Ready for NMSL v2?

[cl94]

The 20-30 above is much fairer than 80 mph, especially if the speed limit is 70.

To contrast, New York does not assign reckless driving for speeding. More than 20 above gives more points, but reckless driving here is a misdemeanor, with the potential of licence revocation and/or jail time.

[hbelkins]

I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.

That's the phrase I use often.

I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them.

One thing that bugs me is the lengths that cops are going to when enforcing these laws. They are using unmarked SUVs and sometimes even tractor-trailers just to catch drivers who are texting or, in the states that ban it, talking on their cell phones. Why don't they use those vehicles in the areas with the highest concentrations of drug trade or violent crime?

[kkt]

I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.

That's the phrase I use often.

I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them.

One thing that bugs me is the lengths that cops are going to when enforcing these laws. They are using unmarked SUVs and sometimes even tractor-trailers just to catch drivers who are texting or, in the states that ban it, talking on their cell phones. Why don't they use those vehicles in the areas with the highest concentrations of drug trade or violent crime?

I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?

[jeffandnicole]

I have never been a fan of limiting people based on the lowest common denominator.

That's the phrase I use often.

I tend to agree with this, and I go further in subscribing to the old maxim that, for the most part, the government that governs best governs least. But I do think there is a role for the various laws restricting handheld phone usage, reading e-mail or text messages, etc., even if as a practical matter it's difficult for police to enforce those laws and a lot of people refuse to obey them.

One thing that bugs me is the lengths that cops are going to when enforcing these laws. They are using unmarked SUVs and sometimes even tractor-trailers just to catch drivers who are texting or, in the states that ban it, talking on their cell phones. Why don't they use those vehicles in the areas with the highest concentrations of drug trade or violent crime?

I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?

And who says drug dealing surveillance isn't done using trucks and such?

Although, generally speaking, drug dealers are very keen about knowing their environment and keeping an eye out for something unusual. Many texting drivers could have a car full of clowns driving next to them for 20 miles and they'll never notice.

[cpzilliacus]

To contrast, New York does not assign reckless driving for speeding. More than 20 above gives more points, but reckless driving here is a misdemeanor, with the potential of licence revocation and/or jail time.

In Virginia, reckless driving is also a criminal offense ("Class 1 Misdemeanor"), and there is definitely  the possibility of a heavy fine and jail time.

[oscar]

Yes, the "80 MPH is reckless driving" is (as far as I know) only applicable in Virginia. Or "20 MPH over the posted limit is reckless driving" only applies in Virginia (last time I checked, in Maryland, 30 over the posted limit can lead to a reckless driving charge).

Hawaii has a similar prohibition of "excessive speeding", punishable as a petty misdemeanor with possible imprisonment. Hawaii's thresholds are similar to Virginia's, including the flat ban on 80 or over, but Virginia's "20 MPH over the posted limit" is replaced by 30 MPH over. (Hawaii's highest speed limit is only 60 MPH.) This is a fairly recent enactment, in response to a spate of fatal accidents from racing on public highways.

[20160805]

Even during the height of the NMSL days, I can remember long road trips where my dad would be doing his customary 60-61 (and saying he was letting his hair down, feeling like a criminal, lol) in the right lane and getting his doors blown off by many people running 80+ in the left. The speed differential between the legal beagles and the scofflaws was utterly ridiculous. At least the way things are now, the legal beagles are doing 65-70, even 80 in the states that allow it and yes, there are some 90-100 mph idiots out there, but not the steady stream of people going 15-25 over the limit that there was during the NMSL days.

My usual freeway cruising speed is 5-6 over whatever the limit is (why I really don't know, guess I got that from my dad) and although I do get passed here and there, I don't usually have people going by me fast enough to shake my car. There isn't a huge differential between me and those who are passing me, nor between me and the legal beagles that I am passing.

As for low limit governors on trucks (well really any vehicle) no, just no. I hate them with a passion.

Although we often get pissed at the trucker in the left lane who is running side by side with another trucker in the right lane on the interstate he often times really isn't doing it just to be a dick. What usually happens is that something causes him to decide to pull out to pass the truck in front of him, and then when he gets over the other truck gets back up to his maximum speed and there you go, 2 trucks, side by side, at 65 in a 70 zone and he's stuck there. He can't speed up to complete the pass, and the other truck isn't willing to slow back down to let him back in and now there is a line of 30 of us in the left lane getting more and more pissed by the second while it takes them 5-10 miles to sort it out.


The solution isn't lower speed limits. The speed limits need to be set at the appropriate speed that engineers (not politicians) say should be the limit for that road. Then the penalties for exceeding those appropriately set limits (with some slop allowed for differing speedometers) need to be so prohibitively draconian that no one would want to exceed those limits by any significant amount. I know some people referenced VA's reckless driving statute above and how people violate it all the time. People violate because a) they feel like the limit is set to low for the road they are travelling on (and in many cases, they are right) and b) they still feel that the possible penalty is still worth the risk-or maybe that a good lawyer will be able to find them a loophole that allows them to plead to a lesser offense that won't be too unpalatable, or even get them out of it altogether.  If the limits are set high enough, and the penalties severe enough, then why would any sane person want to even chance it?

You could not have said it better.

Set the limit to 75 (or some actual number based on ACTUAL STATISTICS, not just some politician's money-grabbing scheme) and if you violate it by more than x amount (5 mph?  10% above the limit?) then you get in trouble.

People do violate because they feel the limit is too low - there are too many speed traps nationwide that are nothing more than a way for people to get money.  For example, why exactly is this road 25?  It's a four lane arterial in a completely open area.  There is a residential zone half a mile ahead, but that would be like making the main street through town 25 the whole way, even in the business districts on the outskirts.  The road I linked to should be 35 easily, maybe dropping to 30 in the residential zone, because it is hard to enforce 25 on arterials, I've found.

But seriously: if we really go through with this, just know that I can't drive 65.

[hbelkins]

I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?

There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.

And who says drug dealing surveillance isn't done using trucks and such?

I didn't say that, but I think it's a better use of law enforcement dollars than traffic enforcement.

[Duke87]

I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?

There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.

According to the National Gang Center, there were 2,363 gang related homicides in 2012 (most recent year they have stats on). Mind you this includes all gang homicides - I can't find any data on how many of those 2,363 people were non-gang members. Would probably be difficult to determine.

According to the NHTSA, there were 3,328 deaths attributable to distracted driving in the same year, 415 of which were attributable specifically to someone using their cell phone.

So, at the very least we can safely say that distracted driving kills more people than gangs do. It is impossible to determine from the given data whether drivers distracted by a cellphone specifically outnumber non-gang members killed by gang members. Your assertion could be true.


What I find surprising in all this is how few deaths are actually attributed to a driver using their cellphone - only about 1.2% of the total. So I went probing around a bit more and I found this white paper from NSC discussing how cellphone use by drivers in accidents may be highly underreported. Make of that what you will.

[cl94]

I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?

There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.

According to the National Gang Center, there were 2,363 gang related homicides in 2012 (most recent year they have stats on). Mind you this includes all gang homicides - I can't find any data on how many of those 2,363 people were non-gang members. Would probably be difficult to determine.

According to the NHTSA, there were 3,328 deaths attributable to distracted driving in the same year, 415 of which were attributable specifically to someone using their cell phone.

So, at the very least we can safely say that distracted driving kills more people than gangs do. It is impossible to determine from the given data whether drivers distracted by a cellphone specifically outnumber non-gang members killed by gang members. Your assertion could be true.


What I find surprising in all this is how few deaths are actually attributed to a driver using their cellphone - only about 1.2% of the total. So I went probing around a bit more and I found this white paper from NSC discussing how cellphone use by drivers in accidents may be highly underreported. Make of that what you will.

12.5%. Whatever the case, I expect that percentage to go up. I can't count how many times I've almost been hit by someone who was too busy texting to look at the road and it's a 5 point offense here (11 gets license revoked), about equal to going over 20 above. Stop hiding behind bushes looking for speeders and and go after those idiots. They're more likely to kill someone than a person going 5 over on an empty road who is paying attention.

[jeffandnicole]

I guess because texting while driving is more likely to kill random strangers, instead of people who more or less voluntarily started taking drugs?

There have been an alarming number of random killings in Lexington, Ky., this year -- including, last weekend, the daughter of Olympic athlete Tyson Gay. I'd say you're more likely to be killed as collateral damage in gang violence than you are by someone who's talking on their cell phone.

According to the National Gang Center, there were 2,363 gang related homicides in 2012 (most recent year they have stats on). Mind you this includes all gang homicides - I can't find any data on how many of those 2,363 people were non-gang members. Would probably be difficult to determine.

According to the NHTSA, there were 3,328 deaths attributable to distracted driving in the same year, 415 of which were attributable specifically to someone using their cell phone.

So, at the very least we can safely say that distracted driving kills more people than gangs do. It is impossible to determine from the given data whether drivers distracted by a cellphone specifically outnumber non-gang members killed by gang members. Your assertion could be true.


What I find surprising in all this is how few deaths are actually attributed to a driver using their cellphone - only about 1.2% of the total. So I went probing around a bit more and I found this white paper from NSC discussing how cellphone use by drivers in accidents may be highly underreported. Make of that what you will.

12.5%. Whatever the case, I expect that percentage to go up. I can't count how many times I've almost been hit by someone who was too busy texting to look at the road and it's a 5 point offense here (11 gets license revoked), about equal to going over 20 above. Stop hiding behind bushes looking for speeders and and go after those idiots. They're more likely to kill someone than a person going 5 over on an empty road who is paying attention.

I look at it this way: About 25 years ago, no one was killed by cell phone use.  There are fewer deaths today than there were 25 years ago.  So are we saying that there would be even fewer deaths if there weren't cell phones?  Probably.  But I don't think the numbers are really as high as some people make it out to be.

There are some people that appear to try to attribute every accident to cell phone use...just like there are people that blame speeding for every accident.  The vast majority of accidents today though are probably caused by the same reasons that accidents occurred 25 or 50 years ago, which is made up of a whole host of various reasons.

[cl94]

I have heard that the proportion of accidents caused by distracted driving has increased significantly in the past 15-20 years.

Going from CDC data, the number of people injured by distracted driving accidents increased by 10% from 2011 to 2013. Also in 2013, 18% of injury accidents were caused by distracted driving. Results from that year were similar to 2012, but the percentage of fatalities from DD accidents (~10% of total accident fatalities) specifically attributed to phone usage increased to 14%. I have seen stuff that suggests the real number could be much higher. Here is the 2013 NHSTA data. Regardless, it is going up and, given the increased attachment to technology, will likely go up further.

[kalvado]

I have heard that the proportion of accidents caused by distracted driving has increased significantly in the past 15-20 years.

Going from CDC data, the number of people injured by distracted driving accidents increased by 10% from 2011 to 2013. Also in 2013, 18% of injury accidents were caused by distracted driving. Results from that year were similar to 2012, but the percentage of fatalities from DD accidents (~10% of total accident fatalities) specifically attributed to phone usage increased to 14%. I have seen stuff that suggests the real number could be much higher. Here is the 2013 NHSTA data. Regardless, it is going up and, given the increased attachment to technology, will likely go up further.

Very hard to take this numbers at face value. If administration didn't use that MS crash as a  flagship case for distracted driving, their agenda would be mu-uch more believable. At this point I think 2013 study should be disregarded altogether.

[cl94]

2013 is the most recent data I can get easily

[kalvado]

2013 is the most recent data I can get easily

If you will, this is the indication of political motivation behind the topic. Once previous FHWA boss stepped down (Le.. don't remember his name), topic seem to shift to a back burner.
As we know, glass can be half full or half empty, and policies can affect the choice...

[cl94]

Scratch that, 2014. 3,179 killed. And that comes from NHTSA. A 2 year lag is typical.

[kalvado]

Scratch that, 2014. 3,179 killed. And that comes from NHTSA. A 2 year lag is typical.

My point is that pet issue is what is getting attention. Well, it is same as "speed kills". 
THat high profile MS crash is written off as a distracted driving issue, and non-functional brakes on school buses are a relegated to be a minor contributing factor. Of course, if any accident where cell phone was within the reach is treated as distracted driving, getting high values is quite easy..
I don't know how to collect reliable data, though, as most accident reports are somewhat subjective. Alcohol detection is much more reliable, for example.

[slorydn1]

Quick note: NC classifies more than 15 mph over the limit OR more than 80 mph, whichever is lesser, as a misdemeanor charge, where as a normal "garden variety" speeding ticket is merely an infraction. So 66 in a 50, 71 in a 55, 76 in a 60, or 81 anywhere would be an actual crime. So yes, driving a mere 41 mph (in a 25 zone) "could" have you rooming with bubba in a jail cell for a few days if the judge wants to make an example out of someone.

It wouldn't be classified as reckless driving per se, but the potential penalties are just as severe as a Careless and Reckless charge. I meant to insert this farther up thread and forgot.