Forty percent of drivers say that even if they caused a collision, it would not stop them using cell phones while driving, according to new research.
You can read much more about this research, and the fact that it is from the RAC in Britain, should by no means lead to it being dismissed as irrelevant in the USA simply because it’s not from America. Clearly, problems of this nature are immensely dangerous worldwide and we should all be looking to learn from our international contemporaries.
The excessively high proportion of drivers who make this outrageous claim that even causing a collision wouldn’t stop them making calls when driving needs to be taken very seriously indeed. It is in some ways similar to the old attitude towards drunk driving in Britain but a persistent and calculated programme to defeat the problems from drinking and driving has proved extremely successful at changing the overall attitude in the UK so this would appear to be the route we need to follow once more.
Since March 1, 2017, drivers in Britain have faced stricter penalties for illegal handheld phone use, with both the higher fine of £200 (US $260) and number of penalty points being doubled to six (meaning that anyone caught committing this offence twice within a three-year period would almost certainly be disqualified/suspended from driving).
Given what could have been the outcome, it is still outrageous that these nasty wounds have to be thought of as the young victim being “lucky” but there can be no doubt that he is indeed lucky to be alive.
The incident, a couple of days ago, involved a truck that struck this young man and his bicycle then dragged them along the road, wedged under the front bumper. The truck driver allegedly didn’t know that he had hit anything and kept on driving until another driver, having seen what had happened, pulled into the path of the truck to force it to stop.
When the police arrived, it is said that they arrested the truck driver for being on his cell phone at the time of the collision.
The facts will presumably be established in court, and an immensely valuable law in Britain prohibits the publication in the meanwhile of anything which could prejudice the outcome of the court case, thus preventing “trial by media” and any inability to find unbiased people to serve on juries. Sub Judice (pronounced “sub judiss-ay”) is a law of fairness and all countries would benefit from using a valid equivalent to it.
If the man is found guilty of having the collision while using a cell phone then we can probably expect him to go to prison. The laws and punishments for such actions tend to be much tougher in Britain (and many other countries) than in the USA.
We have willingly posted this here at the request of the PR team for Winnipeg Police Service, Manitoba. It’s an excellent video that makes a crucially important point.
I confess that this video actually made me curse out loud the first time I saw it because, as a former police officer, I have certainly known of such things and I have seen some terrifyingly near misses, too. But there is no excuse… none!
Here’s a video of just a conversation that you might like to forward to anyone you care about who either texts, uses their phone for music or talks on the phone while driving. (It’s no good pretending that only texting is dangerous; that’s what the cell phone companies want everyone to believe so those massive corporations can maintain the best-possible profit levels!)
Suffice it to say that this should make anyone think twice.
In this ‘dash cam’ clip, a drunk is seen driving very dangerously indeed.
I confess that when I first watched this, I was silently hoping the car would run off the road, for the simple reason that this would hopefully limit the number of people s/he could potentially hurt or kill.
The reason for showing this clip on the ADoNA website is to reinforce the point that it can be very risky indeed to enter a ‘blind’ section of road — any part of the road that is hidden from your view — too quickly, because you never know what might be there or coming towards you. There’s a lot more to it than just your speed, however (see below).
Indeed, on one occasion when I was in Iowa, instructing two young men out of hundreds that we trained for a major subsidiary of Dow Chemicals, we were heading back to their base and they were visibly starting to lose concentration as the end of the day came closer. However, the one that was driving approached a blind hillcrest (knoll) poorly and I got him to sharpen up and approach it in the way I had taught him earlier. Even so, all three of us were taken aback when a large pick-up truck came barreling over the hillcrest entirely on the wrong side of the road, in total contravention of the solid double-yellow lines. Both ‘my’ young men physically screamed but because of our adjusted approach the likely head-on collision was completely averted — a very satisfying ‘day at the office’ for me 😀
This research indicates that a driver with a BrAC of 0.05% is twice as likely to crash as a driver with no alcohol in their system, and the risk for a driver with a BrAC of 0.08% — the current legal limit in all states of the USA — is almost exactly four-times higher than with no alcohol.
The unadjusted crash risk estimates for alcohol indicated that drivers with BrACs of .05 grams per 210 liters g/210L are 2.05 times more likely to crash than drivers with no alcohol. For drivers with BrACs of .08 g/210L, the unadjusted crash risk is 3.98 times that of drivers with no alcohol. When adjusted for age and gender,drivers with BrACs of .05 g/210L are 2.07 times more likely to crash than drivers with no alcohol. The adjusted crash risk for drivers at .08 g/210L is 3.93 times that of drivers with no alcohol. [#End]
Importantly, readers should also view the World Medical Association Statement on Alcohol and Road Safety (1992, 2006 & 2016), which states “…it would be desirable to lower the maximum permissible level of blood alcohol to a minimum, but not above 0.5 grams per litre, which is low enough to allow the average driver to retain the ability to assess risk.”
“BrACs” are Breath-Alcohol Concentrations, as opposed to the more commonly seen Blood-Alcohol Concentrations [BACs].
“0.5 grams per litre” is the equivalent of 0.05% BAC.