jolly_codger

This article is disheartening and scary as hell https://www.route-fifty.com/tech-dat...-shows/385648/

The US's narcissistic "**** everybody else, it's all about ME and screw everyone else's life, liberty & happiness" culture continues to grow unabated. Please stay safe out there and if anyone in your circles engages in this kind of behavior please tell them to wake the **** up before they end up killing someone.
John

Iride01 

It took an article you read to be scared? I ride my bike and drive a car, I've seen over the last few decades how more distracted people are and how many have no clue about sharing the road even with other cars and motor vehicles much less any on a bicycle that might not be noticed when they are looking at the cute video their buds sent them in a text message. Or the numerous people that think you don't have to stop when the light turns red if the other cars with the green light aren't in the way yet.

I have most of my issues with other drivers when I'm driving my car. Seems like most of the idiots are on the roads I have to drive on. I actually feel like I'm more likely to be in involved in a wreck when in my car. The roads I ride my bike on have a much lower incidence of drivers being crazy. Though they are there too. So I try to stay aware.

indyfabz

There’s the Advocacy & Safety Forum for stuff like this.

shelbyfv

I'm discouraged by the virulent spread of potty-mouth on this forum.

79pmooney

I had a pickup pull a foot and a half into the bike lane and miss me inches yesterday afternoon. There was a faster cyclist behind me. When he passed I asked it he thought that was intentional. He said yes; did the same thing to him. I wasn't thinking fast enough to catch his license numbed.

This happened on the old, beautiful parkway out of down town Portland; a road that that has the most attentive and polite drivers in Portland. Been my mainstay for 25 years and I've never seen a pass remotely that close on the road before. (I've ridden it something like 5,000 times.).

wolfchild

Laws against distracted driving don't work. People continue to break these laws...There should be a law which would force all auto manufacturers and drivers to have a software installed which prevents cell phone usage while driving. Another serious distraction is that silly stupid infotainment screen right on the dash board which keeps getting bigger and bigger with each model year, there is absolutely no need or purpose for it.

urbanknight

Distracted driving needs to be treated like drunk driving. Fines, jail time, and suspended license. Killing someone on a repeated offense counts as murder. To me, the biggest problem in this country is that we don’t revoke privileges when people abuse them. Don’t complain to me that you now have to take a bus/cab/bike to work when your decisions made someone else never get to do anything ever again.

urbanknight

At least an F bomb never crippled or killed anyone.

Koyote

The evidence suggests that drunk driving laws have very low impact on drunk driving fatalities. Here is just one example of such evidence. Part of the problem with DUI laws is that people accurately perceive a relatively low probability of being caught; I would suppose that the probability would be even lower for distracted driving, since it's pretty easy to put away your phone (or stop fiddling with the radio) when you see the cop in your rearview mirror.

urbanknight

Yes I understand that, but at least suspending the license will prevent that particular person from harming someone during that time. Less is less.

On a personal note, had they suspended the license of the woman who killed my student (and his sister, and sent the parents to the hospital only to wake up and find out all their children are dead) the first time she drove drunk, it’s highly possible that the student would still be in my class today. Maybe she would have gone right back to driving drunk after the suspension, but she would have at least had less time behind the wheel to take those risks. I bet she still gets her license back after she serves whatever sentence they pass.

Iride01 

Alcohol is only reported as being involved in 30% of the accidents. It only has to exceed the limits to be listed as a drunk driving accident whether or not the accident would have happened even without the alcohol. So my question is why are we not worried about figuring out why the other 70% of the accidents are happening and doing something about that. Addressing just 10% of that 70 percent will save more than twice the number people than addressing 10% of the current drunk drivers.

That said I am in no way condoning driving after consuming alcohol.

urbanknight

Just spitballing here, but you seem to be suggesting that the other 70% is all caused by one or maybe two factors. If there are many factors involved, and none of them account for more than 30%, the the drunk driving would still be the top factor to consider. But you’re still right that the first step would be to determine that.

Also, I suspect a huge chunk of that 70% is due to sheer stupidity, and we aren’t ready as a society to address that properly (tongue firmly in cheek).

Koyote

Evidence also suggests that the suspension likely wouldn't have stopped the miscreant from driving. But there's no way to know in any particular case.

Koyote

"We" are doing plenty of things about that. Have a look at this site - particularly the colorful graphic just half a screen down from the top. Safety equipment - some government mandated, some offered at auto manufacturers' initiative - has drastically reduced auto accident fatality rates. Add in advancements in road design (e.g., roundabouts) and other technological advancements, too.

But still, your suggestion is an odd one. "Alcohol is only reported as being involved in 30% of accidents." Only 30%? That's a lot. If we really wanted to get serious about it, every new car sold in the US would come with a breathalyzer built into the ignition system.

wolfchild

For every 1 individual who gets busted for cell phone usage while driving another 300 000 individuals get away with it on daily basis. Laws don't work and there needs to be a different solution implemented.

tomato coupe

The best statistics are those pulled from one's buttocks.

jolly_codger

No; the article just makes riding adjacent to vehicular traffic scarier.

OldTryGuy

You do realize that a license is not needed to enable one to drive a vehicle and the same is true regarding insurance. Being locked up in jail generally prevents one from driving and hurting others.

Iride01 

Back before the mad mothers got organized drunk driving accounted for 50% of the accidents. So the awareness and enforcement changes they brought about has made a difference. But perhaps to get lower numbers for drunk driving will involve things we probably won't want to do or things that techology that is too expensive or won't be implemented in old vehicles that will still be allowed on the road.

That's partly why I'm mad at the mad mothers that said they didn't want to include distracted driving in their advocacy program. Seems to me that similar laws and emphasis on awareness would have a more affect to drop those statistics too over time. Maybe get the same 20% drop that has come about for drunk driving that went from 50% to 30% after the mad mothers and other groups got vocal with their government representatives.

jolly_codger

Reminds me of what Tony Campolo once said:
I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a ****. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said "****" than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

urbanknight

Yes, I agree with you on that and would prefer harsher sentences for the first offense, but obviously many people disagree. With that in mind, if someone driving on a suspended license gets caught doing something else - Speeding, running a stop, failing to signal, etc. - they will then be arrested and sent to jail. If they just get a slap on the wrist and keep their license, then they would just get a ticket and continue on their way.

badger1

So, 'General Cycling' in teh Biek Formz has now become the 'Distracted Driving/Criminal Justice Reform' sub-forum?

shelbyfv

They'll get around to moving it to A&S eventually. Don't know why it's so hard for folks to figure out where to post.

cb400bill

Thread moved from General to A&S

Leisesturm

I have a good friend that works for a Dutch company based stateside so they can be close to Intel. Management from the Netherlands comes over periodically with their International Driving Licenses and EVERY year for the four years, someone from the Netherlands has died in a fatal crash in Portland or its suburbs. They only know about the last four years because that is as long as they have been there. Who knows how far back the dying goes? Last year three from Holland died in a single crash involving an F350 and the compact rental that is typically used by the business travelers. Alcohol is never a factor. Aggression and lack of judgement are what take European drivers by complete surprise when they drive here. They simply are not used to the risks our drivers take, the late left turns into oncoming traffic, overtaking on the right ... ... it's all par for the course here and we're used to it.

Not every driver is glued to a Smartphone. That doesn't mean they can't do something totally boneheaded and fatal even though they are fully engaged. The only reason why less than 1000 cyclists (much less) are killed every year is because compared to any other form of transportation, cycling in the U.S. is dead last. A distant dead last. It really isn't far fetched to say that cycling is not a significant form of transportation. No one should ever be killed in a car collision here. Countries with 100x the cycling traffic have years where no one at all is killed in a crash. Maybe one day we will get tired of losing the population of a good sized city every year so senselessly but I'm not holding my breath.