Woman Distracted by Texting Drives Her Car Into a Lake

[onehandle]

A Maryland woman apparently unaware of the dangers associated with texting and driving received a crash course on the subject after driving her car into a lake yesterday.

Authorities in Waldorf say the 25-year-old woman was distracted by texting when she ran off the road and clipped a tree.

Her vehicle was then propelled some 60 feet into Wakefield Lake, where it remained submerged in five feet of water.

Luckily, the unidentified Hyundai driver was able to crack open a window and exit the car before emergency services arrived.

http://gawker.com/woman-distracted-by-texting-drives-her-car-into-a-lake-1294392993

[MineralMan]

1. Oops. Her car insurance premium just doubled.

Live and learn.

[truedelphi]

2. If only there was a lake for every text and driving

Person out there.

Some government officials say that eventually the public will clamor and demand the equipment that would turn off such devices once a car is going more than 15 miles an hour.

The equipment exists, but too many people still think this is all acceptable.

[forestpath]

5. +1

[riderinthestorm]

9. +2 nt

[Silent3]

17. How do you make this technology affect only the driver...

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

...and not passengers?

I have no problem with preventing drivers from texting. I sure as hell am not making excuses for that, it pisses me off. But I don't want to be limited as a passenger, and I don't want my passengers limited, especially if I'm asking them to use their phones to look up directions for me.

[TheMadMonk]

34. AFFECT. Go back to 4th grade.

And really? If the price of preventing drivers killing or maiming is to briefly inconvenience YOU, then people must die?

USE A MAP. STOP AND ASK FOR DIRECTIONS.

[Liberal_in_LA]

39. calm down

[TheMadMonk]

43. Why? It is exactly this attitude writ large...

...which is behind the United States' interference all over the world for the past three-quarters of a century.

I WANT WHAT I WANT. AND FUCK ANYTHING IN THE WAY!

[Orrex]

62. You're exactly right. Silent3 is responsible for America's foreign policy disasters.

DOWN WITH SILENT3!!!!!!!!1!!

[Silent3]

70. It's a job.

Wish it paid better. I get a bit peeved when I see how my disastrous policies are lining the pockets of military contractors, while I get diddly squat for all my trouble.

I'd say more, but I've already slowed down to 75 mph to post this response, and I really need to be driving 85 to get home in time to watch my favorite show. I could have recorded it and taken my time getting home, but you know, we did fine without DVRs and VCRs and streaming video for years, so why complicate things?

[petronius]

71. We've made too many compromises already...

[TheMadMonk]

93. WRIT LARGE! The idea that it's easier to give in to petty selfishness...

...and bloody minded refusal, than properly regulate against it.

That very real, irrational stupidity, so much a device of Hollywood, that causes a parent to abandon life or cause great harm to any number of others, for the briefest of moments longer with their child.

In a world of mindless action and reaction that is exactly the way to bet, because every time circumstances change, new choices immediately become available and the only currency of import is the genome, so any chance for a moment to fuck is all that ever matters.


In a world of forethought, of law and regulation, and mind, it's the ultimate and most pointless of selfishness, because it overlooks all evil, if benefit can be found for me and mine. It's the destruction of fisheries; the dumping of toxic waste; the clear felling of forests; it's monoculture, herbicides and pesticides; It's everything which trades distributed harm for concentrated benefit.

At it's edgiest, it's asking yourself the question of when it's truly appropriate (as opposed to acceptable, understandable or forgivable) to kill another human being (including those closest to you) or simply to (by whatever device available) compelling them to a course of action contrary to their own imperatives.



The ultimate and only True Democracy is the one in which franchise is exercised by the sacrifice of one's own personal future when circumstances demand it. Even unto that scene from the final episode of M*A*S*H when a mother smothered her own child to offer a degree of improvement short of guarantee to the chances that she and others might live.



All that existential angst over that which separates us from the animals: Language; Tool use; environmental modification; and even the ability to extrapolate. <bullshit, rhubarb, bullshit>

How's this for an idea and a half? That which makes us human is nothing less than an anticipable and malleable future.

[TheMadMonk]

94. That which makes us persons, rather than sacks of dirty, mostly water,...

...is the ability to step back and distinguish between that sack of dirty water and the abstractions contained therein.

[Silent3]

48. I know the difference. I typed it wrong, for Christ's sake.

And really, that's a common error well beyond the 4th grade. To point it out angrily and condescendingly is just a totally assholish thing to do. (Can you cope with the semi-made-up word "assholish"?)

Me specifically being inconvenienced isn't the issue. Would millions of Americans accept that limitation, meant specifically for the driver, but Affecting passengers as well? I doubt they would, no matter how much it bothers you that they'd be reluctant to give up this aspect of technology.

[TheMadMonk]

54. In other words, for most people their convenience...

...trumps the lives of others.

Are you old enough to remember when "The drunk's defense?" was a fact of law?

I AM!


It's fucking amazing, here on this board, there's a constant stream of stories of corporate malfeasance, and calls for proper regulation, since it's been proven that they will not self-regulate.

And then, there a like number of threads like this one, full of defenses of exactly the same behaviour in the individual.

[JBoy]

53. Don't start a sentence with "and". Go back to 3rd grade.

[TheMadMonk]

56. Know when to break the rules for proper affect. /nt

[Quantess]

60. Meh. "And really." is not quite the zinger you might think it is.

[TheMadMonk]

110. Wasn't meant to be. Merely a segue. /nt

[Quantess]

114. Grrrr...! You misspelled segway!

http://www.segway.com/individual/

[TheMadMonk]

115. Since you clearly know how to pronounce the word, that's a troll fail. /nt

[Quantess]

116. It's called humor, son.

Edit to add the non-ironic smilie:

[unblock]

101. EFFECT! go back to second grade!

[GalaxyHunter]

108. just great!!!

[TheMadMonk]

109. Affect correctly used as a verb: Look it up. Troll successful.

By affecting to use the word incorrectly to effect a predictable result, I was able to affect how you responded.

[unblock]

111. "for proper affect", you're saying you used "affect" as a verb there?

[TheMadMonk]

113. I did. Though I must admit, I at first thought I had screwed up.

I was even half way through my mea culpa, when I realised what perfect troll bait I'd set out.

[unblock]

117. hmm. i must use fork for proper eat. i must use melody for proper sing.

nope. nice try though.

[TheMadMonk]

118. add an 'ing' to 'eat' and 'sing' and you'll have proper, albeit awkward...

...sentence structure.

[unblock]

119. yes, use a noun (or a gerund) instead of a verb and it works there.

hence, EFFECT.

or perhaps you wanted "affectation"?

[Trajan]

126. Jesus H. Frankenstein

We have some really mean ass fuckers in DU lately ...

Not you, of course ... some other DUers ...

You're sweet as Apple Fucking Pie ...

yeah ...

[customerserviceguy]

42. Hey, twenty years ago

NOBODY texted, and we got along just fine. The solution to this is ban the 6-7 cell phone providers in any given area from offering texting, period. It's like any other addictive thing that stupid people are powerless to control, and the rest of us can live (literally) without.

Your passengers can always use a GPS app, or better yet, you can have one in your own car on the dashboard. We don't seem to see the same sort of stupidity, or at least not the quantity of it, that we see from texting fools.

[Silent3]

49. You're recommending getting rid of all texting, in all situations?

Just to make sure it never is done it a car by a driver?

[customerserviceguy]

58. Yes

Did we do fine without it before we had it? What do you NEED texting for that you cannot do with a phone call, where eyes can be (although admittedly not always with the really stupid people) kept on the road, and hands on the wheel?

Texting is like the Asian wars, it sounds like a good idea at first, but we're just waiting for the body count to pile up before realizing it was a disaster.

[Silent3]

67. We did "fine" without cars too. Why not get rid of them? That solves drunk driving...

...and all forms of distracted driving in one fell swoop. And why not bring back Prohibition, to prevent all of the many bad things caused by alcohol that getting rid of cars alone won't fix?

In "get off my lawn!" fashion, you clearly rank the value of texting as so low that it weighs practically nothing on the balance scale compared to the risks. I'm personally not a huge user of texting myself (I've certainly not signed up for an unlimited plan), but it's a useful form of communication that's different than voice calling (which is also a driving hazard!) with its own unique advantages in many situations.

We could continue to argue about the value of texting, but let's be clear. No matter how hard you angrily wave your fist, texting isn't going away. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Further, it's always a very questionable legal position to demand that everyone surrender the use of something, no matter how trivial you think that thing is, because some people abuse that thing.

[kestrel91316]

78. Texting rather than phone calls will prove extremely valuable the next time WE have a major

earthquake. After Northridge, calling became nearly impossible because all the lines were overwhelmed. Texting uses cell towers and microseconds to convey vast amounts of valuable and potentially lifesaving information.

I hate reckless, distracted drivers more than most people, but even I don't want to see an end to texting.

[abelenkpe]

80. Prius won't let one call or operate map functions unless at a stop

That only effects the driver. It's a good thing. Makes one plan ahead if they are going to use the map. Calls are hands free through center console. You can accept a call or make one at a full stop through list of contacts.

Passengers can still use their phones as they like. Really, aren't all modern cars set up like this?

[rurallib]

21. If texting was made to work only in stopped vehicles

you would have people stopping in the middle of the freeway at 5 o'clock.
Ya know, American drivers ain't the smartest breed around.

[truedelphi]

25. I had not thought of that.

Something to consider.

[TheMadMonk]

35. And wouldn't it just be the perfect opportunity...

...to cleanse the gene-pool. I reckon you could identify and remove about 75-80% before self preservation kicked in.

I recently invested in an aerosol klaxon for my bike. It is reserved solely for letting off within inches of the heads of path hogging OBLIVIOTS jogging along with their noise cancelling ear-buds.

[Orrex]

65. Note to self: cyclists deserve every consideration, but pedestrians can go fuck themselves

Got it.

[TheMadMonk]

75. I'm talking about the self adsorbed idiots who occupy WHOLE paths.

4 out of 5 with dogs on leashes to make their occupation complete, the last weaving down the dead centre of a path about 2 m wide.

I guess you failed to note my coined word "obliviot": Oblivious idiot, or a person who DELIBERATELY makes themselves insensate to the world about them.

I work alongside people (train drivers) who have KILLED such obliviots, some of them more than once.

I've had one step directly in front of me as I attempted to pass them, and if I had not been wearing a peaked cap under my bicycle helmet, I would have a lot less nose than I do now. Even with the cap I still lost most of the skin off my top lip. (Real fun with a moustache BTW.)

I've had others, so isolated from the outside world, that I literally have to scream "EXCUSE ME!" at the top of my voice to get their attention.


I will give pedestrians (and fellow cyclists) EXACTLY the same consideration they show me or others. I am done with going out of my way to accommodate THEIR CHOICE to render themselves aurally insensate.

[Jamastiene]

103. Wow!

I bet you are lot of fun at parties.

[TheMadMonk]

112. See my response to Orexx above. /nt

[customerserviceguy]

44. Get rid of texting, period

if you want to stop the carnage.

Maybe if President Hillary Clinton saw daughter Chelsea killed by a texting driver, while pregnant with her one and only grandchild, we would have the leadership necessary to ban the cell phone companies from offering text services, but I hope it's a lesser human that gets a celebrity to lead the charge against this totally unnecessary addictive obsession.

So far, the nine people a day killed by texting drivers are not important enough Thatto warrant our attention. That's a Newtown, Connecticut every three days, folks. We can talk about banning guns, but can we talk about banning texting?

[tabbycat31]

72. I was nearly killed by a driver on a cell phone

This was in 2000 before texting became the norm. She was talking not texting.

Does that mean we should get rid of talking?

I personally text more than I talk (I spend a good part of my work day on the phone and I'd rather not talk on my personal time). There are times that a text is 10 times better than a phone call. I never text or talk while driving.

[customerserviceguy]

97. You've just gotten into a bad habit

that's all. What can you possibly text faster than you can say? Even if you are some mega-skilled typist, you have to acknowledge that the average person is way, way slower trying to find buttons with one hand when they text, and those are among the primary drivers who need this taken away from them. It's one of many cases where the majority's misuse of something ruins it for everybody else.

Also, you're right about drivers handheld cell phones, especially when they seem to need to look in the direction of the phone (what is it they expect to see??) and/or gesture with the other hand (do they expect the other party to see those gestures?)

In any case, we have Bluetooth devices that allow hands to be on the wheel and eyes on the road. It doesn't work that way with texting, ever.

How many people dead per day from texting is acceptable to you? It's nine a day now, what happens when it gets to ninety? Or nine hundred? Or nine thousand?

[tabbycat31]

123. I think you're throwing the baby away with the bath water here

I in no way condone texting while driving, but I do think texting is a very useful form of communication. The first time I texted, I was trying to meet up with a friend at a rock concert, and there's no way that either of us could hear our phones ringing or our own voices had we tried to call.

I don't agree with texting (or talking) while driving at all but to stop texting from people who are not driving is just dumb.

This reminds me of when I was in high school. Because one class a few years ahead of mine did something stupid during open campus lunch, they took it away for all future classes.

As for Bluetooth things--- I hate those things with the fire of 1000 suns. I used to work in a call center and could tell exactly who was using those things and who was not. It reminded me of when I was a kid and I would warp my voice by speaking into a box fan. I only use my phone in the car if I'm stopped. When I moved down here, my boss kept texting me, and she understood that I only responded when I was stopped for gas.

[Jenoch]

134. Several states have outlawed people using cell phones while driving.

[RC]

22. Better yet, turn off the car.

Then they can coast to a stop, with the four way flashers going, while they update someone equally stupid, with the latest exploit's of their cat or new puppy.

[kestrel91316]

76. [phone]

[Jenoch]

133. Why 15 mph? A car doing 15 can certainly kill

a pedestrian or cyclist. Why not have it so it turns off 'such devices' when the car starts to move?

[shenmue]

3. Yipes

Now that's a way to ruin your day.

[Aristus]

4. Look on the bright side:

She was probably able to get off that big, important text that just couldn't wait!...

[petronius]

45. I'd be curious to know if she remembers what she was texting, or if it

was so trivial that she's already forgotten...

Anyway, given that no one was injured and the damage (to public or other people's property) is likely minimal, it's time for some smilies:

[HappyMe]

6. I'm glad she's okay.

That said, what a dumbass.

[Jefferson23]

7. Oh come on, apparently unaware of the dangers associated with texting and driving.

I don't believe that, not at all.

Lucky that she is ok.

[Shrike47]

10. I think it was sarcasm.

[Jefferson23]

19. I hope you're right..I read that and thought, wtf, she was not aware? lol n/t

[malaise]

28. I put on my indicator before turning on a side road today

There was no pedestrian crossing. A young woman was not even looking as she blissfully read 'whatever' on the phone while simultaneously crossing right in front of me. I slowed down as she kept coming, but she continued so I stopped the car and asked her if she ever saw a car on a hospital ward. She literally jumped when I spoke.
I have not one iota of sympathy for these people. I leave them to Darwin.

You see that tree and lake could have been one of our relatives in the path of one of these dumb ass morons.

[Jefferson23]

31. It is beyond me too..I don't get it since it is painfully obvious such a stupid and dangerous idea.

Hopefully she'll learn from the experience and learn from your words.

[Art_from_Ark]

82. I see people like that here in Japan as well

They seem to be completely oblivious to everything except what is on their tiny text screen, even when crossing the street or otherwise interacting with traffic. And yeah, I've had some a-little-too-close-for-comfort encounters with them as well.

[malaise]

84. They re mentally deranged

It makes no freaking sense. How do you text and walk in traffic - it's one thing to end up in the mall fountain but how to do cross a road and text?

[customerserviceguy]

46. She's lucky, we're not

Chances are, this addict will do this again.

[In_The_Wind]

8. Airborne for 60 feet in a car ...

[img][/img]

[wild bird]

14. Her next text was.

Hey, I can see my house from here!!!

[BlueStreak]

15. Amazingly she had the presence of mind to text "Oh shit" as she was going over the cliff.

[wild bird]

16. LOL.

Better than the Matterhorn ride at Disneyland.

[durablend]

11. The important question no one asked

Does the phone still work?

[lpbk2713]

12. "Um, let's see, where's that damn 'treading water' app?"

"Omagawd!!11!"

[wild bird]

13. LOL. I just got a great laugh. Very good. nt.

[JitterbugPerfume]

18. Darwin award waiting to happen?

[snooper2]

20. Well at least it is another hyundai off the road

[Glassunion]

79. Hey! We resemble that remark.

Wife and I just bought one over the weekend. We love it.

[markiv]

23. texting = dui, without the penalties nt

[B Calm]

24. They should fine her for polluting the lake!

[HillWilliam]

26. For this reason, the word

fumducker was coined.

[SeattleVet]

27. I really hope that her insurance doesn't cover this!

Especially if you're doing something THAT dumb while driving.

Is texting while driving illegal in Maryland?

[Skittles]

29. she got off lucky

my co-worker's 25 yr old sister-in-law crossed the center line while texting and hit another car and was killed instantly - the other driver had minor injuries

[kestrel91316]

81. I hate to seem insensitive, but at least it wasn't the other way around, with the

reckless driver unharmed and the innocent party killed.

[Skittles]

95. oh absolutely

her life would have been destroyed the other way around too......so senseless.....and a year later, this marriage seems to be straining because of it (she cannot get over the death of her sister, he is impatient with her depression)........all for a stupid text

[Nye Bevan]

30. Reminds me of the texting mall lady:

[redwitch]

64. LOL!

That was embarrassing!

[Uncle Joe]

32. This is a little bit of a separate issue, but shouldn't cars

with electric windows have a manual crank as well, just in case it does land in the water and your engine dies.

If your electric powered windows are up when that happens, you may be SOL.

Thanks for thread, onehandle.

[TheMadMonk]

36. Good luck on that. Invest in one or two of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_center_punch



Put them somewhere YOU KNOW YOU CAN FIND THEM.

[Uncle Joe]

37. I've thought about that, but car manufacturers can

put seat belts, and airbags in their vehicles, a manual override shouldn't be that difficult or expensive.

Some people, either due to panic, age, disability or just losing that center-punch in their car may not be able to find or use it properly in time.

[TheMadMonk]

40. They were removed to free up money for...

...other features "standard at no extra cost".

Simple as that.

[Uncle Joe]

41. Then the government should require the manufacturers to put them back.

How many people will die in a sinking wreck because they couldn't escape their car in time, just because they couldn't roll their windows down?

[customerserviceguy]

47. If its people who text while driving

Then they deserve it. No mercy from me when it comes to these asshats that threaten us all.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Wrecking your car in the water doesn't happen solely because of texting.

I listed one example just below were two women crashed and drowned because of fog.

[Glassunion]

85. Did they crash and drown because of fog?

Or were they being careless and driving too fast or at all for the conditions?

[Uncle Joe]

86. Fog was a contributing factor but it really makes no difference as to why someone crashes

into the water in regards to the need for manual override on electric car windows.

Sometimes it happens due to the driver's negligence and sometimes it doesn't, as I posted above, flash floods, collapsed bridges, it could be another reckless/drunk driver that sends you and/or your family into the water.

In some respects cars have gotten safer over the years, seat-belts, airbags, better brakes but electric windows certainly isn't one of them.

[Glassunion]

87. How many situations should a car have to be prepared for?

If you are concerned over driving you car into a lake, get yourself a center punch to break the window. If a car had a setup for every possible scenario we'd all be driving floating tanks.

My solution is more simple. Everyone would ride a motorcycle. Everyone would then pay 110% to how they were driving, and there would be way fewer accidents.

[Uncle Joe]

89. It isn't rocket science to put a manual override on electric windows.

We had manual windows for well over a half century before electric windows.

Crashing into the water is definitely going to happen, just ask the people of Minnesota.

As I posted above, dynamics such as panic come into play, people have different capabilities and physical circumstances whether it be age, disability, and they may able to find or operate a center punch in time.

A sinking car fills up with water fast

Your "simple solution," motorcycle idea makes great sense if you have a very narrow, simplistic view of the world, but a mother with children isn't going to pack them all on a motorcycle, some people are afraid of driving motorcycles, or they simply may not be able to.

Under your intrusive idea, everybody would have to switch from cars and trucks to motorcycles, when in many cases cars and trucks are needed.

Reply back to me when you want to have a serious debate about the issue.

[Glassunion]

91. Just buy a car with manual windows.

If it does not have manual windows, have them installed. Problem solved.

Personally, I'd be more concerned about the real world and my odds of colliding with another vehicle. I cross or travel alongside water several times a day, every single day I go to work. The least of my concerns is that water. My biggest danger on the road is other drivers. They text, talk on the cell, program the GPS, yell at their kids, daydream, tailgate, etc... One thing they are not doing is paying attention to the fact that they are operating a four thousand pound chunk of steel with enough kenetic energy to damn near vaporize any living organism that they point it at.

I can't wait for that technology that will force the car to slow down if it gets too close to whatever is in front of it to be mandatory in every car. In fact, I'm dreaming of the day that the car drives itself taking away control from the mostly incompetent drivers that are out there today.

If you are worried that you may end up in a lake, then you probably don't belong behind the wheel.

I still stand behind my idea. Every year, everyone should have to put at minimum 30 days in on a motorcycle, or a completely open-framed vehicle. Either driving it yourself, or sitting in a sidecar. Trust me, you'll become much more aware of how dangerous it is when you are not giving 100% attention to your driving. 2x a day, on average, every single day I have a close encounter with another driver. I've been keeping score. Believe you me, ending up in the river is the last on my list of concerns.

[Uncle Joe]

99. Good for you if don't live near water, cross bridges over water or experience flash flooding but

many people do and your argument of "un-attentive other" drivers can just be another cause of sending even an attentive driver in to the water.

When the Minnesota Bridge collapsed over a 150 cars and trucks plunged into the water, fortunately for them at the time the drought had cause the Mississippi River to be abnormally low so only 6 people (last time I checked) drowned although I'm sure that's no consolation to the family and friends of those six victims.

There were also plenty of rescuers on the spot during that bridge collapse.

I don't have anything against more driver education and awareness but sometimes that doesn't make a difference.

In a few years I believe Nissan is coming out with a car that will practically drive itself but no doubt there will still be problems after that either either due to bad programming or to external extenuating circumstances having nothing to due with that car's performance.

You keep personalizing this, "it's not just me" that I'm concerned about tens of millions of Americans driver near or over major bodies of water and in a sinking car, seconds count

Putting manual override on electric windows is just a common sense solution.

[Glassunion]

120. You are concerned for 10's of millions of drivers that drive near water.

I get that. But how big is the issue? I'm using 2007 NHTSA numbers.

On average 384 people in 339 vehicles die each year in motor vehicle accidents where the cause of death is drowning.

In 150 of those vehicles the police reported alcohol use.
In 200 of those vehicles not using the seat belts was a mitigating factor.
Of those 339 vehicles 203 of them were immersed in water.

So basically, you have 0.000165% of all vehicles on the road that have an immersion accident where there is a drowning fatality each year. This accounts for 0.00319% of all motor vehicle accidents each year.

So what you are asking is that auto manufacturers install an additional device into all of their vehicles that may not (only 1 in 4 vehicle immersions occur where the immersion is the first harmful event) have an effect on only 1 in over half a million vehicles on the road each year.

I'm not personalizing this. I'm stressing the fact that people do not take driving seriously and they end up killing thousands of people each year. The overwhelming majority of vehicle accidents are caused by people. These people, chatting on their phones, texting, playing with the GPS, drinking, doing drugs, taking too much cold medicine, driving while tired, speeding, tailgating, etc... kill tens of thousands and injure and maim almost 2 million people each year.

10% of all traffic fatalities are caused by distracted drivers. Let that sink in for a second. 1 in 10 people involved in fatal accidents are dead because a driver was distracted. 20% of traffic injuries are caused by distracted drivers. 1 in 5 people injured in accidents was caused by a distracted driver.

30% of all traffic fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. 1 in 3 people involved in fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers.

Another 30% of traffic fatalities are caused by whose who are speeding.

So you have 70% of all people killed in automobile accidents that were killed by only 3 major causes. All 3 of those causes are 100% people being stupid.

[Uncle Joe]

124. How big is the issue? 384 drownings is more than two Oklahoma City Bombings every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. It would remain the most destructive act of terrorism in the United States until the September 11 attacks of 2001, six years later. The bombing claimed 168 lives[1] and injured more than 680 people.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings,[3][4] causing at least an estimated $652 million worth of damage.[5] Extensive rescue efforts were undertaken by local, state, federal, and worldwide agencies in the wake of the bombing, and substantial donations were received from across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) activated eleven of its Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces, consisting of 665 rescue workers who assisted in rescue and recovery operations.[6][7]

Now I'm not suggesting every drowning victim would be saved by having a quicker and safer escape from a sinking automobile but most definitely some of them would.

If you don't have a breakdown of precise statistics attributing the primary cause of the drownings it's hard to quantify that.

We do have and should have laws requiring seat belt use and not driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs but they're all mitigating factors.

How many of those drownings occurred because the passengers couldn't exit their vehicles fast enough?

Even if you were driving under the influence or wearing your seat-belts was it a non, minor or major factor, in not be able to exit the vehicle?

As I stated above we should have laws for the public in safely operating vehicles, but the same holds true for the automobile manufacturers in producing as safe a car as possible and as I posted up thread, this wouldn't be rocket science for them.

You may look at the numbers as a minuscule amount, just a %, but if it was you or your family drowning or drowned because you or they couldn't exit the vehicle fast enough you might feel differently.

[Glassunion]

129. I hate to sound harsh, but yes, it is quite miniscule.

For one, in the drowning fatalities, 203 of the 339 vehicles were submerged. The remainder of the drownings folks were ejected, did manage to get out, were unconscious, etc...

So this device of which you speak, will need to disengage the window's motor, then have a separate mechanism to roll the window down. This will (I'm assuming) need to be installed on all of the windows. So, let be generous and only say that the cost of this mechanism is only $40. Then adding it to all 4 windows, you have $120. This device will cost American car buyers over $3 million dollars per accident per year. If we are really that concerned that this is such a great issue, why don't we the taxpayers pick up the tab and have it installed in all new vehicles? The annual tab would be in the ballpark of $660 million dollars. Should we retrofit existing vehicles?

"We do have and should have laws requiring seat belt use and not driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs but they're all mitigating factors." - Driving drunk is not a mitigating factor. It is THE factor. It is the cause. It's the reason they are in the lake in the first place.

"Even if you were driving under the influence or wearing your seat-belts was it a non, minor or major factor, in not be able to exit the vehicle?" - Being under the influence is the reason they are in the water in the first place. How about they not drive drunk, and not try to see if their car floats.

"You may look at the numbers as a minuscule amount, just a %, but if it was you or your family drowning or drowned because you or they couldn't exit the vehicle fast enough you might feel differently." - I would prefer that they never ended up in the water in the first place.

This is my whole point. If you pay attention, don't drink, and keep your speed down, odds are you will not end up in the lake in the first place. Think of it like this. If folks really took driving seriously, and did not drink, or text, of chat on the phone, and kept their speed down, you'd be looking at reducing the number of vehicles that end up submerged in a body of water down to 60 a year. I'd rather pay for honest and real driver safety. This is where you can save more folks.

You keep using the exceptions as your reasoning for wanting this. Bridges over the Mississippi with over a hundred vehicles on it, do not collapse with any sort of frequency at all.

Your making this out to be some sort of Greek tragedy by comparing it to 2 OK City bombings a year. So I'll give you perspective with the remainder of the traffic fatalities in the US. It is the same as the OK City bombing happening every day, Monday through Friday, all year. Or roughly 260 times.

[Uncle Joe]

132. No it will cost car buyers $120 per car, and cars don't need to be retrofitted

just the new models, over time all cars and trucks will have it.

I will state again categorically I don't approve of drinking and driving.

Having said that being under the influence is a mitigating factor but it's not necessarily the only one, the person under the influence may not even be at fault, there are internal circumstances, blood/alcohol level, was the accident actually another driver's; fault, did they have a heart attack, were they texting, speeding, reckless driving, inattentive or drinking themselves and caused the accident?

It could be a natural or man made disaster that sends someone in to the water, it's probable that at least one of those drivers of the 100+ vehicles which fell to the Mississippi River had some alcohol or drug influence that doesn't make the accident his or her fault.

"You may look at the numbers as a minuscule amount, just a %, but if it was you or your family drowning or drowned because you or they couldn't exit the vehicle fast enough you might feel differently." - I would prefer that they never ended up in the water in the first place.

I doubt that you will find more than one or two if that many of those 300+ drowned people that "preferred to be there."

So you dodged that question, how would you feel?

I will state again in case you missed it the last time, I'm all for more driver's education, safety and awareness to reduce other fatalities, and if you have answers to reducing those causalities I'm open to any reasonable consideration.

Having said that just because this isn't the solution to most or every accident, doesn't it mean it's not a answer to some.

However it's not just bridge collapses either, it's flash floods as well, which are happening in condensed high populated areas with more frequency.

You may not even be near a lake or river although many people are, it could be a creek or stream which turns into a river.

[Glassunion]

138. I am not dodging the question

I would feel like shit. However, I will say it again: I would rather they not end up in the water in the first place.

I will also say it again: being drunk is not a mitigating factor. Mitigating means to lessen or make less severe. A mitigating factor is a term in law that basically is used to lessen a charge. It's like saying "Yes your Honor, he did run over that pedestrian and kill them. However he was drunk at the time, so we are asking for a reduced charge from manslaughter to failure to yield."

$120 in every new vehicle will cost overall $660 million.

I feel that if it is a genuine concern of the operator of the motor vehicle that they should have something installed. If we required that every manufacturer provide a solution to every little thing that comes along, no one would make anything. There is an inherent risk of death every single time you operate a motor vehicle.

Now there have been advancements in safety, and these things do save lives. But they are all quantitative:
Airbags save 1 in 16 crash victims a year from death.
Seat belts save 1 in 2 crash victims a year from death.

Your solution may save 1 in 500,000.

We have an issue in the US. We justifiably so hold car manufacturers accountable for safety, fuel consumption and emissions of the vehicles they produce. But every year we add more an more weight to their vehicles by requiring them to have more and more safety equipment, along with emissions equipment, on top of demanding so many miles per gallon. Every little thing we add to a vehicle adds weight. You add weight, you reduce mileage and increase emissions.

If that window override device installed on all windows in a car weighed a total of 25lbs, you would require that all new cars burn an additional 15.568million gallons of gas per year if the only new car available was a Prius.

We need to be very careful about what we require all new cars have.

[Mugu]

92. My truck has manual windows,

and I have to explain/demonstrate to most people younger than 50 (and some older) how to operate them. They have never seen manual windows before. So, I'm guessing that in an emergency, manual override wouldn't make much difference.

Given your comments, I'm guessing that you think electric windows won't operate under water. However, at only 12 volts, I can assure you that even salt water has more than enough resistance for electric windows to operate just fine.

As long as the battery doesn't become unconnected from the system, electric windows will continue to work whether submerged or not. If the car is so badly damaged that the electrical system is no longer functional it's probably so badly damaged/bent that manual windows would be difficult (if not impossible) to operate.

[Uncle Joe]

100. After you explain how to operate roll down manual windows, can those people grasp the concept

or is it still beyond their comprehension?

If the answer is yes they know how to roll down windows after you teach them, then a manual override will make a difference.

If the answer is no they can't figure it out even after your best efforts to teach them a simple concept, I would find that hard to believe as Americans have driven with roll down windows for well over a half a century.

With electric windows everything depends on the electrical system working after crashing in to the water, it only makes sense to have a backup plan B as seconds count in a sinking car.

The front of the car can be damaged enough to disable the electric system and the sides still be intact, even if the doors won't open the windows can be rolled down.

No doubt seat belts work, but they still came out with airbags, people can look in their mirrors when backing up, but they're installing rear view cameras.

[SheilaT]

57. In reality, the chances of actually winding up in

water are vanishingly small. Especially if you're not texting.

Not too long ago a co-worker was amazed I actually used my garage to park my car in (this is Santa Fe. I'm one of approximately three citizens here who uses the garage for the car, not just as a storage unit) because wasn't I worried, she asked, that the power might go out and I couldn't use the electric garage door opener to open the garage door. She was totally unfamiliar with the fact that the garage door openers have a manual override.

[Uncle Joe]

73. It can and does happen either because of flash floods, bridge collapses, and any

multitude of other reasons, in the example below it was because of fog.

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/24/news/down-east/2-women-found-dead-in-submerged-car-down-east/

2 women, one pregnant, dead after car drives off boat ramp


ROQUE BLUFFS, Maine — Two women, one five months pregnant, apparently drowned Tuesday night after the car they were traveling in went off a boat ramp and into the ocean in a shroud of fog, police say....

[abelenkpe]

83. This could help

http://www.amazon.com/LifeHammer-Original-Emergency-Hammer-Orange/dp/B000BN3A4Y/ref=pd_sbs_auto_2

A friend and her daughter still in a car seat once drove into a lake. Something similar to this tool was how they were able to escape.

[Uncle Joe]

90. Yes but that has complications as well.

Either you will have rushing water pushing the glass in to the car or you may have to crawl over jagged glass to get out.

[Buns_of_Fire]

107. Side and back car windows tend to be made of tempered glass, these days.

Unlike the glass in the windows in your house, it'll shatter into little pellets that won't do much harm to one's ever-so-punchable epidermis: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-tempered-glass.htm

I carry a centerpunch in my car and my RV, strapped to the cigarette lighter, just in case. Not that it would do me a lot of good, since I can't swim anyway, but at least it might make it easier for the recovery team to extract my carcass.

[Uncle Joe]

125. If you have seconds to exit, you and/or family, children, maybe an infant

are in a sinking car, which do believe would be a faster way to exit the vehicle passing around a center-punch and possibly having to crawl over the seat to get out the driver's side window or everybody except maybe the youngest to roll down their own window to escape?

[Buns_of_Fire]

136. Oh, I agree. Just rolling down the window is always preferable (and easier).

If it'll roll down, of course. I'm just obsessive enough to try to have a readily-available "plan B" for such things.

I'd still sink like a stone even if I managed to get out, so maybe that particular problem isn't something I should worry about too much.

[Uncle Joe]

137. I agree it's good to have a Pland B and Plan C for that matter.

One thing I learned in Marine Corps Boot Camp, two shoe strings and a pair of pants can make a temporary life jacket.

Peace to you, Buns_of_Fire.

[Romulox]

102. LOL. Yeah. Cranks windows is the inevitable solution to texting while driving.

[Uncle Joe]

104. Apparently the "seperate issue" part went over your head, not to mention you didn't read

or couldn't comprehend the following posts.

I never said this was a "solution to texting while driving," I've been talking about an added safety feature to every car or truck with electric windows that may wreck in to the water regardless of the reason, it could be because of bridge collapse as happened in Minnesota, flashing flooding, or someone being driven off the road by another texting driver, there is a multitude of reasons for cars crashing, falling or being swept into the water.

[Romulox]

122. They should not add crank windows to all cars in case someone drives into the water while texting.

Step back from the edge, man.

[Uncle Joe]

127. You're relatively intelligent Romulox, I know you're not that dense.

I'm just curious what if a mother or father drives into the water while texting should their children or infant in the back seat drown as well?

[Romulox]

128. Changing the world to make texting while driving (into a body of water!) safer is absurd. nt

[Uncle Joe]

130. I stand corrected, you are that dense.

For the second time I will state and type slowly, I don't and never said anywhere in this thread that I advocate (that means approve of) texting while driving.

But if you can find a post to contrary, please share it.

I have a news flash for you, people crash/wreck or have their cars thrown in to the water for all sorts of reasons, here's one example which happened way back in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_bridge_collapse

At 6:05 p.m. CDT on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, with rush hour bridge traffic moving slowly through the limited number of lanes, the central span of the bridge suddenly gave way, followed by the adjoining spans. The structure and deck collapsed into the river and onto the riverbanks below, the south part toppling 81 feet (25 m) eastward in the process.[52] Approximately 100 vehicles[53] were involved, sending their occupants and 18[54] construction workers up to 115 feet (35 m)[31] down to the river or onto its banks. Northern sections fell into a rail yard, landing on three unoccupied and stationary freight train cars.[55][56][57][58]

It's possible using your logic that all 100 vehicles including a school bus were texting and that caused the bridge to collapse and six people to drown, but I doubt it.

[Xithras]

131. FYI, Mythbusters tested this

First, they confirmed that power windows really do still work when the door is submerged. DC motors and switches still work when underwater. So the fear that power windows won't open when partially submerged is meritless.

Second, they found that the windows in a fully submerged car won't open by either electric power OR window crank. The pressure on the glass is too great to permit the window to move. You physically wouldn't have enough strength to turn the crank.

You're much better off with a hammer.

[Uncle Joe]

135. That's not what this link suggests.

http://lifehacker.com/5653156/how-to-escape-from-a-sinking-car

The six-minute video above details a few of the most important things you might need to know if you ever need to find your way out of a submerged car. For starters, the doors won't open. Manual windows are easy enough to open, but if you've got electric windows, they'll be out of commission unless you thought really fast; you'll need a way to break them. If you were prepared, you might have a center punch on-hand (see one in action around the 2:30 mark); if not, kicking near the front/hinge of the window is your best bet at breaking the glass.P

[etherealtruth]

33. Since no one lost their life ... or was seriously injured

GOOD

Perhaps this will be a lesson learned

[Orrex]

66. How is it good?

It doesn't satiate DU's sense of righteous ad hoc vigilante karma!

[dionysus]

38. good thing it was a lake and not people.

[vanlassie]

50. Just today as I was driving in the middle lane of a three

lane highway going 65 I suddenly came up on a car going about 50. I moved around and sure enough some stupid woman was dialing her phone and apparently had to take her foot off the gas in order to concentrate. I'm going to sell bumper stickers that say "Go ahead and text. We'll find your head in the backseat."

[jberryhill]

51. This is why I use a waterproof phone case

It totally sucks to get your phone wet.

[DreamGypsy]

52. IT CAN WAIT.

Try the texting and driving simulator. If you survive, well, isn't that special.

http://www.itcanwaitsimulator.org/

[gopiscrap]

55. OMG

[Democracyinkind]

59. Something about stupid games and stupid prizes. nt

[davidpdx]

61. Well she went for a swim

I bet her cell phone worked well after that.

[LWolf]

63. Natural selection. nt

[PasadenaTrudy]

68. I text, but

no way in bloody hell would I attempt it while driving. I don't answer calls while driving, my phone is in my bag behind my seat! If it is important to call someone suddenly, I pull over. Duh! Now that I'm older, I can't even listen to music while driving. Los Angeles streets are hella busy and require my full attention. Another thing that bugs me now is people's lack of using turn signals, and not responding when I flash my lights at them to turn off their high beams. There. Rant over

[jsr]

69. Refreshing experience

What a dumbass.

[Glassunion]

77. I'm glad

Stupid is as stupid does.

[47of74]

88. Don't people know that texting while driving is just begging the Vengeful Gods of Darwin...

....to smite said people by placing lakes, or tractors hauling manure, etc etc in front of their vehicles for them to slam in to?

[B Calm]

96. Are all Maryland lakes that shallow?

[shedevil69taz]

98. There are a couple cars somewhere in my area

Sporting a dent from my boot because they were drifting over into my lane while using a cell phone (one was texting one was talking) while I was on my motorcycle.

[Glassunion]

121. Ditto...

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. Good.

No one was seriously hurt and some people can learn in no other way.