The difficulty is enforcement.

[Big Dave]

Texting when driving tragedy.
I read the 'difficulty enforcing' with some incredulity.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487746

[Ixion]

Well, if they can't enforce the laws about going through red lights .......

[pete376403]

How do the other 35 countries that have a cell-phone/driving ban in place enforce it? Coundn't the Govt ask around - would have to be worth a good long overseas 'fact finding mission"

[98tls]

"hes a good kid this could happen to anyone":no:Seems they just dont get it,i had an extremely overweight mother of 4 fail to give way when about to turn into my street awhile back,my first mistake was taking it for granted that she would give way i guess,anyway after nearly collecting me she carried on,as our street is a dead end i followed her to the end of it and when pulled up alongside her car she was still txting:mad:bitch hadnt even noticed what she did:mad:i spent a few minutes explaing my problem with what she had done and along the way threw in a few comments about her size that her husband was probably to scared to say....she looked shocked so maybe longterm ive done him a favour and she may well have lost 80/90 kilos.

[Steam]

How is it any more difficult than enforcing the seatbelt rule! STUPID!

[98tls]

How is it any more difficult than enforcing the seatbelt rule! STUPID! Absolutly,simple really isnt it.

[xwhatsit]

They didn't seem to have a problem enforcing it when I lived in Brisbane. The difficulties they had were false positives.

[Jantar]

Cell phone detectors that can tell when a call is being made from within a limited radius, are relatively cheap. Certainly cheaper than radar detector detectors.

[James Deuce]

Simply track phone calls. You can triangulate a cellphone's position. If it is travelling more than 30 kms per hour and being used, and the person isn't on a train or bus, add the fine to their bill.

Yes, they can tell if you are on a bus or train.

For peak hour traffic, just fine everyone through their bill who uses it between 7am and 9:30am. Yes this includes passengers. Tough. The inconvenience is worth 30 lives.

[Ixion]

Triangulation within Auckland isn't accurate to more than a couple of kilometres , unfortunately (Sometimes it's spot on. Other times way out).

Alas.

[Ixion]

Cell phone detectors that can tell when a call is being made from within a limited radius, are relatively cheap. Certainly cheaper than radar detector detectors.


I don't think that would work. Apart from the question of "which vehicle out of the 20 within that radius" (yeah, i know, South Island. Try it on an Auckland motorway) . But also the detector would pick up an incoming call going to voice mail, or an incoming txt, even if the driver wasn't using the phone. And what about passengers? Are we intending to ban phones for them too?

Easy answer for detection, is bikey cops. I can easily see people using phones, just look through their window.

[candor]

The "difficulty with enforcement" is double talk for the fact the resource allocation experiment (RAM) run in NZ since 1995 appears to inhibit or prohibit enforcement of things other than speed, alcohol and seatbelts.

These are termed as "the vital few" (Treasury Pathfinders project - website inaccessible to non Government staff)

To diverge from the model would mean that valid comparisons about effectiveness of only our 3 specific interventions (standalone) could not then be drawn with Victoria's road safety approach which uses a wider range of interventions.

Control charts showing impact of the general deterrance policing model for road safety (speed, alcohol, seatbelts) have long been drawn up and would loose their "continuity" if policing any other variables was added - no doubt causing great distress to the researchers involved.

NZ Police are currently helping implement the RAM in Vietnam, it is also marketed in Iran as we speak. Jo Average in these economiees does not have cell phones. If we addressed cell phones it would be harder to market the RAM in second world economies.

NZ is the quota experiment capital of the world and adding phone fines to the list would interfere with something icky, something said by reports from policy think tanks like ERSO to be the only set up of its type - http://nz-road-safety-2010-dismal-failure.com/risk_targetting.htm

Key studies show there is no breathing room for new issues;

Frith W, Graham P, Keall M, Povey L
Monitoring of Road User behaviour / attitudes including roadside survey of drivers speed and breath alcohol.
Commencement July 1994, Active - ongoing
Guria, J. Leung, J.
Evaluating the effects of a high intensity enforcement and advertising program targeting alcohol impaired drivers, alcohol-impaired drivers, speeding and seatbelt use
Commencement July 1995. Active - ongoing
Guria, J. Leung J.
To develop and refine a resource allocation model for road safety funding
Commencement June 1995. Active - ongoing.

Memorable quote from one of the above mentioned scientists "find us a way to make it pay and it (any other road safety intervention) might get ranking"

[Pixie]

The "difficulty with enforcement" is double talk for the fact the resource allocation experiment (RAM) run in NZ since 1995 appears to inhibit or prohibit enforcement of things other than speed, alcohol and seatbelts.

These are termed as "the vital few" (Treasury Pathfinders project - website inaccessible to non Government staff)

To diverge from the model would mean that valid comparisons about effectiveness of only our 3 specific interventions (standalone) could not then be drawn with Victoria's road safety approach which uses a wider range of interventions.


So that's why we keep getting that tired old claptrap shoved down our throats.

[Headbanger]

The "difficulty with enforcement" is double talk for the fact the resource allocation experiment (RAM) run in NZ since 1995 appears to inhibit or prohibit enforcement of things other than speed, alcohol and seatbelts.

These are termed as "the vital few" (Treasury Pathfinders project - website inaccessible to non Government staff)

To diverge from the model would mean that valid comparisons about effectiveness of only our 3 specific interventions (standalone) could not then be drawn with Victoria's road safety approach which uses a wider range of interventions.

Control charts showing impact of the general deterrance policing model for road safety (speed, alcohol, seatbelts) have long been drawn up and would loose their "continuity" if policing any other variables was added - no doubt causing great distress to the researchers involved.

NZ Police are currently helping implement the RAM in Vietnam, it is also marketed in Iran as we speak. Jo Average in these economiees does not have cell phones. If we addressed cell phones it would be harder to market the RAM in second world economies.

NZ is the quota experiment capital of the world and adding phone fines to the list would interfere with something icky, something said by reports from policy think tanks like ERSO to be the only set up of its type - http://nz-road-safety-2010-dismal-failure.com/risk_targetting.htm

Key studies show there is no breathing room for new issues;

Frith W, Graham P, Keall M, Povey L
Monitoring of Road User behaviour / attitudes including roadside survey of drivers speed and breath alcohol.
Commencement July 1994, Active - ongoing
Guria, J. Leung, J.
Evaluating the effects of a high intensity enforcement and advertising program targeting alcohol impaired drivers, alcohol-impaired drivers, speeding and seatbelt use
Commencement July 1995. Active - ongoing
Guria, J. Leung J.
To develop and refine a resource allocation model for road safety funding
Commencement June 1995. Active - ongoing.

Memorable quote from one of the above mentioned scientists "find us a way to make it pay and it (any other road safety intervention) might get ranking"




Im stunned.

Parliament needs to burn.

Barricade the doors and fire that fat old sow like a BBQ.

[98tls]

What am i missing here,as far as i am aware cops have eyes like the rest of us,"i am issuing you with a ticket for driving whilst using a cell phone" methinks that could work.

[spudchucka]

Its dead easy to enforce. Cop sees you texting and driving = cop gives you ticket. Whether they are texting or not is irrelevant, if its in their hand while driving it is likely to distract them from paying attention to the road.

The only difficulty is most of you don't even trust cops to operate speed detection equipment honestly, (often accusing them of just making speeds up or issuing tickets to drivers based on speed readings obtained from other vehicles), so why would you trust them to police this when it would rely totally on the cops ability to spot offences and their integrity to police honestly?

[onearmedbandit]

How many people here have complained of getting a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt when they are 100% sure they were? None I'm guessing. Same would apply for texting while driving. Your comparison spudchucka is, well pathetic.

[NighthawkNZ]

What am i missing here,as far as i am aware cops have eyes like the rest of us,"i am issuing you with a ticket for driving whilst using a cell phone" methinks that could work.

The only real way is if the cop catches you in the act... using detectors may become messy, as they aren't accurate enough to say it came from that car there. Same for Trianglation and spending fine to their bill...

I pulled over and did it.
My passenger was texting... (even though s/he still wears nappies and is in baby's car seat thats not strapped in properly behind me)

Sending a text message would be too quick to get a accurate speed, as it dials in, sends the message and cuts off in a matter of seconds


For peak hour traffic, just fine everyone through their bill who uses it between 7am and 9:30am. Yes this includes passengers. Tough. The inconvenience is worth 30 lives.

So we now get fined and ticketed for doing the right thing and not breaking the law... I as a passenger quite often answer the others halfs cell phone while she is driving... and if they really need to talk to her, I get her to pull over...

I as a businessman being driven around by my driver and or in a taxi, would answer my cell phone.

That I would disagree with...



Talking on the phone the phone (hands free of cause) is not as bad and can except that... its the act of texting and driving that gets me... typing the actual text requires more brain power and consertration than just talking on the phone you are continusily looking at the phone to see what you typed, and of cause requires a hand for an extended period of time to type when both hands should be on the wheel...

[spudchucka]

Your comparison spudchucka is, well pathetic.

No its not, you don't trust cops to police speed honestly so why trust them to police anything else, surely its just an opportunity to gather more revenue.

[onearmedbandit]

Generalisations are even more pathetic.

[spudchucka]

Generalisations are even more pathetic.

Welcome to KiwiBiker, its one big generalisation!

[twotyred]

No its not, you don't trust cops to police speed honestly so why trust them to police anything else, surely its just an opportunity to gather more revenue.

Once they find away to make it pay,yup

[Bikernereid]

You are supposed to get done for texting whilst driving in the UK but only today some stupid bloody woman nearly hit us whilst texting on the motorway. People will always flaunt laws if it they can get away with it, end of story.

How to enforce it before it causes an accident is something else.


Texting when driving tragedy.
I read the 'difficulty enforcing' with some incredulity.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487746

[onearmedbandit]

Welcome to KiwiBiker, its one big generalisation!

No, no it's not. Out of the 2000 active members here do all of them bitch and moan and accuse police officers of issuing incorrect speeding tickets? I'll answer that for you. No they don't. But I suppose years of being a police officer make you so cynical and paranoid you think everyone hates you.

[more_fasterer]

Great post, Candor. Interesting that our road "safety" enforcement is being directed by treasury...


The "difficulty with enforcement" is double talk for the fact the resource allocation experiment (RAM) run in NZ since 1995 appears to inhibit or prohibit enforcement of things other than speed, alcohol and seatbelts.

These are termed as "the vital few" (Treasury Pathfinders project - website inaccessible to non Government staff)


So the guy was drink-driving, and texting, yet people are focussing on the fact he was texting?? :scratch:

[Headbanger]

Its dead easy to enforce. Cop sees you texting and driving = cop gives you ticket. Whether they are texting or not is irrelevant, if its in their hand while driving it is likely to distract them from paying attention to the road.

The only difficulty is most of you don't even trust cops to operate speed detection equipment honestly, (often accusing them of just making speeds up or issuing tickets to drivers based on speed readings obtained from other vehicles), so why would you trust them to police this when it would rely totally on the cops ability to spot offences and their integrity to police honestly?


Perhaps then your time would be better used for catching criminals, rather then revenue gathering the soft targets.

Amazing how our car was broken into and we were fobbed off by the police, yet they had no trouble finding time to pull us over and be dicks.

Respect goes both ways. If the Police have lost the trust of the Public then they are to blame.

[ManDownUnder]

I like NYC's broken windows policy of old. Bust people on the small stuff - and the big stuff goes away.

Texting and driving? F wits.
Drinking and driving F'wits!

Both??? f'wits^2 ???

[James Deuce]

Talking on the phone the phone (hands free of cause) is not as bad and can except that... its the act of texting and driving that gets me... typing the actual text requires more brain power and consertration than just talking on the phone you are continusily looking at the phone to see what you typed, and of cause requires a hand for an extended period of time to type when both hands should be on the wheel...

Sorry but talking on the phone is worse than a blood alcohol level of .08.

There is an ever increasing body of work to suggest that passengers shouldn't talk to the driver, there shouldn't be music or radio in a car and GPS needs to be ditched as well. Communication uses areas of the brain that are required for attentive driving.

[ManDownUnder]

Generalisations are even more pathetic.

LOL - are you referring to all of them?

[James Deuce]

Generally speaking.

[ManDownUnder]

Sorry but talking on the phone is worse than a blood alcohol level of .08.
I heard that too. Accident rates etc go right up


There is an ever increasing body of work to suggest that passengers shouldn't talk to the driver, there shouldn't be music or radio in a car and GPS needs to be ditched as well. Communication uses areas of the brain that are required for attentive driving.

I (can't find it now) but saw/read/heard an interesting dialogue on cell phone talking vs that by passengers.

The long and short of it is this (from memory)
1) Conversation is engaging - distrating... so someone talking and expecting your involvement in the conversation will distract you
2) Passengers in a car talk "situationally" i.e. if something happens that will affect the way you drive (topless woman crossing the street, car swerving in front of you, red light runner approaching) they most often share in that experience... and (crucially) stop talking... and allow you to focus/stop diverting your attention from the threat presenting itself.
3) People on the other end of a cell phone do not get involved in the situation presenting itself (how could they?) and keep blathering on. Human nature is such that attention is then divided between the two immediate demands for attention resulting in incomplete copnversations - and compromised driving.

Lo - chatting on the cell phone is more dangerous.

I've seen no numbers or stats to back that particular assertion but on the face of it - it makes sense to me.

[scumdog]

No, no it's not. Out of the 2000 active members here do all of them bitch and moan and accuse police officers of issuing incorrect speeding tickets? I'll answer that for you. No they don't. But I suppose years of being a police officer make you so cynical and paranoid you think everyone hates you.

See post #26

And yeah, maybe they're not KBers but shitloads argue that they were NOT going that fast, that they WERE wearing their seetbelt, that they NEVER cross the centre-line etc. etc.

One of the first things a crusty old sgt told me was "They lie people, they all lie" - and while it's not 100% true he wasn not wrong.

And already I've caught people txting while driving throught town, left hand on the steering wheel, right hand below it out of sight (so they don't get 'caught')- and so were their eyes!!

Nose-to-tail city Arizona.

[jonbuoy]

Wouldn't it be careless driving? Same as if you were carrying out any distracting activity, if a cop sees you - or better has you on an in car camera - (why don't they all have them? - technology is cheap as chips these days) weaving all over the road texting or on a phone isn't that enough? Same as "sustained loss of traction".

[James Deuce]

I saw a nice test done on a bunch US high school kids, and I have to find the link, but basically everyone driving should be capable of reaction times under a second. Talking on a cellphone pushed that into the 1-2 second range and texting the 3-4 second range. They demolished hazards they'd seen and avoided easily without distraction.

Bit of a small sample range.

[onearmedbandit]

Of course people try to talk their way out of tickets/trouble, human nature. Last two tickets I got (both in cages as well I might add) they were both fair cops (no pun intended), I was over the limit and got done. Sure they could've turned a blind eye (one in fact reduced the speed on the ticket), but I was in the wrong anyway. Most people I know will admit that that is the case. It is afterall, your foot (or hand) on the throttle.

[Ixion]

I (can't find it now) but saw/read/heard an interesting dialogue on cell phone talking vs that by passengers.

The long and short of it is this (from memory)
1) Conversation is engaging - distrating... so someone talking and expecting your involvement in the conversation will distract you
2) Passengers in a car talk "situationally" i.e. if something happens that will affect the way you drive (topless woman crossing the street, car swerving in front of you, red light runner approaching) they most often share in that experience... and (crucially) stop talking... and allow you to focus/stop diverting your attention from the threat presenting itself.
3) People on the other end of a cell phone do not get involved in the situation presenting itself (how could they?) and keep blathering on. Human nature is such that attention is then divided between the two immediate demands for attention resulting in incomplete copnversations - and compromised driving.

Lo - chatting on the cell phone is more dangerous.

I've seen no numbers or stats to back that particular assertion but on the face of it - it makes sense to me.

I disagree.

Firstly , that asusmes that attention is only required in 'crisis' situations. Careful driving requires stituational awareness at all times

Secondly, a pasenger is likely as not , not a driver her/him self (cos that's why she/he is a passenger!). So will only observe the most gross developments.

Thirdly it assumes that the passnger is paying close attention to the road. 99% of the time , I very much doubt the passenger would even be looking at the road (see fourthly)

Fourthly, the human passenger is more dangerous in conversation, because it is human nature to look toward the person you are talking to. Hand free (and to a more limited extent, hand held) conversations do not do this.

Fifthly. One is MUCH more likely to pause , or even drop a phone, if something needs assesment, than to break of a viva voce conversation.

Conversation in a vehicle IS distracting. Which is why if I'm driving YOU DO NOT TALK. End of story. All my passengers know this, or are told it. I not not chatter while driving (Don't have radios or stereos going either).

But distracting as phone conversations are , they are no MORE distracting than other things - viva voce conversation, loud stereos, looking for a road sign (GPS is no more - or less- distracting than peering out looking for road signs).

Reality is, that driving like everything else is not a perfect thing. It's an imperfect world.

Txting I think is much worse. And the really bad thing about cellphones used for talking is not the talking, its the fumbling around dialing the number. And the holding the phone.

I can't see any rationale in saying that a handsfree phone is any worse than most other distractions. In an ideal worlld, there would be none of them. Reality intervenes.

[Swoop]

Why do people turn down the radio when looking for a street address?
Removing a distraction to concentration?

[Ixion]

Yep. Why I never have radio going. But if cell phones are to benaned then so should be radios, stereos, passengers (and bloody babies especially :mad:).

[scumdog]

I disagree.

Thirdly it assumes that the passnger is paying close attention to the road. 99% of the time , I very much doubt the passenger would even be looking at the road (see fourthly)

Fourthly, the human passenger is more dangerous in conversation, because it is human nature to look toward the person you are talking to. Hand free (and to a more limited extent, hand held) conversations do not do this.

Fifthly. One is MUCH more likely to pause , or even drop a phone, if something needs assesment, than to break of a viva voce conversation.


But distracting as phone conversations are , they are no MORE distracting than other things - viva voce conversation, loud stereos, looking for a road sign (GPS is no more - or less- distracting than peering out looking for road signs).


Txting I think is much worse. And the really bad thing about cellphones used for talking is not the talking, its the fumbling around dialing the number. And the holding the phone.

I can't see any rationale in saying that a handsfree phone is any worse than most other distractions. In an ideal worlld, there would be none of them. Reality intervenes.

Mainly codswallop old bean, however when in a tight situation a driver tends to drop voice communication as one of the first responses.
At those times a passenger realises why the chatter has stopped whereas the person on the other end of the phone screeches/drones on : "are ya there, can ya hear me, hullo...hullo...are ya there?".

AND TXTING IS MORE WORSERER! After all, not only does one have to read but one has to also decypher txtspeak!!
And in the real world are often sent by slack-jawed illiterates to other slack-jawed illiterates about inconsequential clap-trap that garnishes their sorry shallow lives..

[Gremlin]

so why trust them to police anything else, surely its just an opportunity to gather more revenue.
you forget that the general public only started to dislike the police after they changed the way they enforced the laws. The trust in the police disappeared after the police tried trapping people with hidden equipment, and trying to catch people out. It was made worse when the police (to the public at least) put far more priority into catching people doing 1-2k over the limit, instead of burglaries etc. It does not matter what reality is, that was the perception to the public.

Anyway, thats a whole other issue. I think the easy way to begin, (and I have seen plenty of it) is drivers unable to stay in their lane, travelling in the fast lane at 80 with a queue of drivers behind them, etc. I do plenty of kilometres a year, and when you see something like that, 99% of the time, people are on the mobile, or texting.

The law has to exist, and then it should be the discretion of the cop to enforce which laws, if he deems there was a risk.

[Headbanger]

See post #26
"They lie people, they all lie"


Nice.

Considering you can assume I'm a liar I can assume the same as you, Once again respect hits zero.

[ManDownUnder]

???????????


Firstly , that asusmes that attention is only required in 'crisis' situations. Careful driving requires stituational awareness at all times You're saying you are 100% on deck all the time while you're driving????

Empty long roads still mean no radio, conversation, or any other 3rd person input at all? Not even on the way to work?

Complete disagreement - the amount of focus needed while driving is highly situational. And there are times when you're going to place total and sole focus on a task at the expense of everything else. If you're on the bike, totally crossed up, passing under the wing of a 747 that chose to land on the road you're using... you wouldn't notice a herd of fucking elephants stampeding along behind the plane until you were safe from the most immediate threat.

An extreme example sure - but it applies - it's all just a matter of scale.


Secondly, a pasenger is likely as not , not a driver her/him self (cos that's why she/he is a passenger!). So will only observe the most gross developments.

My 8 year old is actively aware of what's going on around us in the car and gleefully points out faults in others driving. Sure he's a bright boy but he's far from a licensed driver and I'm sure he has no time behind the wheel.

Me thinks you're play the point down... a lot.


Thirdly it assumes that the passnger is paying close attention to the road. 99% of the time , I very much doubt the passenger would even be looking at the road (see fourthly)
No - it assumes the passenger is paying attention to the driver, and reacting in sympathy to them. If a driver stops talking and gives a worried glance to the left I'd put ten bucks on the fact a passenger will too.


Fourthly, the human passenger is more dangerous in conversation, because it is human nature to look toward the person you are talking to. Hand free (and to a more limited extent, hand held) conversations do not do this.

Agree to disagree on that one. Someone blathering away on a phone is more difficult to ignore for me. I have no problem is listening to people in the car while still paying attention to what I'm driving and where I'm going.


Fifthly. One is MUCH more likely to pause , or even drop a phone, if something needs assesment, than to break of a viva voce conversation.

How do you "break" a live voice conversation? Do you mean "stop talking"? That happens spontaneously, in a heartbeat for me. Something needs my attention which means I delay a (or even give no) response then it just happens.

That's a simply prioritisation of demands... everyone does that - from birth onwards.


Conversation in a vehicle IS distracting. Which is why if I'm driving YOU DO NOT TALK. End of story. All my passengers know this, or are told it. I not not chatter while driving (Don't have radios or stereos going either).

Making you very much the exception in that respect which probably explains your points of view.


I can't see any rationale in saying that a handsfree phone is any worse than most other distractions. In an ideal worlld, there would be none of them. Reality intervenes.

Hands free is worse for the very reason you stated above... you can chuck the phone away if you need to. Disconnecting a hands free chat requires action... harder to do - impossible to do instantly or by reaction.

Fifthly. One is MUCH more likely to pause , or even drop a phone, if something needs assesment, than to break of a viva voce conversation.

[scumdog]

Nice.

Considering you can assume I'm a liar I can assume the same as you, Once again respect hits zero.


"If the cap fits you may wear it"
I was talking about crims and those pulled over for driving offences, NOT 'everybody' out there in the world - or was I too obtuse for you?

But it's true - all criminals and a lot of motorists do lie - it's just like they've never left school and are trying to come up with a crappy excuse/a lie for what they've been apprehended for.

Normally preceded by "I was just....."
(The kiss of death for a lot of them)

[Usarka]

The productivity in NZ is abismal as it is. In Auckland especially, many workers spend hours per day stuck in traffic. at least by using the phone they can get some work done.......

[Ixion]

???????????

You're saying you are 100% on deck all the time while you're driving????

Empty long roads still mean no radio, conversation, or any other 3rd person input at all? Not even on the way to work?



Yep. No radios or stereos. No nattering. If I MUST take you as a passenger, sit still, and shut up. If possible, try not to breath. And don't wiggle. (That's in a cage. I virtually never take passengers on the bike)

Especially on the way to work! It's hell out there.

I won't say I'm on deck 100% of the time. I may f'instance be distracted by trying to find an address. But in that case I will be very aware I'm not 'on deck'. And slow down, pull far to left, be hyper alert.

I hate all distractions. Drivings a job of work, deserves full and total concentration. But I can't see cell phones (don't do the cell phone thing myself, but) as any worse than anything else.Sprogs in my opinion are the worst. Someone with a sprog in the car is NEVER paying proper attention, they're always distracted.


I 8have* been known to sing to myself. Which certainly ought to be banned as a public menace.

[Ixion]

It'd totally abolish *555. No bad thing.

[Headbanger]

"If the cap fits you may wear it"
I was talking about crims and those pulled over for driving offences, NOT 'everybody' out there in the world - or was I too obtuse for you?

But it's true - all criminals and a lot of motorists do lie - it's just like they've never left school and are trying to come up with a crappy excuse/a lie for what they've been apprehended for.

Normally preceded by "I was just....."
(The kiss of death for a lot of them)

Thats right, Your talking about everyone you talk to during the course of your work.

I personally don't make excuses, But I get damned mad when legit crap gets dismissed. As for post #26, Thats a genuine experience, Not a lie, But you have already stated your biased position.

[swbarnett]

The difficulty is enforcement.
Actually, enforcement is dead easy. Cause a crash, get done.

[NighthawkNZ]

Sorry but talking on the phone is worse than a blood alcohol level of .08.

There is an ever increasing body of work to suggest that passengers shouldn't talk to the driver, there shouldn't be music or radio in a car and GPS needs to be ditched as well. Communication uses areas of the brain that are required for attentive driving.

In my post I did say hands free... and while I agree standard holding your phone to your ear while driving I should be band, but hands free is the same as talking to your passenger... but txting worse again.

Well in that case get rid of the speedo, and warning lights... get rid of rear veiw mirror as the all take youe eyes off the road... as for communication to driver... put the driver in a sealed compartment seperated from the passengers simple... just hope he don't nod of due to total boardem

My GPS is right where the speedo is and shows speed whats the difference, (thats what I use if for while riding) It doesn't allow search functions while in motion, I can only switch between screens... once I stop then it allows the normal function

[James Deuce]

In my post I did say hands free... and while I agree standard holding your phone to your ear while driving I should be band, but hands free is the same as talking to your passenger... but txting worse again

Well in that case get rid of the speedo, and warning lights... get rid of rrear veiw mirror as the all take youe eyes off the road... as for communication to driver... put the driver in a sealed compartment seperated from the passengers simple... just hope he don't nod of due to total boardem

My GPS is right where the speedo is and shows speed whats the difference (thats what I use if for while riding)

Doesn't matter if it's hands free or not, the act of talking is apparently equivalent to being technically too drunk to drive.

[Usarka]

Does it make a difference if your a man or woman? Men find it hard to talk while watching the telly, yet women seem to have no problem nagging on about shit while cooking dinner.

[Edit:] Mind you they can't drive properly either so it probably evens out.

[NighthawkNZ]

Doesn't matter if it's hands free or not, the act of talking is apparently equivalent to being technically too drunk to drive.

talking to your off sider while driving... hmmm biggest load of crock I have heard of in a long time

So all cops, technically drive round drunk... using one hand for RT and one to drive... (unless they are 2up.. then the off sider should be the RT guy) but many are only 1up

[Big Dave]

As I was pootling up the hill to Parnell yesterday morning a 20-something woman pulled a u-turn straight in front of me - oblivious to all but the riotous laughter sourced from her phone.
There was no passenger next to her to say 'watch the road.'

I saw it coming and avoided the situation.

I saw it from 100mtrs away.

Mr Plod can back up the visual check with the phone account log if challenged.

I also bet i could go and stand outside my house and clearly photograph 5 people talking on phones as they drive by in the next 5 minutes. Date stamped and all.

[Steam]

talking to your off sider while driving... hmmm biggest load of crock I have heard of in a long time

No, Jim2 is right, researchers have done big studies on it, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible. Handsfree or handed, both degrade your driving ability to the level comparable with alcohol intoxication.
When you are talking to someone actually in the car with you, it is for some reason totally different, the driving is fine. The scientists still don't know why.

[RantyDave]

Mr Plod can back up the visual check with the phone account log if challenged.
While it may not be a (short term) preventative measure, you'd think this was a standard part of policing - There's a crash, they take the driver's cell number and check with the phone company to see if they were on the blower at the time. Would be a piece of piss.

Is it actually illegal to be on the blower while driving? Does it fall under "without due care and attention"?

Dave

[Usarka]

While it may not be a (short term) preventative measure, you'd think this was a standard part of policing - There's a crash, they take the driver's cell number and check with the phone company to see if they were on the blower at the time. Would be a piece of piss.


You'd need a witness who noted the exact time of the crash, and compare their time source to the telco's.

otherwise you just say you made the call immediately after the crash.

[Nagash]

Not trying to rude or anything but you (Ixion) have an amazing example of Type A personality.

Never seen anyone as anal as that when it comes to driving, you should be commended!

I'm assuming you haven't been in many accidents then?

[swbarnett]

No, Jim2 is right, researchers have done big studies on it, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible. Handsfree or handed, both degrade your driving ability to the level comparable with alcohol intoxication.
When you are talking to someone actually in the car with you, it is for some reason totally different, the driving is fine. The scientists still don't know why.
To me the reason is fairly self-evident if you think about prioroty phones are given in our society. Ever been standing in line in a shop only to have the phone ring? The person on the other end has effectively jumped the queue.

I think there is a reluctance to offend people you don't dislike. The driver is likely to think that a person in the car know's what's going on around you and won't be offended if they are distracted from the conversation to deal with a potentially dangerous situation, whereas the correspondent on the other end of the phone can't see what you see.

This is why I don't have a problem with mobile phone use in a car (talking, not texting) as long as the driving is given top prioroty. Personally, I don't care if the other person thinks I'm ignoring them and takes offence, that can be corrected later.

[spudchucka]

But I suppose years of being a police officer make you so cynical and paranoid you think everyone hates you.

Now there's a generalisation you can be proud of.

[spudchucka]

Wouldn't it be careless driving?

Yes. The debate is whether or not a specific offence is created for texting behind the wheel and whether it should be an infringement offence so that it can be dealt with by way of an instant fine, rather than the court appearance required for a careless charge.

[Big Dave]

Yes. The debate is whether or not a specific offence is created for texting behind the wheel and whether it should be an infringement offence so that it can be dealt with by way of an instant fine, rather than the court appearance required for a careless charge.

Here - I'll finish the debate.
It's an infringement unless someone is injured. And I don't mean hurt feelings from the text.
Next item?

[onearmedbandit]

Now there's a generalisation you can be proud of.

No, if I said 'every' cop that would be a generalisation. I was just referring to you.

[scumdog]

Thats right, Your talking about everyone you talk to during the course of your work.

I personally don't make excuses, But I get damned mad when legit crap gets dismissed. As for post #26, Thats a genuine experience, Not a lie, But you have already stated your biased position.

Unlike you??

Our opinions are slanted by our experiences - and I have had a LOT of 'they all lie' experiences, hence my stance.

[Headbanger]

Unlike you??

Our opinions are slanted by our experiences - and I have had a LOT of 'they all lie' experiences, hence my stance.


Me?, oh hell, yeah, I'm biased, I just don't get to wear a uniform and have my crap have a direct and at times drastic effect on peoples lives.

That aside, Keep up the good work, :Police:

Cops and prison guards get there views twisted to hell by their work....

[more_fasterer]

Yes. The debate is whether or not a specific offence is created for texting behind the wheel and whether it should be an infringement offence so that it can be dealt with by way of an instant fine, rather than the court appearance required for a careless charge.

Ah it makes sense now, by introducing an instant fine / infringement offence it will become a much more effective revenue stream :clap:

[warewolf]

Our opinions are slanted by our experiences - and I have had a LOT of 'they all lie' experiences, hence my stance.Same thing occurs on the other side of the fence, my friend, same thing...


Cops and prison guards get there views twisted to hell by their work....A mate's sister got out of the Ds because she could see that happening to herself; everyone was becoming a suspect. Very limited circle of friends with a common outlook on life.

Before she was a D she was issued a leather jacket because she was based in a colder region. When she moved to a warmer spot she was told to never bring the jacket to work, even in her locker it'll get nicked by a colleague.

[swbarnett]

Here - I'll finish the debate.
It's an infringement unless someone is injured. And I don't mean hurt feelings from the text.
Next item?
Surely if no-one gets injured (and no property damage) there's no harm done? Don't throw out the pudding before you've tasted it.

[Swoop]

Cops and prison guards get there views twisted to hell by their work....
You left out "politicians" from that list!

[spudchucka]

No, if I said 'every' cop that would be a generalisation. I was just referring to you.

Ok then, lets play "contradiction".

You used a stale stereotype to have a dig at me personally despite never even meeting me in person or having any intimate knowledge of who I am.

In other words, you generalised.

[onearmedbandit]

Ok then, lets play "contradiction".

You used a stale stereotype to have a dig at me personally despite never even meeting me in person or having any intimate knowledge of who I am.

In other words, you generalised.

I would call it an assumption, rather than a generalisation. And it was based from what I have seen posted here by you.

No malice intended, just an observation.

As far as it being a 'stale stereotype', surely when you deal with liars and criminals all day long you must soon start to feel everyone is lying, heck even Scumdog himself admitted it. Similar to the car industry, when I started years ago I was told to remember that 'buyers are liars'. And sure a lot of them are, whether they intend to or not, and some of them are plain straight up with you. But I've seen salespeople develop a distrust for every customer they deal with. It's not healthy.

[candor]

[QUOTE=Usarka;1389743]Does it make a difference if your a man or woman? Men find it hard to talk while watching the telly, yet women seem to have no problem nagging on about shit while cooking dinner.

[Edit:]

Well all these cellphone disasters do seem to feature just male drivers.
Maybe relevant is that males have about double the crash risk of females... at any given blood alcohol level. Brain seems to overload faster.

Inarguagable enforcement would need cops to snap polaroids. Bet the strike ratio is too low in Oz to warrant the effort. Unlike alcohol in breath you can hide a phone at checkpoints, unlike seatbelts (hard to quickly click while driving) you just throw the phone away.

"You were - I wasn't... here I have a search warrant for telecom to see if you were chin wagging (Judges will love that one)".

For the sake of 22 deaths in several years per Herald (3 a year, and prolly 30 + serious injuries yearly tho this may be an underestimate) is it worth dedicating a set proportion of Police hours (as with speed / restraints etc) to meeting hourly cellphone offence "productivity measures" (the phrase the Ministers much prefer to q---a!).

Or should it just be lumped in with other "visible offences" as it is now. The strike ratio would be low for hours expended offence fishing, and I'd imagine countries policing this are not making more than a few hundred dollars revenue off this yearly (token populist law) - not enough to even buy the donuts.

Could hardly be popular with Police either - "don't return to the station till you have 10 speed offences, 7 restraints and 5 cellphone users under ya beltb or we'll fall below benchmark for the region this month". I'd have to empathise with feeling specially stressed by the last requirement :Pokey:.

Besides which - a lot can be done with just education. It is the main prong of the UK's drink driving approach - no checkpoints there, just serious penalties for screw ups and far better statistics for both drink driving rates and the toll. Sadly the Resource Allocation Model prevents mass education about issues other than the "vital few" of speed, alcohol and restraints.

[Big Dave]

Actually - nobody much in Aus texts while driving as it's too big a bust.

[Coyote]

Conversation in a vehicle IS distracting. Which is why if I'm driving YOU DO NOT TALK. End of story. All my passengers know this, or are told it. I not not chatter while driving (Don't have radios or stereos going either).

How boring :bleh:

I text on the bike all the time. It makes me look cool


By the way, how does one become a bikie cop? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. And those BMW's seem like nice bikes to cruise around on all day.

[Coyote]

AND TXTING IS MORE WORSERER! After all, not only does one have to read but one has to also decypher txtspeak!!
And in the real world are often sent by slack-jawed illiterates to other slack-jawed illiterates about inconsequential clap-trap that garnishes their sorry shallow lives..
I'd be keen to keep texting on the roads (darwin theory and all) if I wasn't in the crosshairs

[Headbanger]

I saw someone texting while riding earlier today, I let out a chuckle.

A definite temporary citizen.

[Fatjim]

I believe the best wy to police this is not by the police.

The most productive way to deter this kind of offending is the "law into your own hands" method.

The police have little to do with keeping us safe anymore.

[Coyote]

But I've seen salespeople develop a distrust for every customer they deal with. It's not healthy.
Ooo, I get that with everyone! With a bit of resentment :D

The only difficulty is most of you don't even trust cops to operate speed detection equipment honestly, (often accusing them of just making speeds up or issuing tickets to drivers based on speed readings obtained from other vehicles), so why would you trust them to police this when it would rely totally on the cops ability to spot offences and their integrity to police honestly?

Ah it makes sense now, by introducing an instant fine / infringement offence it will become a much more effective revenue stream :clap:
:lol:

I saw someone texting while riding earlier today, I let out a chuckle.

A definite temporary citizen.
Was he doing it whilst power wheelieing? Cause that would be me

I believe the best wy to police this is not by the police.

The most productive way to deter this kind of offending is the "law into your own hands" method.

The police have little to do with keeping us safe anymore.
Snapt?

[FJRider]

Texting when driving tragedy.
I read the 'difficulty enforcing' with some incredulity.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487746

Laws ALREADY exist to cover this "problem"...Driving without due care and attention. Anybody using a cell phone with it stuck in one ear, drives like a dipstick, ANY cop will notice that. The old saying...there's never a cop around ....etc

[Ixion]

I'm glad there's someone else remembers the old "driving without due care and attention" offence.

Somewhere along the line many years ago this got dropped and replaced by "careless driving" a significantly different offence.

"Driving without due care and attention" is exactly what is wanted for this sort of thing. Covers a multitude, without being as heavy as careless driving. DWODCAA covers the "not paying attention" stuff too.

I don't know when it fell out of the statute book, but it is sadly missed.

Mind you, if the cops can't be bothered to pull people up for blatent red light running under their very noses, what likelihood is there that they will pay any attention to cell phones, regardless of laws.

[TOTO]

Simply track phone calls. You can triangulate a cellphone's position. If it is travelling more than 30 kms per hour and being used, and the person isn't on a train or bus, add the fine to their bill.

Yes, they can tell if you are on a bus or train.

For peak hour traffic, just fine everyone through their bill who uses it between 7am and 9:30am. Yes this includes passengers. Tough. The inconvenience is worth 30 lives.


What about passengers in a car ??????????

[Big Dave]

How boring :bleh:

I text on the bike all the time. It makes me look cool



Cool people don't txt.
Really cool people don't have a mobile phone.

[candor]

Yep there was a car following me after dark with no headlights. Out of Naenae and thru to Kelson other day. A cop sitting at the intersection left turn onto motorway, just before right turn up to Kelson, turned the blind eye despite a full visual for couyple of minutes (lights red). Metink had met alcohol/DUI quota, and was concentrating on speed productivity measures instead. It woulda been so easy to catch that sus car but no bite.

Fatjim. Like put the phone where...

[Coyote]

Cool people don't txt.
Really cool people don't have a mobile phone.
Funny you should say that as I don't have a phone either. I lost it, went back to where I knew I lost it and it was gone. Some homie must've gone past and thought "churrr, nu fone bro".

They all know the Nokia codes to switch numbers and such so they've just scored an upgrade.


Power wheelies on an NC30 in the later post were meant to be the giveaway to the former comment being a pisstake.

[Coyote]

Yep there was a car following me after dark with no headlights. Out of Naenae and thru to Kelson other day. A cop sitting at the intersection left turn onto motorway, just before right turn up to Kelson, turned the blind eye despite a full visual for couyple of minutes (lights red). Metink had met alcohol/DUI quota, and was concentrating on speed productivity measures instead. It woulda been so easy to catch that sus car but no bite.

Fatjim. Like put the phone where...
I've had cops flash their high beams at me when my headlights have failed to work.

Reminds me of the simpsons episode where Wiggum is pursuiting a car at night. The car being chased turns it's lights off and dissappears so Wiggum believes it must be a 'ghost car'.

[Big Dave]

post were meant to be the giveaway to the former comment being a pisstake.

I got it - although not from that hint. :cool:

[Coyote]

I got it - although not from that hint. :cool:
Because you're a smart cookie.

I've had to explain my sarcasm a lot more often than I ever used to. I think I'm being too smart and subtle about it cause it seems people only understand blunt and obvious.

[Big Dave]

Because you're a smart cookie.

I've had to explain my sarcasm a lot more often than I ever used to. I think I'm being too smart and subtle about it cause it seems people only understand blunt and obvious.

It's always a fine line and some rooms are tougher than others.

I've worked with a lot of comics and stand ups.

Garry Who used to tell me that he could 'hear' the mood of the crowd before he went on and adjust his act for that.

We need a KB mood ring.

[Swoop]

Actually - nobody much in Aus texts while driving as it's too big a bust.
How much and is this Australia wide or different for each state?

[Big Dave]

How much and is this Australia wide or different for each state?

Not sure - only lived in NSW in the mobile phone age.
Everyone went hands free.

[spudchucka]

I would call it an assumption, rather than a generalisation. And it was based from what I have seen posted here by you.

No malice intended, just an observation.

As far as it being a 'stale stereotype', surely when you deal with liars and criminals all day long you must soon start to feel everyone is lying, heck even Scumdog himself admitted it. Similar to the car industry, when I started years ago I was told to remember that 'buyers are liars'. And sure a lot of them are, whether they intend to or not, and some of them are plain straight up with you. But I've seen salespeople develop a distrust for every customer they deal with. It's not healthy.

An assumption? That makes all the difference since its such a reliable method of judging the character of a human being.

I spent six years as an area sales manager before I joined and I'd agree that many customers do lie in an attempt to screw better deals out of you but then I also noticed that many companies lie to their representatives who then inadvertently lie to their customers.

I never became cynical towards customers because I figured that they were just playing a game and trying to look after their own best interests. In fact in the six years I only ever found one customer that I refused to deal with because he was such a shocking liar.

Company managers on the other hand lost my trust completely and I would seriously scrutinise the integrity of any manager before I worked as a representative of any sort again.

In my time as a cop I've met a few cops that have become seriously disaffected by their work, only a few. Most cops do become naturally suspicious of others though, that's the nature of the work.

In the context of this thread people have been saying that if a cop sees a a person texting while driving the cop should issue a ticket, they obviously trust a cops judgement well enough to encourage this. On the other hand, how many threads / posts have there been on this forum that slam police for issuing tickets in circumstances where the only proof of the offence is the cop as an eye witness? The classic being speed offences. Accusations fly around of cops just making up speeds and issuing tickets to drivers based on speed readings obtained from other vehicles.

My comment in relation to this, (that seems to have rubbed you the wrong way) is an observation on my part as a person that has been frequenting this forum for some years now. I see a certain amount of hypocrisy when I read comments suggesting cops should be able to slap out an infringement for this offence but under no circumstances can cops be trusted to police another offence honestly.

[onearmedbandit]

What rubbed me up the wrong way was that you tarred everyone with the same brush. I know plenty of people off here who have received a ticket, and not questioned the cops judgement.

[scumdog]

What rubbed me up the wrong way was that you tarred everyone with the same brush. I know plenty of people off here who have received a ticket, and not questioned the cops judgement.


C'mon OAB, THAT is not the KB way - well not 'judging' by the posts screaming about cop dishonesty, lack of integrity and a strive for 'quotas'.

[Fatjim]

When you're honast about something and someone treats you you as if your not then then it can be "quite upsetting".

For example, my insurance company wants to do a credit and conviction check on me and have an investigator interview me and my neighbours. This is a result of a claim I've made on a burglery the other week. Now they're treating me like the many people who fraudulently make claims each week, although they have absolutely no reason to suspect my claim is in anyway fraudulent.

On top of this the local manager has been nothing but rude and has shown no understanding of the situationwe are in as a result of having the following stolen during the school holidays with 3 children at home.

TV
Xbox
PS3
both Computers

This pisses me off, especially as I have been a customer for 15 years, and before, when the company was bought out.

I'm now going to play hardball with them as much as I can. This will not be a plesant experience for any of us.

[Pixie]

I heard that too. Accident rates etc go right up



I (can't find it now) but saw/read/heard an interesting dialogue on cell phone talking vs that by passengers.

The long and short of it is this (from memory)
1) Conversation is engaging - distrating... so someone talking and expecting your involvement in the conversation will distract you
2) Passengers in a car talk "situationally" i.e. if something happens that will affect the way you drive (topless woman crossing the street, car swerving in front of you, red light runner approaching) they most often share in that experience... and (crucially) stop talking... and allow you to focus/stop diverting your attention from the threat presenting itself.
3) People on the other end of a cell phone do not get involved in the situation presenting itself (how could they?) and keep blathering on. Human nature is such that attention is then divided between the two immediate demands for attention resulting in incomplete copnversations - and compromised driving.

Lo - chatting on the cell phone is more dangerous.

I've seen no numbers or stats to back that particular assertion but on the face of it - it makes sense to me.
This may be true in lab tests.
Ever noticed the drivers who have to turn and look at their passenger as they talk to them - for seconds at a time?
A great habit to indulge in at 100 km/h

[Pixie]

Wouldn't it be careless driving? Same as if you were carrying out any distracting activity, if a cop sees you - or better has you on an in car camera - (why don't they all have them? - technology is cheap as chips these days) weaving all over the road texting or on a phone isn't that enough? Same as "sustained loss of traction".
Cheap?
Were talking about enforcement authorities that are afraid that ticketing motorists for anything but speed,alcohol and seatbelts will blow their budget.

[Pixie]

It'd totally abolish *555. No bad thing.

Dials *555 - "Hello Police?I just saw someone talking on a cell phone while driving"
Police- "Where are you"
555er-"driving along the Newmarket viaduct"

[scumdog]

Cheap?
Were talking about enforcement authorities that are afraid that ticketing motorists for anything but speed,alcohol and seatbelts will blow their budget.

Another KB cheap-shot generalisation??

Or a troll?

I HAVE successfully charged people for using a video camera while driving and other 'distracting' driver behaviour.

But I've also ticketed for speed, alcohol (yeah, I'm sure THATS a money spinner with most fines 20% of what they could be) and seatbelts. (Like not wearing them ever has any consequence..."Shit man, what're you on about, I'm a good driver, I hardly ever crash.."

[Pixie]

In my post I did say hands free... and while I agree standard holding your phone to your ear while driving I should be band, but hands free is the same as talking to your passenger... but txting worse again.

Well in that case get rid of the speedo, and warning lights... get rid of rear veiw mirror as the all take youe eyes off the road... as for communication to driver... put the driver in a sealed compartment seperated from the passengers simple... just hope he don't nod of due to total boardem

My GPS is right where the speedo is and shows speed whats the difference, (thats what I use if for while riding) It doesn't allow search functions while in motion, I can only switch between screens... once I stop then it allows the normal function
Bullshit
The issues are brain involvement in conversation and operating complex equipement like phones ,GPS etc are totally different to checking idiot lights and the road behind you

[Pixie]

Another KB cheap-shot generalisation??

Or a troll?

I HAVE successfully charged people for using a video camera while driving and other 'distracting' driver behaviour.

But I've also ticketed for speed, alcohol (yeah, I'm sure THATS a money spinner with most fines 20% of what they could be) and seatbelts. (Like not wearing them ever has any consequence..."Shit man, what're you on about, I'm a good driver, I hardly ever crash.."
I was refering to the document Candor posted,which clearly shows the authorities,wether they are Treasury,Ministry of Transport,ACC or the Police Management, are basing enforcement on the cheapest offences to deal with.

You're way too oversensitive Scummy:laugh:

[Big Dave]

I know plenty of people off here who have received a ticket, and not questioned the cops judgement.

I pleaded insanity. He just said I was mad.

[spudchucka]

I HAVE successfully charged people for using a video camera while driving and other 'distracting' driver behaviour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtykNMs6l6E

You haven't been moon-lighting over in the US of A have ya?

[scumdog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtykNMs6l6E

You haven't been moon-lighting over in the US of A have ya?

Welll....now you mentioned it....

[spudchucka]

What rubbed me up the wrong way was that you tarred everyone with the same brush. I know plenty of people off here who have received a ticket, and not questioned the cops judgement.

You may have missed a key word or perhaps not noticed the rhetorical aspect of the question asked. It was simply intended to make people think.


The only difficulty is most of you don't even trust cops to operate speed detection equipment honestly, (often accusing them of just making speeds up or issuing tickets to drivers based on speed readings obtained from other vehicles), so why would you trust them to police this when it would rely totally on the cops ability to spot offences and their integrity to police honestly?

[onearmedbandit]

Ooooo you're right, I did miss that word.

[EnzoYug]

Yep. Why I never have radio going. But if cell phones are to benaned then so should be radios, stereos, passengers (and bloody babies especially :mad:).

Texting should be banned for the same reason a TV in the car is not allowed to be viewable by the driver whilst the car is running. Driver takes eyes off the road (as with txting) driver won't see what/who they are about to kill.

That simple. People look at their phones when they txt. Maybe once, maybe the whole time. It's fucking dangerous. Enforcement is not always the problem, simply "making it illegal" will be enough to reduce it somewhat. The cops can pick up the rest.

[yungatart]

People look at their phones when they txt. Maybe once, maybe the whole time.

I think you will find that there is many a kiwi teenager who can text without looking at there phone, not even once! Comes from being not allowed to use their ph in class, so they learn to text with the ph in their pocket.

I personally know many kids who never even glance at it while texting.

I still think that texting while driving is dangerous though. Gee, I don't even talk on my ph while driving.

[scumdog]

I think you will find that there is many a kiwi teenager who can text without looking at there phone, not even once! Comes from being not allowed to use their ph in class, so they learn to text with the ph in their pocket.

I personally know many kids who never even glance at it while texting.

I still think that texting while driving is dangerous though. Gee, I don't even talk on my ph while driving.

Ever try and hold a conversation with them while they're txting????

And of course at one stage they have read (decypher) the reply.

All good for destroying concentration.

[yungatart]

Ever try and hold a conversation with them while they're txting????

And of course at one stage they have read (decypher) the reply.

All good for destroying concentration.

Yes, actually. hXc can text without looking at his phone and can have a conversation at the same time ( OMG, does this mean he can multi task?).

However, if I ever caught him texting and driving at the same time, I would take away his car privileges, and he knows it.

Whilst he and no doubt many others can talk and text at the same time, it does not mean that he, or anyone else, could or should attempt driving and texting at the same time.

[hellnback]

Yes, actually. hXc can text without looking at his phone and can have a conversation at the same time ( OMG, does this mean he can multi task?).

However, if I ever caught him texting and driving at the same time, I would take away his car privileges, and he knows it.

Whilst he and no doubt many others can talk and text at the same time, it does not mean that he, or anyone else, could or should attempt driving and texting at the same time.

I think he meant a conversation with the person he was texting..... :whistle: