Texting while driving..

[Maverick]

We're sitting at home, on computers. Lower your fists and take in what someone has to say on the matter for once, without forcing your perspective onto them. Here goes..

I'm not forcing my perspective, I'm giving my opinion (which is based on looking at road safety for a long time). There is a difference.

--You know what I mean by ''driving 100%'' and there was no need to post a fact that proves me wrong on statistic.

Yes and I'm not trying to prove you wrong but pointing out that drivers get bored, low speed limits don't help and neither does sitting in traffic and that even professional race drivers can't concentrate 100% of the time.

--You're dead right about taxi drivers. And this just proves the point. Fiddling with stuff in the car causes bad effects while you're trying to operate a vehicle. And about that...

So does fatigue, poor driver training, poor attitude (look at the state of taxis - why is it that 90% of them look like they've been in a demolition derby) and so forth. Using the dispatch tool is only a small part of why they really do suck at driving.

--For the record, everything you wrote down as legal is something that you can be distracted by enough to cause an accident. Hell, if you REALLY want to split hairs, try and find a way to prove that a fly on your window can't distract you enough to kill you. You won't find one because it's not illegal for them to buzz around in the car.

The point I'm trying to make is that all those things are legal and all can kill (as you pointed out) and it was pointless banning handheld mobile phones (for example) because it was covered under existing laws and it's actually safer to dial a number by holding the phone up in front of you so you can see the road at the same time. As the law stands you have to have the phone mounted where it can't obstruct your view so often that means down so you have to take your eyes off the road.

Rather then target little areas why not teach drivers to think for themselves and show them what happens with just a quick look away from the road on a skid pan and have pedestrians appear out of nowhere from behind a parked car etc etc. Which is more effective, seeing what taking your eyes off the road can do or telling you using a mobile phone is bad (whilst allowing taxi drivers/couriers to use dispatch systems and allow other drivers to smoke)?

--I'll have you know that this advertisement worked for a few people on this forum, it worked for my whole grade when we saw it at a licensing education school scheme, it worked for people I've spoken to who have brought it up in conversation, etc. You can't say they don't work because you haven't spoken to every single person in the world (again, by all means go split some more hairs if you feel like wasting more time) and thus you don't know. Dare I say, that's a fact?

I would put money on the death rate of those few people on this forum and your whole grade being the same or higher than those that didn't see that ad.

Seeing as this ^^^ is the type of thing the advertisement was created to do, why should we get rid of it? I completely agree that the government should be doing MUCH, MUCH more towards safe licensing and better training, and even better advertisements, but there's no need to pull this one out because it's not entirely ineffective.

Because it doesn't change anything, it's a waste of resources and people will only listen/watch so much and you actually end up having people picking the ads apart. We had a road safety campaign up here where it had a guy accelerate to 65 in a 60 zone and lose control and kill/maim a woman and her child on the side of the road.

Did it make me want to change how I drive? No the opposite because I hated the ad, it's was pointless and speed had nothing to do with the accident and the only ones would would believe it are the stupid drivers who drive along at 95 in a 100 zone in a daze thinking they're a safe driver because they're driving slow.

Please don't spam up this thread and try to shoot me down again. If you disagree with my post, keyboard-warrior it to me by PM or come fly to sydney and we'll have a lovely chat with some tea and scones.

That sounds lovely but for now I'll have to make do on here

Not trying to spam your thread either, just putting another side to the usefulness (or not) of these targeted ads.

[maca]

Except the stupid people will pull over on the hard shoulder thinking they're safe and end up getting killed. 15% of all fatalities are on the hard shoulder and most of those were stupid people that pulled over to take a power nap, take a leak, to get something from the boot etc etc.

There's an easy way to save lives, mandatory 3 months driving ban for any driver who pulls over on the hard shoulder without it being an emergency. The ban includes drivers who run out of fuel or where lack of maintenance contributed.

I wouldn't go that far, I mean surely pulling over is much safer than doing it while driving right?

And obviously you'd only pull over in a place that's safe to do so, not somewhere that leaves your car at high risk.

[Blitzen]

I think that we have firmly established that texting while driving is stupid...You could put any ad on the telly to try and stop people doing stupid stuff in a car, but its still going to happen...
Drink driving...
Texting...
Doing burn outs...
Hitting people...
Speeding...
Road Rage...
Hell, I have even done most of these(yep, I admit it, though I havn't hit anyone....yet...), but its not going to stop people.
Shock tactics can only go so far on TV, but until you have been there yourself, you won't learn completely.

[Maverick]

I wouldn't go that far, I mean surely pulling over is much safer than doing it while driving right?

And obviously you'd only pull over in a place that's safe to do so, not somewhere that leaves your car at high risk.

I mean on the highways etc, you see people pulled over all the time on there for stupid things. Even if you have a child in the car that's going to be sick give them a bag, pulling over on the hard shoulder is stupid especially if you look at the distance between you and cars going 100+ (and some of those will be tired, distracted, stupid, drunk, drugged etc).

With 15% of all fatalities on highways etc being on the hard shoulder this would be the obvious target of education but they can't develop a camera to detect inappropriate use so it will never be targeted.

Clearly you would think about it and pull somewhere right off the highway, unfortunately you're in the minority.

[GTom]

With 15% of all fatalities on highways etc being on the hard shoulder this would be the obvious target of education but they can't develop a camera to detect inappropriate use so it will never be targeted.

We all know that 73% of Statistics are made up

[mikepologti]

I think that we have firmly established that texting while driving is stupid...You could put any ad on the telly to try and stop people doing stupid stuff in a car, but its still going to happen...
Drink driving...
Texting...
Doing burn outs...
Hitting people...
Speeding...
Road Rage...
Hell, I have even done most of these(yep, I admit it, though I havn't hit anyone....yet...), but its not going to stop people.
Shock tactics can only go so far on TV, but until you have been there yourself, you won't learn completely.

can only agree, nobodys perfect as some may lead themselves to belive

[dubbed]

lol Mickey you crack me up. You're the modern new-age role model youngster; grandmas everywhere would be proud! Lay off the crack a bit though mate, Maverick, as anyone on here, is allowed to voice an opinion and/or rebuttal points you have to make without getting a sooky or sarcastic reply.

You mention this particular commercial "worked on everyone in your whole grade", but did it? I would bet more than one person in your whole grade who has their licence now would've used a mobile whilst driving - whether to send/read text message, or to make a two minute phone call.

This ad is shocking, yes. Is it effective? Maybe. Will it stop people who see this ad using a mobile phone when driving? Some. But this sort of crude, shock advertising is a quick bandaid "solution" that just gets lost in most people's short term memory. It's not a perfect solution, but even if it stops a few people using their mobiles when driving then that's a good thing. I just don't think it will make much of a dent to the road toll (much like road "safety" cameras).

I can tell you that no amount of advertisements/commercials that I saw stopped me from wrecklessly breaking the law on several occassions - and I know I can speak for a lot of others out there. The thing that did stop me was cold, hard experience. Fortunately I never hurt or injured another in doing so, but it was a massive wake up call. And I'll be the first to admit, I'm still not perfect when it comes to the law - but who is?

[Mrk_Mickey]

I know what you're saying mate. I think it's wrong to have such a negative attitude to this advertisement because as has been said it's not completely ineffective and useless. Granted that I won't know everyone in my year group won't be using their phone whilst their driving, I'd bet money that they've all remembered the things we all experienced and at least thought twice about it. I'll admit that I have used my phone while driving and it just scares me how easy it is to fluck something up with the click of a few buttons down near your lap.

[maca]

I mean on the highways etc, you see people pulled over all the time on there for stupid things. Even if you have a child in the car that's going to be sick give them a bag, pulling over on the hard shoulder is stupid especially if you look at the distance between you and cars going 100+ (and some of those will be tired, distracted, std, drunk, drugged etc).

With 15% of all fatalities on highways etc being on the hard shoulder this would be the obvious target of education but they can't develop a camera to detect inappropriate use so it will never be targeted.

Clearly you would think about it and pull somewhere right off the highway, unfortunately you're in the minority.

Oh ok, I didn't realise you were talking about highways etc. As you said the dangers are pretty obvious (yet not obvious for some people). They should put signs or something to educate people of the risk..

[Maverick]

Oh ok, I didn't realise you were talking about highways etc. As you said the dangers are pretty obvious (yet not obvious for some people). They should put signs or something to educate people of the risk..

Signs and education can only do so much and really don't solve the issue which is allowing idiots behind the wheel who don't and won't accept responsibility for their actions. The crash up at Toowoomba in May where three died is a prime example of this.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25423387-952,00.html

What is really annoying is that after the crash you have a board member at the school saying

"Parent and school board member John McVeigh said all of the teenagers involved were "great boys" who were involved in all aspects of the community.

He said the school had a "magnificent program in relation to road safety and in relation to drugs and alcohol"."

How "magnificent" was the program when

- members of the football team who were underage were pissed off their face
- seven 16 and 17 year old students who were drinking illegally got into a car designed to carry five people
- none of the other students or adults (assuming there were some at the party) did anything to stop them from driving
- none of the occupants of the car had the brains to walk or stay at the party
- two of the students decided to get into the boot
- they choose not to wear seatbelts
- the driver was drunk and on p plates
- the driver broke his p plate restrictions on passengers
- the driver sped whilst drunk in the dark before hitting an innocent person head on, he was going so fast his car rolled before hitting the other car head on.

The only "smart" thing the driver did was that he lawyered up straight after the crash and the police haven't charged him despite his actions killing three (and the three dead and other occupants are just as responsible for the deaths for getting/staying in the car).

And when the parents dismiss this as an "unfortunate accident" nothing will change.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25867071-3102,00.html

"He didn't think he was taking a risk. In the end it's just an unfortunate accident."

How could getting into an overloaded car full of drunks (including the P plater driver), not wearing seatbelts and speeding be "safe" in anyone's eyes? This wasn't an accident but was an act of stupidity at best.

[gregozedobe]

".... In the end it's just an unfortunate accident."

That was a totally avoidable crash, not an "accident". Some very poor judgements were made by a number of people (including some who paid with their lives).

Most crashes are caused by (at best) poor decisions, and in some cases appallingly bad decisions. I hope all involved in the lead-up to this have learnt from their mistakes, but when I read statements like the above I sometimes despair

[maca]

This wasn't an accident but was an act of stupidity at best.

Yep, couldn't have summarised it better myself.

[mikepologti]

Signs and education can only do so much and really don't solve the issue which is allowing idiots behind the wheel who don't and won't accept responsibility for their actions. The crash up at Toowoomba in May where three died is a prime example of this.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25423387-952,00.html

What is really annoying is that after the crash you have a board member at the school saying

"Parent and school board member John McVeigh said all of the teenagers involved were "great boys" who were involved in all aspects of the community.

He said the school had a "magnificent program in relation to road safety and in relation to drugs and alcohol"."

How "magnificent" was the program when

- members of the football team who were underage were pissed off their face
- seven 16 and 17 year old students who were drinking illegally got into a car designed to carry five people
- none of the other students or adults (assuming there were some at the party) did anything to stop them from driving
- none of the occupants of the car had the brains to walk or stay at the party
- two of the students decided to get into the boot
- they choose not to wear seatbelts
- the driver was drunk and on p plates
- the driver broke his p plate restrictions on passengers
- the driver sped whilst drunk in the dark before hitting an innocent person head on, he was going so fast his car rolled before hitting the other car head on.

The only "smart" thing the driver did was that he lawyered up straight after the crash and the police haven't charged him despite his actions killing three (and the three three dead and other occupants are just as responsible for the deaths for getting/staying in the car).

And when the parents dismiss this as an "unfortunate accident" nothing will change.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25867071-3102,00.html

"He didn't think he was taking a risk. In the end it's just an unfortunate accident."

How could getting into an overloaded car full of drunks (including the P plater driver), not wearing seatbelts and speeding be "safe" in anyone's eyes? This wasn't an accident but was an act of stupidity at best.

gotta agree with him on this one guys. your dead right. no pun intended.