Dislike.
You'll never convince me that talking on the phone is more distracting than trying to light a smoke, or dealing with a nagging spouse or screaming bratty kids.
And...if we were looking for an example of where I think the federal government should stay out of transportation legislation, this is it.
OK, sure. It's dangerous to drive down a congested, fast moving freeway at 60 while on the phone. But is it dangerous to drive down a rural highway in the middle of Wyoming on a summer day on the phone? I'd argue it actually helps keep you awake in the latter, so why have a blanket ban.
I do think it can be a bit more difficult to talk on the phone and drive than talk with somebody in the car and drive- a passenger can read body language and see what's going on and adapt to the situation- the person on the other end of the phone can't, so you have to devote more attention to that conversation.
I also worry about the effects of this on roadgeeks. Is it going to become illegal to take pictures while driving (which I think anybody who has done it extensively enough realizes it's not distracting at all)?
I am glad the no-hands free thing is finally catching on- there's absolutely zero sense in banning handheld devices and not hands free. Having a hand on the phone cannot possibly the problem, otherwise it would be illegal to drive a car with a manual transmission
The proposal exempts things like OnStar systems that are built-in. So it would be illegal for me to make a call on my iPhone using the speakerphone or a Bluetooth headset, but not illegal to push the phone button on my OnStar console to make the call.
I use a BT headset when traveling on roadtrips, because it allows me to have a hand free to hold the camera as well as to comply with state laws banning handheld use when I am in one of those states.
yet another example of failing to make illegal acts which actually harm others.
if you drive recklessly, regardless of what your internal problem may be, get a ticket.
doesn't matter if it's because you're talking on the phone, or putting on makeup, or you just don't know how to drive. the reason should not matter - the effect (poor driving) is what is deleterious to society as a whole; that is what should be made criminal.
Exactly- why is somebody driving like an asshat who is not on the phone doing anything less illegal than somebody who is driving like an asshat on the phone? I'll never understand that logic.
Quote from: corco on December 13, 2011, 11:49:16 PMAnd...if we were looking for an example of where I think the federal government should stay out of transportation legislation, this is it.
This is just a NTSB recommendation, not legislation. NTSB recommendations are always addressed to a specific entity or group of entities. The OP does not say to whom this recommendation is addressed. If it is addressed to state legislatures, then action is at the legislatures' initiative and the NTSB cannot penalize them for failing to follow through unless Congress uses Spending Clause powers to orchestrate state-level bans.
QuoteOK, sure. It's dangerous to drive down a congested, fast moving freeway at 60 while on the phone. But is it dangerous to drive down a rural highway in the middle of Wyoming on a summer day on the phone? I'd argue it actually helps keep you awake in the latter, so why have a blanket ban.
It is easier to argue for local exceptions if you can plausibly claim that they are cost-free. Free pass on red when it is 4 AM and there is no traffic? Not cost-free since it complicates enforcement. Metric signs on I-19? Cost-free since the existing signs comply with
MUTCD and don't need replacement with English-unit signs. Cell-phone use at 60 MPH in rural Wyoming? The case remains to be made . . . (Personally, I think that if you are at the point where you need someone talking on the phone to keep you awake, you are better off pulling off the road for a power nap.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 14, 2011, 12:43:24 AM
This is just a NTSB recommendation, not legislation. NTSB recommendations are always addressed to a specific entity or group of entities. The OP does not say to whom this recommendation is addressed. If it is addressed to state legislatures, then action is at the legislatures' initiative and the NTSB cannot penalize them for failing to follow through unless Congress uses Spending Clause powers to orchestrate state-level bans.
That's exactly to whom it was addressed, the 50 states plus DC. There are also recommendations addressed to the school district whose buses were involved in the wreck in question.
I think a similar ban on cellphone usage was suggested when they investigated that wreck in Kentucky where the semi hit the van carrying members of a family on the way to a wedding on I-65. This is a new recommendation of the same action, if I am correct.
What triggers an NTSB investigation, anyway? Why are some wrecks investigated and not others?
Members are appointed for 5-year terms by POTUS. So it will take at two terms from a new POTUS to clean out the current board. Sounds like a good campaign plank for Newt Romney to me.
Quote from: corco on December 13, 2011, 11:49:16 PM
I also worry about the effects of this on roadgeeks. Is it going to become illegal to take pictures while driving (which I think anybody who has done it extensively enough realizes it's not distracting at all)?
In some places (NY, ON) it already is.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 13, 2011, 11:55:51 PM
The proposal exempts things like OnStar systems that are built-in. So it would be illegal for me to make a call on my iPhone using the speakerphone or a Bluetooth headset, but not illegal to push the phone button on my OnStar console to make the call.
Sounds like OnStar corrupted the NTSB.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 14, 2011, 02:53:08 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 14, 2011, 12:43:24 AM
I think a similar ban on cellphone usage was suggested when they investigated that wreck in Kentucky where the semi hit the van carrying members of a family on the way to a wedding on I-65. This is a new recommendation of the same action, if I am correct.
With the exception of the Largo MD I-495 accident, which was principally attributed to novice driver inexperience, all the previous major NTSB crash investigations where inattention due to cellphone use was cited as a proximate cause of the collision involved professional drivers (either CDL holders or law enforcement officers). As such, NTSB recommendations in these cases have focused on employee training and CDL requirements instead of general laws and regulations.
The texting pick-up truck driver in the Missouri crash was neither a professional driver nor an LEO.
I don't really like the "hands-free" part, and it's not because I think it's that much safer, but how do you enforce it?
I guess if you're using hands free with some sort of ear piece that's visible, that could be done... but I'm more worried about a speaker-phone type deal.........
Obviously if you are using the law in the course of an "after-the-fact" thing in the case of an accident, you could subpoena records to prove they were using their phone, regardless of how..... That's one thing.
But if a law that includes hands-free is passed, and were made a primary offense (that alone can get you pulled over), it seems there could be a situation where, if a cop was following me, and I was in the car by myself, NOT using a phone, but singing along to a song, or ranting out loud at some talk radio - and it looked very much like I could be talking on a hands-free phone...... I could be pulled over under suspicion of driving while on a cell phone, despite the fact I don't even have a cell phone with me.
Quote from: deanej on December 14, 2011, 10:59:45 AM
In some places (NY, ON) it already is.
Seriously? I'd like to see the cite on that. If so, I've violated it every time I've driven in New York.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 14, 2011, 01:47:30 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 14, 2011, 10:59:45 AM
In some places (NY, ON) it already is.
Seriously? I'd like to see the cite on that. If so, I've violated it every time I've driven in New York.
I recall seeing signage in ON prohibiting hand-held devices while driving, that was broad enough to cover driver-held cameras. But not broad enough to cover dash-mount videocams.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on December 14, 2011, 01:32:14 PM
I don't really like the "hands-free" part, and it's not because I think it's that much safer, but how do you enforce it?
I guess if you're using hands free with some sort of ear piece that's visible, that could be done... but I'm more worried about a speaker-phone type deal.........
Obviously if you are using the law in the course of an "after-the-fact" thing in the case of an accident, you could subpoena records to prove they were using their phone, regardless of how..... That's one thing.
But if a law that includes hands-free is passed, and were made a primary offense (that alone can get you pulled over), it seems there could be a situation where, if a cop was following me, and I was in the car by myself, NOT using a phone, but singing along to a song, or ranting out loud at some talk radio - and it looked very much like I could be talking on a hands-free phone...... I could be pulled over under suspicion of driving while on a cell phone, despite the fact I don't even have a cell phone with me.
There's a very simple solution to this - you write the law so PED use is a "standard of fault" in a crash, and permit insurance companies to reduce or deny claims where PED use was the proximate cause of the crash.
This approach also avoids the inevitable "nanny state" objections that will be raised by many. Want to call or text while driving - OK, but you accept the responsibility if you crash because of it.
I doubt this will pass, and even if it does, good luck trying to enforce it. It's already illegal in CA to use a cell phone while driving, and yet I do it, my parents do it and I see many, many people on the freeways doing it.
I can see where they get the idea, but there's no point in trying. If they make handheld devices illegal but still keep handsfree devices legal, then they may as well ban cars with manual transmission, as well as anything else that people use their hands for while driving.
OTOH, when it comes to distractions, there's no difference between a hands-free device and a passenger, so banning one without the other would be stupid and banning both would be unreasonable (and hypocritical, considering the push towards carpooling nowadays).
I don't see this type of law passing, as it's going to be difficult to enforce...at least by daylight. At night, your average phone emits enough backlighting to signal to an officer that a phone is in use.
I like my Bluetooth and speakerphone...but I also rarely carry on conversations for more than 10 minutes. But this just sounds like feel-good legislation, at best. Texting is much more dangerous than pressing two buttons on your phone, which is all it takes to make a phone call. Inexperience is what caused this latest high-profile crash, not telephone usage.
MoDOT has banned cellphone use in commercial vehicles beginning Jan 3
http://www.kmbc.com/news/29988452/detail.html
Quotethere's no difference between a hands-free device and a passenger
Several studies have proven that false- it's pretty well accepted among researchers at this point that there is a big difference between hands free and a passenger- you have to concentrate more to talk to a person on the phone than to a passenger. A passenger can read your body language and shut up/change volume/subconsciously react to allow you to pay more attention to driving when necessary, but you have to continue conversing and giving full attention to have a phone call
However, the accident the NTSB is using the push the agenda has a few flaws. This is from TTAC (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/12/ntsb-pushing-for-full-cell-phone-ban-misses-the-point/), and it clearly shows a problem with the NTSB's argument. Note the school bus on top of the tractor and the pickup truck.
Quote from: corco on December 14, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
Quotethere's no difference between a hands-free device and a passenger
Several studies have proven that false- it's pretty well accepted among researchers at this point that there is a big difference between hands free and a passenger- you have to concentrate more to talk to a person on the phone than to a passenger. A passenger can read your body language and shut up/change volume/subconsciously react to allow you to pay more attention to driving when necessary, but you have to continue conversing and giving full attention to have a phone call
You'll never get me to buy that.
...science!
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xap/14/4/392/
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/16/3/128.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457508002029
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437509000292
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00637.x/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760132
The abstract of that third one is most germane:
QuoteOf particular interest was the phenomenon of conversation suppression, the tendency for passengers to slow their rates of conversation as the driver approached a hazard. On some occasions these passengers also offered alerting comments, warning the driver of an approaching hazard. Neither conversation suppression nor alerting comments were present during cell phone conversations. Remote passengers displayed low levels of alerting comments and conversation suppression, but not enough to avoid negative effects on driving performance.
I could keep them coming...
There is one study that didn't find it (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847805000471
), but it required the passenger to maintain exactly the same level of difficulty of conversation as the cell phone talker- the idea is that your conversations over the phone are more complicated and require more thought than the ones with a passenger- a passenger will either consciously or subconsciously dumb it down to match you available brain capacity (to put it very simply). On the phone, the driver himself has to be more concentrated on keeping a conversation flow- you don't stop talking for a prolonged period on the phone like you can in an in-person conversation.
If you're riding in your car with a passenger when a deer runs out, and if that passenger is paying any attention at all they'll either A) shut up so you can focus or B) yell "OH MY GOSH A DEER"- startling you into doing something. That doesn't happen on a cell phone.
With the sole exception of a study that required passengers to have an equally complex converstaion as a person on a cell phone, every study I've read (and I've seen a lot more than the three I linked) has found that in organic conversation, hands-free is more distracting than a passenger.
There's good reason to believe this isn't some conspiracy- you think the cell phone lobby is happy about this proclamation? I strongly doubt that. Hands-free was fine because it meant they got to sell bluetooth headsets, but you can't work around an outright ban. It's a reasonable theory supported by scientific research that doesn't stand to make a nickel off the proclamation.
For instance, if you really wanted to go there (I wouldn't go there) you could argue that there is money to be made off selling global warming- false science created to help push an ideological agenda and sell green products of dubious actual value. I think that's a somewhat fanatical position to take, but I at least understand the position. But there's no potential for profit here and no ideologies to advance- the research here is about as clean as science can get.
Quote from: corco on December 14, 2011, 07:42:10 PM
A passenger can read your body language and shut up/change volume/subconsciously react to allow you to pay more attention to driving when necessary, but you have to continue conversing and giving full attention to have a phone call
Makes sense now that I think about it.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 13, 2011, 11:55:51 PM
The proposal exempts things like OnStar systems that are built-in. So it would be illegal for me to make a call on my iPhone using the speakerphone or a Bluetooth headset, but not illegal to push the phone button on my OnStar console to make the call.
I believe the assumption is that a built-in console is voice activated while bluetooth still requires you to push buttons to dial and whatnot. So therefore the built-in console is safer.
Talking on the phone is definitely
a lot more distracting than talking to someone physically present - and not just while driving, it's been well demonstrated that people who talk on their phone or text while walking can get into accidents because of it. (remember this video?) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg11glsBW4Y)
Although it is definitely true that talking to someone physically present is still distracting. I find that I drive slower and less aggressively when I have someone in the car with me, because I'm less alert to my surroundings. And when I'm walking and talking to someone I find it's very easy to walk right past the place we were looking to go, or walk out into the street without amply looking both ways.
Of course, the same can be said of simply being lost in thought. There is no way to eliminate all distraction from driving or from anything. We're human, we can't constantly focus on nothing but one thing. We get distracted.
Where handheld devices are banned in the car, is it still legal to eat French fries and drink a Dr Pepper?
Quote from: hbelkins on December 14, 2011, 01:47:30 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 14, 2011, 10:59:45 AM
In some places (NY, ON) it already is.
Seriously? I'd like to see the cite on that. If so, I've violated it every time I've driven in New York.
It's pretty recent: http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/071211drivingwhiletexting
Quote from: Duke87 on December 14, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 13, 2011, 11:55:51 PM
The proposal exempts things like OnStar systems that are built-in. So it would be illegal for me to make a call on my iPhone using the speakerphone or a Bluetooth headset, but not illegal to push the phone button on my OnStar console to make the call.
I believe the assumption is that a built-in console is voice activated while bluetooth still requires you to push buttons to dial and whatnot. So therefore the built-in console is safer.
....
I think this largely depends on the Bluetooth device and your phone, especially whether they support voice-dialing. Hitting a single button on your steering wheel and saying, for example, "Call Home" is quite different from, say, fishing out your iPhone, unlocking it, dialing with the keypad, and then putting the call on your Bluetooth device. (An iPhone supports voice-dialing regardless of whether you're using Bluetooth, of course, as do many or perhaps most phones these days, but surprisingly few people seem to use that option.)
I think a ban on these sorts of devices would be very difficult to enforce, but it wouldn't be without some level of benefit insofar as laws of this sort may constitute persuasive evidence of the standard of care applicable in a tort action for negligence. That is, if you're sending text messages while driving and you run into me, the fact that a law on the books makes the sending and receiving of such messages illegal might be accepted by the court as evidence that a reasonably prudent driver would not be sending or receiving such messages. (There's a further point to this rule of construction that says the purpose of the statute has to be reasonably related to the reason why you're citing to it, but that's not really an issue here.) Of course, a court or a jury might still draw that conclusion even absent such a law, but if such a law is in effect, you stand a better chance of the judge finding as a matter of law that the statute establishes the standard of care (whereas your average juror may say, "Hell, I do that all the time, ain't nothin' wrong with doing that."), which further means that it raises the chance that the judge might overturn a jury verdict finding it's not negligence. The statute might also make it easier to obtain mobile phone records during the discovery process.
I think there's a valid argument that existing laws on the books SHOULD cover this sort of behavior. If I were a judge, I'd look favorably on prosecution of text-message drivers for reckless driving. Problem is, the way our society is today, if you don't explicitly cover every last little possible form of behavior, someone's going to try to argue that there's a loophole.
Quote from: formulanone on December 14, 2011, 03:47:17 PM
I don't see this type of law passing, as it's going to be difficult to enforce...at least by daylight. At night, your average phone emits enough backlighting to signal to an officer that a phone is in use.
....
I don't think that's as much a giveaway as you suggest, because with a Bluetooth device there's no reason why the phone needs to be visible to anyone either inside or outside the car. When I drive my Acura, for example, my phone is in the upper compartment in the center armrest regardless of whether I have the Bluetooth on. The car's built-in handsfree system means that if I get a call, the caller ID info will display on the little screen where the odometer display is, so having the phone stashed in the armrest is a non-issue. (I'm also the type of person who sets distinctive ringtones for particular callers so I know who's calling even without the caller ID....) A number of my female friends who have earpieces leave their phones in their pocketbooks, usually on the floor in the backseat. Long way of saying, I don't think phone backlighting is necessarily as obvious a telltale sign as it might seem at first blush.
This morning on my way to get the car serviced I was just behind a guy with diplomat plates who was swerving all over. When I got a clear shot and passed him, I looked over and saw that he was pretty obviously sending or reading e-mail or text messages, based on the way he was holding his phone with two hands. Things like that spook me regardless of whether there were a law in place about such things because I'd expect the diplomat to claim immunity.
Quote from: deanej on December 15, 2011, 12:35:12 PM
It's pretty recent: http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/071211drivingwhiletexting
That press release just references
electronic devices. Wonder if a digital camera qualifies? Wonder if a film camera would qualify?
Quote from: Duke87 on December 14, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Talking on the phone is definitely a lot more distracting than talking to someone physically present ...
I don't find it to be such. May be for some, but I don't find it to be such.
Sounds like I'm different than much of the general population in that I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2011, 01:16:16 PM
That press release just references electronic devices. Wonder if a digital camera qualifies? Wonder if a film camera would qualify?
From the press release:
QuoteIllegal activity includes holding an electronic device and:
Composing, sending, reading, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving, or retrieving electronic data such as e-mail, text messages, or webpages
Viewing, taking, or transmitting images
Playing games
A violation would hinge on the determination of what an "electronic device" is. Typically that term is used to describe a smartphone. i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."
The way I interpret that press release, the act of taking pictures with an electronic device is what's expressly verboten, not just the act of taking pictures.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2011, 01:16:16 PM
Sounds like I'm different than much of the general population in that I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
No, just more overconfident.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."
happens to me all the time when I'm trying to take photos out the plane window during takeoff. "you're gonna have to put that away." implication: camera is an electronic device.
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2011, 08:11:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2011, 01:16:16 PM
Sounds like I'm different than much of the general population in that I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
No, just more overconfident.
FIFY.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2011, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."
happens to me all the time when I'm trying to take photos out the plane window during takeoff. "you're gonna have to put that away." implication: camera is an electronic device.
OK, so I'll get an antique camera that doesn't even use a battery so it is a mechanical not electronic device! :bigass:
Quote from: mightyace on December 16, 2011, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2011, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 15, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
i've never heard a camera described as an "electronic device."
happens to me all the time when I'm trying to take photos out the plane window during takeoff. "you're gonna have to put that away." implication: camera is an electronic device.
OK, so I'll get an antique camera that doesn't even use a battery so it is a mechanical not electronic device! :bigass:
Use a daguerreotype. :cool:
Rookies...I sketch my images and then paint the canvas later.
Quote from: formulanone on December 16, 2011, 08:42:14 PM
Rookies...I sketch my images and then paint the canvas later.
I only drive near sandstone cliffs so i can carve the scene as I drive by.
Obviously NTSB is in league with state DOTs to curb the practice of sign photography so there's not so much proof of erroneous road signs out there :P
Fine then. I'll park and walk :p
Quote from: corco on December 14, 2011, 08:04:58 PM
...science!
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xap/14/4/392/
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/16/3/128.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457508002029
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437509000292
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00637.x/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760132
The abstract of that third one is most germane:
QuoteOf particular interest was the phenomenon of conversation suppression, the tendency for passengers to slow their rates of conversation as the driver approached a hazard. On some occasions these passengers also offered alerting comments, warning the driver of an approaching hazard. Neither conversation suppression nor alerting comments were present during cell phone conversations. Remote passengers displayed low levels of alerting comments and conversation suppression, but not enough to avoid negative effects on driving performance.
I could keep them coming...
There is one study that didn't find it (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847805000471
), but it required the passenger to maintain exactly the same level of difficulty of conversation as the cell phone talker- the idea is that your conversations over the phone are more complicated and require more thought than the ones with a passenger- a passenger will either consciously or subconsciously dumb it down to match you available brain capacity (to put it very simply). On the phone, the driver himself has to be more concentrated on keeping a conversation flow- you don't stop talking for a prolonged period on the phone like you can in an in-person conversation.
If you're riding in your car with a passenger when a deer runs out, and if that passenger is paying any attention at all they'll either A) shut up so you can focus or B) yell "OH MY GOSH A DEER"- startling you into doing something. That doesn't happen on a cell phone.
With the sole exception of a study that required passengers to have an equally complex converstaion as a person on a cell phone, every study I've read (and I've seen a lot more than the three I linked) has found that in organic conversation, hands-free is more distracting than a passenger.
There's good reason to believe this isn't some conspiracy- you think the cell phone lobby is happy about this proclamation? I strongly doubt that. Hands-free was fine because it meant they got to sell bluetooth headsets, but you can't work around an outright ban. It's a reasonable theory supported by scientific research that doesn't stand to make a nickel off the proclamation.
For instance, if you really wanted to go there (I wouldn't go there) you could argue that there is money to be made off selling global warming- false science created to help push an ideological agenda and sell green products of dubious actual value. I think that's a somewhat fanatical position to take, but I at least understand the position. But there's no potential for profit here and no ideologies to advance- the research here is about as clean as science can get.
I've seen enough of the studies to realize they're flawed. In order to conduct the test, the driver is required to repeat key phrases that are said over the phone. They're required to drive a course while doing this. I've driven over 700,000 miles. Passengers present more problems than a hands-free or even handheld cell phone. I never motion or glance to the right when on a cell call. Why would I? There's nobody next to me. When my wife and I are driving on a trip, we're talking, commenting, etc. We're less likely to pay attention.
The issue is not when the driving circumstances become difficult that either affect you. It's when something presents itself when nothing is expected. That's where a passenger can be a huge problem. Anybody who thinks "I'm on the phone, I have to give 100% of my attention to this phone call" is an absolute moron and I don't believe really exist. There's been thousands of times I've been talking to someone on the phone, whether they know I'm driving or not, and had them repeat something, or told them to wait a sec, or just gone silent while I dealt with whatever it was I was approaching. If they have a problem, f*** 'em. I'm driving. That's priority #1. Talking in a conversation, whether on a phone or with a passenger, is secondary.
Education is most important to fighting this problem. Especially with texting with younger drivers not realizing the true danger, because, as we all know, teenagers are immortal. They're not. But, they don't know it. But, teaching them is paramount.
Secondly, enforcement of the laws we already have. "Reckless Driving" is such a nasty mark on your license, that it rarely ever gets cited, and even more rare gets upheld by a judge. And so many police officers only are out there to collect revenue in the form of petty speeding offenses. I saw a cop sitting on the shoulder at the start of an exit ramp. An SUV veered across four lanes of traffic, across the white hash marks separating the right lane from the already divergent exit ramp, cutting off two cars in the road and one on the ramp. AND hitting his brakes hard once on the ramp to stop for the light. The cop was in his car, watching traffic with a radar gun. He never left to go after the guy. He was looking for money. Not for the welfare of the motorists out here.
Weaving, leaving your lane, etc are precursors to what will happen, yet they're very rarely if ever caught. And usually that's when a cop pulls up behind a drunk only. Because,... again, it's revenue. A DWI/DUI/OVI is much more lucrative.
Here's one, failure to use a turn signal. I think this should be punishable by death. Yet, every day I see people not using them to their detriment. I saw a guy drift in front of an officer on a freeway to change lanes lacking the signal (lamp or hand) to change lanes. Yet, the cop did nothing.
But, it comes down to the big bad cell phone. Idiots using cell phones cause the problems. Beefing up cars with better safety standards, comfier rides, more amenities have made idiots less likely to pay attention to the job of driving. Take away cell phones, they'll find something new to cause problems. And next up on that list is GPS units. They'll watch that thing tell them when to exit, turn, stop, etc rather than the big clear piece of glass in front of them.
Yeah, I'm rambling. But, hand-held: yes, there's an issue. hands-free: no. Not unless they want to ban passengers.
Quote from: Sykotyk on December 20, 2011, 06:18:23 PM
Here's one, failure to use a turn signal. I think this should be punishable by death. Yet, every day I see people not using them to their detriment. I saw a guy drift in front of an officer on a freeway to change lanes lacking the signal (lamp or hand) to change lanes. Yet, the cop did nothing.
meh. I use turn signals maybe one-third of the time when changing lanes. most of the time, it is fairly obvious what I am doing and every other car is far enough away that my lane change does not in any way affect their behavior.
There's what the law says and then there's how it's enforced. While, given the wording, it is tough to question that use of a camera while driving is a ticketable offense in New York, would a cop actually pull you over for it?
My understanding is that cell phone laws are, like seat belt laws, not heavily enforced, because it requires the cops to actually be paying attention to what drivers are doing - in contrast to radar, which you turn on, then kick back and wait for it to beep.
The problem is it becomes an 'after the fact' penalty. If somebody hits you, and you are entirely not at fault. If they found you to be taking road photos, they could argue that there was a chance you were holding the camera while you got hit, and had you not, you might have been able to avoid the accident. Whether or not it actually affected the outcome or the fault. It becomes your fault due to a bad law.
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has come out in favor of a ban on handheld phones, but NOT for hands-free setups. Probably recognizing reality, since in all the states where hands-free bans have been proposed, none have passed.
LEO's in my state were, surprisingly, against a blanket ban on cell phone usage in cars (we only prohibit handheld phones for drivers under 18), saying that drivers often phone in tips on traffic situations (accidents, DUI's, etc.) which would require a cop to be present, and they don't want to lose that input from the public.
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 23, 2011, 01:43:36 PMdrivers often phone in tips on traffic situations (accidents, DUI's, etc.) which would require a cop to be present, and they don't want to lose that input from the public.
I don't even think twice to call 911 over an incident - immediately, upon my spotting the problem, without pulling over. the last time I had to call was because there was a refrigerator-sized piece of machinery (possibly a refrigerator) in the #3 lane on CA-152 coming around a curve. 152 is pretty iffy for a place to pull over, so I didn't.
had I gotten pulled over, I'd have told the officer "hey, I wouldn't be surprised if I was just on the phone with
your dispatcher".
QuoteThe problem is it becomes an 'after the fact' penalty. If somebody hits you, and you are entirely not at fault. If they found you to be taking road photos, they could argue that there was a chance you were holding the camera while you got hit, and had you not, you might have been able to avoid the accident. Whether or not it actually affected the outcome or the fault. It becomes your fault due to a bad law.
So I guess the solution is to carry around a backup SD card with non road photos, and if you get into a wreck quickly do the switcharoo and eat the SD card full of road photos
IMHO, this is the best idea they've come up with since seat belts and the breathalyzer test!
Quote from: Henry on December 23, 2011, 03:35:59 PM
IMHO, this is the best idea they've come up with since seat belts and the breathalyzer test!
negative. the hands-free device itself is the idea which is analogous to those other two.
this is the equivalent of mandatory seat belt use and ignition interlocks.
Just because the average dopey motorist can't "drive and chew gum at the same time" doesn't mean that MY responsible driving and reasonable use of my cell, which i need for work, can't be used at the same time. Just another example of a few dummies ruining the gig for the rest of us. Screw the NTSB, their recommendation, and their lobby in Congress. I have a bigger problem with people who text and drive. That should be banned. Not simple talking on a hands-free device. What next? Banning eating and drinking while driving? PISS OFF NTSB!
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 23, 2011, 06:44:21 PM
Just because the average dopey motorist can't "drive and chew gum at the same time" doesn't mean that MY responsible driving and reasonable use of my cell, which i need for work, can't be used at the same time.
I am not really for a cellphone ban, but if you were on the phone driving and you hit me, you can't really expect me to give too much of a shit about whatever Penski file or the Glamrocker account you were working on. Frankly, if my boss wanted to converse with me while I was driving, I'd tell him to piss off and wait until I get to wherever.
I couldn't agree more with that statement, Scott, well said.
I'm not going to say that I never use the phone when driving, but it's extremely rare. I keep my conversations short and sweet while driving. That said, I do not have any hands free device, nor do I intend on getting one. Even though I personally don't use the phone while driving, I don't think it should be banned. That's a choice I made personally, even though hand held phones are illegal in the state that I live. I prefer to focus on the road and other cars around me, also my car is stick. So unless I'm cruising on the highway, I need two hands to drive.
They could add fines or something to other moving violations (failure to keep right, failure to signal, etc.) that may have been caused because of cell phone use by the driver. Perhaps that might deter some from using the phone while driving.
Ditto, I don't use a hands-free device either in the rare cases I'm on the phone while driving. Speakerphone is good enough for the amount of times I've needed it.
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 23, 2011, 06:44:21 PM
Just because the average dopey motorist can't "drive and chew gum at the same time" doesn't mean that MY responsible driving and reasonable use of my cell, which i need for work, can't be used at the same time. Just another example of a few dummies ruining the gig for the rest of us. Screw the NTSB, their recommendation, and their lobby in Congress. I have a bigger problem with people who text and drive. That should be banned. Not simple talking on a hands-free device. What next? Banning eating and drinking while driving? PISS OFF NTSB!
Problem with that argument is that everyone else says the same thing.
It's collective overestimation- in polling, just about everybody says that they are a good driver, but nearly as many think most of the people on the road are bad drivers. Everybody is satisfied with their congressman, but nobody is satisfied with congress as a whole.
I think that's the logic behind a ban- people always think they're the one that's doing it safely despite that just about everyone isn't. Since people aren't smart enough to self-filter, it's easier just to ban. That's why I favor exaggerated penalties for those who choose to engage in that sort of behavior and fuck up- if you're actually good at it (and I do believe there are people who are good at it, but it's impossible to know by asking people "Are you good at it?"), you'll never get in trouble. If you're not, well, you're screwed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 23, 2011, 11:31:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 23, 2011, 06:44:21 PM
I am not really for a cellphone ban, but if you were on the phone driving and you hit me, you can't really expect me to give too much of a shit about whatever Penski file or the Glamrocker account you were working on. Frankly, if my boss wanted to converse with me while I was driving, I'd tell him to piss off and wait until I get to wherever.
Unfortunately Scott in my line of work, I don't have the luxury of tell my boss to piss off. As a chauffeur, i sometimes have to take those calls esp when it is the boss or dispatch.
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 25, 2011, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 23, 2011, 11:31:05 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on December 23, 2011, 06:44:21 PM
I am not really for a cellphone ban, but if you were on the phone driving and you hit me, you can't really expect me to give too much of a shit about whatever Penski file or the Glamrocker account you were working on. Frankly, if my boss wanted to converse with me while I was driving, I'd tell him to piss off and wait until I get to wherever.
Unfortunately Scott in my line of work, I don't have the luxury of tell my boss to piss off. As a chauffeur, i sometimes have to take those calls esp when it is the boss or dispatch.
Slightly more understandable than if you were an office worker, but it still wouldn't be enough to excuse you if you cut someone off or had a wreck because of it...
Who said he would. Drivers that are doing it as part of their job are much different than someone who is only in their car to/from work, or purely leisure activity.
It's like saying nobody is allowed to cook food in your apartment because you might burn down the whole building and put others lives at risk. But, the chef at a fancy restaurant has to abide by the same law. It's an activity that is ingrained in his very occupation.
How in the world did taxis/car services function before cell phones?
Now, I could be wrong on this (I've used radios for work while not driving and I worked as a driver for an on-call shuttle at the first university I went to for two years and had to communicate over the phone while driving as business loads were too light to warrant a dispatcher), but I'm fairly sure communication over CB is a lot more succinct and less conversational than communication over cell phone, lessening driver distraction- certainly the process to answer phone/receive dispatch/reply to dispatch/end conversation is simpler over radio than cell phone.
Quote from: corco on December 25, 2011, 11:36:15 PMHow in the world did taxis/car services function before cell phones?
Two-way radios (hence the term "radio taxi" for a private-hire vehicle booked in advance). And private hire vehicles still depend on two-way communication between dispatch and the driver even in jurisdictions where the driver's cell phone usage is otherwise banned; the systems used just have to work a little differently from regular cellphone conversation in order to survive licensing and safety reviews. For example, private hire vehicles in Britain tend to have a message display next to the driver, which he can consult for details of a booking (street address, name of passenger, etc.) when the car stops, but which is otherwise ignored. If he has to contact dispatch for any reason, he can simply pull over and place a cell phone call. This avoids difficulty with the traffic commissioner, who in Britain has the authority to put the entire taxi company (not just the driver) out of business if systematic safety faults are found in the vehicles, the drivers, or the operating procedures.
To address Sykotyk's comparison of home and restaurant cooking, there is a world of difference between the two. Restaurant cooks are trained and, for the most part, know what they are doing: that much is true. But they work in kitchens which are regularly inspected and are required to have exits, easy access to fire safety appliances, etc., so the environment in which they work is also different. Many home fires are caused by certain kinds of cooking appliances, such as portable hotplates, which would simply not be used in restaurant kitchens.
QuoteWho said he would. Drivers that are doing it as part of their job are much different than someone who is only in their car to/from work, or purely leisure activity.
I disagree with that- I work at a resort and was a bellman for a good while, so I know pretty much every car service driver in Tucson. While you could convince me that they are good drivers, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that they're magically better at talking on cell phones than people who are not car service drivers. Oftentimes when I'd call them with a fare they'd wait to get to a light or pull over before they'd talk to me, which I'd consider the safe course of action.
Quote from: corco on December 25, 2011, 11:36:15 PM
How in the world did taxis/car services function before cell phones?
Now, I could be wrong on this (I've used radios for work while not driving and I worked as a driver for an on-call shuttle at the first university I went to for two years and had to communicate over the phone while driving as business loads were too light to warrant a dispatcher), but I'm fairly sure communication over CB is a lot more succinct and less conversational than communication over cell phone, lessening driver distraction- certainly the process to answer phone/receive dispatch/reply to dispatch/end conversation is simpler over radio than cell phone.
Yes i even started out in "those radio days" back in 1999. And some of the problems with the radios were the limited range, the having to pause a couple of seconds so that no one else would "walk over" you while trying to talk to dispatch, and if an arguement started on the radio, which was nearly every 2 hours or so, the customer would hear it. As far as the range goes, my former employer had 3 towers that was to "control" the Chicagoland area. Ch 1 was for the city of Chicago and near west suburbs like Berwyn and La Grange. Ch 2 was for the North and Northwest Suburbs. Ch 3 was Far West and South Suburbs. The radios were useless north of Wisconsin 50 in Kenosha, west of Illinois 47 in Sugar Grove, and south of US 30 in Chicago Heigths. We had customers in Lake Geneva, Rockford, Morris, Kankakee and NW Indiana that were all out of range. Joliet was just barely able to be understood as long as you were not in Downtown.