A Powerful Film About Texting While Driving

[Nice n Easy Rider]

I wish they would make this required watching for folks getting/renewing drivers' licenses. Might save some folks, including riders.

 

Warning: It's 35 minutes long.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/videos/werner-herzog-tackles-texting-and-driving-in-devastating-documentary-20130809

 

[Kathy R]

I wish they would make this required watching for folks getting/renewing drivers' licenses. Might save some folks, including riders.

 

I agree 100%. Required viewing in high school Driver's Ed would be a plus.

[upflying]

High school drivers ed showed me Red Asphalt or maybe Signal 30..forgot which. Need modern versions of those too.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I'm amazed at some people's capacity for forgiveness. The Amish seem to be uniquely gifted in this category, as demonstrated in the second case. How can a father of three dead children write such a warm letter, mere weeks later, to the man whose carelessness resulted in their deaths? How do you let go of that kind of anger so quickly?

 

Re: the utility of the movie in maybe preventing some disasters, yes, I think such a deep, narrow focus is probably more effective in getting people's attention than simple headlines or harrowing statistics. Show new drivers the real details of the aftermath, for both the victims and perpetrators, and remind them: "THIS is the reality you are courting if you choose to text and drive."

[Kathy R]

An hour ago I observed a woman driving through an intersection, crossing in front of me, with her cell phone in her left hand. She unapologetically held it up, so she could glance at it and then back to the roadway. No shame. None. Nada.

[CoarsegoldKid]

The movie is too long for today's 140 character world. Driver's Ed, Really! Driver's ed is still funded.

[Francis]

This film also makes us realize how "shallow" the penalties are for killing a person while texting. Mandatory sentences of some length, advertised to the public and included in driver license exams can help in building awareness. Our community is very vulenrable to these drivers as we have a relativ;ley narrow profile on the road and can be esaily overlooked by a texting driver.

[tallman]

This film also makes us realize how "shallow" the penalties are for killing a person while texting or using alcohol/drugs . Mandatory sentences of some length, advertised to the public and included in driver license exams can help in building awareness. Our community is very vulenrable to these drivers as we have a relativ;ley narrow profile on the road and can be esaily overlooked by a texting driver.

 

Fixed.

 

Been using other variations of this film for years with middle/high school students.

They seem to get it (at the time) but who knows?

[russell_bynum]

This film also makes us realize how "shallow" the penalties are for killing a person while texting or using alcohol/drugs . Mandatory sentences of some length, advertised to the public and included in driver license exams can help in building awareness. Our community is very vulenrable to these drivers as we have a relativ;ley narrow profile on the road and can be esaily overlooked by a texting driver.

 

Fixed.

 

Been using other variations of this film for years with middle/high school students.

They seem to get it (at the time) but who knows?

 

What's needed is a major cultural change. Until driving becomes the primary focus of a driver, there will always be distractions. It doesn't matter if it's a radio, a phone, a GPS, a passenger...doesn't matter. Until people start taking driving seriously, we're just wasting our time with films like this.

[Kathy R]

What's needed is a major cultural change.

 

I agree Russell, but I'm willing to bet you a dollar that before a cultural change takes place the automotive industry will alter the game.

 

Right now you can buy a car that sounds an alarm when you cross the solid painted lines along side the roadway, or that stops your car before you hit the guy in front of you. Nowadays, people walk away from crashes that would have resulted in fatalities 30 years ago.

 

I believe we are headed to a world where less and less is demanded of the driver and so the temptation by the driver to do something else will only grow. With the addictive reaction of many to their gadgets, I don't see today's senseless crashes stopping any time soon.

 

It took decades for a drunk driver to become a social pariha. Imagine how long it will take to convince the majority to put the phone down. I am beginning to believe that all money is on the manufactures.

[russell_bynum]

It took decades for a drunk driver to become a social pariha.

 

I think we're still waiting for that to happen. Sure...everyone pretends to be opposed to DUI, but how many times have you seen someone put their drink down and go get in the car? Maybe they're under the legal limit and maybe they're not.

 

Imagine how long it will take to convince the majority to put the phone down. I am beginning to believe that all money is on the manufactures.

 

My point was that I don't think the phone is the problem. The phone is just a symptom of the problem. The actual problem is that nobody takes driving seriously.

[Kathy R]

I think we're still waiting for that to happen. Sure...everyone pretends to be opposed to DUI, but how many times have you seen someone put their drink down and go get in the car? Maybe they're under the legal limit and maybe they're not.

 

I have seen a change in my lifetime, a noticeable change in the habits of people I know, those I've met and in myself. I've seen more outcry and stiffer sentences for DUI. My county leads NY in prosecution and punishment. You do not cross that line here unless you want to spend time in jail.

 

 

My point was that I don't think the phone is the problem. The phone is just a symptom of the problem. The actual problem is that nobody takes driving seriously.

 

True, and it's only going to get worse as the automotive industry takes the work out of it. Automobiles are going to be designed for the lowest common denominator. I half expect that someday I'll be saying, "Back in my day we drove our own cars".

[russell_bynum]

I think we're still waiting for that to happen. Sure...everyone pretends to be opposed to DUI, but how many times have you seen someone put their drink down and go get in the car? Maybe they're under the legal limit and maybe they're not.

 

I have seen a change in my lifetime, a noticeable change in the habits of people I know, those I've met and in myself. I've seen more outcry and stiffer sentences for DUI. My county leads NY in prosecution and punishment. You do not cross that line here unless you want to spend time in jail.

 

But the problem is you don't know where that line is and the closer you get to it the line, the less able you are to ID where the line is.

 

I agree we're getting more strict about prosecution, but I haven't seen what I'd consider to be real change in actual culture. "Designated driver" means "I'll only have a few drinks."

 

 

True, and it's only going to get worse as the automotive industry takes the work out of it. Automobiles are going to be designed for the lowest common denominator. I half expect that someday I'll be saying, "Back in my day we drove our own cars".

 

Yup. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I mean...I personally want to be in control of my car. But it's OK with me if people who'd rather be doing anything but driving can just be passengers. I'm not sure how the two will co-exist, though. I've often said that there should be a different lane/different road for people who don't have their heads up their asses. It really seems like public transit is ideal for people like that, but realistically we're too spread out for that to work. Plus...everyone's in love with their cars as a fashion accessory.

[Glenn Reed]

My point was that I don't think the phone is the problem. The phone is just a symptom of the problem. The actual problem is that nobody takes driving seriously.

 

To your point - HERE is an article about a motorcycle fatality. The rider pulled into the median between travel lanes, a driver coming from the opposite direction strayed from their lane and into the median, and the rider was killed.

 

This article says no charges have been filed. It is a rather skimpy article, and does not say whether they are under consideration. I know police like to take their time about filing charges to get them right, and I understand that.

 

Now I can't look at the comments any more, because this is a subscription site, but they were there the first time I visited. I will have to paraphrase, but there was en exchange that went something like this:

 

Commenter One - Why is the driver of the car not facing charges of negligent homicide, you are supposed to maintain control of your vehicle?

 

Responder - THEY ARE NOT FACING CHARGES OF HOMICIDE BECAUSE THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT! (All caps was their idea, not mine.)

 

I believe this illustrates Russell's point, that there are people who do not believe they are under any obligation to treat driving as the serious task it is.

[6speedTi]

Here in Florida a law was passed. Texting while driving is illegal. But it has no teeth in the law. It is a secondary offense.

You have to get pulled over for something else before you get written up for texting. You can text if your sitting still in traffic. That is crazy. You loose situational awareness when sitting at a intersection where most accidents happen. I still pass people on my bike texting even though we all know it is illegal. People still do it. No regards towards the law and others on the road.

[russell_bynum]

You can text if your sitting still in traffic. That is crazy. You loose situational awareness when sitting at a intersection where most accidents happen.

 

It is very difficult to get into an accident when you're not moving.

[eddd]

You can text if your sitting still in traffic. That is crazy. You loose situational awareness when sitting at a intersection where most accidents happen.

 

It is very difficult to get into an accident when you're not moving.

 

It is very hard to take defensive action when an inattentive driver is heading at you if you have your head down and are paying attention to your phone.

[szurszewski]

You can text if your sitting still in traffic. That is crazy. You loose situational awareness when sitting at a intersection where most accidents happen.

 

It is very difficult to get into an accident when you're not moving.

 

 

Happens all the time, actually. Probably not your fault, but still sucks. Surely there are some things that, once stopped, you have little hope of avoiding, but as the post above says, you don't have any change of avoiding any of them if you don't see them coming because you choose not to look.

[russell_bynum]

You can text if your sitting still in traffic. That is crazy. You loose situational awareness when sitting at a intersection where most accidents happen.

 

It is very difficult to get into an accident when you're not moving.

 

It is very hard to take defensive action when an inattentive driver is heading at you if you have your head down and are paying attention to your phone.

 

I'm sitting in the middle of a 3-wide, 30 deep pile of cars stopped at an intersection. Until I install the James Bond ejector seat in the car...or some sort of high-speed tunnel-boring machine which would allow me to escape down, I'm pretty much a sitting duck anyway.

[szurszewski]

You can text if your sitting still in traffic. That is crazy. You loose situational awareness when sitting at a intersection where most accidents happen.

 

It is very difficult to get into an accident when you're not moving.

 

It is very hard to take defensive action when an inattentive driver is heading at you if you have your head down and are paying attention to your phone.

 

I'm sitting in the middle of a 3-wide, 30 deep pile of cars stopped at an intersection. Until I install the James Bond ejector seat in the car...or some sort of high-speed tunnel-boring machine which would allow me to escape down, I'm pretty much a sitting duck anyway.

 

I know you're not responding to me directly, but I think my reply above addresses this - and of course if you're in the middle of a huge pile of stopped cars, you're pretty well protected anyway.

 

The problem is that we all drive by habit - just like riding. If we work - all the time - to make good habits, we drive/ride well. It's hard though to make sometimes-habits; if you sometimes choose to stop paying attention while you are stuck in traffic because you are trapped/safe where you are, then you are standing at the top of a slippery slope toward habitually not paying attention when you are stopped.

[russell_bynum]

It's hard though to make sometimes-habits; if you sometimes choose to stop paying attention while you are stuck in traffic because you are trapped/safe where you are, then you are standing at the top of a slippery slope toward habitually not paying attention when you are stopped.

 

We make those decisions all the time.

 

Glance down at the speedo.

Change the stereo.

Glance over at your passenger.

Check the rearview mirror.

Look at your GPS. (or adjust it...zoom in/out/etc)

Look around to figure out where the siren you're hearing is coming from.

etc.

 

It's all about understanding how much of a distraction a particular activity is, and then making the decision about whether or not the situation allows for that distraction. In that context...texting is no different than anything else that takes your attention away from the immediate act of driving.

[szurszewski]

It's hard though to make sometimes-habits; if you sometimes choose to stop paying attention while you are stuck in traffic because you are trapped/safe where you are, then you are standing at the top of a slippery slope toward habitually not paying attention when you are stopped.

 

We make those decisions all the time.

 

Glance down at the speedo.

Change the stereo.

Glance over at your passenger.

Check the rearview mirror.

Look at your GPS. (or adjust it...zoom in/out/etc)

Look around to figure out where the siren you're hearing is coming from.

etc.

 

It's all about understanding how much of a distraction a particular activity is, and then making the decision about whether or not the situation allows for that distraction. In that context...texting is no different than anything else that takes your attention away from the immediate act of driving.

 

If you are arguing that ANYTHING that takes your attention away from driving is the same, which would be the literal interpretation of your concluding statement, then I guess I have to agree that texting is no different from doing any of the things in your list, and I guess you could add in ridiculous things like typing a dissertation or trying to escape from a locked safe a la Houdini, ... but if you're going for a more figurative interpretation, which I think you are, then I respectfully disagree. While all those things to some degree distract from the driving act, the only one that is really closely related to what we have to do to text would be adjusting your GPS.

 

And, in any case, I don't think any of those really follow along the original train of your argument as to whether or not one need bother paying attention to traffic when one is stopped in it.

[russell_bynum]

My argument is that texting isn't the problem. It's just the latest boogyman that we've decided to focus on.

 

Ban texting then sit back with a self-satisfied smile and feel good that we solved the problem.

 

...except that doesn't solve the problem because texting wasn't the problem to begin with.

 

As far as anything that takes attention away from driving being "the same"...yes and no.

 

No...escaping from a safe would not represent the same level of distraction as glancing down at your speedometer. But they ARE both distractions and while I don't know if anyone's ever crashed because they were trying to escape from a safe, there certainly have been people who've crashed because they glanced down at their speedometer at the wrong time.

 

My point was that rather than focusing on the latest boogeyman, the focus should be on training and awareness. But that's much more difficult than just implementing some feel-good legislation that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

[tallman]

Or, we could make it more difficult and co$tly to get a license,

and we could have serious penalties that are vigorously enforced.

 

Scofflaws would be assimilated...

 

[russell_bynum]

Or, we could make it more difficult and co$tly to get a license,

and we could have serious penalties that are vigorously enforced.

 

Scofflaws would be assimilated...

 

I don't think our goal should be to make it more difficult and costly, but I do think that a byproduct of having good comprehensive training will be that it's more expensive and more people will not pass. Driving is a privilege, not a right and we need to start treating it as such.

 

And yes...then we need meaningful laws which are vigorously enforced.

[eddd]

My argument is that texting isn't the problem. It's just the latest boogyman that we've decided to focus on.

 

Ban texting then sit back with a self-satisfied smile and feel good that we solved the problem.

 

...except that doesn't solve the problem because texting wasn't the problem to begin with.

 

As far as anything that takes attention away from driving being "the same"...yes and no.

 

No...escaping from a safe would not represent the same level of distraction as glancing down at your speedometer. But they ARE both distractions and while I don't know if anyone's ever crashed because they were trying to escape from a safe, there certainly have been people who've crashed because they glanced down at their speedometer at the wrong time.

 

My point was that rather than focusing on the latest boogeyman, the focus should be on training and awareness. But that's much more difficult than just implementing some feel-good legislation that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

A boogeyman is an imaginary monster. Driving distractions are very real. The idea of focusing on training and awareness sounds fine, but the reality is that is so nebulous that it is all but worthless. Are we going to retrain all current drivers, or do we only start with new ones and wait 50 years for these trained drivers to populate the driving public? Are you ready to be retrained...no...trained would be the better word. This training you espouse must not have been around when you got your license or we wouldn't need it now.

 

The reality is that texting is obviously not the only distraction, but research and accident analysis has proven that texting and phone use are significantly distracting. When you couple the proven fact of distraction with the amount of phone/text usage while driving, you have a very real, very big problem.

 

"Recently released results from a new Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) naturalistic driving study continue to show that distracted driving is a tangible threat. The study, entitled The Impact of Hand-Held and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety Critical Event Risk, shows that engaging in visual-manual subtasks (such as reaching for a phone, dialing and texting) associated with the use of hand-held phones and other portable devices increased the risk of getting into a crash by three times."

 

These two bullet point from the research are very telling:

> Text messaging, browsing and dialing resulted in the longest duration of drivers taking their eyes off the road.

 

> Text messaging increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by two times and resulted in drivers taking their eyes off the road for an average of 23 seconds total.

 

An AVERAGE of 23 seconds! That is a huge distraction, way more than glancing down at you speedometer, checking the rear view mirror or looking to locate an approaching emergency vehicle.

 

23 seconds for a text, which is often followed by a series of other texts.

 

 

 

[szurszewski]

My argument is that texting isn't the problem. It's just the latest boogyman that we've decided to focus on.

 

Ban texting then sit back with a self-satisfied smile and feel good that we solved the problem.

 

...except that doesn't solve the problem because texting wasn't the problem to begin with.

 

As far as anything that takes attention away from driving being "the same"...yes and no.

 

No...escaping from a safe would not represent the same level of distraction as glancing down at your speedometer. But they ARE both distractions and while I don't know if anyone's ever crashed because they were trying to escape from a safe, there certainly have been people who've crashed because they glanced down at their speedometer at the wrong time.

 

My point was that rather than focusing on the latest boogeyman, the focus should be on training and awareness. But that's much more difficult than just implementing some feel-good legislation that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

We've veered somewhere here, because I thought we were talking about your statement that it was very hard to get into an accident while you were sitting still.

 

Whether or not texting while driving should specifically be illegal - or whether or not anything should be illegal - is a whole other can of worms and certainly not one I was trying to open.

[FLrider]

 

What's needed is a major cultural change. Until driving becomes the primary focus of a driver, there will always be distractions. It doesn't matter if it's a radio, a phone, a GPS, a passenger...doesn't matter. Until people start taking driving seriously, we're just wasting our time with films like this.

 

You assume that people are responsible and will respond to cultural expectations. You are surely an optimist. If all it took was cultural change then we would not today still have drunk drivers getting behind the wheel.

 

As much as I hate to say this or see government get involved, I believe it's going to take requiring the phone manufacturers and phone carriers to install disabling devices into the phones. Something that prevents texts from incoming or outgoing, while the vehicle is in motion. We can all see the conflicts in this approach but it's going to take something along those lines for the public comply.

[russell_bynum]

A boogeyman is an imaginary monster. Driving distractions are very real.

 

Yes.

 

The idea of focusing on training and awareness sounds fine, but the reality is that is so nebulous that it is all but worthless.

Are we going to retrain all current drivers, or do we only start with new ones and wait 50 years for these trained drivers to populate the driving public? Are you ready to be retrained...no...trained would be the better word. This training you espouse must not have been around when you got your license or we wouldn't need it now.

 

Like I said. Doing it right will be hard. We don't like hard. We like easy and we don't really care if it accomplishes what we set out to accomplish. Ban/limit texting while driving. Pat each other on the back and go home...having accomplished NOTHING.

 

 

The reality is that texting is obviously not the only distraction, but research and accident analysis has proven that texting and phone use are significantly distracting. When you couple the proven fact of distraction with the amount of phone/text usage while driving, you have a very real, very big problem.

 

There's obviously a very real, very big problem. Otherwise I would have said "This is much ado about nothing."

 

 

These two bullet point from the research are very telling:

> Text messaging, browsing and dialing resulted in the longest duration of drivers taking their eyes off the road.

 

> Text messaging increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by two times and resulted in drivers taking their eyes off the road for an average of 23 seconds total.

 

An AVERAGE of 23 seconds! That is a huge distraction, way more than glancing down at you speedometer, checking the rear view mirror or looking to locate an approaching emergency vehicle.

 

Unless I'm reading that wrong...that's 23 seconds TOTAL. When texting while driving was legal here, I generally did it in very short bursts. It might take me 5 miles to type a 3 word text because I was breaking it up into small chunks. (it was better when I had a phone with a physical keyboard since I could do it without looking...then glance down to make sure it says what I wanted it to say, and hit send.) It might average 23 seconds total to send the message, but each distraction event was substantially shorter. More than glancing in the rearview mirror, but similar to other legal distractions like fumbling with the stereo, looking at a map, etc.

 

But let's say the "too lazy to actually solve the problem" crowd get their way (they usually do) and we ban texting while driving everywhere.

 

First of all...we've already seen that this is nearly impossible to enforce in a meaningful way. Most cops I've talked to say the majority of the cell phone tickets they give out are as they filter up through stopped traffic since that's when they can most easily sneak up on people, and look down into the car to see what the driver is doing. As I demonstrated...that's probably the least dangerous place you can text because you're already stopped and you have nowhere to go even if you did have situational awareness about what's going on around you. Catching people texting while actually driving is much more difficult. And hard to prove that they were actually texting vs doing any number of perfectly legal functions with their phone.

 

Are you going to ban looking at maps or GPS devices? Are you going to ban car stereos?

 

This varies by person, of course...but for me, I am far more distracted while dicking around with my GPS...or worse...a paper map trying to figure out where I am and were I need to go next than I am reading or sending a quick text message. Scrolling through playlists on the car stereo's 1-line display is also pretty bad in terms of the total distraction time it takes to find the playlist I want. Ironically, I can do it dramatically faster and with less distraction if I select the playlist on my phone instead...but since that's likely to raise the attention of the local CHP who sees a phone in my hand and assumes I'm guilty of the heinous crime of texting, I now do it the much more dangerous, but totally legal way.

 

And I find that the worst thing that I can do for my situational awareness, is talk on the phone...and it doesn't matter if it's hands-free or not. I can listen in on a call and add my input now and then...no big deal. But if I'm leading the call, I find that my awareness goes out the window along with things like lane choice, etc. I know plenty of people who can talk hands-free and it doesn't seem to have any impact.

 

That's why the real solution is getting people to understand their capabilities and limitations and how various distractions impact them. Then you let each driver sort out for themselves what is appropriate at any given time. Since that's what everyone does anyway, we should at least make an effort to equip them to make an intelligent decision.

[russell_bynum]

You assume that people are responsible and will respond to cultural expectations. You are surely an optimist.

 

I am anything but an optimist.

 

 

If all it took was cultural change then we would not today still have drunk drivers getting behind the wheel.

 

But that IS all it would take. We haven't had that cultural change. We might be getting there...now people at least pretend to be outraged about drunk drivers before they go drinking and then drive home.

 

The problem is that large scale cultural change usually takes a very long time and it's hard to direct it with any real precision.

 

 

As much as I hate to say this or see government get involved, I believe it's going to take requiring the phone manufacturers and phone carriers to install disabling devices into the phones. Something that prevents texts from incoming or outgoing, while the vehicle is in motion. We can all see the conflicts in this approach but it's going to take something along those lines for the public comply.

 

Bad idea because that would break passengers...including passengers on trains, subways, busses, etc. And it doesn't account for the fact that most phones can now do text-to-speech/speech-to-text over Bluetooth. When I get a text, my phone can read it to me over the car's speakers. Then I can respond by speaking my message. I never have to take my hands off the wheel or my eyes off the road. And that's another part of the issue...technology moves quickly. Law moves slowly so it will always be behind...often to the point of being irrelevant.

 

BTW, Some apps now have annoying pop-ups that come up if you try to type when the phone thinks you're moving...asking you to confirm that you're the passenger.

[eddd]

...

The idea of focusing on training and awareness sounds fine, but the reality is that is so nebulous that it is all but worthless.

Are we going to retrain all current drivers, or do we only start with new ones and wait 50 years for these trained drivers to populate the driving public? Are you ready to be retrained...no...trained would be the better word. This training you espouse must not have been around when you got your license or we wouldn't need it now.

 

Like I said. Doing it right will be hard. We don't like hard. We like easy and we don't really care if it accomplishes what we set out to accomplish. Ban/limit texting while driving. Pat each other on the back and go home...having accomplished NOTHING...

 

 

Continually proposing that the solution is some sort of vague, never-defined training and equally nebulous "large scale cultural change" accomplishes less than nothing. Accepting these tenets as the solution is a good way to ensure that nothing is done to address the problem.

[russell_bynum]

Continually proposing that the solution is some sort of vague, never-defined training and equally nebulous "large scale cultural change" accomplishes less than nothing. Accepting these tenets as the solution is a good way to ensure that nothing is done to address the problem.

 

Continually going after the symptom rather than the problem...particularly with laws that will always be behind the technology...is a good way to ensure that nothing is done to address the problem.

 

 

If you want specifics of the training that would be appropriate, we can go into that. I intentionally left that part vague because it's a big, difficult issue. (Again...it's much easier to do something ineffective than it is to actually solve the problem.) I've certainly got some ideas, though.

 

"large scale cultural change"...what needs to change is people need to take driving seriously. Right now, culturally, we don't. We're in love with our cars, but we hate driving and do everything possible to distract and remove ourselves from the actual act of operating the vehicle. That's what needs to change.

 

My hope is that training would bring awareness, which would lead to the cultural change that is necessary to actually solve the problem.

[John Ranalletta]

A mechanical solution is at hand...

 

Place iPhone-like sensors or micro switches at 90 and 270 degrees on the steering wheel. When the motor is running and moving, the driver has to contact both sensors. Either could be untouched for no more than 10 seconds to allow for shifting and managing hvac & radio controls. If one or other sensor is untouched for > 10 seconds, the horn would blare, flashers would start and car would go into limp mode for 1/2 hour.

 

Takes care of texting, eating, farding and most other distractions.

[tallman]

and be thrown out w/first ADA lawsuit, IMO.

At least it is a proposal...

[Marty Hill]

Sure hope this is a joke.

[John Ranalletta]

cars are already retrofitted in any number of ways for use by drivers w/one and no arms, legs, etc. Texting really isn't a problem in those cases is it?

[John Ranalletta]

what's the joke? want people to keep their hands on the wheel? make it impossible to drive if they don't? what's a valid objection?

[Matts_12GS]

A mechanical solution is at hand...

 

Place iPhone-like sensors or micro switches at 90 and 270 degrees on the steering wheel. When the motor is running and moving, the driver has to contact both sensors. Either could be untouched for no more than 10 seconds to allow for shifting and managing hvac & radio controls. If one or other sensor is untouched for > 10 seconds, the horn would blare, flashers would start and car would go into limp mode for 1/2 hour.

 

Takes care of texting, eating, farding and most other distractions.

 

And imagine the marketplace for reverse engineering that kind of crap to defeat the sensors!!

 

Smart guys will once again profit from federal intervention to protect us from ourselves.

[tallman]

Duct tape and a tootsie roll would work.

[russell_bynum]

Duct tape and tootsie rolls. Awesome.

[Marty Hill]

what's the joke? want people to keep their hands on the wheel? make it impossible to drive if they don't? what's a valid objection?

 

The joke is most people don't know how to drive and a 3rd hand wouldn't make much difference. Other than on the track I rarely use both hands.