Lucky to be alive

[cactusjack]

I read a post on another forum that I thought illustrates the hazard texting and driving causes...

This rider left work to go to lunch on September 29, he woke up in the ICU on October 16. Apparently, about 5 minutes after leaving work he was hit head on by a woman who "didn't see him" driving a Dodge Laramie. Witnesses say she was looking down and had her cellphone in her hands. He flew 71 feet in the air, and caught something on the way over the vehicle, ripping out his lower intestines - "gutted me like a buck in hunting season" was how he put it. Broke nearly all his ribs, both arms and wrists, collapsed a lung and shattered his pelvis. He has to wear a colostomy bag while a team of surgeons attempt to reconstruct his digestive tract. He expects to remain in the hospital until June or July of next year.

This rider is very fortunate to still be alive. This is probably one of the most serious outcomes I've ever heard of that didn't result in a fatality.

Purely my opinion - the use of cell phones while driving needs to be banned. It's illegal to drive while drunk, but most drunks are at least trying to drive, not texting, playing angry birds or whatever.

Personally, I quit using my cell phone while driving after I started riding again and realized what a menace this creates for everyone on the road, motorcyclists in particular - being more vulnerable than automobiles.

[old dog]

I agree we all lived without for many year,s. People just can,t wait for any thing.

[blowndodge]

I agree Scott. Phone calls aren't worth it.

[Top Cat]

Good luck on enforcing a ban on anything while driving.
We have a ban here in NY and it is not enforced 95% of the time.
I see people using cell phones all the time. They stay just alert enough to see a police car and then put the phone down till it is passed.
You can't catch them in a road block like DWI.
I'm not even sure you can prove they were on the phone or texting after they kill us.
do you have any ideas on how to enforce the ban

[Sin City Stan]

Scott, I agree. I stopped using the phone in the car at least two years ago. Sometimes it unbearable to let it ring when you're expecting a call back. I just pull over and call right back.

[cactusjack]

Originally Posted by Top Cat

Good luck on enforcing a ban on anything while driving.
We have a ban here in NY and it is not enforced 95% of the time.
I see people using cell phones all the time. They stay just alert enough to see a police car and then put the phone down till it is passed.
You can't catch them in a road block like DWI.
I'm not even sure you can prove they were on the phone or texting after they kill us.
do you have any ideas on how to enforce the ban

I don't know how to enforce it. They have tried a couple of times to pass anti-texting legislation here and it goes down like the Hindenburg. I think it's illegal in the city of Phoenix, but I don't live, work or even travel in Phoenix very often. It's easier said than done, obviously. Maybe make the penalty for causing a collision due to cell phone use so ridiculously punitive that people will think twice, like they did for drunk driving here. There's no easy answer.

[glwilson]

Technology disallowing a phone to work in a car is about all that can be done to be most effective in stopping cell-phone use.

Same could be used for drinking and driving... to where the car has a breathalyzer disabling the car at the hint of alcohol.

However, can you just imagine the battle of ideology and rights on that?

Just best to ride expecting to be hit by all drivers and ride accordingly I guess...

[cnc]

I agree with Tim, we have had a ban on cell phones for a few years here and you see people everywhere still using them. It's not taken on the socially unacceptable rank that drinking and driving has, so there is way more people out there using them while driving than drunks behind the wheel.

[Loafer]

Tim,they can check your phone records and find out if you were talking or texting on
your phone after an accident.

We had a 19 yo women using her phone, shortly before or during an accident, that
handicapped a women and killed her dog that she was walking. During the trial a
witness said something he wasn't supposed to. And the result was a plea agreement was made.

BURLINGTON, Vt. - A surprising turn in the trial of a Colchester teen accused of texting, crashing and almost killing a pedestrian.

One sentence by Emma Vieira's own expert witness seems to have prompted an unexpected plea deal in the case.

"There was no texting going on at the time and no phone calls," said defense witness Robert Duchaime.

That statement by crash reconstruction expert Robert Duhaime came as he was explaining his theory of the case. He was only supposed to testify about visibility at the time of the crash -- not offer an opinion to the jury about whether Vieira was texting. Fearing this would open the door to previously suppressed statements Vieira made to police -- her lawyers struck a deal with the state -- ending the trial prematurely.

"What's your plea then to count one which is gross negligent operation with serious bodily injury to another?" asked Judge Michael Kupersmith. Emma Vieira replied, "Guilty your honor."

The 19-year-old Colchester teen also pleaded guilty to a new misdemeanor negligent operation charge. Under the deal -- she'll serve up to six months in jail -- and a five year deferred sentence. She's also required to complete 500 hours of community service with an organization specializing in brain injuries.

"There are no winners in this case no matter what the outcome was. It was a tragedy," remarked Chittenden County Deputy State's attorney Paul Finnerty.

Vieira's victim, 53-year-old Deborah Drewniak, is still recovering from her brain injury -- and now struggles to speak. But she says she was on board with the deal.

"Well Emma has screwed up my life but she has her own to make it right over a period of time so hopefully she is able to do that," said Drewniak.

Had Vieira been convicted of prior charges -- she could have faced 15 years behind bars -- a sentence that even the prosecution thought was too harsh. The state says the deal was a reasonable compromise.

"It's a fair outcome. The Drewniaks are in favor of it. Ms. Vieira accepted it and I think it's justice," explained Finnerty.

Vieira's lawyers are pushing for home confinement but the state says it will seek jail time.

I think she got off rather easy.

[Old Bear]

It would be easy enough to code all cell phones to detect that they were moving above a certain speed. Personally, I would require that calls and texting would be disabled. What if you're a passenger? Shut up and play Angry Birds. We lived for thousands of years without 24-hour communications, I think you'll live until the next stop. Yea, I know that won't work. What would help though, is to require a response to each call, each text, that you are a passenger and not driving, and that those responses are recorded for legal purposes.
Me, I'm ready to cut the dang towers down and go back to telegraph and Pony Express - oh, for a moment's peace!

[cnc]

Originally Posted by Loafer

Tim,they can check your phone records and find out if you were talking or texting on
your phone after an accident.

Yes they can if they have an exact time of the accident to the second, but consider this: I could call you safely stopped in a parking lot, end the call, pull out into the street and run over someone. The phone will show use at about the time of the accident, but it is not concrete proof I was on it at the time of the accident.

On the flip side, I know of 2 people who got tickets for cell phone use when in fact they were not using them while driving. The first was driving with his head rested on his left hand and elbow on the drivers door window ledge. The phone was in his console and police refused his request to let him to show them the phone proving he had not received or indicated a call in over an hour.
The second, she was driving home at night and police tailed her for a good 10 minutes. She pulled into her parking spot at her apartment then, while still in the car called her boyfriend to come down and help with some groceries. They gave her a ticket, claiming she was on it while they were tailing her. Time on the ticket was when they wrote it, not when they first suspected she was using her phone.
Both people contested the tickets and they won.

[Loafer]

There are drawbacks to everything, but if no effort is made, it will never stop.

[Sin City Stan]

Originally Posted by glwilson

Technology disallowing a phone to work in a car is about all that can be done to be most effective in stopping cell-phone use.

...

There is technology available to jam cell phone signals. You could have a 500 foot diameter bubble around you that would prevent cell phone usage. A quick trip to Google will locate it. Just don't get caught.

[cnc]

Originally Posted by Sin City Stan

There is technology available to jam cell phone signals. You could have a 500 foot diameter bubble around you that would prevent cell phone usage. A quick trip to Google will locate it. Just don't get caught.

I am in no way in favour of cell phone use while driving, but what do you think is worse, some one talking on a cell phone, or someone pushing buttons, looking at his/her phone and generally trying to figure out why it suddenly does not work.

[Loafer]

In Vt. it is legal to talk on the phone, but not to be texting. I've seen lots of drivers reading, doing their makeup, reaching for their chew that is obviously on the floor in front of the passenger seat. But the one I really liked, was the women putting on lipstick, smoking and talking on the cell while turning a corner in town. Whos says women can't mutitask?