If you want to talk on the phone, take the fuckin bus.
I could not agree more.
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
I think cell phone use that involves more than just talking should be banned while driving. (Like games.)
Completely agree, even with hands-free devices. The problem is that the person on the line who isn't driving cannot physically see what is going on around you and adjust accordingly.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. It isn't rocket science. An exception is possibly warranted for 911 calls, but that's it.
I may be in the minority here, but I respectfully disagree. I think penalties should be assessed if you are stupid enough to get into an accident with it, even if the accident is not your fault. However, outright banning is just dumb. You cannot enforce it effectively, and why should you even try?
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2013, 05:20:07 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I respectfully disagree. I think penalties should be assessed if you are stupid enough to get into an accident with it, even if the accident is not your fault. However, outright banning is just dumb. You cannot enforce it effectively, and why should you even try?
No offense, but that's like saying you're in favor of legalizing murder because it cannot 100% effectively be enforced.
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2013, 05:20:07 PMI may be in the minority here, but I respectfully disagree. I think penalties should be assessed if you are stupid enough to get into an accident with it, even if the accident is not your fault. However, outright banning is just dumb. You cannot enforce it effectively, and why should you even try?
I wonder how enforcement works in Japan, which has a comprehensive ban on cellphone usage while driving and is apparently the only jurisdiction in the world with such a ban (though several US states have similar bans for commercial drivers, school bus drivers, and certain groups of the young or recently licensed).
Moving on to PHLBOS' questions:
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PMDo you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Yes.
QuoteDo you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
No (with > 90% hearing loss in both ears, I can't use the audio functions of a cell phone, whether hands-free or not).
QuoteIf yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Yes. There have been times when I have stopped to wait at a light and have wanted to pick up my phone to consult a map or tracking app, but I have always resisted. (Kansas has a texting ban, and while I am not sure it also covers these other activities, I prefer to act out of an abundance of caution.)
My own view is that while ordinary drivers should not be using a cellphone when driving, the case for a formal ban is less clear. It has been suggested on this forum that such a ban would pose an unusual hardship for taxi and car-service drivers who rely on cellphones to stay in touch with dispatch. Also, if a ban is justified on the basis that spoken communication with a party not actually present in the vehicle distracts the driver and so poses an unreasonable risk to road-users in general, then what is the justification for continuing to permit emergency-services drivers to remain in radio contact with their dispatchers? (I realize that "They are trained to do it" can always be cited as an alibi, but does the training they receive actually improve their ability to resist distraction in a way that can be objectively measured?)
I don't think difficulties in enforcement should necessarily be treated as an obstacle to a cellphone ban, given the other traffic laws we have on the books that exist primarily to define norms of civilized driving behavior and which nobody expects to be observed
and enforced 100% of the time. The drunk-driving laws are a classic example--as a society we expect full compliance but we don't ensure that it happens by, e.g., requiring all new cars to be sold with an ignition interlock.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2013, 05:20:07 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I respectfully disagree. I think penalties should be assessed if you are stupid enough to get into an accident with it, even if the accident is not your fault. However, outright banning is just dumb. You cannot enforce it effectively, and why should you even try?
No offense, but that's like saying you're in favor of legalizing murder because it cannot 100% effectively be enforced.
How is this comparable to murder? It makes a nice strawman, but it's one that should be burned. It's more comparable to Prohibition. Sure, alcohol is bad for you, but trying to enforce the ban is just nuts.
Alcohol is "bad" for you. Driving without paying attention is bad for other people. Not that awesome people deserve to be protected.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
I used to occasionally answer the phone while driving to say "I'll call you back, I'm driving" but I no longer do so. I realized that I was being dangerous and I now feel bad about it. Texting and driving is a big nono.
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 05:53:07 PM
Alcohol is "bad" for you. Driving without paying attention is bad for other people. Not that awesome people deserve to be protected.
Akyhal can be bad for other drivers if you are driving drunk.
Quote from: bugo on October 29, 2013, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 05:53:07 PM
Alcohol is "bad" for you. Driving without paying attention is bad for other people. Not that awesome people deserve to be protected.
Akyhal can be bad for other drivers if you are driving drunk.
Getting drunk in itself has no immediate effect on others. Getting drunk and driving has an immediate effect on others.
Using your cell phone in itself has no immediate effect on others. Using your cell phone and driving has an immediate effect on others.
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 05:53:07 PM
Alcohol is "bad" for you. Driving without paying attention is bad for other people. Not that awesome people deserve to be protected.
Why do we need more laws? We have laws on the books, let's use them and stop criminalizing everything. Both you on the far left and far right want to criminalize everything. STOP IT!
So you agree that it should be banned, just believe that existing laws already ban it?
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
Yes, no, yes.
Occupying the driver's hand is only a small part of the problem. To politely carry on a conversation you must be paying attention to it. Drivers are excused from paying full attention when talking to a passenger in the car, because the passenger should be able to see when the road demands the driver's full attention. Someone on the other end of the phone call can't see that, and drivers attempt to compensate by paying more attention to their calls all the time.
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2013, 05:20:07 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I respectfully disagree. I think penalties should be assessed if you are stupid enough to get into an accident with it, even if the accident is not your fault. However, outright banning is just dumb. You cannot enforce it effectively, and why should you even try?
I think this is absolutely right- assess a penalty if you talk on your phone, hands-free or not, when you get into an accident. Attempting to actively enforce a blanket ban will harm those who are capable of doing it safely (even if you disagree that it can be done safely, you have to acknowledge that some folks are better at multitasking than others and pose less of an accident risk when on a cell phone) and generally divert police attention from more important matters (while increasing the "police state" feeling society already is starting to feel).
Quote from: kkt on October 29, 2013, 07:00:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
Yes, no, yes.
Occupying the driver's hand is only a small part of the problem. To politely carry on a conversation you must be paying attention to it. Drivers are excused from paying full attention when talking to a passenger in the car, because the passenger should be able to see when the road demands the driver's full attention. Someone on the other end of the phone call can't see that, and drivers attempt to compensate by paying more attention to their calls all the time.
Evidence?
Quote from: bugo on October 29, 2013, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 29, 2013, 07:00:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
Yes, no, yes.
Occupying the driver's hand is only a small part of the problem. To politely carry on a conversation you must be paying attention to it. Drivers are excused from paying full attention when talking to a passenger in the car, because the passenger should be able to see when the road demands the driver's full attention. Someone on the other end of the phone call can't see that, and drivers attempt to compensate by paying more attention to their calls all the time.
Evidence?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=cell+phone+distraction+conversation&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C27&as_sdtp=
Pretty much every scientific study on the matter supports that conclusion
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2013, 06:44:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 05:53:07 PM
Alcohol is "bad" for you. Driving without paying attention is bad for other people. Not that awesome people deserve to be protected.
Why do we need more laws? We have laws on the books, let's use them and stop criminalizing everything. Both you on the far left and far right want to criminalize everything. STOP IT!
This is not a victimless crime. The extremists want to ban things that don't hurt anybody but themselves. Talking on a cell phone puts MY life in danger and I have a problem with that. I can't count the number of times I've nearly gotten into an accident because of somebody talking on their phone. It happened twice today in about an hour.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 06:01:19 PMUsing your cell phone and driving has an immediate effect on others.
Not if you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 04:22:32 PM
If you want to talk on the phone, take the fuckin bus.
Quote from: bugo on October 29, 2013, 04:27:47 PM
I could not agree more.
What a bunch of crappy-crap-crap.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2013, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 06:01:19 PMUsing your cell phone and driving has an immediate effect on others.
Not if you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
From the same school of science as "it snowed today so climate change is a hoax".
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
Yes; very recently yes (my new car has it); and at first no, but I no longer answer calls while on the road. If the phone rings a lot, then I pull off and find out what it is about.
I see folks on the phone behind the wheel all the time, and it bothers me. It is yet another distraction to a driver that occupies not only the mind but also at least one hand. This endangers the driver, his passengers and anyone else in proximity.
Problem is, I also see this in pedestrians as well, looking at their phones while obliviously entering crosswalks. I have encountered folks in my building who will go from the cafeteria to their office without looking up from their phone, whether occupied with texting or a game.
The addiction to cell phone usage (and all the capabilities they now have) is affecting many aspects of life, not all of them positively. I cannot remember any more how things were before cell phones came into being.
Sorry . . . I'll get off of my soap box now . . .
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2013, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 06:01:19 PMUsing your cell phone and driving has an immediate effect on others.
Not if you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
From the same school of science as "it snowed today so climate change is a hoax".
Sorry that your abilities are limited so that they don't allow you to talk and drive at the same time. I'm grateful that I don't have that limitation.
Seriously... When I'm driving out of my local area, or on the freeway, I usually have a headset on. If I don't feel comfortable talking and driving in a certain situation, I don't.
And I can assure Jeremy that if he ever meets me on the road and I am talking on the phone, I will pose no danger to his health or to the structural integrity of his car. Just because others do doesn't mean that I will.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2013, 08:46:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2013, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 06:01:19 PMUsing your cell phone and driving has an immediate effect on others.
Not if you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
From the same school of science as "it snowed today so climate change is a hoax".
Sorry that your abilities are limited so that they don't allow you to talk and drive at the same time. I'm grateful that I don't have that limitation.
I'd argue that most people are capable are driving competently while talking on a cell phone, and that people/the media/the government tend to focus on the negative and overstate the problem.
But... if you drive while talking on a cell phone, you are driving distracted, that's just a fact. You might feel that you're still devoting
enough attention to the road -- maybe you are, maybe you aren't -- but you aren't devoting
as much as you would if you were not using your phone.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2013, 08:46:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 29, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2013, 08:14:07 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 06:01:19 PMUsing your cell phone and driving has an immediate effect on others.
Not if you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
From the same school of science as "it snowed today so climate change is a hoax".
Sorry that your abilities are limited so that they don't allow you to talk and drive at the same time. I'm grateful that I don't have that limitation.
Seriously... When I'm driving out of my local area, or on the freeway, I usually have a headset on. If I don't feel comfortable talking and driving in a certain situation, I don't.
And I can assure Jeremy that if he ever meets me on the road and I am talking on the phone, I will pose no danger to his health or to the structural integrity of his car. Just because others do doesn't mean that I will.
1) since when did Florida ban cell phone use while driving?
2)no comment
3)That's a stereotypical teenage invincibility attitude. "If I do this carefully, I'm practically invincible when I do it." Don't come crying to me when you get into an accident going 70 on the freeway.
Quote3)That's a stereotypical teenage invincibility attitude. "If I do this carefully, I'm practically invincible when I do it." Don't come crying to me when you get into an accident going 70 on the freeway.
I dunno, where Elkins may seem invincible, you seem paranoid. My thought is that there are a lot of people out there who are just terrible drivers, even without a device on them, and we don't ban them from the roads. Give a device to those drivers, and they're the reason people advocate for cell phone bans. Assuming Elkins is a good driver, and I'd tend to think he probably is, slightly distracted Elkins on a cell phone is still probably a better driver than a good chunk of the people on the road- not as good a driver as not-distracted Elkins, admittedly, but maybe that's unnecessary.
It seems like an awful lot of folks use cell phones and drive, but you only hear about it when it causes a problem. Yeah, it's better to not talk on a phone than it is to talk on a phone, but it's not this black and white "you talk on a phone and you are guaranteed to kill somebody" sort of thing either.
A lot of times I think it makes me more alert- if I'm driving in the middle of Nevada or somewhere else long and terrible and I for some reason have cell service, I'll talk to folks on the phone. Makes the miles go by and I'm certain I have a higher level of awareness on the phone than I would be have if I were in the half-daydreaming autopilot highway hypnosis mode I'd possibly be in otherwise.
Quote from: corco on October 29, 2013, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 29, 2013, 07:18:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 29, 2013, 07:00:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Do you actually own a cell phone yourself?
Do you own or use any form of hands-free device (Bluetooth or other)?
If yes to one or both of the above-questions, have you disciplined yourself to either pull over or only make & receive calls while parked (notice: I didn't say stopped)?
Just asking.
Yes, no, yes.
Occupying the driver's hand is only a small part of the problem. To politely carry on a conversation you must be paying attention to it. Drivers are excused from paying full attention when talking to a passenger in the car, because the passenger should be able to see when the road demands the driver's full attention. Someone on the other end of the phone call can't see that, and drivers attempt to compensate by paying more attention to their calls all the time.
Evidence?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=cell+phone+distraction+conversation&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C27&as_sdtp=
Pretty much every scientific study on the matter supports that conclusion
While I didn't go through every study listed, I did start to notice a common theme: Cell Phones were tested against normal, no distraction driving.
But were cell phones and/or non-distracted driving tested against:
crying kids?
fighting kids?
changing music?
stuff rolling around?
looking at billboards?
thinking about love life?
These studies looked at one distraction and compared it to an optimal condition. It was almost guaranteed that talking on a cell phone would be more dangerous, due to the study method. There was one study on the first page of that link which compared talking on a cell phone to talking to a passenger, and noted the conversation often geared towards the traffic, which meant both people were alert. I don't know about you, but when I'm in the car with other people, rarely do we talk about traffic, especially on a daily basis.
I'm still wanting to know how all the accidents occurred 30 years ago, when cell phones didn't exist. Accidents were plentiful back then. And one could expect the number of accidents to increase, simply based on the additional traffic on the roads. Or the higher speed limits. Or many other reasons. And none of this would even factor in cell phones, which should, one would think, increase accidents even more. But yet, there isn't a huge increase in accidents - accidents have remained relatively stable or decreased.
BTW, here's the data I used: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
Well right, but the point of (some of) those studies wasn't to compare whether talking on cell phones is bad or not, the point was to compare
A) Talking with a headseat
and
B) Handheld phone use
compared against a control group
C) No condition
and in that case, the literature supports that having a headset does little to make you more safe than holding a phone in your hand. I'm not making a value judgment as to whether that is good or bad, simply saying that is what it is.
But yeah, agreed that oral cell phone conversations are one of many distractions, and singling them out as being somehow more evil than a lot of other things is weird.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2013, 09:36:38 PM
I'm still wanting to know how all the accidents occurred 30 years ago, when cell phones didn't exist. Accidents were plentiful back then. And one could expect the number of accidents to increase, simply based on the additional traffic on the roads. Or the higher speed limits. Or many other reasons. And none of this would even factor in cell phones, which should, one would think, increase accidents even more. But yet, there isn't a huge increase in accidents - accidents have remained relatively stable or decreased.
BTW, here's the data I used: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
I agree with you 100%. I think the difference is that drivers distracted themselves in other ways in the past. For instance, I play music from my phone through my stereo, which contributes to distracted driving. In the past, I would have been fooling around with CDs and cassettes and the radio. Using my phone while driving is a different distraction.
I admit that I occasionally use my phone while driving, whether I am talking on the phone, taking a picture of a button copy sign, playing music, or looking up something on a map. I believe that most people use their phones occasionally, even if they won't admit it. Answering a quick text "10 min away" or taking a 30 second phone call still counts. I will actually argue that in some situations, it was safer for me to use my phone than not, like when driving late at night alone and I needed conversation to keep me awake until I got to my destination.
Quote from: corco on October 29, 2013, 09:25:11 PM
It seems like an awful lot of folks use cell phones and drive, but you only hear about it when it causes a problem. Yeah, it's better to not talk on a phone than it is to talk on a phone, but it's not this black and white "you talk on a phone and you are guaranteed to kill somebody" sort of thing either.
Damn it, that isn't what I said at all.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2013, 09:36:38 PM
crying kids?
fighting kids?
changing music?
stuff rolling around?
looking at billboards?
thinking about love life?
1 and 2) Any sane person I know would pull over when their kids are roughhousing in the car.
3) Modern cars have this integrated in the steering wheel. I don't have to look to change music, and besides, 1 or 2 seconds is nothing compared to minutes on end in a deep conversation.
4) Depends on the stuff, or why anyone would look at it rolling around in the first place.
5) Vermont has it right. I'll give you that.
6) Ok, you got me there. But your own deep thoughts are controlled by
you alone, and there is no party outside the vehicle controlling where they lead.
You are the master of your own destiny.Quote from: corco on October 29, 2013, 09:57:16 PM
But yeah, agreed that oral cell phone conversations are one of many distractions, and singling them out as being somehow more evil than a lot of other things is weird.
No one is singling out anything.
I acknowledge the undeniable fact that other distractions exist. But why in the hell does that mean that we shouldn't treat one source of the problem that has only been common practice the last 15 or so years?
Quote from: stormfront on October 29, 2013, 11:14:51 PM
Classic liberal fascism.
LOL
Guys like you and HB think you should be given the freedom to put others at risk. Look, I've talked on the phone while driving, and it is very dangerous. I bet you conservafucks wouldn't like the idea of drivers smoking cannabis while driving, which has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be safer than using the cell phone while driving.
My right to be safe from bodily harm or death trumps your right to yack on the phone while driving a 6000 pound truck.
One advantage to laws banning use of mobile phones (whether it's a handheld ban or a total ban) is that, even if the law is difficult to enforce directly, it may constitute compelling evidence of the standard of care in a civil negligence case brought by someone hit by a mobile phone user. A judge would be justified in finding as a matter of law that using a handheld phone is something a reasonable person would not do given the law banning it. This in turn is important because it's easy enough to foresee a jury saying, "Oh, everyone talks on the phone, nothing wrong with that."
In addition, if the law bans using a phone, it gives the civil plaintiff a stronger ground for compelling the defendant to produce his mobile phone records from the time of the accident because they may be relevant to proving the defendant was using a phone.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 10:50:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2013, 09:36:38 PM
crying kids?
fighting kids?
changing music?
stuff rolling around?
looking at billboards?
thinking about love life?
1 and 2) Any sane person I know would pull over when their kids are roughhousing in the car.
3) Modern cars have this integrated in the steering wheel. I don't have to look to change music, and besides, 1 or 2 seconds is nothing compared to minutes on end in a deep conversation.
4) Depends on the stuff, or why anyone would look at it rolling around in the first place.
5) Vermont has it right. I'll give you that.
6) Ok, you got me there. But your own deep thoughts are controlled by you alone, and there is no party outside the vehicle controlling where they lead. You are the master of your own destiny.
OK, fine, then please tell me how millions of accidents occurred before the age of cell phones.
BTW...#3 is false assumptions. SOME modern cars have have them, but not all. And not everyone uses them. And the average age of cars on the road is about 11 years, so clearly most people would not have these controls.
And I've never known anyone to pull over if their young kids are fighting.
Texting while driving is illegal in Indiana. Now they just need to make phone calls illegal. :banghead:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2013, 08:23:13 AM
OK, fine, then please tell me how millions of accidents occurred before the age of cell phones.
That cell phone use while driving causes accidents does NOT imply that no accidents can happen any other way. Of course there are lots of other causes of accidents. But those other causes of accidents aren't going to stop just because you're on the phone; the cell phone is an additional risk besides all the other things that continue to cause accidents.
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 06:02:33 AM
Guys like you and HB think you should be given the freedom to put others at risk.
Except I'm not putting others at risk, despite what you may think.
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2013, 10:37:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2013, 08:23:13 AM
OK, fine, then please tell me how millions of accidents occurred before the age of cell phones.
That cell phone use while driving causes accidents does NOT imply that no accidents can happen any other way. Of course there are lots of other causes of accidents. But those other causes of accidents aren't going to stop just because you're on the phone; the cell phone is an additional risk besides all the other things that continue to cause accidents.
The point I was getting at was that even though the cell phone does pose an additional risk, overall, accidents are equal to or down from many years ago when cell phones didn't exist. So somewhere along the line, other reasons for car accidents have had to go down if cell phones are supposing leading to a lot of crashes.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 09:16:24 PM
3)That's a stereotypical teenage invincibility attitude.
Except I've been driving longer than you've been alive.
Like I said, if I think it's dangerous, I don't do it. I've told my wife several times, "I'm in heavy traffic/around a bunch of big trucks/on a curvy mountain road/whatever, I will call you back." If I'm driving down the interstate and it's lightly traveled, there's no issue.
We also need to ban smoking, eating, drinking non-alcoholic beverages, changing the radio station, changing the song on the iPod, setting a GPS and everything else that requires you to take one hand off the steering wheel. Same logic applies.
IT'S A DISTRACTION!!!! OMG! BAN IT NOW!!!!!I have to put up with enough of this crap in my job. It gets real old seeing it plastered all over AA Roads and on Facebook and on m.t.r.
A man in Mena, Arkansas was driving while texting and ran over a little 2 year old girl. The baby survived (and is adorable, as I got to hang out with her a couple of times) but will have health problems for her whole life. He pulled over, looked at her in the road, and took off. He's going to get locked away for a long time.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 30, 2013, 10:42:02 AM
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 06:02:33 AM
Guys like you and HB think you should be given the freedom to put others at risk.
Except I'm not putting others at risk, despite what you may think.
Yes, you are. You are being distracted, even though you might think that you're not, which automatically makes you a worse and more dangerous driver, which increases your chances of getting into an accident and maiming or killing somebody. Quit pretending that you're Superman and put down the damn phone until you can park the car. Are your phone calls that important that they can't wait? Are you just chit chatting or are they important calls?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 30, 2013, 10:54:10 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 09:16:24 PM
3)That's a stereotypical teenage invincibility attitude.
Except I've been driving longer than you've been alive.
I'd feel safer riding in a car with Moland not talking on the phone than I would riding in a car with you talking on the phone.
Quote
Like I said, if I think it's dangerous, I don't do it. I've told my wife several times, "I'm in heavy traffic/around a bunch of big trucks/on a curvy mountain road/whatever, I will call you back." If I'm driving down the interstate and it's lightly traveled, there's no issue.
We also need to ban smoking, eating, drinking non-alcoholic beverages, changing the radio station, changing the song on the iPod, setting a GPS and everything else that requires you to take one hand off the steering wheel. Same logic applies.
Your eyes don't have to leave the road when you do any of those things because you can do them by feel. With today's smartphones, it's impossible to answering a phone without looking away from the road.
Quote
I have to put up with enough of this crap in my job. It gets real old seeing it plastered all over AA Roads and on Facebook and on m.t.r.
Then quit doing it.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 29, 2013, 06:01:19 PM
Getting drunk in itself has no immediate effect on others. Getting drunk and driving has an immediate effect on others.
I drink alone....
yeaaahhhh with nobody else...
Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.
Bobby Orrock, a registered Republican and a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, proposed legislation that would essentially make all "distracted driving" a primary offence. The language of Orrock's bill outlaws driving a vehicle "while engaged in an activity that is not necessary to the operation of the vehicle and that actually impairs his ability to operate the vehicle is guilty of a traffic infraction."
The Fredericksburg website linked the article detailing the proposed bill and had a poll on the bill. Of those who responded:
http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/01/24/orrock-sponsors-sweeping-distracted-driving-bill/
34.69% (196 votes): No way. Stop looking in my car and mind your own business.
34.69% (196 votes): Not sure. Something needs to be done, but this may be too much.
26.19% (148 votes): Yes. Distracted driving has gotten out of control and this sweeping change is needed to ensure our safety.
I personally feel that the proposed bill is a massive overreach.
Guess that would render Bluetooth useless in cars...
Are the handsfree devices truly hands free? Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through?
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 12:23:20 PM
Are the handsfree devices truly hands free? Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through?
Is your radio truly handsfree? Are your climate controls truly handsfree? It starts to get really asinine here.
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 06:02:33 AM
Guys like you and HB think you should be given the freedom to put others at risk.
So basically, what you are saying is that you need to crusade to save us from ourselves. Thank you, but fuck you. I do not need saving from myself anymore than anyone else does, busybody. Go mind your own fucking business (GMYOFB) and leave me to mine.
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 12:23:20 PM
Are the handsfree devices truly hands free? Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through?
Depends on your particular equipment. In my Acura sedan, the handsfree system operates without my touching the phone. I hit a button on the steering wheel to answer the call and to hang up and the call comes over the stereo speakers (muting the radio or pausing the CD/DVD-Audio/tape as appropriate); the caller ID info displays where the odometer usually is. The "answer" button also allows voice-dialing. I still avoid talking on the phone for more than the briefest sort of thing, though. It's distracting.
I have an earpiece for when I drive the other two cars. I've had multiple earpieces and phones over the years and how they've worked has varied. My iPhone doesn't support having the earpiece answer automatically, so I have to tap a little button behind my ear to answer it. On one of my previous phones (not a so-called "smartphone") I could set it so the earpiece would automatically pick up the call without my doing anything.
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 12:23:20 PM
Are the handsfree devices truly hands free? Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through?
So far, you have to at least push a button in initiate a call; after that, you can use your voice to get through it. Picking up an incoming call is just one press of the steering wheel button (so is declining the call). Every car I've used Bluetooth with at least has a button on the steering wheel, unless you're using an earpiece...same deal, one button. A turn-signal stalk is a further reach from the wheel on some cars.
Some systems require a lengthy question-and-answer period to get to the call: Nissan's system asks about four questions between pressing the phone call button on the wheel and the phone ringing. It's easier to just start the call when the car's parked/stopped, which takes all of a two button pushes, unless it's a number I haven't saved. And others, like Hyundai's and Kia's, only asks two questions. Some have a touch screen.
Put it this way: if you're driving a car, most of the time your hands are occupied, but to say they are always occupied is nonsense. Every car has had other buttons, levers, switches (radio, shifting, cruise control, for example) that have been in cars for over 50 years, and some are even basic requirements for the operation of a car.
Texting is whole other challenge that I won't partake in while a car is moving; it's hard enough trying it while walking.
There's a pretty good correlation between teenagers and young adults just getting their licenses and texting while driving, because they're an age group that fits both categories and has relatively little experience in driving in the first place. There's always going to be bad and inattentive drivers, no matter what the age.
But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.
So I say, why not leave our liberties alone instead of applying a problem to a solution?
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2013, 12:34:49 PM
But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.
No. Phone history searches can be done without seizure of the phone itself.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 30, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
No. Phone history searches can be done without seizure of the phone itself.
Yes, but it's not yet something that happens overnight, let alone during a 10-30 minute traffic stop.
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2013, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 12:23:20 PM
Are the handsfree devices truly hands free? Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through?
So far, you have to at least push a button in initiate a call; after that, you can use your voice to get through it. Picking up an incoming call is just one press of the steering wheel button (so is declining the call). Every car I've used Bluetooth with at least has a button on the steering wheel, unless you're using an earpiece...same deal, one button. A turn-signal stalk is a further reach from the wheel on some cars.
Some systems require a lengthy question-and-answer period to get to the call: Nissan's system asks about four questions between pressing the phone call button on the wheel and the phone ringing. It's easier to just start the call when the car's parked/stopped, which takes all of a two button pushes, unless it's a number I haven't saved. And others, like Hyundai's and Kia's, only asks two questions. Some have a touch screen.
Put it this way: if you're driving a car, most of the time your hands are occupied, but to say they are always occupied is nonsense. Every car has had other buttons, levers, switches (radio, shifting, cruise control, for example) that have been in cars for over 50 years, and some are even basic requirements for the operation of a car.
Texting is whole other challenge that I won't partake in while a car is moving; it's hard enough trying it while walking.
There's a pretty good correlation between teenagers and young adults just getting their licenses and texting while driving, because they're an age group that fits both categories and has relatively little experience in driving in the first place. There's always going to be bad and inattentive drivers, no matter what the age.
But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.
So I say, why not leave our liberties alone instead of applying a problem to a solution?
This sums up my opinion on the matter exactly.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 29, 2013, 05:42:43 PMMy own view is that while ordinary drivers should not be using a cellphone when driving, the case for a formal ban is less clear. It has been suggested on this forum that such a ban would pose an unusual hardship for taxi and car-service drivers who rely on cellphones to stay in touch with dispatch. Also, if a ban is justified on the basis that spoken communication with a party not actually present in the vehicle distracts the driver and so poses an unreasonable risk to road-users in general, then what is the justification for continuing to permit emergency-services drivers to remain in radio contact with their dispatchers? (I realize that "They are trained to do it" can always be cited as an alibi, but does the training they receive actually improve their ability to resist distraction in a way that can be objectively measured?)
For a 4-month period in 1990 between my two engineering jobs (w/a 6-month period of receiving unemployment checks); I took a job being an executive sedan driver. For those unfamiliar w/such; it was basically a cross between a taxicab driver & a limo driver... driving a regular dressy sedan while wearing a suit.
Anyway, each car had walkie-talkie system that resembled a then-current, hand-held cell phone.
The only instructions the drivers received was basically how to operate/use the equipment and nothing else. It was understood that some of the talking w/the dispatcher
could take place while in motion. The only conversations on such devices lasting longer than a minute was if a driver needed step-by-step directions. One time while parked and on break, I actually had to administer such to another driver (while they were in motion) when a fill-in dispatcher was unavailable.
Remember this was before the days of MapQuest, never mind GPS Navigation systems and wide-spread cell-phone usage; all vehicles had a detailed street atlas (Universal's Metropolitan Boston edition) for navigation purposes.
BTW, each driver was also given a beeper (remember those?) as well in case one was out of dispatch's range. If a driver was
beeped, they either stopped at the first available pay-phone (a rare sight today) or, as a last resort due to roaming charges that existed at the time, used the mounted cell phone intended for the customer's use. This unit was mounted on the drivetrain "hump" between the driver's & passenger's side seats. Passengers/customers typically rode in the back seats.
To my knowledge, no driver had an accident because they were talking to their dispatcher on their hand-held mike while in motion. Similar could be said regarding truckers conversing on their CB radios, which has been going on for decades.
The only difference I see between a taxi/limo/executive sedan/delivery/ambulance driver, police officer, etc. or trucker vs. the average Joe or Jane driver is that, in most instances, the radio/communication systems were typically ones that had the receiving sound (from the dispatcher and the like) transmit through a speaker that could be heard by
anyone in the vehicle whereas a cell phone user typically either needs to hold the phone to their ears or needs to have an earpiece to hear what the other person on the line is saying. Granted and as others have mentioned earlier,
some vehicles are equipped w/systems where one could conceivably utilize the car's speaker system for their phones
but those are in the
small minority. Most vehicles on the road today aren't equipped that way.
When bans on drivers using hand-held cell phones first came about, I did not own a cell phone at the time and I originally sided w/those advocating the ban. However, after giving it some thought and research into my own personal history of using walkie-talkies and CB radios while driving; I have since decided otherwise; especially since I now own a cell phone.
I've come to realize that many of these morons that cause accidents while talking on their cell phones would likely be subject to
any distractions while driving and
still cause accidents. In short; guns (or drivers using cell phones in this case) don't kill people, people kill people. Actually, it's father's w/pretty daughters that kill people (saw that on a plaque at a gift shop in Ocean City, NJ) but I digress. :)
That said,
I do not condone having long conversations on a cell phone while driving other than giving out or receiving driving directions. I actually was requested twice in recent years via a friend's cell phone (while they were driving) to give out turn-by-turn directions due to their either getting lost and/or their GPS unit totally screwing them up; it
does happen (note my signature). The gossip and/or other mumbo-jumbo talk on the cell phone can wait until one's parked.
Truth be told, I'm actually surprised that many replied to my earlier 3 questions (thanks to those who responded BTW). I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer). I wanted to verify whether or not this was a
Do as I say, not as I do! situation or stance.
OTOH, texting while driving I personally don't condone
at all and I absolutely will not text while driving. However, I will admit that there have been times, when I received a text; I'll take a look at the message while stopped at a light. I try to avoid doing such as much as possible. Fortunately, I'm not Mr. Popular, so it's not like I get that many text messages. :)
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 30, 2013, 04:51:10 PM
I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer).
I don't own a phone or a car. Poo as I poo.
Quote from: NE2 on October 30, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 30, 2013, 04:51:10 PM
I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer).
I don't own a phone or a car. Poo as I poo.
If you own neither, please do us all a favor and refrain from commenting on them.
Sun glare can be distracting to drivers and countless lives have been lost as a result of sun glare. Should we ban driving when it's sunny out?
Quote from: tradephoric on October 30, 2013, 05:50:52 PM
Sun glare can be distracting to drivers and countless lives have been lost as a result of sun glare. Should we ban driving when it's sunny out?
Hell, I've nearly missed vehicles at roundabouts due to the thickness of the A pillar. Yet, a thicker A pillar is necessary should I get into an accident or roll over.
Quote from: Brandon on October 30, 2013, 05:38:57 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 30, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 30, 2013, 04:51:10 PM
I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer).
I don't own a phone or a car. Poo as I poo.
If you own neither, please do us all a favor and refrain from commenting on them.
And with that you poison the well, good sir. Bicycles and pedestrians have the same rights as cars on the road, and risk greater injury from inattentive drivers at that. As for not owning a phone, try having a conversation on your landline and watching a movie at the same time. Then give me the exact plot of the movie and the progression of the conversation. If you cannot accurately do both, you cannot accurately pay attention to the road and a phone call at the same time.
QuoteThen give me the exact plot of the movie and the progression of the conversation. If you cannot accurately do both, you cannot accurately pay attention to the road and a phone call at the same time.
Okay that I do want to see some evidence for before you make that leap. Talking on a phone and driving involve different senses, where talking on a phone and watching (which includes listening) a movie involve very similar senses.
Quote from: corco on October 30, 2013, 07:08:47 PM
QuoteThen give me the exact plot of the movie and the progression of the conversation. If you cannot accurately do both, you cannot accurately pay attention to the road and a phone call at the same time.
Okay that I do want to see some evidence for before you make that leap. Talking on a phone and driving involve different senses, where talking on a phone and watching (which includes listening) a movie involve very similar senses.
I can't provide you with any evidence. If you don't pay as much attention to the road as you do to a well-written movie (analyzing your situation in relation to your surroundings, other vehicles, wildlife, and other roadways as you go), then you shouldn't be driving in my book. That has nothing to do with the senses used for driving and talking on the phone. If you disagree, it was only an example. The primary purpose of that post was to prove to Brandon that he was being highly illogical when he said that SPUI has no business commenting on the matter. It's the same logic feminazis use to say that men can't disagree with their "progressive agenda."
QuoteThe primary purpose of that post was to prove to
Except you don't prove anything when you make statements like that. Watching a well-written movie and analyzing situations while driving involve the same parts of the brain. Driving largely involves your occipital lobe, parietal lobe and cerebellum which provide reflexes and motor reactions. Talking on a cell phone is more of a frontal/temporal lobe activity. The lines aren't perfect, but it's actually possible for a person to competently multitask while doing both. Attempting to listen to multiple conversations and recall them perfectly (the one on the phone and the one on TV) is all but impossible, because you're trying to do two very similar things at the same time.
Driving and talking have some overlap to the point (you do need to use your frontal lobe a little bit and temporal lobe a tiny bit when driving) that yeah, it's better not to do both at once, but they're two things that can theoretically be done safely at the same time. Some people will be better at this than others.
It's a bad analogy.
The benefit of hands-free is that it allows you to have both hands on the wheel, where phone in your hand does not. So the former is less of an impairment.
Now, yes, hands-free still is a distraction... but so is talking to a passenger in the car. I know this well: I always drive more cautiously and less aggressively when there's someone else in the car with me because I have to pay some level of attention to them and thus cannot be completely 100% zoned in on the road with them there. If we are going to ban hands-free phone use we might as well also require that the driver not be permitted to talk to any passengers that may be in the car, as that is equally distracting.
The other thing about banning phone use outright is that this can at times create some significant problems for some people. Lots of people who are regularly in the field for work have bluetooth in their vehicles because their employers are not okay with their employee being effectively off the grid whenever they are driving (which could be a significant portion of the day). Some people are expected to answer their phone when their boss or a client calls them regardless of what they are doing and may suffer negative consequences for failing to do so.
Me, if my phone rings while I'm driving, I'll just let it ring and go to voicemail unless I happen to be right at a spot where I can pull over. But I'm rarely ever driving during a workday and I don't get phone calls which my job demands I answer instantly. Not everyone has these luxuries.
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 11:17:17 AM
A man in Mena, Arkansas was driving while texting and ran over a little 2 year old girl. The baby survived (and is adorable, as I got to hang out with her a couple of times) but will have health problems for her whole life. He pulled over, looked at her in the road, and took off. He's going to get locked away for a long time.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp562%2Fsummerbird7%2FBleeding_Heart_Liberal___Wingnut_Co.png&hash=c008b314ef2a3b4edf54ed76386398f895b121b7) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/summerbird7/media/Bleeding_Heart_Liberal___Wingnut_Co.png.html)
While we're at it, we should ban hot chicks jogging next to roads. It's not uncommon for male drivers to get in near-accidents or crash whilst staring at shorts/yoga pants.
Here is my own take on this. It seems that we put the blame on the little nuances when in fact it ought to be ourselves to be blamed for inattentiveness to the road regardless of the usage of cell phones being banned or not. Simple rule to follow: PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD TO USE THE CELL PHONE! Why is it so fucking hard to do so? If you cannot follow this simple rule, do not buy a cell phone, period! Regardless of how well or how bad our hands-free technology seems, this simple rule seems to be kept ignored on a regular basis. So, what exactly are you all point out here? If cell phone usage by drivers should be banned, then why are you still using them in your car right now?
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 31, 2013, 03:56:55 AMSimple rule to follow: PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD TO USE THE CELL PHONE!
You do that. I will continue to talk while I drive when I can safely do so. I'm tired of having to live my life according to the limitations or the dictates of the lowest common denominator.
In other news, let's ban the use of CB or amateur radios while driving. Talking to someone who can't see what you're seeing is a distraction.
QuoteThe Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which H.B. Elkins suffers from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating his ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize his mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Quote from: KEK Inc. on October 31, 2013, 03:48:52 AM
While we're at it, we should ban hot chicks jogging next to roads. It's not uncommon for male drivers to get in near-accidents or crash whilst staring at shorts/yoga pants.
In a similarly main vein, and continuing the slightly OT drift into the realm of other distractions: the next time you drive, think about what roughly one in ten drivers around you (http://autos.aol.com/article/study-sex-while-driving/?ncid=webmail2) have admitted to doing with
that person while behind the wheel. :-o
Returning to the original topic of laws banning mobile-phone usage, I previously mentioned how such laws can benefit people who are injured or who suffer property damage when a mobile-phone user causes an accident. As a general matter, I'm not a huge fan of governments always enacting new laws. I think people need to be responsible and I think endless government regulation just causes people to disregard laws (such as the old 55-mph national speed limit).
On the other hand, there's no question that there are a lot of people out there who seem to be incapable of driving while using a phone, and a lot of them also say, "Well, I haven't had an accident yet, so you have no business telling me to stop." But when you're engrossed in your phone and you're going 45 mph in the middle lane of an Interstate when everyone else is going 65 to 70, you ARE a hazard, regardless of what you personally believe. At some point there has to be some mechanism for dealing with people who refuse to exercise responsibility. It reminds me of a comment I made some months ago in the thread about smoking:
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 22, 2013, 02:01:25 PM
....
The other thing I think is reprehensible is to smoke in the car when you have kids riding with you (especially an infant). As an adult if I know you're a smoker I can refuse to ride with you, and I'll tell you why. Most smokers understand that, I think. But children have no choice in the matter. I really don't remember whether my father smoked in the car (which suggests to me he probably didn't, and given that he's fastidious about keeping the car clean I think it's all the more likely he did not) and I can't imagine being cooped up for a long time in a confined space like that with a smoker. I view it as borderline child abuse to do that to a little kid. I don't necessarily know that I support laws specifically restricting the right to smoke in a car where a kid is a passenger. I have a problem with too much governmental intervention into one's life in that way. BUT on the other hand, I think the kid is entitled to some protection and I'm not sure existing child-abuse laws would afford it.
....
In other words, there has to be some form of recourse for the kid subjected to smoke who is unable to protect himself, and there has to be some form of recourse for people endangered by irresponsible mobile-phone users. I don't know what that recourse is. I'm concerned that the existing tort system is inadequate to do so to the extent it relies on jurors who may themselves be mobile-phone users and who are afraid of setting a precedent finding phone use to be negligent.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2013, 11:10:34 AM
But when you're engrossed in your phone and you're going 45 mph in the middle lane of an Interstate when everyone else is going 65 to 70, you ARE a hazard, regardless of what you personally believe.
But not because you're going too slow - any hazards indirectly caused by a slow driver are the fault of others who follow too closely or weave around you. If you're on the phone and going 45, or anything above 5-10, you're going too fast.
Quote from: Brandon on October 30, 2013, 12:29:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 06:02:33 AM
Guys like you and HB think you should be given the freedom to put others at risk.
So basically, what you are saying is that you need to crusade to save us from ourselves. Thank you, but fuck you. I do not need saving from myself anymore than anyone else does, busybody. Go mind your own fucking business (GMYOFB) and leave me to mine.
When you start putting my life and health in danger, then it becomes my business, buddy boy.
Quote from: formulanone on October 30, 2013, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 30, 2013, 12:23:20 PM
Are the handsfree devices truly hands free? Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through?
So far, you have to at least push a button in initiate a call; after that, you can use your voice to get through it. Picking up an incoming call is just one press of the steering wheel button (so is declining the call). Every car I've used Bluetooth with at least has a button on the steering wheel, unless you're using an earpiece...same deal, one button. A turn-signal stalk is a further reach from the wheel on some cars.
Some systems require a lengthy question-and-answer period to get to the call: Nissan's system asks about four questions between pressing the phone call button on the wheel and the phone ringing. It's easier to just start the call when the car's parked/stopped, which takes all of a two button pushes, unless it's a number I haven't saved. And others, like Hyundai's and Kia's, only asks two questions. Some have a touch screen.
Put it this way: if you're driving a car, most of the time your hands are occupied, but to say they are always occupied is nonsense. Every car has had other buttons, levers, switches (radio, shifting, cruise control, for example) that have been in cars for over 50 years, and some are even basic requirements for the operation of a car.
Texting is whole other challenge that I won't partake in while a car is moving; it's hard enough trying it while walking.
There's a pretty good correlation between teenagers and young adults just getting their licenses and texting while driving, because they're an age group that fits both categories and has relatively little experience in driving in the first place. There's always going to be bad and inattentive drivers, no matter what the age.
But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.
So I say, why not leave our liberties alone instead of applying a problem to a solution?
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
I think a general "driving while distracted" should be banned. the question is, how can someone be judged to be "distracted"? I'll bet some airplane pilot could operate 20 gadgets at a time while driving, while others are are a swerve risk every time they change the radio station.
In my eyes you just answered your own question- judge level of distraction by results. If you swerve by changing the radio station, you get a ticket for swerving. If you are a crazy airline pilot that can operate twenty instruments while following all traffic laws perfectly, youre left alone.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 31, 2013, 11:41:15 AM
I think a general "driving while distracted" should be banned. the question is, how can someone be judged to be "distracted"? I'll bet some airplane pilot could operate 20 gadgets at a time while driving, while others are are a swerve risk every time they change the radio station.
So you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh? Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves. It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line. His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly.
Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it. I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2013, 12:25:48 PMSo you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh? Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves. It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line. His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly.
Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it. I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.
The above describes, in a nutshell, what I mentioned earlier (reposted below w/
Bold emphasis added):
I've come to realize that many of these morons that cause accidents while talking on their cell phones would likely be subject to any distractions while driving and still cause accidents. As far as your carpooler is concerned, doing the above (unintended motions) and not even acknowledging such is just plain wrong IMHO.
Quote from: NE2 on October 31, 2013, 10:26:44 AM
QuoteThe Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which H.B. Elkins suffers from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating his ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize his mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Whatever.
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
Spare me the sound bites, you're not running for elected office.
There's nothing stopping me from driving full sail through a red light, other than worrying about my own self-preservation. The only mechanism after the fact would be to suspend/revoke my license, and/or penalize me. But you can't make a law against such behavior from happening in the first place.
You are of the idea that someone using a cell phone in a car is using it as some sort of offensive weapon, which it is not. You are also of the idea that every driver is only concerned with their own well-being, which is also not true. They should be using due care and looking out for themselves, naturally, but they probably don't want to damage their car, be inconvenienced by getting into an accident. You're assuming that everyone's tied up on the phone from engine ignition on to ignition off.
Sure, it's not so smart to have your ear pressed up against a phone while navigating a parking lot, or most driving scenarios. In an age of Bluetooth and speakerphone, I'll go as far as to say it's even
very stupid, since half your face becomes blocked, and thus, many of your senses are partially blocked, which interprets what's going on in moving vehicle.
Nobody here's ever taken a photo while driving, eaten something while driving, drank a beverage while driving, or scratched themselves when driving, or had thoughts while driving. Those are freedoms, too.
Tell you what, don't break the speed limit while driving, never roll through a stop sign in an empty parking lot, go 25mph on every off-ramp, and I'll put away my phone away whenever I'm in a moving car. If you think every victimless act is an assault on your personal freedoms, you're not living any sort of life I'd call enjoyable.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 31, 2013, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2013, 12:25:48 PMSo you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh? Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves. It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line. His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly.
Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it. I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.
The above describes, in a nutshell, what I mentioned earlier (reposted below w/Bold emphasis added):
I've come to realize that many of these morons that cause accidents while talking on their cell phones would likely be subject to any distractions while driving and still cause accidents.
As far as your carpooler is concerned, doing the above (unintended motions) and not even acknowledging such is just plain wrong IMHO.
Hell, I've seen more than a few that can't even handle an electronic billboard, much less a construction zone. But, just because one moron cannot handle something is not a reason to ban it for all. As you and others (such I have said), we already have statutes that can handle this. Here's a real-life example:
Back in the early 2000s, my mother had a commute route that took her up I-335 to I-88 to Oak Brook. One day, the merge point was backed up on I-88 from I-355. This was before I-88 was widened from 6 to 8 lanes. She had to stop, and looked in her mirror to see a vehicle come up from behind. The driver did not stop in time and rear-ended her. They pulled to the side, and the state trooper across the tollway came over to them. He had just finished dealing with another rear-end accident. He asked my mother her story. She stated that the driver behind had been on his cell phone prior to the accident. The state trooper then went over to the other driver and asked him. He admitted it. The other driver got a ticket for causing the accident and for distracted driving. There was no need for a ban. He was a fool who failed to pay attention to his surroundings, no different than if he'd been fiddling with his radio or looking for something on the floor. He failed to pay any attention to what was in front of him.
I just put up a poll so we can quantify opinions without the usual arguing about the matter.
Quote from: formulanone on October 31, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
Nobody here's ever taken a photo while driving, eaten something while driving, drank a beverage while driving, or scratched themselves when driving, or had thoughts while driving. Those are freedoms, too.
Or this...
http://kpac2.blogspot.com/2006/07/no-merit-in-this-system.html
The most egregious case was probably that of Richard Vissing. Vissing was a Transportation Cabinet employee who, during the Patton administration, got caught masturbating while driving along I-65 in a state vehicle. The media coverage brought Kentucky another round of national embarrassment. The Transportation Cabinet fired him, a state hearing officer upheld the dismissal, but the Personnel Board rejected that recommendation.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 31, 2013, 01:30:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2013, 12:25:48 PMSo you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh? Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves. It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line. His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly.
Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it. I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.
The above describes, in a nutshell, what I mentioned earlier (reposted below w/Bold emphasis added):
I've come to realize that many of these morons that cause accidents while talking on their cell phones would likely be subject to any distractions while driving and still cause accidents.
As far as your carpooler is concerned, doing the above (unintended motions) and not even acknowledging such is just plain wrong IMHO.
As I said in a previous post about the carpool, I do it because it saves gas and saves miles on the car. I've been doing it for 12 years now. It gives me great insight into what other people think while they drive on the roads. And let me tell you...I do it because it saves gas and save miles. Nothing else!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2013, 03:30:26 PMAs I said in a previous post about the carpool, I do it because it saves gas and saves miles on the car. I've been doing it for 12 years now. It gives me great insight into what other people think while they drive on the roads. And let me tell you...I do it because it saves gas and save miles. Nothing else!
I don't ever recall asking you why you carpool in this particular thread nor anybody else asking you for that matter (again, in this thread).
You stated the reasons (which were rather obvious) in another thread.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.
Right. Most of them are out of range at any given time.
I stand corrected.
Not everyone he sees on the road who is talking on their phone while driving puts him at any risk.
My thoughts on it are this: for most people, talking on the phone while driving is dangerous. Technology is to the point where hands free devices are inexpensive and ubiquitous. Why not require their use?
It's like drunk driving. People are perfectly capable of driving drunk safely. Some alcoholics have such insane tolerance that they have normal reaction times when they're well above .08. Drunks can also drive slowly, accounting for their delayed reaction times, and probably make it home OK. Does that mean we should legalize drunk driving? Absolutely not. Similarly, given all of the research comparing drivers on phones to drunk drivers, it makes no sense to allow it. Yes, some of you can safely do it, but if banning it makes the roads safer, it's good public policy IMO.
Anecdotally, with my old car, I thought I was fine talking and driving. A few years ago I got a new car with built in Bluetooth. Since then, I do notice a big difference between my driving when on Bluetooth in my own car when compared to talking holding the phone in a rental car. I'd like to think I do it safely but, like NE2 pointed out, most people do. That's what really made me change my view compared to a few years ago when I didn't support bans.
QuoteWhy not require their use?
My argument against that is that there's absolutely no actual evidence that hands free devices are beneficial in the slightest. If somebody can show me anything besides anecdotal (e.g. "duh, your hand is in the way" or "I drove a car once and I feel safer with a hands free device") evidence that hands free is safer than non-hands free, I'd be in favor of that restriction. But unless I'm badly mistaken, there isn't- the idea was promoted by cell phone companies as a way to sell additional accessories and present the illusion of safety.
I suppose it's probably safer for some people (again, some people's brains work differently than others), but there's no evidence it's safer for all or even the "average" person.
Quote from: corco on October 31, 2013, 07:54:12 PM
QuoteWhy not require their use?
My argument against that is that there's absolutely no actual evidence that hands free devices are beneficial in the slightest. If somebody can show me anything besides anecdotal (e.g. "duh, your hand is in the way" or "I drove a car once and I feel safer with a hands free device") evidence that hands free is safer than non-hands free, I'd be in favor of that restriction. But unless I'm badly mistaken, there isn't- the idea was promoted by cell phone companies as a way to sell additional accessories and present the illusion of safety.
I suppose it's probably safer for some people (again, some people's brains work differently than others), but there's no evidence it's safer for all or even the "average" person.
How the hell can we show you anything that proves that they are safer? The anecdotal stuff you explain is basic logic. You can't flat-out deny it unless
you prove otherwise. Hands-free devices make cell phone use
marginally safer in vehicles because both your hands are on the wheel, your head can freely move, and none of your peripheral vision is obstructed. Unless you can directly disprove this basic logic with a study, I know you are, but what am I?
There's plenty of scientific studies that have tested it- every single one I have seen has not found a safety difference. It's pretty easy to test things like reaction time regarding hands free vs. handheld, and it's been done many, many times.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hands+free+cell+phone&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27
https://www.google.com/search?q=hands+free+vs+handheld&oq=hands+free+vs+handheld&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60.6373j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that hands-free offers negligible, if any, benefit to drivers, which is why I asked to see a study that demonstrates otherwise. I specifically didn't ask for anecdotal evidence because people will think what they think on the issue, and so opinions either way are somewhat meaningless.
Put another words, how can you statistically prove accidents that never happened?
I guess you could start here (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx), and make conclusions left and right: While it's true that cars are safer for their occupants than ever before, and roads which are arguably being made safer, despite an increase in cell phone usage, there isn't an increase in total vehicular mayhem. There's a lot of variables which go into the statistics of vehicular fatalities, but with cellphones being tagged as the biggest culprit, it just doesn't add up...unless you count the increase in motorcycle fatalities (due to a larger increase in motorcycle ownership, certainly not due to an increase in helmet usage) and the rather steady (but slightly falling) tally of pedestrian deaths.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and state that there's been a tremendous gain in wireless and hands-free technology over the past five years.
QuotePut another words, how can you statistically prove accidents that never happened?
Most of these studies involve testing reaction times/mental function under simulated conditions instead of using accident data, so that isn't super relevant.
QuoteI'm going to go out on a limb, and state that there's been a tremendous gain in wireless and hands-free technology over the past five years.
That's certainly possible, and I'd be interested to see if that's the case.
A Monash University study found that children are 12 times more distracting to a driver than talking on a mobile phone. Who decides what distracting behavior is acceptable and what distracting behavior is unacceptable and needs to be legislated?
http://monash.edu/news/show/children-more-distracting-than-mobile-phones
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.
Everybody who drives on the same roads as me puts my life and health at risk. Add a cell phone to the equation and the risk goes higher. I have a serious problem with that. Can't the call fucking wait? I bet you're one of those guys who goes through the line at the grocery store yakking on the phone. Am I right?
I can take road pictures without my eyes leaving the road. I can turn the radio up without looking away. I can't answer a phone without looking away. That is where the line in the sand lies.
Seriously? You are so righteous that you think that taking road photos with a SLR or a point/shoot camera is not distracting and taking attention from the road - whereas swiping to answer a call on a speakerphone or via bluetooth to your audio system is?
Let's just take a step back. You are so righteous and self absorbing that you blame others for driving distracted when you admit to taking photos while behind the wheel. You are pressing physical buttons - or if yours is an iTouch or iPhone or of some variant, then you are pressing non-captive buttons.
Let's just say that I am on the road a considerable amount of the year, and that my iPhone is hooked into my car via an audio cable and power cable. I had a Bluetooth receiver but didn't like the audio quality for 320kbits. When someone calls, I can just swipe at the bottom of the phone to take it, which is then piped through my audio system. I just speak normally and it is picked up by the microphone flawlessly.
I also have an app to read and send text messages, but I generally just use Siri for that. Accuracy rate is about 85%-90%, but I don't bother to read it and check unless stopped.
But hey, you're one pole fits all holes analogy works just fine here. As long as I don't take road pictures.
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 10:31:07 PM
I can take road pictures without my eyes leaving the road. I can turn the radio up without looking away. I can't answer a phone without looking away. That is where the line in the sand lies.
It sounds like you support cell phone bans because answering a phone requires the driver to take their eyes off the road. The Monash University study linked below found that the average parent takes their eyes off the road for three minutes and 22 seconds during a 16-minute trip. Driving with kids was 12 times more distracting than talking on a mobile phone.
http://monash.edu/news/show/children-more-distracting-than-mobile-phones
Should parents be banned from driving when their kids are in the vehicle?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 10:23:16 AMYou do that. I will continue to talk while I drive when I can safely do so. I'm tired of having to live my life according to the limitations or the dictates of the lowest common denominator.
How about only enforcing the law, and enforcing it severely, when an incident has happened?
In other words, if you are the lowest common denominator and have been cocky enough to think that it was safe to use your cell phone when it wasn't, you get a big fine on top of another criminal or civil penalties.
And if you are as good at driving as you say, then you won't get done!
QuoteIn other news, let's ban the use of CB or amateur radios while driving. Talking to someone who can't see what you're seeing is a distraction.
Same rules apply - hit property or persons while using that and get a 'driving distracted' penalty.
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 10:28:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.
Everybody who drives on the same roads as me puts my life and health at risk. Add a cell phone to the equation and the risk goes higher. I have a serious problem with that. Can't the call fucking wait? I bet you're one of those guys who goes through the line at the grocery store yakking on the phone. Am I right?
On the same token, you are also an increased risk to everyone else on the road. Everyone is a risk to everyone else out there.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 01, 2013, 09:21:20 AM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 10:28:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.
Everybody who drives on the same roads as me puts my life and health at risk. Add a cell phone to the equation and the risk goes higher. I have a serious problem with that. Can't the call fucking wait? I bet you're one of those guys who goes through the line at the grocery store yakking on the phone. Am I right?
On the same token, you are also an increased risk to everyone else on the road. Everyone is a risk to everyone else out there.
Tell me about it. Jeremy, if you don't believe us, check out the Driving Pet Peeves thread over in the Off Topic section. There's a few videos of people acting like idiots while not on their phone that'll make your hair stand on end.
Quote from: Brandon on November 01, 2013, 09:33:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 01, 2013, 09:21:20 AM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 10:28:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 11:35:52 AM
You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.
Everybody who drives on the same roads as me puts my life and health at risk. Add a cell phone to the equation and the risk goes higher. I have a serious problem with that. Can't the call fucking wait? I bet you're one of those guys who goes through the line at the grocery store yakking on the phone. Am I right?
On the same token, you are also an increased risk to everyone else on the road. Everyone is a risk to everyone else out there.
Tell me about it. Jeremy, if you don't believe us, check out the Driving Pet Peeves thread over in the Off Topic section. There's a few videos of people acting like idiots while not on their phone that'll make your hair stand on end.
This one isn't in that thread, but it was pretty egregious. Videos like this are why I needed to learn how to add a bleep sound before I started uploading! The driver of the offending car was an older Oriental man who was not using a mobile phone.
"Oriental"? Wow.
I guess I'm "oriental" now, just because of my lineage.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 01, 2013, 10:10:23 AM
"Oriental"? Wow.
I guess I'm "oriental" now, just because of my lineage.
What do you want me to say? I was trying to be neutral because he was clearly Oriental but I couldn't tell whether he was Japanese, Chinese, Korean, whatever, and something like "Chinaman" would be offensive.
Girls! Stop! You're all pretty!
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2013, 10:34:34 AMWhat do you want me to say? I was trying to be neutral because he was clearly Oriental but I couldn't tell whether he was Japanese, Chinese, Korean, whatever, and something like "Chinaman" would be offensive.
"East Asian" is the safe adjective these days--"oriental" (in reference to East Asian ethnicities rather than, say, a type of carpet) has been unsafe since the mid-1980's. But actually it is better to re-think whether the ethnicity has to be specified at all to make your point. If what you really mean is "This guy looks like he is from East Asia because his eyes have epicanthic folds, so he can be visually distinguished from the other involved parties on this basis," then isn't it better to choose a different, race-neutral identifying characteristic such as the make and model of car he is driving, etc.?
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2013, 10:34:34 AM
What do you want me to say? I was trying to be neutral because he was clearly Oriental but I couldn't tell whether he was Japanese, Chinese, Korean, whatever, and something like "Chinaman" would be offensive.
"oriental" is outdated - at least in the US. like "colored".
"Asian" is, as of 2013, the way to go. that said, is his race all that relevant?
The reason I thought it potentially relevant is that in my experience based on observation, older drivers who hail from other parts of the world often exhibit driving behaviors that are uncommon among people who grow up in the United States or Canada. Pulling to the right shoulder to make a left turn is one example; I've seen Latino drivers do that on two-lane roads and it seems to confuse the crap out of many American drivers, but it's common practice in parts of Mexico and other Latin American countries so to them it doesn't seem the least bit bizarre. I've never travelled to any part of Asia (whether the Orient or the Indian subcontinent or anywhere else), but I'm told by people who have been there that all sorts of driving behavior that we would consider anarchic is quite common except in Singapore ("a fine city") and Japan. Thus, I was conflicted on whether the guy in front of me was doing something that might not cause people in his home country to bat an eye or whether he was just being an arsehole.
Yay! America is turning into a politically correct nanny state. :crazy:
Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.
Quote from: tradephoric on November 01, 2013, 11:19:09 AM
Yay! America is turning into a politically correct nanny state. :crazy:
Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_YGVLM2i9n6o%2FS6zGUZM5a-I%2FAAAAAAAAFIg%2F3KquPEdTphY%2Fs1600%2F8107.jpg&hash=c5c7b960dba99b0eba9b7c34af9557b28643c059)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_YGVLM2i9n6o%2FS6zGUPRodII%2FAAAAAAAAFIY%2FdJYvoQEXPCg%2Fs1600%2F8107a.jpg&hash=9a1ad989c8f5e993b09eb2bcbc18c68c872b3e88)
Great, they censored how we'll get to the White Mountains. Maybe a bra was involved; perhaps this is why they are hard to remove.
No, the fuzzed-out part is just where the two parts of the page match up. Note the "No. You must go" on the left side of the page. Maybe the guy's blog software couldn't handle the whole page as a single image: http://the-haunted-closet.blogspot.com/2010/03/white-mountains-boys-life-mar-1981-july.html
(Edited to add: When I was a kid and I first read the books after seeing the comic-strip adaptation, part of what was interesting is knowing the story was set in a future version of our world but not necessarily knowing where all the places were. I read those books again earlier this year and it was interesting to re-read them as an adult who could recognize landmarks like Notre-Dame in Paris and Lake Geneva and such. As a kid I knew it was set in Europe, primarily France, but I didn't get all the references to today's world.)
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 10:28:37 PMI bet you're one of those guys who goes through the line at the grocery store yakking on the phone. Am I right?
Nope. I usually don't take the phone in the store with me unless I need to call home to ask if a certain product is what is needed or wanted, or I want to take a photo of an item for some reason or another. I don't understand why people feel the need to carry on their conversations in public like that; I've heard plenty of things in the Walmart aisles that are best reserved for a more private setting.
Quote from: tradephoric on October 31, 2013, 11:20:32 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2013, 10:31:07 PM
I can take road pictures without my eyes leaving the road. I can turn the radio up without looking away. I can't answer a phone without looking away. That is where the line in the sand lies.
It sounds like you support cell phone bans because answering a phone requires the driver to take their eyes off the road. The Monash University study linked below found that the average parent takes their eyes off the road for three minutes and 22 seconds during a 16-minute trip. Driving with kids was 12 times more distracting than talking on a mobile phone.
http://monash.edu/news/show/children-more-distracting-than-mobile-phones
Should parents be banned from driving when their kids are in the vehicle?
To some degree it's a question of what you can and can't mitigate. You can refrain from making or taking phone calls while you're driving. But you can't make your kids not be kids while you're driving.
Also, I'd argue that most of the distraction that comes from phones is drivers texting, checking their email, looking at the maps app, etc. - all of these things require taking your eyes off the road a lot more than making a phone call.
Quote from: corco on October 31, 2013, 09:46:07 PM
The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that hands-free offers negligible, if any, benefit to drivers
This is because having a conversation with someone is distracting regardless of the means. As I mentioned before, an adult passenger in the car with me is pretty much as distracting as my phone on speaker in the cupholder. There's a reason why on city buses they ask you not to talk to the driver while the bus is moving.
What makes a handheld camera distinct from a handheld telephone is the degree to which it monopolizes the hand you're holding it in. Some steering maneuvers require two hands to perform properly. If I use a camera while driving I usually pick it up briefly and then put it back down, and I can always partially grab the wheel with my second hand while the camera is still in it if need be. But if I have my phone in my hand and am having a conversation with someone over it, then my hand has to keep holding the phone to my ear and I cannot use that second hand for steering when I need it. That has the potential to not end well even if we factor out it being distracting.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 01, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
But you can't make your kids not be kids while you're driving.
To an extent. You can pull over and tell them you aren't going until they behave. But apparently parents don't do this in all areas of the country.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 01, 2013, 06:16:27 PM
What makes a handheld camera distinct from a handheld telephone is the degree to which it monopolizes the hand you're holding it in. Some steering maneuvers require two hands to perform properly. If I use a camera while driving I usually pick it up briefly and then put it back down, and I can always partially grab the wheel with my second hand while the camera is still in it if need be. But if I have my phone in my hand and am having a conversation with someone over it, then my hand has to keep holding the phone to my ear and I cannot use that second hand for steering when I need it. That has the potential to not end well even if we factor out it being distracting.
Totally agreed- I would hazard to say that if a camera is used in the way you describe, which I think is how most of us who have practiced a lot do it, it's more along the lines of the "adjusting the radio volume" level of distraction than the cell phone/eating/dealing with kids level of distraction.
The only time I feel like maybe I'm diminishing my driving ability when I take pictures is when I start positioning myself in lanes/etc in order to get a good shot (e.g., crap, I'm coming up on a BGS and a truck is in the way, best take the foot off the gas), which could be annoying to other drivers in trafficky situations. I try to just stay in the right lane as much as possible if I'm on an urban freeway or something to minimize this.
I'm surprised no one has acknowledged my example of talking on my cell phone in order to stay awake while driving.
I don't do this as much anymore because I haven't done a lot of late night driving alone lately, but I used to call people all the time and talk to them in order to stay awake. Part of the key was that I had to be the one talking the majority of the time. Ha, back when Mike and I were just friends, most of these types of conversations were me pretty much describing my entire drive. "Oh I'm at exit 243 - JMU is at this exit - have you ever been to JMU? I went to a party there once...let me tell you all about it for the next 5 minutes...oh at this next exit is that gas station where I usually stop to buy cheerwine..." To this day there are trips where we can't figure out if he was actually there or not because I would describe the entire thing to him.
Yes, I could pull over and sleep, and I do this more than the average person (I've slept at more rest areas, truck stops, walmarts, 24 hour gas stations, 24 hour mcdonalds than I can count) but if someone is expecting me, I don't want to accidentally oversleep somewhere and worry the crap out of them (I slept the entire night at a park and ride 15 minutes from home once, thinking it would be a 20 minute power nap...)
Hands free is the way to be. Love the new driving update I got where it's all voice texting and voice calling :nod:
Quote from: Laura Bianca on November 03, 2013, 06:52:56 AM
I'm surprised no one has acknowledged my example of talking on my cell phone in order to stay awake while driving.
I don't do this as much anymore because I haven't done a lot of late night driving alone lately, but I used to call people all the time and talk to them in order to stay awake. Part of the key was that I had to be the one talking the majority of the time. Ha, back when Mike and I were just friends, most of these types of conversations were me pretty much describing my entire drive. "Oh I'm at exit 243 - JMU is at this exit - have you ever been to JMU? I went to a party there once...let me tell you all about it for the next 5 minutes...oh at this next exit is that gas station where I usually stop to buy cheerwine..." To this day there are trips where we can't figure out if he was actually there or not because I would describe the entire thing to him.
Heh. Mike is an amazing man to tolerate that. If you or anyone else tried that sort of thing with me I'd be cutting you off and hanging up after a few minutes. I did have an hour and a half long phone conversation with an ex of mine while she was driving home from a trip once, but it was
a conversation, not me listening to her talk and talk and talk. :P Actually it was amusing since I (sitting at home) seemed to have a better idea of where she was the whole time than she (driving) did. :-D
When you did this were you holding your phone to your ear or hands free by some means? If the latter then I see no issue with it.
When I was a bit younger I used to keep myself awake when driving home late at night by driving really fast. It got the adrenaline going and was effective at keeping me alert, but of course it was also dangerous. Nowadays I just crank my music up really loud if I need to be woken up... and try to avoid putting myself in situations where I'm still out driving at I should've been in bed three hours ago o'clock.
I've never slept in my car and doubt I could if I tried. I can't fall asleep in a sitting position and there isn't enough room for me to lie down anywhere.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 04, 2013, 09:18:32 PM
Quote from: Laura Bianca on November 03, 2013, 06:52:56 AM
I'm surprised no one has acknowledged my example of talking on my cell phone in order to stay awake while driving.
I don't do this as much anymore because I haven't done a lot of late night driving alone lately, but I used to call people all the time and talk to them in order to stay awake. Part of the key was that I had to be the one talking the majority of the time. Ha, back when Mike and I were just friends, most of these types of conversations were me pretty much describing my entire drive. "Oh I'm at exit 243 - JMU is at this exit - have you ever been to JMU? I went to a party there once...let me tell you all about it for the next 5 minutes...oh at this next exit is that gas station where I usually stop to buy cheerwine..." To this day there are trips where we can't figure out if he was actually there or not because I would describe the entire thing to him.
Heh. Mike is an amazing man to tolerate that. If you or anyone else tried that sort of thing with me I'd be cutting you off and hanging up after a few minutes. I did have an hour and a half long phone conversation with an ex of mine while she was driving home from a trip once, but it was a conversation, not me listening to her talk and talk and talk. :P Actually it was amusing since I (sitting at home) seemed to have a better idea of where she was than she (driving) did. :-D
When you did this were you holding your phone to your ear or hands free by some means? If the latter then I see no issue with it.
When I was a bit younger I used to keep myself awake when driving home late at night by driving really fast. It got the adrenaline going and was effective at keeping me alert, but of course it was also dangerous. Nowadays I just crank my music up really loud if I need to be woken up... and try to avoid putting myself in situations where I'm still out driving at I should've been in bed three hours ago o'clock.
I've never slept in my car and doubt I could if I tried. I can't fall asleep in a sitting position and there isn't enough room for me to lie down anywhere.
Hahaha! Yes, he is. I did exaggerate a bit - we had normal conversations with both people conversing, but if I was REALLY tired, I would have to do the majority of the talking (not necessarily nonstop). It seems silly, but I can tell the different varieties of tired I am, and in those cases, if I could push through it long enough before the caffeine kicked in (about 20 minutes) then I would be good for a couple of hours. But yes, we've had moments where we can't figure out "did I go to such-and-such town on such-and-such route with you?" "No, I think I described it to you so well in a conversation that you were practically there..."
if i was talking to anyone else, I didn't really talk about the scenery beyond a sentence or two. I think Mike tolerated it because a) he was a roadgeek and b) he had a crush on me, lol.
I've used a mix of holding the phone, using earbuds, and using a wireless bluetooth device. I don't really talk and hold the phone for long periods driving anymore because I have tendinitis in my right thumb (de Quervain's tenosynovitis) so holding a phone with the right hand or driving with that hand alone is painful.
I'm a bit wiser now and try to avoid driving crazy late at night. Sleeping in the car isn't the most comfy thing ever - I usually put the driver (or passenger) seat all the way down and sleep awkwardly sideways on it - but when I get tired, i am out like a rock, so comfort is something I can do without.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 04, 2013, 09:18:32 PM
Quote from: Laura Bianca on November 03, 2013, 06:52:56 AM
I'm surprised no one has acknowledged my example of talking on my cell phone in order to stay awake while driving.
I don't do this as much anymore because I haven't done a lot of late night driving alone lately, but I used to call people all the time and talk to them in order to stay awake. Part of the key was that I had to be the one talking the majority of the time. Ha, back when Mike and I were just friends, most of these types of conversations were me pretty much describing my entire drive. "Oh I'm at exit 243 - JMU is at this exit - have you ever been to JMU? I went to a party there once...let me tell you all about it for the next 5 minutes...oh at this next exit is that gas station where I usually stop to buy cheerwine..." To this day there are trips where we can't figure out if he was actually there or not because I would describe the entire thing to him.
Heh. Mike is an amazing man to tolerate that. If you or anyone else tried that sort of thing with me I'd be cutting you off and hanging up after a few minutes. I did have an hour and a half long phone conversation with an ex of mine while she was driving home from a trip once, but it was a conversation, not me listening to her talk and talk and talk. :P Actually it was amusing since I (sitting at home) seemed to have a better idea of where she was the whole time than she (driving) did. :-D
When you did this were you holding your phone to your ear or hands free by some means? If the latter then I see no issue with it.
When I was a bit younger I used to keep myself awake when driving home late at night by driving really fast. It got the adrenaline going and was effective at keeping me alert, but of course it was also dangerous. Nowadays I just crank my music up really loud if I need to be woken up... and try to avoid putting myself in situations where I'm still out driving at I should've been in bed three hours ago o'clock.
I've never slept in my car and doubt I could if I tried. I can't fall asleep in a sitting position and there isn't enough room for me to lie down anywhere.
Mute + speakerphone work well in situations like that. :D
Quote from: hbelkins on October 31, 2013, 03:06:29 PM
Quote from: formulanone on October 31, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
Nobody here's ever taken a photo while driving, eaten something while driving, drank a beverage while driving, or scratched themselves when driving, or had thoughts while driving. Those are freedoms, too.
Or this...
http://kpac2.blogspot.com/2006/07/no-merit-in-this-system.html
The most egregious case was probably that of Richard Vissing. Vissing was a Transportation Cabinet employee who, during the Patton administration, got caught masturbating while driving along I-65 in a state vehicle. The media coverage brought Kentucky another round of national embarrassment. The Transportation Cabinet fired him, a state hearing officer upheld the dismissal, but the Personnel Board rejected that recommendation.
On a whim, I used the Wayback Machine to see if it had the actual news coverage of this episode, since the story is no longer on the originating station's website.
It was...
https://web.archive.org/web/20080202062039/http://www.whas11.com/news/politics/local/stories/WHAS11_LOCAL_Vissing.b5e3ca9a.html