And half think it should have the same penalty as drunk driving. Steeeep.

What’s fascinating is that while 80 per cent think phones should be a no-no, they deem it kosher if you’re going hands-free. Newsflash, morons, a bunch of studies show it’s just as distracting if you’re using a Bluetooth headset. It’s the conversation that’s distracting, not your hands being up near your head. Personally, I think we should also ban eating, drinking, using combs or makeup, overly talkative passengers, any kind of music, talk radio, GPS navigators, and small children from being in cars, period. Only then can we drive completely safely, since then we won’t ever be distracted by anything ever again. [NYT]

According to subpoenaed cell phone records “Riccardo Blas Rivas II had been sending text messages to a friend just before the May 23 crash”. That crash resulted in the death of 32 year old Tracy Cate.

The incident is incredibly sad, but it may turn into an example of how harshly the courts are willing to punish careless idiots who decide to text while driving. Based on what we’re seeing, it may be months, possibly even years, before Rivas’ case goes to trial and gets wrapped up, but let’s hope the charges stick. Don’t wuss out on me now, Florida. [Naples News]

Passed after a texting driver killed two scientists, the law would put texting while driving in the same legal category as drunk driving if any crash happens. It’s a far stronger law than most of those already existing in other states; California’s, for example, punishes offenders with a tiny fine, usually around $US20.

In Utah, if you were to crash while texting, the punishment could be extremely severe—up to 15 years in prison. It’s a harsh law but we can’t deny that texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. [NYTimes]

So is half the world absolutely insane or is this survey—done with just a 2881 drivers sample—wrong? It seems to me like an awfully high number, but knowing that everybody has a phone now, I’m not surprised. If true, changing the law won’t fix this. It seems more like an education matter. And with education I mean, “If you text while driving you may end dead, you idiot.” [PR Newswire]

Holy shit. The initial accident is bad enough, but the creators of this texting PSA, not content with the usual scare tactics, add in some flying glass and a neck crunch to hammer things home. Then the second car appears.

The video was done with local actors by the Gwent police department, to be shown in area schools as part of a 30-minute deterrent movie about “texting while driving.” It’s effective, violent and bloody. That’s probably the point.

Anything like this being shown in the U.S.? [BBC News - Thanks, Matthew]

Henan province promises a lockup of “up to five days” for one message, or ten days for three messages. If you’re going to send three, you might as well do it in a chunk to get the discount rate.

“I’m totally for the rules. It’s uncomfortable to get dirty text messages from male friends and even more gross when they are from strangers,” Zhang Kai, 26, told the daily.

What’s even better is that the normal people are questioning why so much government effort is being spent in this area.

Since July 10, Shenze party officials have held 480 meetings to discuss the harmful effects of obscene messages, a degree of dedication that has been questioned by the public, the People’s Daily said.

“It’s not necessary to hold 480 meetings on this. This is an enormous waste of administrative resources,” an Internet user named Han Haoyue was quoted as saying.

[Google via Mobile Crunch]

The kids who used their phones a lot were faster on some of the tests, but were less accurate. We suspect that using mobile phones a lot, particularly tools like predictive texts for SMS, is training them to be fast but inaccurate. Their brains are still developing so if there are effects then potentially it could have effects down the line, especially given that the exposure is now almost universal. The use of mobile phones is changing the way children learn and pushing them to become more impulsive in the way they behave.

More impulsive than a 14-year-old? Oh noes.

Abramson—professor at the Monash University, Melbourne, Australia—says that they are not becoming stupid because of the mobile phone radiation frying their brains, but because predictive texting trains their minds into thinking they can get what they want easily: “If you’re used to operating in that environment and entering a couple of letters and getting the word you want, you expect everything to be like that.”

As someone who sometimes goes around life unconsciously clicking “UNDO! UNDO!” and using the pinching gesture to resize things, I understand completely. OK, maybe that’s just an excuse for the pinching, but you get the idea.

There’s a way to easily solve this, however: Make mobile phones only available for 16-year-olds and older. That way, they can start texting right when they get their driver’s licence. Another way is to let kids feed the crocodiles at the zoo, allowing them to hand in the food through the bars. Both ways will make some great LOLz Ytbe vids! [Daily Mail]

That’s right. When little Timmy gets Susie to “sext” him nudie pics in class, not only are both parties degrading the moral fabric of our civilized society, they’re also contributing to the growing number of transient relationships Nichols feels is slowly killing us all.

“I think there’s a worry that an excessive use, or an almost exclusive use of text and emails means that as a society we’re losing some of the ability to build interpersonal communication that’s necessary for living together and building a community,” he said in a Sunday interview that was probably not conducted over email or IM.

While I agree that anything can be abused if done in excess, the suicide note seems a bit alarmist and anti-technology, even for the Catholic church. Then again, I’ve (luckily) never had the misfortune to know someone who was driven to suicide because I un-friended them on Facebook.

Then again, we’ve seen some freak cases where crazy shit’s happened on these networks… maybe the ol’ Archbishop has a point. What do you think? [Reuters]