Talk Elections

The Assembly will now consider the following legislation introduced by the Representative from RI.  Debate will last 72 hours.

I oppose this bill.

1. This is nearly impossible to enforce. Now police officers have to look more closely at moving drivers, which is quite hard.

2. There are some times when using a cell phone is necessary, like when one is on a work conference call.

Each day in Atlasia, more than 15 people are killed and more than 1,200 people are injured in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver.  Approximately 25% of these occur in the Northeast Region. Distracted driving is driving while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving; these activities can increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash.

There are three main types of distraction:

Visual—taking your eyes off the road;
Manual—taking your hands off the wheel; and
Cognitive—taking your mind off what you are doing.
 
Distracted driving activities include things like using a cell phone, texting, and eating. Using in-vehicle technologies, such as navigation systems, can also be sources of distraction. While any of these distractions can endanger the driver and others, texting while driving is especially dangerous because it combines all three types of distraction.
 
In 2009 in Atlasia, more than 5,400 people died in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver and about 448,000 people were injured.
 
Among those killed or injured in these crashes, nearly 1,000 deaths and 24,000 injuries included cell phone use as the major distraction.
 
The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of a fatal crash has increased from 7 percent in 2005 to 11 percent in 2009.

When asked whether driving feels safer, less safe, or about the same as it did five years ago, more than 1 in 3 drivers say driving feels less safe today. Distracted driving, cited by 3 out of 10 of these drivers, was the single most common reason given for feeling less safe today.

There have been far too many deaths and injuries caused by distracted drivers.  We need a distracted drivers law to cut down on these preventable tragedies.  

Nevertheless, a strong distracted drivers law will go a long way in preventing these needless deaths and injuries that are a direct result of the types of distracted driving that my bill covers.

To simply say that there all kinds of behavior that cannot be legislated against while driving does nothing to cut down on and prevent needless deaths and injuries caused by distracted driving as I have described in my bill.

To take no action, to do nothing, is not the answer to saving lives needlessy lost on our roads and highways.

Where are you pulling these statistics from?

U.S. statistics which I am using for Atlasia.

This legislation has the greatest intention, but I see it as over-reaching, and unenforceable.  We're going to fine people for smoking, eating, and drinking?  What evidence do you have that these activities result in enough incidences to warrant punishment, or removing such freedoms?

I understand the whole "texting" dilemma with young teens, and you'd be better off introducing a bill that covers this area, and leaves out other "distractions".  In all honesty, I don't even see this bill achieving its intended purpose, but I'd be willing to listen to any such data in support of proposals similar to this.

Well, present an amendment if you feel that strongly about it.

I feel  strongly that eating, drinking, smoking, and using a GPS must be allowed in the region.

Present me some data saying this will be a successful en-devour if you feel that strongly about it..  You've diagnosed the problem, but you haven't supported your resolution.

Distracted driving laws do save lives, as shown, for example, in California.

I would be open to amendments removing smoking, drinking, and eating from the bill, or other input members may have.

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/131049.html

California's phone ban is saving lives, according to reports, pointing to the benefits of government regulation to fuel similar support in other states.

In the first study of its kind examining the success of cell phone bans, University of California-Berkeley research showed overall accidents are down 22 percent, while collisions directly related to cell phone use on the road are down 47 percent. Advocates say these numbers show the state's ban on mobile phone use is reducing the number of accidents.

The California law's success could hush critics in the nine other states that outlaw talking and driving and the 35 states that prohibit text messaging in the car, including New York. Opponents to New York's harsher ticketing law say it is not effective, but the California study indicates law enforcers just need more time to prove the laws' success.

Another study blamed distracted driving for one in 11 auto-accident related deaths, pointing to how serious the problem has become. The rising accident rate puts pressure on lawmakers to take action to keep citizens safe and highlights how common and socially accepted distracted driving is. As mobile technology use rises in general, users are unlikely to cast aside their devices unless faced with a tough penalty.

"Distracted driving laws can and do save lives," said Rep. Joe Simitian (D., Calif.), adding, "As good as these numbers are, they could be better" with steeper fines and more education.

Most people agree texting and talking on the phone heightens risks of car accidents, but opinions differ on the solution. Critics of distracted driving ticketing point to personal responsibility and private companies for answers.

Research suggests people are over-confident about their distracted driving capabilities, casting doubt on whether shifting responsibility to drivers reduces accidents. Private companies within the industry also support government regulation, showing automakers approve of dealing with distracted driving with more harsh ticketing.

Auto companies are also considering measures that block phone reception while users are driving. Urged on by the U.S. Department of Transportation, some automakers may stop providing in-car perks designed to encourage distracted driving, like Wi-Fi.

Some companies are reluctant to pull attractive features, but most are concerned enough to consider making changes. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers announced support for a ban on text messages and conversations while driving, illustrating car companies support the U.S. government's belief that distracted driving needs regulation.

California's study shows that government-regulated cell phone bans make driving safer. Although this kind of ban takes away personal freedom, the overall benefit to society may make regulation like this necessary.

1. Improvements in things like stability control, anti-lock brakes, etc. have reduced the rate of accidents.

2. Given the recession, people are less likely to file insurance claims for minor accidents.

3. Given that people can now go to prison for it, people are more likely to lie about using a cell phone.

I would have to see the amendment to make the determination whether friendly or unfriendly.  I have stated already that I am willing to remove the parts of the bill regarding smoking, eating, and drinking.

Debate time has expired.  The Assembly will now vote on the final text.  This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.

Yea

Nay

Nay, FTR.

Voting time has expired.  With 1 Yea, and 2 Nays, the bill fails.

I am appalled that this Assembly has failed to act on a major cause of death on our highways, distracted driving, thus permitting the carnage on our highways to continue unabated.