|
|
|
Distracted driving becoming a criminal offence
- Thread starter kwtoxman
- Start date
Your avatar tells me you may have some level of bias in the discussion at hand.
Anyway, that post was obviously facetious (I thought). Read back through my earlier post in this thread, and the responses to them. I in no way imply cell use while driving isn't a problem. What I did do was suggest a reasonable alternative to simply bludgeoning people to death with whatever legal means possible. Look what 3 strikes you're out has done in the states; the answer is rarely tougher penalties
Everybody has biases. I freely admit that my avatar reflects a disdain for cell-phone use when driving (or riding, for that matter.)
The sociopaths that get behind the wheel of a car and text or surf while driving are now statistically worse than those that imbibe and drive with respect to threat they pose to other drivers and the life and limb of you, me, pedestrians etc. For decades we, as a society, have attempted to disincentivize DUI through social stigmatization with soft campaigns like TV ads with dramatic music and bad acting, print ads, groups like MADD and hit-and-miss stuff like the occasional random RIDE check. The result has been a so-so reduction in drunk driving but still far too many instances of it. In the worst cases, we might put an interlock on someone's ignition or take their license away or even jail them for short periods of time but this is penny-ante stuff.
I don't feel like we have the luxury of waiting decades for the kid-gloves approach to work with cell-phone zombies that make the conscious decision to spend more time looking at and concentrating on their screen than piloting their 4000-lb SUV.
Stigmatization through having a criminal record, having their names published in the media etc would shortcut all the stuff proven to be of token-effectiveness in the fight against DUI. Perhaps we could craft legislation that would erase this element from a person's record after 5 years so their entire lives aren't messed up. The risk of doing nothing is years of other people's lives being permanently messed up (or ended) due to accidents caused by distracted drivers.
Failing that, money is a language even the cell-zombie understands. If we can't criminalize the act then we can make it prohibitively expensive; $5000 for a first offense conviction, $10,000 for a second. You'd be unable to renew your plates until the was paid and you'd taken a course in driver safety.
We as a society can make this work. It simply takes political will and a societal unwillingness to put up with this **** any longer. Unfortunately, the society that I speak of is populated by a huge number of people feel the need to do this or who have no issue with it.
All fine and dandy, but until the police can put some sort of system in play that 100% proves without any doubt whatsoever that the offence actually happened, you can believe that the courts would be clogged up in a heartbeat with everybody and their brother fighting their tickets, especially if they're punitive to that extent, or criminal based. The courts would be bogged to a stop in no time...because "the officer said he saw you using your phone" won't cut it anymore when the case becomes criminal, or every ticket ends up in the hands of a good lawyer, which at $5000/$10K a pop as you suggest, you'd want to believe would be the case..
Evidentiary PROOF will be required if it goes to a criminal level, not just an officer's word anymore, particularly when it has the risk of being false like my earlier story where my wife got pulled over for holding a pack of gum in her hands on the steering wheel. Without some concrete proof/evidence on the table to backup the crowns criminal charge the courts will just toss it all out, after much waste of time, money, and effort.
Well said Blackfin. I wish I was bigger, stronger, younger and had nothing to live for because I'd like to beat the living tar out of people using cell phones. Especially at stop lights because I can't run fast either. This makes me so mad. I expect to have nothing to live for sooner rather than later so I will cross that of the list too. People make me sick. And what's with the gum already?
Last edited:
Tougher penalties will do nothing to discourage "the sociopaths" (you understand the definition I'm certain) and people who exercise some common sense whilst out for dinner and having some wine, or waiting to be stopped at a light to check their phone are all made to suffer in an attempt to fix an unfixable element of society. The most egregious offenders will always offend, and re offend.. To act as though increased penalty will have any affect of that reality is mad.
It can happen. For example, cops are increasingly using body cams; video evidence is pretty compelling. I wonder what defense any of the offenders in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1iw5Vdim8
would attempt to use to fight their conviction, especially if they were video'd in nice, clear 1080P?
Cops can also subpoena cellphone and data records and correlate that with video and notebook timestamps if people want to put up a fight.
This clearly won't catch everyone but it doesn't have to: All that would be needed is a sufficiently large number of convictions combined with public ridicule through stories in the press to change this behavior in enough other people to have a positive impact in the statistics.
Yep. I'm confortable applying the term to people so anti-social, so lacking in empathy and conscience in sufficient quantities to place the welfare of others over their "right" to use their cell phone whilst driving.
There will always be certain people -- psychopaths, I'd say -- that will commit this offense, just as there are people that continue to commit sexual crimes against children despite the overwhelming societal outrage against it. Stigmatization only works when people worry more about the stigma than the crime they're about to commit. But I don't think the vast majority of offenders fall into that "unfixable" category when we're talking about cell-phone use whilst driving. I think the threat of having a criminal record for a few years and/or a $5000 fine for a 1st or 2nd offence will be more than enough to dissuade people from doing it.
Last edited:
Yes then round down works 99.9% of the time.
Sociopaths are rarely antisocial. It's generally the opposite.
Psychopaths rarely care about stigmatization. It's generally the opposite.
You gots some readin' to do.
"Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others."
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/home/ovc-20198975
Um, that's what I said, what I implied and what I meant when I wrote:
"There will always be certain people -- psychopaths, I'd say -- that will commit this offense ... Stigmatization only works when people worry more about the stigma than the crime they're about to commit."
Perhaps you have some brushing up to do as well. Regardless, don't turn this into a discussion about picking the flyshit out of the pepper about the semantics and clinical definitions of terms near and dear to your heart as a grad of some two-bit psychology program. No one cares that much, okay?
Last edited:
This is why I don't trust the internet, no matter how nice some people seem, all the time. Definitions can be a moving target. Sometimes you have to go with your gut. Like if you're looking down at your crotch at speed, you're not watching the road. It really boils down to the basics. I think we as a society should ruin more lives via distracted driving legislation. It's the only way we'll learn.
There's a difference between anti-social personality disorder and being anti-social (how you used the term). People with anti-social personality disorder are more often outgoing and very charming eg: Paul Bernardo. It even explains this in the Symptoms in the Mayo Clinic link you provided.
Could eating Ice Cream while driving not land a criminal record in this new world? In this case, I'd avoid your gut Joe
I kind of like the idea of the 0.05 level being an administrative suspension for drinking and driving. A serious but not brutal warning that the driver was approaching the criminal charge zone. The black and white 0.08 meant a criminal record and possibly $10K-$20K in legal fees.
Hit 'm hard can be financial or jail. The financial part just becomes another cash grab. Cops will be instructed to ignore even more minor traffic violations so they can catch the bigger fish.
Jail: Brutal punishments are a reflection on a society's ability to educate.
I would go for a licence degrade. Get caught and your G becomes a G-2. Zero blood alcohol and some passenger restrictions for younger drivers. You have to serve your G-2 time and reapply for a G + take the insurance hit.
If you get a distracted with a G-2 you drop to a G-1 with a bunch of restrictions. No solos etc.
If you are dumb enough to get a distracted charge with a G-1 you buy a Metropass.
The degrades stick with you for a few years, hanging over your head, waiting for you to make another mistake. Hopefully long enough to get you to change your patterns.
BTW the stats saying distracted is a greater danger than DUI is due to the far greater number of texters. If there were as many drunks driving as there were people texting the streets would be awash with blood.
All penalties to be levied after found guilty in court.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|