Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

"We've known for years that drivers contribute more to causing crashes than the vehicle or the roadway," says Robert Breitenbach, director of the Transportation Safety Training Center at Virginia Commonwealth University, in a news release.

DUH!

1 posted on 03/12/2003 6:24:32 AM PST by Isara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Isara
Anti-cellphone bills are feel-good rubbish. The bottom line is, if you get distracted for whatever reason and you cause an accident, you are guilty of not controlling your vehicle. Special laws do not change this. These specific laws are like the hate crimes laws elevating "hate murder" over "regular murder".

If you are capable of using a cellphone and driving at the same time, that should be enough. It's up to the driver to make the judgement and to pay any consequences. The special laws are a slippery slope. What next, a law against driving if you did not get enough sleep (insomnia)? How about outlawing a stereo in automobiles? How about outlawing CB's in semi-trucks? (incidentally, most truck craashes are caused by the cars surrounding them and not the trucks themselves)

Once again, we blame the object (cell phone, hand gun) instead of the person responsible for the event (crash, getting shot).

Maybe we should outlaw women wearing suggestive clothing within sight of a roadway lest a fellow turn his head and get into an accident. Maybe women should wear burkas (sp?). After all, this kind of distraction can be larger than a cellphone ;-)

2 posted on 03/12/2003 6:39:14 AM PST by SteamShovel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Isara
So, a federal law must be passed making it a felony to avert one's eyes at the scene of an accident on interstate highways.

Achtung! You vill keep your eyes on der traffic ahead of you, und vee haf veys of seeing to it that you do so.

3 posted on 03/12/2003 6:52:49 AM PST by Pete'sWife (Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Isara
I really don't understand what this author means by "rubbernecking"---I had always assumed that the term meant staring at an accident or some other large event on the side of a road. This author seems to use it in some idiosynchratic way. There are not enough accidents on the side of the road to create these stats.

But I know from experience that the absolute worst distraction is an unruly child in the car. Cellphone conversation? Nothing compared to a screaming kid.

4 posted on 03/12/2003 6:59:46 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Isara
Surprised the article doesn't mention tailgating as a major cause of accidents. Must account for at least 2/3rds of rearend collisions.
5 posted on 03/12/2003 7:07:16 AM PST by ricpic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Isara
A map and calendar of rubbernecking crashes would show they are most prevalent around colleges in the spring.
7 posted on 03/12/2003 7:38:39 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Wheat is Murder! (Tilling slaughters worms.....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson