# Texting to blame for crash that killed 5 teens?



## MA-Caver (Jul 16, 2007)

> *Texting to blame for crash that killed 5 teens?*
> Messages sent, received on 17-year-old driver's phone just before collision
> CANANDAIGUA, N.Y. - Text messages were sent and received on a 17-year-old driver&#8217;s cell phone moments before the sport utility vehicle slammed head-on into a truck, killing her and four other recent high school graduates, police said.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19764563/
> ...


This is a tragedy. These were 5 beautiful young girls with their whole lives ahead of them. Killed because of carelessness. A woman is now trying to advocate the ban of teenagers texting & driving. Nice sentiment but I don't see how it could be prevented, without someone with them every moment behind the wheel or some sort of device that shuts the text-messenger off during transit. 
I've seen lots of deaf people driving and texting at the same time too, using the blackberries and the popular sidekicks. It worries me that I'll be reading an obit about one of them someday. Is it going to take some kind of law to put a ban on any type of communications while mobile, or at least while operating a vehicle. Regular cellular use during driving has been blamed on accidents as well. 
The advent of BlueTooth type of phones has helped prevent the likelihood of a phone slipping off the shoulder and falling to the floor causing a user/driver to suddenly reach down for it and losing their concentration on driving, but it's still not quite enough. 
With targeting teenagers and texting and driving, it's the equivalent of banning teenage-drinking and driving. If you're going to be age specific then you're not really covering the entire problem are you?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jul 16, 2007)

I just sent that link to my 16-year-old, text-crazed daughter, who is soon to be getting her drivers license.


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 16, 2007)

A terrible, probably avoidable tragedy.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 16, 2007)

Yes but can something be done to avoid it? I mean will a new law be effective enough? With drinking you can run a blood alcohol test and find out for proof positive that they've broken the law of DWI/DUI and underaged drinking, but texting? Cop pulls a kid over and all the kid has to do is quickly shut off the phone and say: "uhh, no-sir/m'am I haven't had it on!" How ya gonna prove that? According to the article they were able to find out the time of the last message received before the crash but still. 
Then what type of punishment is going to be *effective*... (key word here)? Taking away the license and increased insurance rates is good for drinking/driving but is taking away the phone/blackberry/sidekick going to really stop it? Or even the threat of taking it away? Ok, you can take away the driver's phone/device but what about their friend's who ride along? "Here use mine!" 
Any ideas? Thoughts?


----------



## Carol (Jul 16, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> With targeting teenagers and texting and driving, it's the equivalent of banning teenage-drinking and driving.



No it isn't equivalent.  Teenagers aren't supposed to have alcohol in the first place, as they are, by definition, under 21 and under the legal age to drink.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 16, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> No it isn't equivalent.  Teenagers aren't supposed to have alcohol in the first place, as they are, by definition, under 21 and under the legal age to drink.


Yes, true, but both are equally dangerous, as pointed out by the sheriff on the scene. The inexperience and distraction has proven to be just as deadly.


----------



## Senjojutsu (Jul 16, 2007)

Well listening to a talk show today on the subject, she apparently had violated two New York laws regarding Junior Licenses (Operating Time and Passenger restriction laws).

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/broch/c41.htm 

So do we need more laws?

Or does it make politicians happy and relieve parental angst to pass another new law.

 and if you are going to target teenage drivers for their shortcomings (and they have many  I did at that age) - how about targeting all those elderly drivers over seventy-five who are permanently distracted? As in theyre brains are porridge, their eyesight is shot, and their reflexes  what reflexes? Oh wait, the elderly vote.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 16, 2007)

Senjojutsu said:


> Well listening to a talk show today on the subject, she apparently had violated two New York laws regarding Junior Licenses (Operating Time and Passenger restriction laws).
> 
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/broch/c41.htm
> 
> ...


 
All good points, my man. If I could give more rep points I would.


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Yes but can something be done to avoid it? I mean will a new law be effective enough? With drinking you can run a blood alcohol test and find out for proof positive that they've broken the law of DWI/DUI and underaged drinking, but texting? Cop pulls a kid over and all the kid has to do is quickly shut off the phone and say: "uhh, no-sir/m'am I haven't had it on!" How ya gonna prove that? According to the article they were able to find out the time of the last message received before the crash but still.
> Then what type of punishment is going to be *effective*... (key word here)? Taking away the license and increased insurance rates is good for drinking/driving but is taking away the phone/blackberry/sidekick going to really stop it? Or even the threat of taking it away? Ok, you can take away the driver's phone/device but what about their friend's who ride along? "Here use mine!"
> Any ideas? Thoughts?


 
There is a cell phone ban in CT. where I live.  I believe its $100 but possibly more, as there was talk of an increase.  If that went through, I dont know.  A hands-free device is supposed to be used, but during every day driving, I see a number of people with it still glued to their head.  

As far as the kid shutting it off and saying they weren't on it, well, thats no different than a cop pulling someone over for a stop sign or red light. "But officer, the light was yellow."  or "But officer, I came to a complete stop."  Still gives a written warning or ticket though.  Its no different than clocking someone on radar or laser.  Depending on how far the cop wants to take it, cell phone records can be obtained.  I personally know of a cop in the city where I work, who pulled over a car for an expired reg and misuse of plates.  He went to far as to take a digital picture of both the plate and the car, and attach this to the paperwork for the court.  Needless to say, the charges stuck.  I can attest that if this officer were to pull you over for a traffic violation and actually gave a ticket rather than a warning, it'd be best to pay the fine.  He covers his bases and then some.  

Texting though is far worse than actually talking as far as I'm concerned due to the fact that your eyes are focused even moreso on the phone.

Mike


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jul 16, 2007)

Not to come off as mean spirited, but texting isn't to blame.  Neither is the lack of some law.  Poor decision making and innattention are to blame here.

I grieve for the parents of these children who died.  It's unmitigatedly awful.  I literally cannot imagine what the families must be going through.

Innattention is the leading cause of death.  It kills soldiers.  It kills drivers.  It kills innocent bystanders.

New laws won't help that.  Only some changes in priorities and training can help that.  As martial artists, we know the value of present, mindful attention.  Our society seems in many ways to be actively hostile to mindful attention.

If we can change this, we'll save more lives than all the laws we can think of.  Present attention on the part of the right parent, counselor or teacher would have stopped Columbine.  On the part of the right agent or bean counter, it would have stopped 9/11.  On the part of the right person, it would have stopped this tragedy, and thousands of others that happened well before text messaging.


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Not to come off as mean spirited, but texting isn't to blame. Neither is the lack of some law. Poor decision making and innattention are to blame here.
> 
> I grieve for the parents of these children who died. It's unmitigatedly awful. I literally cannot imagine what the families must be going through.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps if there was no phone involved, there is a chance that with just normal convo, adjusting the radio, etc., this would've still happened.  It looks like a number of factors played part, ie: high speed, inexperience driving and driving at night.  Then again, I dont know the girl, so who am I to comment on her driving.  Interesting though that the article seems to focus on the texting as the primary cause, but as you said, other factors I'm sure came into play.


----------



## Darksoul (Jul 16, 2007)

-I live in the city of Rochester, so Fairport is just around the corner. This was a tragedy, and I agree, it was probably multiple factors that lead to the accident. My one peeve with the whole thing is its been on the news constantly since it happened. The newspaper or media went so far as to call them Fairport's Angels. Funny thing about dealing with death in this country; people die everyday, some tragically, some seeming too young, etc. A guy I know passed away earlier this year, 28 years old, died in his sleep from a seizure. And this guy was well liked, always a smile and a hello; a rare person who wanted to be friends with everyone. Like the girls in Fairport, very tragic. But no big fanfare, no reports on the news. Friends and family came together, comforted eachother, said goodbye, and laid him to rest. Then we went to his favorite diner and then to the club, to celebrate him. The mourning was done privately for most of us, individually or in small groups.

-Now the whole texting thing has stirred up a hornets nest. In the state of New York, its against the law to be on the cell phone while driving, unless you have a hands free device. Guess what? I see tons of people driving everyday on their cell phones illegally, and rarely do I see or hear of anyone getting a ticket for it. I think someone earlier said that when you're driving, nothing else should matter but controlling the vehicle, staying on the road. No law is going to change what happened and what will continue to happen. All that can be hoped for is that people use the tragedy as an example of what not to do. Learn from the mistakes of others.

-That was my lame rant for the day.

Andrew


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 16, 2007)

First off everything I have seen about this does not say it was the driver that was texting but it was coming from her phone, yes I know the probability is high that it was the driver. Needless to sy it was stupids and is stupid to be texting or doing anything else while driving. Just my opinion.


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 16, 2007)

Here is a radical idea.

How about all the insurance agencies start adding into their policies the clause that if you ever are found to be text messaging or using a cell phone while driving, your rates will go up a lot. Lets say a thousand dollars every time you are caught.

Then an association of these agencies hire a few people to seek out folks text messaging and take pictures of them and their liscence plate. You can probably get a few dozen per hour by staking out the local school as classes let out. If the driver is covered by one of the policies, the picture and the bill is sent to the policy holder at once. If the policy holder does not pay, he gets dropped.

I think folks would be very paranoid if they knew folks were out there just waiting to catch them and hit them with a fine. And if any kids get caught, I doubt there will be a repeat performance.


----------



## grydth (Jul 16, 2007)

There are more of these death stories every day. Here in New York, the 'answer' seems always to be more new laws... and political appointments.

These five girls all got 'capital punishment' that night via burning, crushing and being torn apart. If *that* fate won't deter drivers, some sily new laws will not.

The only solution is to impress upon drivers that not paying attention out there will lead to a gruesome death for you and your friends... and there's no appeals.


----------



## MJS (Jul 16, 2007)

grydth said:


> There are more of these death stories every day. Here in New York, the 'answer' seems always to be more new laws... and political appointments.
> 
> These five girls all got 'capital punishment' that night via burning, crushing and being torn apart. If *that* fate won't deter drivers, some sily new laws will not.
> 
> The only solution is to impress upon drivers that not paying attention out there will lead to a gruesome death for you and your friends... and there's no appeals.


 
Not disagreeing with what you're saying but how many times do we hear about MADD, the local PD and FD giving discussions, and re-enacting a crash at high schools around prom and graduation time.  Yet time after time, kids get behind the wheel drunk, drive like fools, and crash.

Seems like no matter how hard we preach to them, the words fall on deaf ears.

Mike


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 16, 2007)

MJS said:


> Not disagreeing with what you're saying but how many times do we hear about MADD, the local PD and FD giving discussions, and re-enacting a crash at high schools around prom and graduation time. Yet time after time, kids get behind the wheel drunk, drive like fools, and crash.
> 
> Seems like no matter how hard we preach to them, the words fall on deaf ears.
> 
> Mike


 

Great reply, I do not have reps for you I must spead the wealth first be back later for you.

MADD is always around every highschool in the area right before prom or graduation and still they drink and drive, at there age they do not believe it will happen to them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 16, 2007)

This won't be popular....


NY has several laws on the books involving driving and cell phones.
- New York motorists face fines of $100 for yakking on their cell phones while driving without a hands-free device or headset
- prohibits dialing a mobile telephone while operating a motor vehicle.
- Prohibits the use of hand-held phones while riding a bicycle.
- Prohibits drivers under age 18 from using hands-free mobile telephones while operating a motor vehicle.

So, they were in violation of several laws, already.

Common sense would also indicate that one focus on their primary task while in high traffic, or complex driving situations.

So.....the driver was most likely, guilty of being stupid, and caused the deaths of 4 of her friends as well as her own due to her carelessness and stupidity.


I see people talking on their phones, arm to ear, all the time.  I see the cops doing it too. Course, they also don't have to wear seat belts, stop at red lights or stop signs, and a few other things us civi's do. 

I just got a cell phone. I refuse to use it, or my regular phone without a hands free set.  I can't stand holding a phone to m ear, prefer to keep both hands where they are useful, and will hang up if things get dicey. (it's raining, snowing, really windy, there is less than 100 feet between me and the other cars, traffic in rush-hour mode, etc).  

It's called, thinking...something lacking in most people today.

So, the senseless deaths of 5 teens is a shame. But it's one that could most likely have been avoided if the driver had any brains.  


People need to start thinking....We have enough laws.
We need more brains.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 16, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> People need to start thinking....We have enough laws.
> We need more brains.


I agree.


----------



## Carol (Jul 16, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I agree.



Ditto to that.


----------



## grydth (Jul 16, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> Great reply, I do not have reps for you I must spead the wealth first be back later for you.
> 
> MADD is always around every highschool in the area right before prom or graduation and still they drink and drive, at there age they do not believe it will happen to them.



Yes, but maybe those _are_ having some effect with many kids....after all, we never see the accidents that _don't_ happen.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 16, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> I just sent that link to my 16-year-old, text-crazed daughter, who is soon to be getting her drivers license.


Just a reminder...

As a parent, YOU are in control of your daughter's license and her opportunities to drive.  Make sure you know the laws, and don't forget that...  I've run into quite a few parents who seem to think that there's nothing they can do once their kid gets licensed, or who don't pay attention to the details and limits on the license.  (I found one parent who was absolutley shocked to discover that they couldn't give their kid permission to drive later than the law permits...)


----------



## BrandiJo (Jul 17, 2007)

Laws wont fix this problem, Teens need parents who are active and alert, my dad caught me txting on my cell phone once when i was 17 i lost my phone for a months ...guess what i didnt do it again till i was 19 and away at college! 
I would also agree that teens arnt the worst drivers out there. i have been for fearful of the elderly man driving 45 on the interstate thats marked 75 then the teen whos flying past him doing 80.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 17, 2007)

I'll chime in here with my opinion that new laws are totally unnecessary.  There is very likely already a law on the books - here it's called "driving without due care and attention".  It isn't a criminal law, and is punishable only by fine, but it exists nonetheless.

These types of tragedies are generally all resultant from the same issues:

- the belief that operating a motor vehicle is a right
- the belief that safe operation of a motor vehicle and good driving habits can be learned by anyone with minimal training
- the belief that road safety can be effectively controlled with relatively light penalties such as minor fines and, in extreme cases, temporary license suspensions. 

It seems to me that we'd have safer roads if significantly more training was required, drivers licenses became much more expensive, and disobedience of traffic laws resulted in much more serious consequences.  However, these things are very unlikely to happen, because people are generally more concerned with convenience than safety.  Simply put, "Bad things can only happen to other people", right?


----------



## Mr. E (Jul 18, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> People need to start thinking....We have enough laws.
> We need more brains.



But it seems to qualify as a "civilized" society we need to insure that those without brains never have to live with the consequences of their stupid decisions. Usually at great expense to the taxpayer.

Where is the need to be smart when others will clean up after your mess?

Take a trip to the local library and find some of the variants on the classic Aesop fable of the grasshopper and the ant. You will have to look hard to find one that has the grasshopped dying of starvation now.

But lets remember that we _expect_ kids to be brainless. That is why Americans do not let them buy pistols or alcohol until they hit 21. But even in America far more people die because of car crashes than firearms and yet at age 16 you can get behind the wheel of a car and drive.

Maybe that needs to change. Why on earth do kids this age need to be  able to drive? Why give something that kills as many people as automobiles to people that are not considered responsible for their own actions yet?


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 18, 2007)

You can enact all the laws you want, but people will still violate the laws, plain and simple.  I could, for example, get all sorts of laws making it illegal for people to use text messaging while driving, yet, there will be plenty of violators.  Or, I could enact more laws that make murder even more illegal, yet, there are going to be people who will still commit murder no matter how unlawful I try to make such an act.  

I've always been of the belief, that the solution to such a problem, takes much more time than any quick fix, feel-good law that an opportunistic politician can make.  Such an approach requires that a parent strongly emphasize a good sense of what is right and wrong within a child, when the child is much younger.  

This way, perhaps common sense can be instilled, and more strongly developed as the child grows older.  Even at the tender age of 16, when they start driving (or 15 in some places...), those who follow common sense, are going to be much less likely to get into accidents than those who defy logic.  

Despite a certain shrieking politician asserting that "it takes a village," I'll simply say "hogwash" to that claim.  It takes good parenting, since there is no greater influence on a child's life, than what the parents do.  Maybe it's time for those who are parents of young children to step up and make sure about their levels of common sense.  Otherwise, by the time that they really need that common sense, it may already be too late.


----------



## Darksoul (Jul 18, 2007)

-Just a reminder, to all young people and to all parents, and to everyone. Driving, i.e. a driver's liscense, is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. It can be taken away. You either learn the consequences of your actions, or you don't and then you and/or others suffer.

Andrew


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 18, 2007)

I can't imagine that there's any law you could pass that would have more impact than the cold hard fact that IF YOU DO THIS, YOU CAN ****ING DIE.  Once a person has said "fiddle-dee-dee" to that inconvenient truth, no law is going to change their behavior.


----------

