View Full Version : How Can Two Lane Highways Be Made Safer?



Pages : [1] 2

Bunty
10-27-2014, 11:21 PM
I get tired of hearing about bad car accidents where people are killed or hurt bad from a car driving over the center line and colliding head on with an oncoming car in the opposite lane. From this happening five people have been killed in Payne County since Friday. It was reported one guy's excuse for driving past the center line was that he was sleepy. What is a good idea to try to do something to prevent these accidents? Would laying down noise making strips down the middle of the highway be worthwhile?

kelroy55
10-28-2014, 07:57 AM
concrete barriers down the middle

Bunty
10-28-2014, 10:36 AM
concrete barriers down the middle

But that would make passing impossible and be costly. So back to rumble strips going down the middle of the highway.

warreng88
10-28-2014, 10:46 AM
I get tired of hearing about bad car accidents where people are killed or hurt bad from a car driving over the center line and colliding head on with an oncoming car in the opposite lane. From this happening five people have been killed in Payne County since Friday. It was reported one guy's excuse for driving past the center line was that he was sleepy. What is a good idea to try to do something to prevent these accidents? Would laying down noise making strips down the middle of the highway be worthwhile?

That was my immediate thought before reading what you posted. That and making texting while driving illegal.

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2014, 12:43 PM
That was my immediate thought before reading what you posted. That and making texting while driving illegal.I don't think that will do anything. It will just cause people to hold their phones lower which is more dangerous.

MsProudSooner
10-28-2014, 02:05 PM
I don't think that will do anything. It will just cause people to hold their phones lower which is more dangerous.

I think they can determine if you were using your phone by accessing your phone records.

Rumble strips in the middle of the road are a good idea. Wide shoulders on each side of the road help, too.

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2014, 02:06 PM
I think they can determine if you were using your phone by accessing your phone records.
Yes, but I would be against the police accessing your phone records unless they had a warrant related to a serious crime.

OKCDrummer77
10-28-2014, 03:58 PM
Yes, but I would be against the police accessing your phone records unless they had a warrant related to a serious crime.

Does vehicular manslaughter count as a "serious crime"?

hoya
10-28-2014, 04:37 PM
Does vehicular manslaughter count as a "serious crime"?

That doesn't prevent the fatality. It just gives the possibility of punishing someone after the fatality happens. Arguably it won't make the streets safer, because if you expected to get into a fatality accident you wouldn't be texting. I text and drive and I've never had an accident because of it.

Mel
10-28-2014, 04:47 PM
Rumble strips are a good start. Even if the idiot is texting it will alert them a bit.

RadicalModerate
10-28-2014, 04:58 PM
Yes, but I would be against the police accessing your phone records unless they had a warrant related to a serious crime.

A fatal car wreck--or even one simply involving personal injury and property damage--IS a serious crime.
(if due to the inattention of some f****in' moron who can't disconnect from their f****in' fone long enough to drive rather than barely steer.)

RadicalModerate
10-28-2014, 05:02 PM
That doesn't prevent the fatality. It just gives the possibility of punishing someone after the fatality happens. Arguably it won't make the streets safer, because if you expected to get into a fatality accident you wouldn't be texting. I text and drive and I've never had an accident because of it.

Exactly who "EXPECTS" to get into a fatality accident?
(in the case of the Traffic Texter, is it a case of Dumbass Aforethought? or more properly, Dumbass Sans AnyThought?)

Speaking of Two Lane Highways, my Grandpa used to say, "Anyone who says they don't trust anybody can't possibly drive a car down a two lane road. You are only a couple of feet from certain death." Of course, this was before CellPhonage . . . and the unanticipated, yet not unexpected, results of this technological interface.)

Here's an "Illustrative Metaphor (or analogy)": I'll bet she drove to the Mall.
umRXAkZ8Xo0

White Peacock
10-28-2014, 06:39 PM
I text and drive and I've never had an accident because of it.

In my younger years, I used to drink and drive fairly often. Never got into a wreck. Doesn't make me any less of an assh*le for having done it, nor does it prove that driving drunk can be safe.

bluedogok
10-28-2014, 07:39 PM
There are a lot of center lane divot style rumble strips on two lane roads in Texas and Colorado, still doesn't seem to help and they can make a motorcycle handle bad on them but not as bad as the raised Botts Dots that Texas has as lane markers everywhere on multi-lane highways. Those are nasty when they are wet.

rezman
10-28-2014, 07:52 PM
Exactly who "EXPECTS" to get into a fatality accident?
(in the case of the Traffic Texter, is it a case of Dumbass Aforethought? or more properly, Dumbass Sans AnyThought?)

Speaking of Two Lane Highways, my Grandpa used to say, "Anyone who says they don't trust anybody can't possibly drive a car down a two lane road. You are only a couple of feet from certain death." Of course, this was before CellPhonage . . . and the unanticipated, yet not unexpected, results of this technological interface.)

Here's an "Illustrative Metaphor (or analogy)": I'll bet she drove to the Mall.
umRXAkZ8Xo0

What's funny is that nobody turned around to look in her direction.

warreng88
10-28-2014, 07:56 PM
Texting while driving not only puts others in danger of someone running into someone else because they were looking at their phone, it also backs up traffic. I can't tell you how many people I have been behind going 10 mph or more below the speed limit because they were texting. I like that they are not going 30 mph and doing it, but it also affects the flow of traffic due to some idiot whose priorities are more sending a text and not paying attention to the one ton chuck of medal they are in control of.

rezman
10-28-2014, 08:02 PM
That doesn't prevent the fatality. It just gives the possibility of punishing someone after the fatality happens. Arguably it won't make the streets safer, because if you expected to get into a fatality accident you wouldn't be texting. I text and drive and I've never had an accident because of it.

But how many times did you catch yourself drifting out of your lane?

Over the last three or four years, I've had more people come over in my lane, both traveling in the same direction, and oncoming, than I ever had since I started driving. Just about every one going in the same direction, I could see them texting or yaking on the phone. The closest I came to getting hit was on easbound 66 just west of Luther, where I went off in the grass to avoid gettting hit. Were they texting? Who knows.

It's especially harrowing while on a bike.

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2014, 08:15 PM
Does vehicular manslaughter count as a "serious crime"?Hmmmm, has vehicular manslaughter occurred yet? So if an officer so much as thinks you are on your phone, he can assume you are about to commit vehicular manslaughter, pull you over, and search your phone records?

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2014, 08:20 PM
A fatal car wreck--or even one simply involving personal injury and property damage--IS a serious crime.
(if due to the inattention of some f****in' moron who can't disconnect from their f****in' fone long enough to drive rather than barely steer.)
ummmmmmm, I guess it's just due to the people who are complete idiots. I've have text and driven before. I don't do it often and haven't done it lately and I don't condone it. So let me ask this: what is this going to do to help safety. The answer: not a damn thing.

I am under the assumption you think it's okay for someone to be pulled over just because a cop might merely suspect someone texting and driving because they have their hand lowered and search their phone on the basis that they could have caused manslaughter. If that is not the case and you are talking about someone who already caused a wreck because they were texting and driving, please clarify, because I might be misunderstanding this.

I still don't support the police being able to seize anyone's phone records in every single wreck that occurs.

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2014, 08:23 PM
I am against any law that bans texting and driving. I am also against any law that forces people to wear seat belts. Texting and driving is already illegal. It's called inattentive or distracted driving. If I recall, you can be pulled over for eating if it's distracting you and that's up to the officer. We don't need two laws that say the same thing.

For the record, I am also against any kind of device that locks your cell phone when driving. Just because some idiot is unable to pick up their phone without causing a wreck doesn't mean I should have to suffer from that.

bchris02
10-28-2014, 08:27 PM
In the Charlotte metropolitan area, most major arteries have at least a small curb-sized barrier in the median and many are landscaped very nicely. This cuts down on accidents due to people crossing the median. It also helps traffic flow smoother because most of the time, where left turns are permitted, you have a double turn lane.

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2014, 08:28 PM
In the Charlotte metropolitan area, most major arteries have at least a small curb-sized barrier in the median and many are landscaped very nicely. This cuts down on accidents due to people crossing the median. It also helps traffic flow smoother because most of the time, where left turns are permitted, you have a double turn lane.Here in OKC we're still building four lane roads with no median or even a turn lane. smh

bchris02
10-28-2014, 08:37 PM
Here in OKC we're still building four lane roads with no median or even a turn lane. smh

To be fair, OKC is also still expanding its street grid as well. Charlotte is pretty much developed out for the most part. If OKC de-annexed some of its outermost areas, the city may be able to fund modernization of the existing grid.

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2014, 08:40 PM
To be fair, OKC is also still expanding its street grid as well. Charlotte is pretty much developed out for the most part. If OKC de-annexed some of its outermost areas, the city may be able to fund modernization of the existing grid.Yes, well, if they would do it right the first time, we wouldn't have to go back and do it again. I'd rather see OKC invest in maintaining and upgrading existing streets that really need it instead of building the same kind of outdated streets we have in the core now out in the middle of nowhere that will likely need rehabilitation by the time the area is completely filled in.

warreng88
10-29-2014, 07:14 AM
I am against any law that bans texting and driving. I am also against any law that forces people to wear seat belts. Texting and driving is already illegal. It's called inattentive or distracted driving. If I recall, you can be pulled over for eating if it's distracting you and that's up to the officer. We don't need two laws that say the same thing.

For the record, I am also against any kind of device that locks your cell phone when driving. Just because some idiot is unable to pick up their phone without causing a wreck doesn't mean I should have to suffer from that.

We need laws that are specific and specific consequences to go with them. NYC has a law where the driver cannot use their phone while driving without a hands free device. With Siri and technology the way it is, you don't need to text or really even look at your phone while driving. I can send an entire e-mail using voice activation and it is safer for everyone. I don't understand why the danger of texting while driving is so hard for some people (not you specifically PP) to understand. You (again, not you PP, the eternal you) are putting other people's lives in danger because you want to tell someone what you need from the grocery store, talk about the game or something else insignificant. Pull off the road for one minute, return the text and get back on the road. It's not that hard, I promise. I have done it multiple times.

RadicalModerate
10-29-2014, 07:28 AM
Believe it or not, there once was a time when, if you felt the pressing need to talk to someone (not a passenger) while you were out in your automobile, you had to locate a pay phone, pull over to it and make the call. You also had to carry around a roll of quarters. It was a horrible, nearly unbearable, existence--being separated from The Hive Mind for minutes or hours at a time. If you wanted to text them, you had to find a Western Union office.
^
l
v

I don't understand why the danger of texting while driving is so hard for some people (not you specifically PP) to understand. You (again, not you PP, the eternal you) are putting other people's lives in danger because you want to tell someone what you need from the grocery store, talk about the game or something else insignificant. Pull off the road for one minute, return the text and get back on the road. It's not that hard, I promise. I have done it multiple times.

In addition to rumble strips down the center line, perhaps subsidies from the NHTSB to install these on your personal vehicle might be helpful.
ekvLRS1jQ7g

rezman
10-29-2014, 09:12 AM
Quite a few years ago, there was a guy running around town who had a Leslie Airchime from a diesel locomotive mounted on his pickup rack. That thing could make you jump out of your shoes if you weren't ready for it.

Dubya61
10-29-2014, 01:54 PM
I think they can determine if you were using your phone by accessing your phone records.

That's clearly after the fact and simply adds to the mountain of reasons one shouldn't text and drive that are already being ignored.

RadicalModerate
10-29-2014, 02:16 PM
Quite a few years ago, there was a guy running around town who had a Leslie Airchime from a diesel locomotive mounted on his pickup rack. That thing could make you jump out of your shoes if you weren't ready for it.

Is it possible that said technology ^ might not only prevent the sleepy driver from crossing the centerline of a two-lane, but also awaken the slumbering/texting motorist at the left turn signal ahead of you/us? =) It's akin to the flashing of the headlights on those old-time two-lane country roads. To warn about the cop around the corner. =)

RadicalModerate
10-29-2014, 02:22 PM
That's clearly after the fact and simply adds to the mountain of reasons one shouldn't text and drive that are already being ignored.

Texting in Traffic/While Driving, on a Two-Lane Roadway (might) be punishable, in an alternative universe, by having the tip of one of one's thumbs clipped off. (on account of "money"isn't the issue). Nah . . . Too medieval middle-eastern.

Sorry . . .
Two Lane Highways can be made safer if the Nut Behind the Wheel is paying total attention to exactly what it is that he is doing. Sorry: I meant He or She.

Kwik-KwiZ t' PluPlan (et.al.): What is your definition of "Safety"? =)
(the precursor to "Safer")

Plutonic Panda
10-29-2014, 03:46 PM
We need laws that are specific and specific consequences to go with them. NYC has a law where the driver cannot use their phone while driving without a hands free device. With Siri and technology the way it is, you don't need to text or really even look at your phone while driving. I can send an entire e-mail using voice activation and it is safer for everyone. I don't understand why the danger of texting while driving is so hard for some people (not you specifically PP) to understand. You (again, not you PP, the eternal you) are putting other people's lives in danger because you want to tell someone what you need from the grocery store, talk about the game or something else insignificant. Pull off the road for one minute, return the text and get back on the road. It's not that hard, I promise. I have done it multiple times.Not everyone has Siri or smartphones. I'm already against laws for the most that ban texting and driving, but banning talking on your phone while driving.... I'm not even going to discuss. Completely lunacy.

I know you said you weren't referring to me, but I do want to point this out: I do understand the dangers of texting and driving.

RadicalModerate
10-29-2014, 03:57 PM
What's funny is that nobody turned around to look in her direction.

There ain't nothin' funny aboot tha' thar' vid clip' [laddie] exceptin' fer the Billy Conolly vidclip that appears in the background freeze frame. [You know . . . The Scotsman who can't properly ride a trike down Route 66 . . .] =

People in the vicinity of The Mall of America in Minnesota don't like to express emotion. =)

It could interfere with their IceFishing.
And that's OK2

Back on Topic: Never Drive on Two Lane Highways. (or at least those without wide shoulders and room to move)

RadicalModerate
10-29-2014, 04:10 PM
Not everyone has Siri or smartphones. I'm already against laws for the most that ban texting and driving, but banning talking on your phone while driving.... I'm not even going to discuss. Completely lunacy.

I know you said you weren't referring to me, but I do want to point this out: I do understand the dangers of texting and driving.

Mr. Plutonic: You are against many laws. Why don't you direct your efforts to the political mainstream of eliminating dumb****ism and encouraging common sense solutions? =) A new voice in that direction would have to be focused and winsome. I say, go for it. Start with a total ban on texting in traffic to make two lane roads safer.

Or . . . replacing all two lane roadways with trolleys and trains.
It didn't work back then, but now we have solar power and computers. =)
(not to mention windmills)

the metaphorical torch is passed . . .
with sub-par video (do not text this in traffic)
X4dX_TamRh0

Plutonic Panda
10-29-2014, 04:54 PM
Mr. Plutonic: You are against many laws. Why don't you direct your efforts to the political mainstream of eliminating dumb****ism and encouraging common sense solutions? =) A new voice in that direction would have to be focused and winsome. I say, go for it. Start with a total ban on texting in traffic to make two lane roads safer.

Or . . . replacing all two lane roadways with trolleys and trains.
It didn't work back then, but now we have solar power and computers. =)
(not to mention windmills)

the metaphorical torch is passed . . .
with sub-par video (do not text this in traffic)
X4dX_TamRh0Do you think a ban on texting and driving would make roads safer?

turnpup
10-29-2014, 05:34 PM
Today I had business in a rural area and this was the road I drove on:

9386

For me, this is the ultimate in dangerous roads, as there's no margin for error. At least it was freshly striped, and at least it was daytime. I agree with the posters who think rumble strips are helpful—although they're not a perfect solution, IMO. My car has a feature that makes the steering wheel vibrate whenever you cross a lane line inappropriately. It's very similar to the rumble strip effect, and it certainly gets my attention. On a road like I was on today, however, I'm not sure it would've made much difference.

bluedogok
10-29-2014, 07:44 PM
Part of the problem is all of the "driving aids" that has helped dumb down driver (in addition to many other reasons). Riding around in a safety cocoon seems to make many people think they are invincible and nothing bad can happen.

Plutonic Panda
10-29-2014, 09:30 PM
Today I had business in a rural area and this was the road I drove on:

9386

For me, this is the ultimate in dangerous roads, as there's no margin for error. At least it was freshly striped, and at least it was daytime. I agree with the posters who think rumble strips are helpful—although they're not a perfect solution, IMO. My car has a feature that makes the steering wheel vibrate whenever you cross a lane line inappropriately. It's very similar to the rumble strip effect, and it certainly gets my attention. On a road like I was on today, however, I'm not sure it would've made much difference.Sooner road after you pass Waterloo is pretty bad.

Mel
10-29-2014, 09:57 PM
When I go motervating I like taking the roads less traveled. Last Sunday we took a road trip and went by the old Tribbey school. Only other things on the road were critters. I had to dodge a few coyotes, squirrel's and raccoons. I wish I had taken a pic right as we passed the Tribbey school of a worn out looking Saint Bernard lead a pack of frisky goats. I rolled down the window to say howdy to the dog and he just gave me a "Please shoot me" look.

turnpup
10-30-2014, 05:20 AM
Part of the problem is all of the "driving aids" that has helped dumb down driver (in addition to many other reasons). Riding around in a safety cocoon seems to make many people think they are invincible and nothing bad can happen.

So true. I constantly remind myself that I need to physically look sideways before I change lanes to make sure it's clear, rather than to rely on the absence of a little warning beep that someone's in the blind spot. The gadgets do dumb us down, even if we don't want them to. Good point!

kelroy55
10-30-2014, 06:19 AM
Do you think a ban on texting and driving would make roads safer?

Yes

kelroy55
10-30-2014, 06:20 AM
Today I had business in a rural area and this was the road I drove on:

9386

For me, this is the ultimate in dangerous roads, as there's no margin for error. At least it was freshly striped, and at least it was daytime. I agree with the posters who think rumble strips are helpful—although they're not a perfect solution, IMO. My car has a feature that makes the steering wheel vibrate whenever you cross a lane line inappropriately. It's very similar to the rumble strip effect, and it certainly gets my attention. On a road like I was on today, however, I'm not sure it would've made much difference.

My motorcycle has the same feature, it's my passenger screaming.

warreng88
10-30-2014, 09:25 AM
Do you think a ban on texting and driving would make roads safer?

Yes. Just like banning drinking and driving would make roads safer. There would still be people who would do it, but if it wasn't illegal, more people would do it and it would be more dangerous. Do you honestly think a ban on texting while driving wouldn't make people think twice about doing it and just do it at a stop light instead?

White Peacock
10-30-2014, 12:10 PM
Passing a law to ban texting while driving isn't a privacy or rights issue, it's a safety issue. You're behind the wheel of a massive hunk of metal with deadly momentum behind it, and if you're not paying full attention to your surroundings, you become a threat to others on, and near, the road. You don't have the right to be distracted while driving, because you don't even have a right to drive. Technically, driving is a privilege. Government built the roads and can tell you how to behave on them, and a no-texting law is reasonable, not draconian.

Plutonic Panda
10-30-2014, 12:16 PM
Yes. Just like banning drinking and driving would make roads safer. There would still be people who would do it, but if it wasn't illegal, more people would do it and it would be more dangerous. Do you honestly think a ban on texting while driving wouldn't make people think twice about doing it and just do it at a stop light instead?All you have to do is lower your phone and have tinted windows to get by that. With drunk driving, you are completely impaired with no control at all and it's much easier to spot a drunk driver by the way he's driving. There is literally no way to positively confirm someone was just texting even they swerved a couple times("officer, I'm sorry I was just tired and am getting home") vs. if you see someone who is drunk and swerves, they can be pulled from the car and tested to see if they're drunk. If you are truly drunk, you are going to jail, end of story because you can't hide being drunk.

Plutonic Panda
10-30-2014, 12:17 PM
Passing a law to ban texting while driving isn't a privacy or rights issue, it's a safety issue. You're behind the wheel of a massive hunk of metal with deadly momentum behind it, and if you're not paying full attention to your surroundings, you become a threat to others on, and near, the road. You don't have the right to be distracted while driving, because you don't even have a right to drive. Technically, driving is a privilege. Government built the roads and can tell you how to behave on them, and a no-texting law is reasonable, not draconian.We established the government and WE pay taxes that funds the roads. I know I have been in this debate before, but the roads are public property. It makes no sense to say they are owned by the government when we own the government.

kelroy55
10-30-2014, 12:20 PM
All you have to do is lower your phone and have tinted windows to get by that. With drunk driving, you are completely impaired with no control at all and it's much easier to spot a drunk driver by the way he's driving. There is literally no way to positively confirm someone was just texting even they swerved a couple times("officer, I'm sorry I was just tired and am getting home") vs. if you see someone who is drunk and swerves, they can be pulled from the car and tested to see if they're drunk. If you are truly drunk, you are going to jail, end of story because you can't hide being drunk.

Not true at all, may people over the limit aren't swerving all over the road but are still impaired.

Not able to confirm somebody was texting is also false, every time you send or receive a text there's a record of it.

kelroy55
10-30-2014, 12:22 PM
We established the government and WE pay taxes that funds the roads. I know I have been in this debate before, but the roads are public property. It makes no sense to say they are owned by the government when we own the government.

I don't think he disputed the roads weren't owned by the public.

White Peacock
10-30-2014, 12:29 PM
We established the government and WE pay taxes that funds the roads. I know I have been in this debate before, but the roads are public property. It makes no sense to say they are owned by the government when we own the government.

Right, and road safety laws are established to protect the public from people who think accidents are only caused by other people who do things that are known to cause accidents. Government passes those laws and they enforce them. That's the social contract.

Bunty
10-30-2014, 12:32 PM
Sooner road after you pass Waterloo is pretty bad.

Probably too many state highways also look like that, in a condition not up to modern day standards for highway construction.

ctchandler
10-30-2014, 01:38 PM
Do you think a ban on texting and driving would make roads safer?

PluPan,
There is no question, it's not even close. In the first place, you should have both hands on the wheel, and second, you should always have your eyes on the road, and third, you should concentrate on driving. You can't do any one of those things while texting.
C. T.

ctchandler
10-30-2014, 01:46 PM
We established the government and WE pay taxes that funds the roads. I know I have been in this debate before, but the roads are public property. It makes no sense to say they are owned by the government when we own the government.

PluPan,
I guess this is just pick on PluPan day, but you are asking for it. Yes, we own the roads, but driving is not a right, it's a privilege, and if laws aren't obeyed, you can lose that right (after so many offenses of course). And we pay the policemen to enforce the laws for the good of the public, and hey, that's "us" too. I have more, but "Nuff said".
C. T.

Plutonic Panda
10-30-2014, 03:56 PM
PluPan,
There is no question, it's not even close. In the first place, you should have both hands on the wheel, and second, you should always have your eyes on the road, and third, you should concentrate on driving. You can't do any one of those things while texting.
C. T.So if you remove your hand from the steering wheel to adjust your seat belt, change the radio, modify the air conditioning settings, shake your hand or arm due to discomfort, etc.. things that a majority of people do, a cop should be able to pull you over because he thinks your using your cell phone(and according to others, should be able to access your records to see if you were texting and driving)?

I don't usually drive with both hands on the wheel. I know my tires and always keep them up to date. I am perfectly capable of driving with one hand at low speeds as many others can and do.

I do agree with you though, you should keep your eyes on the road, which is why a cop shouldn't be studying you, if you have clear windows, mine are tinted, and that distracts him. I won't even get into the fact about their laptops in their cars and when they watch the actions of other drivers instead of driving their cars, and I mean completely looking out the side of their car.

Plutonic Panda
10-30-2014, 03:59 PM
PluPan,
I guess this is just pick on PluPan day, but you are asking for it. Yes, we own the roads, but driving is not a right, it's a privilege, and if laws aren't obeyed, you can lose that right (after so many offenses of course). And we pay the policemen to enforce the laws for the good of the public, and hey, that's "us" too. I have more, but "Nuff said".
C. T.Well, I did not say driving is a right. It is a privilege and that's fine.

By all means, bash me all you want. I am more than happy to have reinforce my views. After all, it is me that is deciding to post this to challenge others and I fully expect backlash.

This is a serious issue and I understand that. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandchildren, and many others have lost their lives because of someone else texting and driving. It is nothing to mock and make light of.

Plutonic Panda
10-30-2014, 04:14 PM
Not true at all, may people over the limit aren't swerving all over the road but are still impaired.

Not able to confirm somebody was texting is also false, every time you send or receive a text there's a record of it.It is true. Sure, you can be a 'good or experienced' drunk driver, but the second you get pulled over, the officer smells alcohol in your breath, as the saying goes, you're done son. He can take a breathalyzer and if you refuse, it's an admission of guilt.

Have to puff a breath of air isn't the same as an officer accessing your phone records because it invades your privacy. You can hide your texts by simply deleting them. Then, an officer will have to get from your network carrier. They should have no capability or right to do so unless you've caused an accident and it is suspected your texting and driving.

I know a lot of ways we could make the roads safer. Here's some ideas:

1. Put a breathalyzer in every car and make it so it won't start unless you blow in it and you're below the legal limit. Think of how many lives that will save.

2. The highest speed limit in the US is 85MPH. Limit every single car to that speed and then if you to take your car to the track, they can unlock it there. Think of how many incidents of people loosing control of their car due to speed will drop.

3. Put a jammer in every car that will jam cellphones. Think of how many texting and driving crashes will be avoided.

4. Place a blackbox in every car and allow the government to monitor your usage. If you don't use a turn signal or you speed, they can trace you car via GPS to see where you were and site you for each infraction. Think of how many people would start following the laws because they know are being monitored.

5. Allow cops to disable cars via wireless methods. Think of how many lives would be saved by reducing the amount of crashed due to people evading law enforcement.

Oh, and all those outdated super cars or classics, make it so they have to retrofitted or seized. Wouldn't that all be great. I mean really, tell me if all that was imposed, that it wouldn't save lives.

It all starts somewhere with someone finding some rationalization to support their idea. I'm not saying banning texting and driving is where it all begins, but it never stops.

The government is slowly and slowly getting all of these laws that invade your privacy and ban you from doing something, and I completely understand as new technologies come out new laws will have to be passed, but goddamn, where does this privacy invading stop? It's all in the name of protecting the people, isn't it.

Plutonic Panda
10-30-2014, 04:17 PM
Right, and road safety laws are established to protect the public from people who think accidents are only caused by other people who do things that are known to cause accidents. Government passes those laws and they enforce them. That's the social contract.I understand that. I have no problem with that. What is your point? Texting and driving is already illegal.

Mel
10-30-2014, 04:24 PM
My motorcycle has the same feature, it's my passenger screaming.

My wife is better than any law or device. She will def let me know if I wander a bit from true.

venture
10-30-2014, 04:55 PM
A lot of people have covered everything I would have already. I've already done my share of calling out PluPan on his horrendous driving record with the DUIs and street racing, so I'll just give him a break this time since everyone else is already piling it on.

As far as improving two lane road safety...it is hard to say. I think rumble strips in the middle aren't a bad idea. I also think those type of roads should be required to have some shoulder and be a certain width if they will have a speed limit over 45 mph. Anything without a shoulder or too narrow should be restricted down in speed.

Plutonic Panda
10-30-2014, 05:44 PM
A lot of people have covered everything I would have already. I've already done my share of calling out PluPan on his horrendous driving record with the DUIs and street racing, so I'll just give him a break this time since everyone else is already piling it on.let me ask you something, what on earth does that have to do with my stance on texting and driving. I have yet to get into one accident. I know a bunch of 'by the book safe drivers' who have had 3+ and been driving less than I have. What constitutes a sh!tty driver, someone who has broken road laws or someone who has actually caused wrecks.

BTW, not one person one here has called me out about my driving record. Luckily, I have connections to get me out of some of the stuff I've gotten myself into. I don't blame the police for the times I've pulled over. I accepted responsibility for my actions. What the f&ck have you done besides add one comment as you usually do about my driving history.

Go back to reporting your weather. I'm done here. Stupid and pointless conversation that is getting nowhere because no one is even addressing the fact that texting and driving is illegal RIGHT NOW. If isn't challenge me on it.

1. Put a breathalyzer in every car and make it so it won't start unless you blow in it and you're below the legal limit. Think of how many lives that will save.

2. The highest speed limit in the US is 85MPH. Limit every single car to that speed and then if you to take your car to the track, they can unlock it there. Think of how many incidents of people loosing control of their car due to speed will drop.

3. Put a jammer in every car that will jam cellphones. Think of how many texting and driving crashes will be avoided.

4. Place a blackbox in every car and allow the government to monitor your usage. If you don't use a turn signal or you speed, they can trace you car via GPS to see where you were and site you for each infraction. Think of how many people would start following the laws because they know are being monitored.

5. Allow cops to disable cars via wireless methods. Think of how many lives would be saved by reducing the amount of crashed due to people evading law enforcement.

Oh, and all those outdated super cars or classics, make it so they have to retrofitted or seized. Wouldn't that all be great. I mean really, tell me if all that was imposed, that it wouldn't save lives.

if none of those laws wouldn't save lives, challenge me on it.

Don't sit there and bring up my record as a way to try and discredit. It has no reach and it's even worse if you're going to try and do it on a f#cking message board.

I have plans for my life. I don't intend on being a loser. Some of things I eventually want to do I have no doubt I will have to face someone stupid asshole pulling my driving record or some racist comments I made a long time ago being stupid online and will have to explain that, but that's down the road. Get the f^ck over it, I haven't hurt one person, move the hell on.

Post something that actually challenges my views. If I'm wrong, I will admit it. I haven't said this, but Midtowner, a poster I'm not really that fond of to put it nicely, sort of altered my views on abortion. I have a difference stance now because I was wrong about it. Sid Burgess actually completely changed my thinking about global warming, I was wrong about that and have a new stance on it now. Granted I still feel the data doesn't go back far enough, but I do have very different views. You, Sid, JTF, Spartan, and a few others posters have greatly changed how I think about urbanization and suburbs. The reason I say that is I am always open to new challenges and views on all things. It isn't a closed book but it's f'n stupid when I take good time to post something and someone comes along, disregards it, and jumps to "but PLU PANS DRIVING RECORD!!!!."

White Peacock
10-30-2014, 06:04 PM
I understand that. I have no problem with that. What is your point? Texting and driving is already illegal.

It's not explicitly illegal for anyone but those driving with a learner's permit. As a matter of a gray area, it falls under the distracted driving law, but it's only enforceable if there's been an accident or an officer sees grossly reckless driving resulting from it. If you're simply seen texting by a policeman but don't happen to be bouncing from lane to lane, he can't rightly nab you for it.

rezman
10-30-2014, 06:39 PM
It is true. Sure, you can be a 'good or experienced' drunk driver, but the second you get pulled over, the officer smells alcohol in your breath, as the saying goes, you're done son. He can take a breathalyzer and if you refuse, it's an admission of guilt.

Have to puff a breath of air isn't the same as an officer accessing your phone records because it invades your privacy. You can hide your texts by simply deleting them. Then, an officer will have to get from your network carrier. They should have no capability or right to do so unless you've caused an accident and it is suspected your texting and driving.

I know a lot of ways we could make the roads safer. Here's some ideas:

1. Put a breathalyzer in every car and make it so it won't start unless you blow in it and you're below the legal limit. Think of how many lives that will save.

2. The highest speed limit in the US is 85MPH. Limit every single car to that speed and then if you to take your car to the track, they can unlock it there. Think of how many incidents of people loosing control of their car due to speed will drop.

3. Put a jammer in every car that will jam cellphones. Think of how many texting and driving crashes will be avoided.

4. Place a blackbox in every car and allow the government to monitor your usage. If you don't use a turn signal or you speed, they can trace you car via GPS to see where you were and site you for each infraction. Think of how many people would start following the laws because they know are being monitored.

5. Allow cops to disable cars via wireless methods. Think of how many lives would be saved by reducing the amount of crashed due to people evading law enforcement.

Oh, and all those outdated super cars or classics, make it so they have to retrofitted or seized. Wouldn't that all be great. I mean really, tell me if all that was imposed, that it wouldn't save lives.

It all starts somewhere with someone finding some rationalization to support their idea. I'm not saying banning texting and driving is where it all begins, but it never stops.

The government is slowly and slowly getting all of these laws that invade your privacy and ban you from doing something, and I completely understand as new technologies come out new laws will have to be passed, but goddamn, where does this privacy invading stop? It's all in the name of protecting the people, isn't it.

PluPan, .. I know you're playing devils advocate here, but I'll have to say no to all of the above. And I do not think the cops should be pulling people over because they THINK they are texting. If they actually see it, that's a different story. If a cop sees someone drifting out of their lane then they're probably going to get pulled over regardless if they are texting or not. And no, the cops should not have the freedom to go through your phone without a warrant.