 'right' person dying (i.e. the kid of a legislator) in order to facilitate a

    I might be a bit of a pessimist though.
    Most states already have statutes prohibiting hand held devices. Unfortunately they are rarely enforced. This is an issue that extends beyond cyclists. People are hurt in accidents caused by cell phone usage while in motor vehicles

    DWI laws were often loosely enforced until MAD forced the issue. There needs to be a public outcry.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Herbie View Post
    Most states already have statutes prohibiting hand held devices. Unfortunately they are rarely enforced. This is an issue that extends beyond cyclists. People are hurt in accidents caused by cell phone usage while in motor vehicles

    DWI laws were often loosely enforced until MAD forced the issue. There needs to be a public outcry.
    MADD was an extraordinarily successful effort. They changed the mindset on drunk driving from looking the other way to it being a serious offense. I think the difference is the percentage of drivers using cell phone while driving is substantially higher than the number of drunks on the road even in its heyday. While the average Joe may say you shouldn't text and drive, the reality is they then go to their cars and do it themselves. Their is also the issue of proof. There is no roadside test for distracted driving. To me the solution needs to come in the form of technology. Something that blocks drivers from using the phones when driving

  14. #14
    Road Warrior
    Reputation: n2deep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    629
    We need a nation organization with the mandate to support safe cycling legislation and education, much like MADD and or the NRA.
    The previous poster mentioned the great job MADD has done to almost eliminate drunk driving and look at the hold that the NRA has on our legislators. Both organizations should be commended on their ability to effect change. Although I do not subscribe to the NRA’s tactic of fear mongering, they are extremely efficient at collecting members-cash to support their mandates and to buy the right votes. We have many local advocates-groups but nothing with real power. It’s time we either organize a national group and or fund a local group to empower them to do this work for us. In short, we need to get involved with our communities and to fund some of these organizations or nothing will change. I get tired of reading about these wrecks and nothing about education and or design improvement to make cycling safer.
    A short list of advocacy groups.
    https://www.usacycling.org/resources/advocacy


  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    One thing I find disconcerting which enables distracted driving is that texting strips are becoming more and more common around here. You may know these as rumble strips. Granted, we have twisting roads around here, many with little or no shoulder, but they also put them on the center lines and many roads with wide shoulders.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Akirasho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,164
    I'm not a lawyer and the following might be considered mixing apples and oranges (which, ironically, is probably what any defense atty is gonna do in court) and laws vary bu state but, did you ever see either of these folks in prison orange?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...st-amount.html

    https://www.si.com/tennis/2017/07/11...legal-analysis


    I think Jenner settled but don't know about Williams. Legislation is mostly an after the fact kinda thing and may be as clear as mud.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Akirasho View Post
    I'm not a lawyer and the following might be considered mixing apples and oranges (which, ironically, is probably what any defense atty is gonna do in court) and laws vary bu state but, did you ever see either of these folks in prison orange?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...st-amount.html

    https://www.si.com/tennis/2017/07/11...legal-analysis


    I think Jenner settled but don't know about Williams. Legislation is mostly an after the fact kinda thing and may be as clear as mud.
    Not sure the Williams incident is relevant here. The case was closed after video footage showed she did not run a red light as was original purported. In this case perhaps there was a rush to judgement because she is a celebrity

  18. #18
    δanned
    Reputation: SauronHimself's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    6,888
    Quote Originally Posted by n2deep View Post
    We need a nation organization with the mandate to support safe cycling legislation and education, much like MADD and or the NRA.
    [FONT=B
    Re-brand MADD as MADDD? Mother Against Distracted & Drunk Driving?
    Ghurarmu shirkush’ agh azgushu. Zant ya apakurizak. Gűl-n’ anakhizak.

Similar Threads

  1. DWI driver hit by another DWI driver
    By bonkmiester in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-16-2008, 09:36 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-20-2006, 12:13 AM
  3. I just had a phone solicitor call my cell phone
    By Brick Tamland in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-29-2006, 08:03 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-07-2005, 08:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.