Pretty sure those aforementioned asshats ARE teenagers. Then there are people who think it's SAFE(!) to text at stop lights.

I only text while driving if I'm also putting on mascara. And generally only in the fast lane of the highway, when I'm doing at least 70. But I always have it on cruise control.
;)

well...is there really any harm in just, y'know, tapping the bumper?

(Just to see what happens?)

When you honked your horn and shook your head reproachfully were you wagging your old wrinkly finger at them and saying "Damned Teenagers!" while swerving your Lincoln Towncar into the other lanes?

You old nag.

If you really want to get their attention, put a couple .44 Mag rounds right into the engine block. This will shut them down completely, making them pull over to the side of the road to text their parents that they just got into a wreck. Or make them start to swerve every where trying to get away from the grayhair shooting at them, spinning them into the oncoming lane of a semi or flipping them end over end and out of the car to faceplant on the highway.

I'm not condoning above actions. I'm just saying, it's and idea.

And I don't really think you are an old hag. Middle-aged hag, maybe. Not old.

I don't think a .44 Mag would go into the engine block. You prolly need a .50 for that.

A .44 mag will most definitely go into the engine block. I experimented with a gun and an old El Camino shell on my friend's property a while back. The shots were fired from two directions -- into the rear bumper and into the front quarter panel (towards the block). An M1 Garand (.306) will punch through the entire car long-ways (through both bumpers, seats, etc) and will put a nice hole in the engine block, but won't go through.

The only thing that wouldn't actually penetrate the block was a .223 round...it just bounced around a whole lot. But .45 and .44 mag both lodged inside.

Long story short -- if you're hiding from bad guys don't hide behind doors or bumpers or anything. The engine block is the only thing that will save you.

Thread officially derailed!

k2aggie07, they did that on Mythbusters, too, and their conclusion was that you most definitely do NOT want to hide behind any part of the car.

Rachel Lucas, the 9% are the people who can do it without looking at the phone (teenagers), so it's, like, totally safe! I, like, know T9 language really good!

And, um, 35 is NOT middle age! You don't hit middle age until at least 40. Lifespans are way longer than they used to be. If I hear one more person say that 30-somethings are middle aged, I will spit.

Which is why I will not be returning to this thread. :P

Okay, fine...91% of people can't do something else while they drive...they probably can't chew gum and walk either.

What drives me nuts is that there are already laws against distracted driving!!! We don't need any additional laws to keep people from using their phones (texting or talking). It just ticks me off. I'm perfectly capable of driving, talking (and texting by the way) while driving...the phone is 2nd priority and only gets a bit of attention anyway. If I am dumb enough to swerve on the road then I can get a ticket no matter what I'm doing.

There are people who are distracted by the radio but we aren't going to outlaw radios. People eat and drive. Hell, I've actually seen someone KNITTING while driving!!! And my husband said he couldn't pull that person over unless they were weaving. Jeezalou.

So no extra laws, K?

Just as a response to sarahK, b/c I do respect her...

According to the CDC (page 12) in 2003, the average "Expectancy of Life" (i.e. the number of years you have left to live) at age 34-35 (I put you, Rachel, in the younger group. Just to be nice) is 47.2 years for females (race was not factored into this graph). Making your expected age at death 82.2. Half of which is 41.1. Which means that, theoretically, Rachel has 6 more years to reach the defining age of "Middle Aged." So, yes, she would be at least 40 to be in her "middle age."

Now, with that being said, when looking at statistical data like this there is always a margin of error. I could not find an exact value for this margin in the report, but on page 5 it does mention some possible "age misrepresentation." So take that as you will.

Wow. I did a real bang up job of completely killing this one. You are all welcome.

For some reason, it didn't post the link. So here it is:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

This reminds me of something that happened to me a few years ago in a statistics class.

I was flipping through the book trying to find the page we had been assigned to read when I stumbled upon the following word problem:

In 1995, a survey was conducted to assess how many Americans believe that the Holocaust never happened. A total of 615 Americans were asked "Do you believe, or do you not believe, that the Holocaust happened."

75% of those surveyed responded "yes".

The best part (or possibly the worst part, depending on how you look at it) is that when I showed this problem to my professor, she just looked at me blankly and said, "Yeah, so what?"

True story.

CC, the issue is that sometimes new technology requires new laws. A radio is much different than a cell phone, and a lot less distracting.

If I am dumb enough to swerve on the road then I can get a ticket no matter what I'm doing.

Dumb has nothing to do with it, it only takes a lapse of a second to run down a child, dog, or stopped motorist. Making it more likely that your attention will be diverted probably isn't the best of ideas.

Hey mightysamurai,

What did you do Saturday night?

Anwser yes or no.

k2aggie07, they did that on Mythbusters, too, and their conclusion was that you most definitely do NOT want to hide behind any part of the car.

I've seen that episode a couple of times. I keep emailing them to ask them whether the same is also true for police cars (I've heard that the doors of police cruisers are designed to be bullet resistant so the officers can use them as a shield) but they refuse to test it.

Page, I am going to hunt you down and beat your ass for calling me middle aged. That is just WRONG, trixie. 35 is the new 25! haha.

Mightysamurai, once I got past how disturbing it was that such a stupid passage got into a textbook, I realized (assuming the "yes" was to "do you believe") that in 1995, 25% of Americans did not believe the Holocaust happened. Yikes.

Don't know about the doors of civilian cruisers, I'll have to ask my brother (patrolman and DWI - the other one does SWAT) but you can dive down into the bottom of a pool and the water will stop the bullet (saw that on Mythbusters too)

I do know that some states have laws stating that both hands must be used to control the vehicle which pretty much covers anything stupid you might do in a car.

Rachel, if I didn't think you couldn't take a little joking harassment, I wouldn't be leaving such loving, heart-felt comments on your blogs. Plus, I live in the same metroplex as you, so the hunt shouldn't be that hard. But be careful, I'm armed and have 2 vicious hounds. Not really. My dogs are harmless and I couldn't shoot you. Then you wouldn't be writing for the masses.

CC, speaking as someone who has had a friend killed by someone who was driving while chatting on a cell phone, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, I don't think people should be allowed to talk on the cell phone and drive at the same time. But I'm obviously biased.

Mightysamurai, once I got past how disturbing it was that such a stupid passage got into a textbook,

In fairness, I suspect the study itself was just something the textbook company made up for the purposes of the class.

I realized (assuming the "yes" was to "do you believe") that in 1995, 25% of Americans did not believe the Holocaust happened. Yikes.

I suppose that's preferable to assuming that the "yes" was in response to "do you not believe".

Casto, isn't knitting technically a form of weaving? Book 'em, Danno!

I'm of the opinion that 91% of drivers... can't drive. Of course, I'm also a bit cranky, having just driven the 90 miles home from the jobsite through horrid traffic after being on duty for 15 hours.

I guess that shows how much I love this blog... I need to be in bed but can't resist stopping in first.

CC, speaking as someone who has had a friend killed by someone who was driving while chatting on a cell phone, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, I don't think people should be allowed to talk on the cell phone and drive at the same time. But I'm obviously biased.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

If you think people should not be allowed (I assume you mean "prevented by law") from talking on a cell phone while driving, would you also make it illegal to...say...eat while driving? Or listen to the radio? Or talk to other people in the car?

Incidentally, if you sneeze while driving 70mph you will travel 300ft with your eyes shut.

Rachel,

What scares the wits outta me is these idiot people who like to READ while driving... I mean WTF?!?!?! or putting on eye makeup, (have they forgotten about potholes?!?!)

scary mamma jamma's man... 8-O

mightysamurai, allow me to interject.

I know in New York you're not allowed specifically to talk on handhelds while driving. You will get a ticket. Hands-free devices are ok though, the reason is in the name.

Instinct brought up the point, which I think is a little realistic instead of simply making a separate law for every device:

"I do know that some states have laws stating that both hands must be used to control the vehicle which pretty much covers anything stupid you might do in a car."

First, I'm impressed you follow the Qatar Peninsula on-line. Or maybe puzzled.

re: kidz and texting - last month, 5 graduating seniors in the small upstate town of Fairport, NY died in a head-on with a big truck. Driver's cell phone on and texting at the time of the accident. By all means, continue to be a crochet. The urge to kill all of them for the fun of it is understandable to any parent, but the reality is heartbreaking.

Me, I vote for mandatory cell jammers activated by the ignition switch.

CC, speaking as someone who has had a friend killed by someone who was driving while chatting on a cell phone, I'm gonna have to disagree with you, I don't think people should be allowed to talk on the cell phone and drive at the same time. But I'm obviously biased.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

If you think people should not be allowed (I assume you mean "prevented by law") from talking on a cell phone while driving, would you also make it illegal to...say...eat while driving? Or listen to the radio? Or talk to other people in the car?

Incidentally, if you sneeze while driving 70mph you will travel 300ft with your eyes shut.

Eating? Yes. The rest, no. Perhaps I should have qualified my previous statement a little bit more by saying that I'm okay with someone using the hands-free set or the speaker-phone setting on their cell while driving. I personally still wouldn't do it, but that's just me. There are always going to be little distractions while driving, but as long as you have both hands on or near the wheel you are going to be able to compensate for a lot of sudden incidents that require a quick reaction time to steer around (which usually require both hands). If you've got a phone (or cheeseburger, fries, drink, etc.) in one hand when something happens, that small moment of time you have to avoid an accident is cut down considerably due to you having to get rid of whatever's in your hand. Turning the wheel suddenly to avoid something and keeping complete control of the car while doing it is not the easiest thing in the world to accomplish with two hands, let alone one.

That being said, I do drink bottled water or soda on occasion in the car, but only when I'm not in a highly trafficked area or when I'm at a stoplight.

Also, I don't think that new laws are needed for food and/or cellphones, I just think our current driving while distracted laws should be enforced and more widely touted like the whole Click It Or Ticket campaign (although I disagree to an extent with the seatbelt laws).

One caveat on that however; I don't think that anyone under 18 should be allowed to talk on the cell phone hands free set or not, just because when you're that young you don't have enough driving experience to be able to handle unnecessary distractions outside of normal driving.

What you do is go out and buy a big old 70's land yacht of a car, pull in front of them and jam on the brakes.

I don't know about Texas but here in New Hampshire if someone rear ends you it's automatically their fault. Their being on a cell phone would just be icing on the cake.

As a teacher I routinely confiscate cell phones when I see them used on campus during school hours. Most of these kids would rather have a limb amputated than give up the phone. Third offense requires I turn the phone into the office where it's held till the end of the year. The parental response is predictable: they buy their kid a new one!

As a teacher I routinely confiscate cell phones when I see them used on campus during school hours. Most of these kids would rather have a limb amputated than give up the phone. Third offense requires I turn the phone into the office where it's held till the end of the year. The parental response is predictable: they buy their kid a new one!

In my first semester of college I had a professor that would make you stand up and sing along with your ring tone if your phone went off in class.

G Fresh

Fair enough. I only ask because I've noticed that most people who support anti-cell phone laws are just expressing a general vendetta against cell phones and don't really have any principled arguments to speak of.

As for your caveat, I personally would go even farther than that. I don't think that anyone under 18 should be allowed to drive AT ALL. It is a scientific fact that the part of the human brain that is used to assess risk is not fully developed until (I think) age 18-25 or so. Considering how many car accidents in America are caused by dumb teenagers taking stupid risks, I think raising the minimum driving age by a few years could save a lot of lives.

mightysamurai-Nah, I love my cell phone. It's handy for telling time and playing Tetris. Also, it's good for talking to people on occasion. Just not while I'm driving. :o)

The reason for my caveat was because my friend who was killed was hit by a 16 year old girl, driving at night, talking on her cell phone. He was sitting on his motorcycle at a red light and she never even hit her brakes. It killed him and destroyed his family, but it also, I imagine, destroyed that driver's life with the guilt she'll have to live with for the rest of her life.

MightySamurai, I just did the math on your sneeze thing, I don't think it's right. To travel 300 feet at 70 miles an hour takes a shade under three seconds, I don't think your eyes are closed for more than a half a second, if that, making the actual distance traveled more like 50 feet or less. I think the calculations are probably off by a factor of 10 somewhere.

I live in a county that was the first to ban hand-held cell phones while driving (you can use hands free). I have mixed feelings about it, because so many people drive with one hand anyway, and what's the difference if you are driving and talking to a passenger as opposed to being on the phone? But since a lot of texting is done with both hands, I think it's best not to do so. I always use the hands free, but I try not to use the phone at all if possible.

And I would also up the driving age, or at least limit teenagers driving with passengers. I just saw a study about teens and how their judgement and level of attention plummet as soon as there are other teens in the car with them. Scary.

Thanks mighty...that was pretty much my point. Not that driving and talking was a *good* thing but that there are already laws on the books against distracted driving. It's illegal and you can be ticketed / punished if you are distracted and cause an accident or weave on the road.

I see way too many people reading (newspapers, books, papers, etc.) and it is really scary. But technically if they don't break the law (i.e. cross the lane lines or swerve) they can't get a ticket. There shouldn't be any higher standard for cell phones. Sorry.

And if I hit a dog I would be beside myself with hysteria. I rarely see dogs on the freeway though (I did see one the other day on the side who had gotten hit!!! It made me ill!) and I am hardly ever on the phone on side roads.

I guess my point was that we don't need *new* government laws just because a cell phone is one more distraction while people drive. I've been more distracted while conversing with a passenger in my car.

And I agree that kids up to 18 shouldn't be allowed to drive - at least with friends. That's when I was naughty as a new driver ... with friends!

In my first semester of college I had a professor that would make you stand up and sing along with your ring tone if your phone went off in class.

BTW, at 56, I'm starting to admit to middle age.

Long before there was any such thing as text messaging (or is it spelled "txt msng"?), I was driving on the New York State Thruway. I passed a car in the left lane, looked over to my right, and saw the driver READING A PAPERBACK BOOK PROPPED ON THE STEERING WHEEL.

Like you, Rachel, I briefly considered running him off the road, or suddenly swerving in front of him and slamming on my brakes.

But then I thought better of it, and left him far behind.

I'm opposed to people doing pretty much anything but driving while driving. And yes, that includes animated conversations with passengers and fiddling with the CD changer.

If I see someone driving erratically or doing something stupid, better than 75% of the time, the idiot is yakking on their cellphone.

Pull the h377 over if you *gotta* take the call, eat at the restaurant, *not* on the run, and FFS, put your mascara on at *home*!

The problem is that most idiots who drive distracted have no idea how dangerous it is until they actually get into an accident. Does every one of these people need to kill someone to straighten them up, or can we see some commonsense rules of the road be enforced for the sake of public safety?

MightySamurai, I just did the math on your sneeze thing, I don't think it's right. To travel 300 feet at 70 miles an hour takes a shade under three seconds, I don't think your eyes are closed for more than a half a second, if that, making the actual distance traveled more like 50 feet or less. I think the calculations are probably off by a factor of 10 somewhere.

Well, I got it from a British person so maybe there was a conversion issue or something.

Regarding the difference between talking on a cell phone (even on a hands-free) and carrying on a conversation with someone else in the vehicle:

The cell phone conversation creates a greater distraction because,

a) all communication is strictly verbal (when I'm driving with my wife, I don't necessarily need to understand a single word to know when I've pissed her off...) and

b) when the person is in the car with you, they can tell what is going on around you and adjust the pace of the conversation accordingly.

Nearly all experienced drivers drive in a mental "alpha state." We don't have to consciously think about scanning our mirrors, signaling for turns, or adjusting our speed to maintain a safe following distance when preceding traffic slows. After thousands of hours behind the wheel, we've ingrained enough of our driving habits into our subconscious that we can react correctly to emergencies without conscious thought. Part of the danger from engaging in non-driving activities while driving is that the activity (texting, knitting, eating, etc.) takes you out of the alpha state in which you normally drive.

To me, the biggest reason that teen drivers have a higher rate of accidents than experienced drivers is that they haven't logged enough hours behind the wheel to have developed an alpha state. They are consciously thinking through every move and decision required to get from point A to point B. Throw texting or another distraction into the mix and you've got a recipe for disaster.

My beloved 35-year-old car's been rear-ended twice by drivers talking on cell phones. Grrrr.

Every time I've encountered someone tailgating, pulling in front of me, or stopping inches from my bumper, it has been a 20-something or younger female, in a very small Japanese car, and on the phone. Every time.

So, it stands to reason that women should not be allowed to drive until they are 30 years old...hehe.

Anyway, I don't talk on the phone while I'm driving, but it's mainly for one reason: I drive a stick shift. I have to have two hands free. I've got an earpiece, but even then I don't use it until I'm on the freeway where I don't have to shift. The solution to all the distracted driving out there is to outlaw AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS. There are secondary benefits, of course. A new clutch doesn't cost nearly as much as a rebuilt automatic transmission. People will actually have to LEARN to drive, as well. I've had more cars with automatics than standards, but I'll take a standard any day. You have more control over the car. You have to give your full attention to the act of driving.

Actually, maybe it'd just be better to make stick shift mandatory for anyone under 30 or 25 or something. But anyway, the point is, every good American should be able to drive a stick. Automatic transmissions are evil.

otcconan:

Long-time stick shift driver here. I agree. Driving a stick shift is a complicated ballet that uses both hands and both feet. There's no limbs to spare for txt msng.