Wot R u doing u numskulls? Our compulsive texting kills

simonfromlakemba says:

03:07pm | 05/11/12

LOL awesome.

acotrel says:

12:55pm | 05/11/12

There should be laws against plucking your eyebrows, or putting your lippy on while driving.  Also against emulating the mile high club, and anything else which is fun, such as picking your nose while doing over 60 kph.. Are intravenous alcohol and caffeine drips illegal while driving ?

Pedro says:

01:08pm | 05/11/12

Wait - I thought it was speed that caused all those accidents? Whch is why we have to have all these speed cameras.
Now it’s mobile phones - of which texting is a small subset of mo=bile use while driving.
I give up. Just send a fine every other week. That seems easiest.
And I call BS on the author’s claim that his parents were “almost” involved in an accident (of which mobile phone use ws not proven to be a cause - there just happened to be an alleged phone on the floor).
Gee I am “almost” involved in accidents every day. I was almost involved in 9/11 because I almost went to the US Open in NEw York that year - but didn’t.

martinX says:

01:09pm | 05/11/12

“There should be laws against plucking your eyebrows, or putting your lippy on while driving.” There is.

James1 says:

01:46pm | 05/11/12

It’s not that hard to grasp Pedro, surely. Let me break it down for you.  Some accidents are caused, or made worse, by people driving over the speed limit.  Other accidents are caused by people not watching what they are doing because they are using their mobile phones.  Still other accidents are caused by other things. 

The last past of your post makes you look like a person trying very hard to find some way to justify your breaking of laws via some very poor attempts at misdirection in some kind of misguided attempt at discrediting the author because you cannot respond in any meaningful sense to his arguments, or even your complete misunderstanding of his arguments.  Not a very strong argumentation technique.

Modern Primitive says:

03:19pm | 05/11/12

I think Pedro has a better grasp on things than you do, James.

Troy Flynn says:

03:21pm | 05/11/12

What’s the matter Pedro, did you miss the part about “police found a half composed message on the phone in the girls car”.

sami says:

03:40pm | 05/11/12

@James1
No accident is caused by speeding. The collision is made worse, yes. But there has never been a time when someone was driving along at 20ks over or whatever and BAM, an accident happened. Never.
If they swerved off the road? That was the cause. If they hit an animal? That was the cause. If they lost control on a bend? That was the cause. Not speed itself.

tez says:

04:19pm | 05/11/12

@ Sami. So speeding dosn’t cause you to loose control or swerve off the road? sorry don’t buy that.

Modern Primitive says:

04:44pm | 05/11/12

Tez, if you don’t buy that, then how come people on the autobahns don’t just go randomly spinning off into the scenery? It’s quite safe to traverse those roads at over 200km/h, well into speeding territory in this country. I’d love for you to explain to me how increasing your speed over an arbitrarily defined limit ” just causes you to crash.”

Take your time, I’ve got all day.

James1 says:

05:09pm | 05/11/12

Modern Primitive, really?  I say that many things cause accidents, just like the evidence and just like the article.  Do you disagree that car accidents are caused by many things?  Pedro seems to think that accidents can be either caused by speeding or phones, but not both, and takes no account of other factors.

Sorry, but who has a better grasp?  The person who has examined the evidence and concluded that speed, distraction, and many other factors cause accidents, or the person who doesn’t actually make a coherent point in any part of their comment, and then goes on to attack the author as a liar despite having no evidence to support their contention?

It seems to me that you like to drive as fast as you want, but you don’t want to pay the fines.  This leads you to bend over backwards, attempt to use poor semantic tricks, ignore evidence, and even make things up in order to support a position that you have derived from your personal desires.  I have no agenda here, and I am just stating what the research indicates.  If you don’t like what the research indicates, then I am sorry for that.  You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and the facts (ranging from the road accident statistics collected in this and every other country to the basic laws of physics) do not support the opinions you put forward.  I suggest you reexamine the evidence, and draw on sources other than the motorists’ lobby.

tez says:

06:49pm | 05/11/12

@MP if we always drove on autobahns you have a point but as we don’t speeding dose cause accidents.

martinx says:

11:22am | 05/11/12

“How much has the road toll actually increased since mobile telephones become commonplace?”
We hear a lot about the road toll, but not so much about road accidents, both with and without injuries. This is where the true effects of ‘texting while driving’ could be felt. Without figures to point to though, we are left with anecdotes.

Matthew says:

11:43am | 05/11/12

martinx is right.  For all we know the numbers of crashes that might have killed someone 20 years ago has actually increased but because cars are safer the road toll is dropping.

The “effects” that martinx is talking about is really just a cost.  How much money do we spend on insurance because someone runs up the back of someone else?

martinX says:

11:57am | 05/11/12

Matthew, it could be more than just a cost. Chronic injuries can be personally devastating, but never show up as “the road toll”.

AdamC says:

12:05pm | 05/11/12

MartinX and Matthew, I suppose that is the point I am making. It is obviously easy to point to individual accidents supposedly caused by mobile phone use. However, given the road toll itself declined, or remained about the same over the period in which mobile phone use became common, you cannot automatically extrapolate those anecdotes out and then claim mobile phone use is a menace on the roads. You would need much richer data.

I was really just criticising this casual assumption-based policy-making, especially where it imposes significant cost or inconvenience.

acotrel says:

01:02pm | 05/11/12

One of the main tenets of safety management is to record near miss incidents and act to prevent severe outcomes from the same circumstances.  Statistics show that police are the major contributors to workplace incidents involving gunshot wounds in our community.  Should they be permitted to use mobile phones while carrying guns ?

martinX says:

01:11pm | 05/11/12

AdamC and Matthew: I think this can be summarised by the well-worn phrase “more research is needed.”

I’ll start typing up the research grant application and email it around for you guys to sign.

DOB says:

01:27pm | 05/11/12

Well, I dunno, but Im a motorcyclist and I can tell you the average driver - ensconced in his/her safe seeming metal cage - has no real idea how badly they drive. I would say that I have one, on average, at least one bizarre incident of swerving/not looking/smisy-ing every time Im on the road. Im still hear because after many years of this I can pretty much spot which car driver is paying attention and which isnt from the position it is on the road. Having said that I was once run down from behind at an intersection by a driver who failed to see my 1400cc bike hadnt moved off. And before anyone starts, it was a narrow lane and I had nowhere to go to avoid this guy. Some stupidity just cant be dodged.

incidentally, Im all for taking all road rules off and seeing what happens. Ive been in countries where that is the norm on the roads and I quite enjoy it (although I wouldnt get on a bike in those countries). Give that experiment a year and - with public acclaim - we’d be back where we are now regulation wise, less quite a few Australians, probably.

James1 says:

01:59pm | 05/11/12

I think it reasonable to not text while driving, as the act of texting requires one to take their eyes off the road, and maintain a focus on something else.  This is dangerous, and is akin to watching a tv while driving. 

Banning those little hands free sets and suchlike seems to be going too far, especially with the wonders of bluetooth when you can answer the phone with a button on your steering wheel and never move either your hands from the wheel or your eyes from the road.

But there is no excuse for either holding your handset and driving with one hand, or texting while driving.  These strike me as quite stupid things to do.  If it was only the individuals doing these things getting hurt, I wouldn’t have such a problem with it.  But these idiots sometimes kill other innocent, law abiding citizens, and thus need to be dealt with harshly.

I’m not sure that the newly proposed laws reflect this distinction, though.

scott says:

12:04pm | 05/11/12

“I don’t see any problem with testing while stopped either. “

That’s because you are a moron, and your attitude is just a reflection of what a dangerous driver you are.

Just because your stopped at an intersection, doesn’t mean that it’s safe to take your eyes off the road.  You should still be scanning the road and checking your mirrors.

Modern Primitive says:

12:34pm | 05/11/12

Looking for what, exactly? What’s going to happen if I’m stopped at the lights, and what could I do to mitigate it?

nellybean says:

12:45pm | 05/11/12

You may not be able to see the difference, however Science disagrees with you.
Multiple studies have shown that:

Talking on a Hands Free kit is no less dangerous than driving with the phone in your hand.

and

“Drivers talking by (cell phone drove significantly worse than drivers talking to passengers. The cell-phone users were more likely to drift in their lane, kept a greater distance between their car and the car in front, and were four times more likely to miss pulling off the highway at the rest area.” extract from Physorg on a University of Utah study.

iansand says:

12:46pm | 05/11/12

There is something I noticed when my daughter was quite young.  She kept talking when I was doing something that required extra concentration.  Older people don’t.  They will become silent during, for example, a reverse park.  You don’t notice it until someone doesn’t do it.  People on the other end of the phone do not have situational awareness and keep talking.

scott says:

02:31pm | 05/11/12

@ Modern Primitive

“Looking for what, exactly? What’s going to happen if I’m stopped at the lights, and what could I do to mitigate it? “

Face palm!

- Looking to see if the lights have changed
- Scanning to make sure the intersection is clear and no one is running the red light before you enter the intersection
- Scanning to see if there are any emergency vehicles you need to give way to
- Scanning for pedestrians who are crossing before you move off
- Scanning for other hazards on the surface i.e. potholes, debris, oil patches, tree branches

This is just a small list for you to start with.  Maybe now you can start being a more attentive driver.

Modern Primitive says:

03:23pm | 05/11/12

Lol Scott, this is coming from the guy who was t boned because he had right of way and didn’t bother to check for hazards coming out of side streets,  and therefore peter shouldn’t have pulled out in front of him. Lecture me again on paying attention while driving, eh?

Stephan says:

02:23pm | 05/11/12

Could agree more Norm. 

Drivers head turns to talk with passenger in the car in front and car swerves left/right.  Parent leans over seat to control children in back seat while car is still in motion - drifts across lanes - YIKES!!!

Happens ALL THE TIME.

Modern Primitive says:

12:03pm | 05/11/12

Yes, because me and my passengers are always talking about what’s directly in front of us, and never about what happened on the weekend or how work is, or where we’re going for our next holidays, or anything else that requires you to think about something not directly relevant to the task of driving.

By your logic we should also ban stereos, sat navs, air conditioning controls and anything else that does directly relate to the task at hand. Some of us are capable of driving and switching the radio station without causing a fatality.

The simple solution to this problem would be to charge people with negligent driving if they had an accident in which using a phone had contributed. Of course, the state wouldnt get as much revenue that way, so once again, common sense is ignored for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Jaded says:

12:15pm | 05/11/12

I’ve actually sean two deaf people signing to each other and the driver driving with her knees.  Neither of them were looking at the road, both at each other with their hands waving around.  I wondered about the legal aspect of that, and whether the police would grant a reprieve because they are deaf….

Modern Primitive says:

12:41pm | 05/11/12

Jaded, how does that anecdote relate to people who are capable of talking for communication?

scott says:

12:09pm | 05/11/12

“.....having them switched off is stupid. I agree, people should not be texting while driving or making phone calls lots of significant “

Huh?!

If you agree that drivers should not be using their phone while in control of a vehicle, then why are you against a law making it mandatory for the phone to be switched off?  Afterall, they shouldn’t be using it anyway.

Saying people will forget to turn their phone off is absurd.  You may as well say they will forget to put on their seat belt too.  And if your poor old grandma is too dense to figure out how to switch off her mobile, I would question if she is still is fit enough to operate a vehicle.

Schultz says:

03:53pm | 05/11/12

If your grandma can’t work out how to turn off a mobile phone she shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car.

sami says:

03:58pm | 05/11/12

@scott
I’m with Andrea, I don’t think they should be required to be switched off either. I keep mine on (though I do not use it- it’s safely in my bag in the back or where ever) because I am one of those people that must be prepared for everything. If I see an accident happen, I don’t want to waste 5 minutes waiting for my stupid slow phone to boot up before I can call emergency services. I’d rather be on that phone and calling them as soon as I pull over.

And for situations like arriving home alone at night, or going out somewhere ‘unsafe’, I’d rather have my phone on so that I can call someone or at least have it in my hand as I’m getting out of the vehicle.
Given that you are one of those blokes wanting women to take more responsibility for their safety* you would think that you’d have no problem with us taking measures such as these.

*Afterall, it is the groupie female fans who follow them back to their apartment on their own free will, have too much to drink and then say ‘no’ halfway through intercourse. -scott

martinX says:

12:07pm | 05/11/12

It’s already against the law. Driving without due care and attention. Banning mobile phone use just removes the need for the cops to prove the ‘undue care and attention’.

I ride a motorbike everyday, so I’m happy if people will now pay a little more attention to their surroundings, but I never assume they do.

Amac says:

12:34pm | 05/11/12

Hmm fatty what inspiration!!! Maybe they could…

Ban people having CHILDREN in their car.
Do you have any idea how many people have been killed by a driver turning around to slap an ‘innocent’ kid who didnt mean to cause his brother to start screaming?
Kids kill more people in more ways than mobile phone texting ever will

Ban people having their SPOUSE in their car.
Do you have any idea how many people have been killed by a driver over-gripping the steering wheel in white rage as their other half nags and states the bleeding obvious?
Spouses kill more people in more ways than mobile phone texting ever will

Ban people having their DOG in their car.
Do you have any idea how many people have been killed by a driver allowing their distracting crazy mutt bounce and drool all over them?
Dogs kill more people in more ways than mobile phone texting ever will

scott says:

12:11pm | 05/11/12

Then if the laws come into play, stop sooking and buy yourself a stereo and GPS unit.

Upnorff says:

12:47pm | 05/11/12

My GPS unit won’t allow any changes while the car is moving. This would be very simple technology for a manufacturer to include with a mobile phone IF the government was brave enough to mandate it. Bad luck about you lot that text on the bus, though.

scott says:

12:21pm | 05/11/12

No. 

I ride motorbikes 5 days a week, and the most dangerous drivers are the ones talking on their mobiles, including those using hands-free kits.

I feel more threatened by distracted drivers than people speeding.  They are constantly drifting over to the next lane and always seem much slower to react to changes in traffic.

I was hit by a distracted driver talking on his handsfree set, coincidentally his name was Peter also.  Thanks to Peter, I had a broken pelvis, knee replacement and can no longer lift my left hand above my shoulder, all because this wanker was too distracted gasbagging with his mates while driving his Landcruiser.

Modern Primitive says:

12:37pm | 05/11/12

I ride a motorcycle too, and used to commute in Sydney for four years, and didn’t have one single incident. I was always aware of my surroundings and made sure to keep clear of other cars and, above all, stay out of their blind spots. If you were hit by a driver in traffic then you are doing it wrong.

martinX says:

01:18pm | 05/11/12

Modern Primitive: as a bike rider, it’s about increasing the odds in our favour, not thinking we can completely eliminate risk because of a mobile phone ban. In addition, there are plenty of circumstances when the most aware bike rider in the world can get slammed by an idiot and not be able to foresee or forestall it.

Modern Primitive says:

01:52pm | 05/11/12

You rely on odds? Wow. Well, good luck to you. Personally I always ride like I’m invisible, and never assume that anyone around me is aware of me, but whatever works for you. I hope you don’t end up like Scott.

fzr560 says:

02:16pm | 05/11/12

Like others here, I ride a motorcycle and consider the use of mobiles in cars to be an act of contempt against other road users, particularly the vulnerable Unfortunately the solution supplied by RMS and the government is breathtakingly stupid
    We already have people driving around obscured by their GPSs. Now we have the government proposing more clutter and distraction on the glass between the vulnerable and the ignorant.
    Likewise, changes to laws regarding pedestrians and roundabouts are a recipe for carnage. Motorists should be able to navigate a roundabout without being responsible for pedestrians that choose not to take some responsibility for their own welfare. Once the “brighter” pedestrians figure out that the shortest route home from the pub is straight over the roundabout, it will get difficult out there. The decision-makers need to get out of the limo and off the bus.

scott says:

02:25pm | 05/11/12

@ ModernPrimitive

“Sorry mate, I didn’t see you!”

I was riding through an intersection on a single lane road and had right of way.  There was nothing obstructing his view of the road, and no other vehicles in front of me.  I was riding a bright blue ZX-14 at the time, it’s a big bike so I should be easy to see right?  “Peter” was turning left from a slip lane and pull out when I was right in front of his bonnet.

I guess I must have been riding like I was invisible for him not to notice right?

Modern Primitive says:

02:39pm | 05/11/12

So because you had right of way, you weren’t expecting people to randomly pull out in front of you? Are you serious? Whenever I ride I always check to the left and cover the brake just in case some numbskull tries to do exactly as you describe. You should have anticipated him doing exactly that. hell, they teach you to do that when you go for your bike licence.

That one was your fault as much as it was his.

scott says:

04:34pm | 05/11/12

@ Modern Primitive

Fail troll is fail.

I actually have the incident recorded on cam, and will post the youtube link later.  The scary part is that you can see him make eye contact when I am 2ft from his driver-side window, but he is so distracted that he still enters the intersection anyway.

The only way the incident would have been avoided is if I had came to a complete stop.

Al says:

12:11pm | 05/11/12

James re “It’s not difficult to pull over and stop, then return the call.”
But under the proposed laws this would still be illegal (if you look carefully it is ‘in a vehicle’ not ‘in a moving vehicle’.
You would need to actualy exit the vehicle before checking who called and making the decision to return it or not.

Movin On says:

02:25pm | 05/11/12

AL, read the laws, it says specifically in the released booklet, that you can be parked.

James says:

02:36pm | 05/11/12

Its also not difficult to make a conscious decision regarding your own safety and other road users. We got by fine in cars before smartphones and i’m sure we still can.
It all comes down to how much road users value their life really. Could you live with the fact that have killed somebody else because of a phone call ?

Blackadder says:

05:31pm | 05/11/12

People should do a stint in the SES, pull a few dead bodies from cars, and realise the damage that can be done. Might change a few attitudes to texting and other irresponsible activites behind the wheel. Everyone thinks it happens to everyone else, not them. That they are invicible. You’re not. Interestingly, every fatality I attended…was one driver doing something stupid…alcohol, drugs, even trying to race a train over a crossing. Sadly, in most cases, the fatalities were generally the innocent hit by these idiots.

Modern Primitive says:

12:44pm | 05/11/12

The children thank you for your consideration.

James1 says:

01:51pm | 05/11/12

Yes because that is the point of the article.  My god there are some poorly thought out comments on this thread.

Let me clue you up on something, Debbie.  There is more than one thing that can help to cause a car accident.  The things you have listed are some.  Using a mobile phone is another. Speeding is yet another. 

Now that you understand this, what was the point of your comment?

Modern Primitive says:

02:11pm | 05/11/12

How does speeding cause accidents? I would have thought not leaving enough braking room would be a bigger factor.

James1 says:

02:46pm | 05/11/12

Speeding can cause accidents in many ways.  Sometimes it can result in a person not having enough time to stop to avoid hitting someone, like outside a primary school where children behave unpredictably.  In that sense, not having enough braking room can be a direct result of driving too fast, as one of the factors determining braking room is the velocity at which you are travelling (ei, the faster you are going, the more force is required to bring you to a stop).  Sometimes a person is driving incredibly fast and loses control due to their speed.  Sometimes people go too fast into a corner and lose control.  Sticking to (or reasonably close to) the speed limit would go some way towards helping prevent these types of accidents.

I would argue that in most cases where it is a factor (outside the few cases I outline above and perhaps a few I didn’t think of), speeding doesn’t really cause the accident, but it definitely makes accidents caused by other factors worse.  The faster you travel, the worse the impact, and the greater the resultant damage.

Modern Primitive says:

03:09pm | 05/11/12

Wow, James, just wow. They’ve really got you hook, line and sinker haven’t they?

Basic rule: leave enough room to pull up in case of the unforeseen. Frequently, this can be well below the speed limit. Just because you’re going at the speed limit doesn’t mean you’re traveling at a safe speed.

Also, people dont just lose control from driving too fast. Otherwise the autobahns wouldn’t exist.

Sadly, I think you and your ilk are in the majority in this country.

sami says:

04:14pm | 05/11/12

@James1
“not having enough braking room can be a direct result of driving too fast, as one of the factors determining braking room is the velocity at which you are travelling” - that is not ‘caused by speeding’, it is caused by not leaving adequate braking distance, and by suddenly finding an obstacle in front of you.

“Sometimes a person is driving incredibly fast and loses control due to their speed.” - that is not ‘caused by speeding’, that is caused by not knowing your capabilities (and those of the car), and losing control of your vehicle. I’ve seen people do significantly under the speed limit and still run up kerbs, roundabouts etc. Speed is not the cause. Being a dickhead is the cause.

“Sometimes people go too fast into a corner and lose control.” - see above. Speed did not cause it. Poor driving and not having appropriate skills/brains caused it. People don’t know their capabilities.

@Debbie
Seriously, all of those things are already illegal. I note your sarcasm but perhaps you shouldn’t be driving?

Jesus skateboarding christ. At least Modern Primitive gets it.

James1 says:

05:03pm | 05/11/12

“Just because you’re going at the speed limit doesn’t mean you’re traveling at a safe speed.”

Good, on that we agree.  I never said “going at the speed limit is the same as travelling at a safe speed”, so I don’t know why you needed to add that, but good on you nonetheless.  All I said is that speeding is one of many causes of car accidents, but other causes include being distracted, driving too slow, poor visibility, driver intoxication, poorly behaved children, animals running out onto the road, and so on.

“Basic rule: leave enough room to pull up in case of the unforeseen. Frequently, this can be well below the speed limit.”

In other words, going too fast can cause an accident because you don’t have time to stop. And further to that point, in some cases, travelling above the speed limit can leave you with insufficient room to pull up, therefore in some cases speeding can be a cause of accidents.  Excellent, we agree again that going too fast can be a cause of accidents.

“Also, people dont just lose control from driving too fast.”

Yes, they do, just not often in the controlled environment offered by the autobahns.  What about people driving too fast on dirt roads?  Is it the driving too fast that causes the accident, or the dirt road, or a combination of both along with other factors?  I would say the latter is the only reasonable conclusion, as car accidents are complex things with multiple causal factors, of which speeding is sometimes one. And what about roads with obstacles, like roundabouts?  A lady recently ran into a tree at my child’s school because she was doing 80km/hr on a roundabout and lost control.  Would you say that speed wasn’t a causes of that accident?  Just because there are very few accidents on the autobahns doesn’t mean that travelling at high speeds is never the cause of an accident - that is a very poor argument.  It is highly illogical to argue that speed is never a cause in any accident, and frankly I am amazed that you seem to believe this.

In order to make the argument that speeding never causes accidents (I assume that, because you disagree with my contention that sometimes speeding is a cause of accidents, you would argue that speed never causes accidents) you must overlook many facts and a lot of the extant evidence collected by crash site investigators. This is very poor argumentation.

I am not saying that speeding causes all accidents.  I am saying that speed is a factor in some car accidents.  Are you really trying to argue that driving too fast is never the cause of any car accidents anywhere?

James1 says:

05:13pm | 05/11/12

sami, those are simply semantic games.  Speed is a factor in all of those things you outline, coupled with the other things you outline.  The fact is, if a person who is unaware of their capabilities is driving too fast, they are more likely to crash, and thus speed, and a lack of knowledge of their capabilities are both factors in the crash.  Speed is definitely a factor when a person who is unaware of their limits is driving too fast - don’t play this pointless chicken and egg game, and just admit that both inexperience/overconfidence and speed are factors in all the things you outline.

Jesus, how simple do I have to make it for you to understand that this is complex and not as simple as the trite statements you are making?

Pudel says:

06:41pm | 05/11/12

I was always taught you should “drive to the conditions” I do not,  drive at the speed limit on a dirt track, I usually drive quite a bit slower as the dirt can pull my vehicle to the edge of the road, and the buffer zone to trees is often less.  I also drive slower in heavy rain or fog.  Icy roads gee I slow down.  If the traffic is at a snails pace I am too. 
It is not driving above the speed limit that kills, it is not driving to the conditions or to the ability.  Or something goes wrong.  Admittedly you are more likely to die in an accident at 100km/h than one at 20km/h, but recently a woman died here whilst reversing out of her driveway and hitting her fence.  She was not speeding.  She also was not texting but something went wrong and she lost control of her car and died.
Driving 200km/h down a road will not kill you, however if you have a roo jump in front of you and swerve to miss it, you have a lot smaller margin for error and at 200km/h you hit hard if you do crash.  Mind you driving at the speed limit in roo counrty is not driving to the conditions.  Kangaroos do not read the speed signs.
I see the speed limits as a guide as to how safe the roads should be.  A 110 road is safe at 110 in good driving conditions actually it is probably safe at 150 in good driving conditions.  In a lot of cases our maximum speed is lower than the roads can handle.
The other indicator I use is the trucks, if they are driving below the speed limit I slow down.  They have usually been warned of nasty road conditions ahead.

DexteR says:

12:55pm | 05/11/12

Exactly, punish the guilty and leave the innocent alone, why is this concept so hard for people to grasp?  Toughen up the penalites, would people really risk jail to text and drive?  But I guess it’s just easier to inconvinience everyone, and it makes more movey for the Govt too.

James1 says:

01:49pm | 05/11/12

So, this study shows that some people crash less when they are not looking at the road, and are instead looking at their phones?  I wish I found that surprising.

ramases says:

02:14pm | 05/11/12

Sad to hear of your loss and its time that those using a phone whilst engaged in driving and causing an accident were given real penalties not this slap on the wrist that seems so prevalent.
  The offenders have taken a life by doing an illegal act but it seems that the law deems this acceptable by the lenient sentences it imposes on the guilty. Its the same with drink and drug driving where the perpetrators are almost let off scott free. A serious look into truth in sentencing and then forcing magistrates to impose real punishments might also be an answer to this increasing problem.