VIDEO - Brad Gorski on the Risks of Distracted Driving

VideoBrad Gorski is a 30 year-old resident Vancouver, B.C. who enjoys taking in the city and spending time with his family and friends. He experienced the dangers of distracted driving first hand by driving and texting, failing to stop for a red light. He was hit by a heavy truck and tells his story in this TEDx video.

Comments

Sad Reality

This is a very unfortunate story but the sad reality is that we, as humans, do not learn from other people's mistakes.

Very Sad

Indeed, we rarely learn from our mistakes, we are only doomed to repeat them, like war/history.

I could not help but draw a connection between this distracted driving and it's horrific outcome and the disproportionate ruling from the previous posted case from Justice Maisonville in R vs Jahani.  Her ruling was a "technicality" and not supported by the driving public.  While I understand the definition of "use" vs "not in use" the rationale exhibited by the judge was not the intent and purpose of the initial law.  I find today's judges are ruling on cases by over-analyzing, complicating and making it complex when in reality it isn't.  The cell phone should not be in reach or access to the driver - just as alcohol is treated.  I believe that was the intent and purpose of the law.  To wiggle around with technicalities (ie phone was not lit) and dismiss a case based on "use" -  the original ruling should have been enforced with "access" - like alcohol.  If the temptation is there, then it is likely the driver did in fact "use" the device regardless of its lit screen at the time.  He could have viewed texts or voice activated calls etc., the point was.... it was within his access, therefore "in use."   Let's hope crown appeals this ruling. 
And judges need to base their rulings on the original "intent and purpose" of the law and stop fishing for that all important, land mark ruling based on a technicality.  Only serves to put the system in disrepute.

Two different statements, here:

And I don't entirely agree with either of them.

This is a very unfortunate story but the sad reality is that we, as humans, do not learn from other people's mistakes.

I think we can learn from mistakes made by others, if we have the sense to do so. It's a matter of how we analyze information about the causes of crashes other drivers have been involved in, and relate that information to ourselves. Sort of a vicarious analysis, that can improve our own actions behind the wheel.

Indeed, we rarely learn from our mistakes, we are only doomed to repeat them, like war/history.

Doomed to repeat them? I think not. Let's think about driver license applicants as an example; the Knowledge Tests they need to pass have an 80% Pass / 20% Fail rate, typically. But the 1 in 5 drivers who fail at this level usually, eventually, will pass. Why? Because they're not doomed to repeat their failure, so long as they can learn from it. In some cases (this is where I roll my eyes in disgust) with teenagers, that means actually attempting to read and comprehend the Road Sense guide for the first time, after their initial failure.

As for the Practical (Road Test), for Class 7 drivers in BC the Pass / Fail rate is approximately 50/50%. It's a huge problem for ICBC as a licensing authority, due to the unnecessary human resources needed to test, and re-test, these drivers. But obviously, most of them eventually do pass, so they weren't ever doomed to always repeat the same errors, as they seem to figure it out eventually.

Incidentally, that's why in recent times ICBC have extended the requisite delay between taking a test for a second or third time, just to try and force these people to actually present themselves behind the wheel in a competent manner when they apply for a license - instead of using the Driver Examiners as 'teachers' of what they don't know, or are doing wrong. But heck, it's still cheaper than paying a Driving School in the first place ... isn't it?

Ranting

Is a tad off the subject matter.  Justifying the process of acquiring a drivers licence is at arms length from the subject matter of cell phone "use" and the resulting carnage.  Equating the lack to learn from our negligence is paramount in relation to cell phone distractions.  Despite the repeated educational tools given to the driving public and the enormous amount of lives lost seems to have fallen on mostly deaf ears, as is evident that the majority of the driving public cease to learn from all these tragedies and continue to "use" their cell phones while driving.  Much like drinking/driving, it's been a long road to get the driving public to understand this is an unacceptable conduct yet there remains many who still drink and drive.... do they learn from the negligence of others?  Do they pay heed to the deaths caused to others from drinking/driving?  Have the stats really lowered to an "acceptable" level?  
So, on the matter of qualifying for a drivers licence, the case that came to mind was the most recent one where the SUV driver ran over a flag person (clearly on video) and she was not held "criminally responsible" because she had an underlying "mental illness" ..... how's that for a slap in the face to the process of acquiring a drivers licence?  My first question was that if she had a violent mental illness how did she acquire a license to drive and why was she not reported (by medical personnel) to have this condition and to have a review of her driving privileges?  Kind of dismisses the integrity of the licensing process?

You and I may have to agree to disagree on some stuff, here.

Is a tad off the subject matter.  Justifying the process of acquiring a drivers licence is at arms length from the subject matter of cell phone "use" and the resulting carnage.

I wasn't trying to 'justify the process' of anything. Look at my previous post, please. What I was addressing were the remarks about people 'learning' from Check Ride and yourself. Each of you has a differing opinion on this, and having been a teacher for more than half my life, I think I have a valid point of view for people to consider. If I didn't genuinely believe that what I've spent most of my career focusing on wasn't important, and contributive to people's lives, then I wouldn't be doing it. And, clearly, I don't think that people only learn from either their own mistakes, or the mistakes of others who have gone before them. Otherwise, we all really would be doomed.

I cheerfully admit that my comments were not about cell phone use per se, but about how people actually learn stuff; because we all do learn stuff actually, to some extent, throughout our lives. Acquiring wisdom may be a separate issue, perhaps.

Despite the repeated educational tools given to the driving public and the enormous amount of lives lost seems to have fallen on mostly deaf ears, as is evident that the majority of the driving public cease to learn from all these tragedies and continue to "use" their cell phones while driving.

I think that BC made a terrible mistake (you can blame Kash Heed for this) when they wrote up the original laws on cell phone 'use'. The fact is - and they knew this from expert analysis - a person interacting on a cell phone is, inevitably, distracted. They're more distracted of course if they have to look at the phone, or hold it in their hand. But even hands-free drivers, conversing with whomever, are clearly far less aware of what's going on around them, as they're failing to apportion their attention adequately (that should get me the alliteration award).

So, on the matter of qualifying for a drivers licence, the case that came to mind was the most recent one where the SUV driver ran over a flag person (clearly on video) and she was not held "criminally responsible" because she had an underlying "mental illness" ..... how's that for a slap in the face to the process of acquiring a drivers licence?  My first question was that if she had a violent mental illness how did she acquire a license to drive and why was she not reported (by medical personnel) to have this condition and to have a review of her driving privileges?  Kind of dismisses the integrity of the licensing process?

Now that is an interesting case, thanks for bringing it up. Readers of this thread should read this story here: in my opinion, this is an unacceptable judgment, there's no way that woman should still be allowed behind the wheel.

But realistically, there's nothing during the licensing process (Knowledge Test + Road Test) that would have identified that she was schizophrenic unless she admitted the condition; obviously she wasn't having a psychotic episode at the time.

It certainly seems likely that she was in the care of a physician prior to the crash, and so the law must be looked at in terms of the physician's responsibility to report her condition to ICBC/RSBC.

I do think that RoadSafety BC should intervene in this, as Medical Issues is their speciality. 

 

I agree/disagree to nothing!

Some words of wisdom .... not everyone thinks like yourself.

And to return to the subject of cell phone "use" and the legal definition;  All "uses" should be labelled distracted - hands-free also!  To that extent I'll agree with you.  And the "access" (vision & physical) should be treated under the identical legal "access" as alcohol - unopened (out of sight) and inaccessible to the driver.  Period! 

Google Ads