Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

boaz47

1. murder
2. dui

I could go on and on and on. Even if the accident rate doesn't fall I'm in favor of using the revenue of cell phone laws to help pay down our national debt.

My state as well as many others tout a reduction on both Murder and DUI when they are enforced. This is a new law and we should see a drop if it is enforced. If they can't show a drop then they made the law on bad science. If they can show a drop then they may have a point. It is one way or another. Just making a law doesn't make it a good law. And do you know how long it will take to pay down a trillion dollars with 20 buck tickets? Shoot if they could just pay for the 7-800 billion bail out. But I doubt if either will happen.

kdshapiro

This is a new law and we should see a drop if it is enforced

Exactly, if it is enforced. Actually though I looked at DUI statistics and saw they were on the rise for some period, does that mean less enforcement or less compliance?

nippononly

there was a piece on the evening news tonight on this very topic.

CHP reports they wrote 20,000 tickets for handheld use in the period 8/1-9/30/08. They also issued a statement saying that this was a 10% increase in the number of tickets, and that it has become clear to them that despite seeing lots of compliance when the law first took effect, compliance has substantially decreased now.

Oh well. Guess lawmakers took their shot.....

PF_Flyer

Maybe cell phone using drivers will eventually take themselves all out. :shades:

Darwin

kdshapiro

Oh well. Guess lawmakers took their shot.....

You could say the same about DUI laws. Laws are ineffective if people decide not to follow them.

Friend of mine told me his daughter got a $20 fine for using cell phone. After all was said and done that $20 fine balloned to almost $200 dollars.

kdshapiro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mobile phone calls distract drivers far more than even the chattiest passenger, causing drivers to follow too closely and miss exits, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

Using a hands-free device does not make things better and the researchers believe they know why—passengers act as a second set of eyes, shutting up or sometimes even helping when they see the driver needs to make a maneuver.

The research, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, adds to a growing body of evidence that mobile phones can make driving dangerous.

Lee Strayer of the University of Utah and colleagues have found in a series of experiments using driving simulators that hands-free mobile phones are just as distracting as handheld models.

They have demonstrated that chatting on a cell phone can slow the reaction times of young adult drivers to levels seen among senior citizens, and shown that drivers using mobile telephones are as impaired as drivers who are legally drunk.

For the latest study, also using a simulator, Strayer's team showed that drivers using a hands-free device drifted out of their lanes and missed exits more frequently than drivers talking to a passenger. They tested 96 adults aged 18 to 49.

"The passenger adds a second set of eyes, and helps the driver navigate and reminds them where to go," Strayer said in a statement.

"When you take a look at the data, it turns out that a driver conversing with a passenger is not as impaired a driver talking on a cell phone," he added.

Passengers also simplify conversation when driving conditions change, the researchers wrote.

"The difference between a cell phone conversation and passenger conversation is due to the fact that the passenger is in the vehicle and knows what the traffic conditions are like, and they help the driver by reminding them of where to take an exit and pointing out hazards," Strayer said.

Strayer's team has videos showing drivers missing exits while on mobile phone headsets and showing that passengers interrupt conversations to help drivers exit correctly at www.psych.utah.edu/~strayer/cellphone.wmv and www.psych.utah.edu/~strayer/passenger.wmv.

nippononly

They have demonstrated that chatting on a cell phone can slow the reaction times of young adult drivers to levels seen among senior citizens

LOL! And yet for some reason we haven't passed legislation barring senior citizens from driving......

......I am sure that any politician worth his/her salt knows that they would be cutting their own throat to propose such legislation, so the good of the roads be darned, re-election is more important.

Instead, they pass these silly cell phone laws...they increase the state revenues, dontcha' know! ;-)

stever

"AAA contends that studies analyzing cell phone records of drivers involved in crashes show that using a cell phone while driving -- hands-free or not -- increases the chance of being involved in a crash by a factor of four."

AAA Study Finds Using a Cell Phone Hands-Free is no Safer than Using a Handheld

vinnyny

Who needs a survey to know that dopey kids and housewives are dangerously distracted on the road? Every time I pull up behind somebody doing 10 under the limit in the left lane, it's another moron on a cell phone. There are times when anecdotal evidence is enough...

kdshapiro

Who needs a survey to know that dopey kids and housewives are dangerously distracted on the road?

Apparently a lot of people! :confuse

vinnyny

I guess you're right--there are plenty of fools who don't understand that when you're driving, your attention needs to be on the road and nowhere else.

It's time that they made drivers automatically liable for any accident when a cell phone was in use at the time of impact. If I ever become governor, I'll push through a law requiring all cars to have cell phone cradles that disable the ignition switch when the phone isn't inserted. The cradle will automatically disable text messaging functions. Of course, they'll find ways around it like the drunks do.

stever

New Technology Prevents Talking or Texting on a Phone While Driving (Straightline)

"A new device for teens as well as adults called Key2SafeDriving puts the lock on cell phone use while driving . It encases a copy of a car key, and when the key slides out a signal is sent to a cell phone via Bluetooth or RFID to put it in "driving" mode and a "Stop" sign appears on the phone's display."

boaz47

"A new device for teens as well as adults called Key2SafeDriving puts the lock on cell phone use while driving . It encases a copy of a car key, and when the key slides out a signal is sent to a cell phone via Bluetooth or RFID to put it in "driving" mode and a "Stop" sign appears on the phone's display."

It would seem as if this device will only work for people that are already interested in not talking on the cell. And we know that if you activated this device by giving your teen such a key that "none" of them would spend the $1.50 to have a new key made without the device. Besides what if the other passengers in the car have a cell? Doesn't seem like that device will give many peace of mind either. Oh and with the ignoring of the law as Nippon has stated accidents are still going down? If many have switched to hands free and many are dis-regarding the law and cell phones are still increasing when does the carnage start?

vinnyny

A mobile cell phone blocker built into the car would work better. I work in government buildings that have them--very effective.

stever

Must be nice for the government - those cell phone jammers are illegal for the rest of us. (link)

Time to change that law? (not that the FCC ever enforces it anyway).

xrunner2

Technology pieces already exist to determine whether a cell phone user is moving. Perhaps legislation in the States could mandate that a surcharge be put on all calls made while moving. Walking could be discerned and would not get the surcharge. Maybe $2-$5 per minute surcharge would discourage drivers from using the phone except for emergencies. Calls to police and 911 would be free.

boaz47

And how will you charge Passengers?

xrunner2

Same way as driver. If you are moving, except walking, you get the surcharge. Drivers and passengers should plan ahead to not have to make calls in a moving car except for emergency. If they really, really have the need to make other calls, they are free to do so but with a surcharge.

hammerhead

Not fair. Passengers shouldn't be held to the same standard as drivers.
My wife makes all the calls if I'm driving, and vice versa.
Surcharge for safety? I think not!

Cheers!
Paul

nippononly

is utterly ridiculous.

The CalTrans signs statewide are now blinking their latest warning against breaking a new law: no texting while driving starting January 1!!! It's very exciting, I know I'm excited, aren't you???!!!

I will be surprised if we ever see a single ticket for this new offense - MUCH too hard to police.

kdshapiro

You're right. For Californians I guess it's just as hard as determining if occupants are wearing seat belts.

nippononly

Ummm, not sure if you're kidding, but no of course it is much harder to see someone texting than it is to see whether they have their seatbelt on.

vinnyny

Simple. Record an accurate time and write the ticket when you see someone texting. IF the alleged text messager is silly enough to show up in court, require him/her to show his itemized phone bill. If he doesn't have a bill that proves he wasn't texting when the officer said he was, then it becomes texter's word against cop's. Guess who wins that scenario...

boaz47

Sorry, at least in California the state has the burden to prove you are guilty you do not have to prove you are innocent. The court would have to spend the money to get the records and pay their employees for the hours spent. And of course if you don't hit send it doesn't record. Plus if you prepay there are no records to get. All that will cost the state way more than the 20 dollar fine. And for the cell phone challenged you can send a text without "texting". If I hit send while parked and there is no service and drive a few miles to where service is available the phone will send the text without me ever touching the phone. That is one of the advantages to texting, you don't have to wait till you have a signal.

My favorite sight may be the dash board note pad. I see people driving down the road all the time with a little note pad and a pen attached. I will see people in a traffic jam reaching forward to write a note on those pads. My Tahoe even comes with a note pad holder in the arm rest. I can't walk and write yet there is no specific law prohibiting witting while driving.

But the taking things to court thing is even more interesting. In Riverside County California five or six retired Judges have volunteered their time to help out because the court system is so backed up people can't get their case heard for almost a year. What the court needs are more cases to hear. :confuse: Texting can be a problem but the cell phone ban has already been circumvented with Bluetooth and in dash cell phones. People can even talk on their cell phone sitting right next to a cop and simply point to their Bluetooth and smile. The law sure slowed cell phones down.......Not

nippononly

Actually, I believe the handheld phone ban is now being routinely ignored, much the way speed limit laws are routinely ignored by the vast majority of drivers (note that the cell phone infraction carries a smaller fine, and does NOT carry a point on your driving record as speeding does). I am surrounded every day on the roads by people talking openly on their (handheld) phones once more.

There was a little splash around July 1, it made some bucks for the state, and it is now forgotten. Add one more to the countless collection of California laws with no enforcement and no effect......when will they learn to stop writing laws and enforce the ones they already have?

I believe the answer to my question may be "never".

boaz47

"when will they learn to stop writing laws and enforce the ones they already have?"

Bingo! now you have hit the main point. If they didn't enforce the distracted driver law that already covered cell phones, eating while driving, reading while driving and any other number of distractions why in the world did anyone for an instant believe they were going to enforce a new law that covered only one or two of those very same infractions they weren't enforcing in the first place? You can put ink on paper till your fingers fall off and if they don't enforce the law you have wasted your time. That in a not shell was what was wrong with this law in the first place. It was too hard to enforce and the technology to make it easier to enforce cost too much for most local governments to install. My grandfather would call that spitting in the wind.

fintail

And how much money has been wasted in the campaigns surrounding these pointless laws?

I've noticed no local decrease in phone yapping either...nor eating, fiddling with ICE, tending to kids, etc etc etc...

boaz47

"And how much money has been wasted in the campaigns surrounding these pointless laws?"

The supporters of witting these new laws don't care if they are enforced or how much it cost to process a law. They are like the old pharaoh in the Story of Moses. Let it be written let it be done. All the comfort they need is the ink on paper. And if this law doesn't work they will ask for another law that asks for people to report other people they see breaking a law the police doesn't have time to enforce nor the money to enforce it. Then they can thump themselves on the chest and say, at least we did something. We made a law and wasted the paper it was written on.

fintail

The same crowd who believe a law is just and logical and perfect simply because it is a law, and will defend it to the death simply because it is a law...no matter this is a nation based on the discarding of unjust laws. Blind deference to illogical laws is un-American.

p0926

Typical. Attack laws for being un-enforceable, pointless, too expensive to enforce, waste of time, etc. then obfuscate by yet again bringing up other driver distractions and try to equate them as being equally distracting.

How about acknowledging the ever increasing body of evidence that driving while talking on a cell phone is dangerous and should be avoided?

-Frank

boaz47

Always was a distraction and there was "always" a law to address it. Driving while distracted. Much like DUI covers more than beer.

stever

Passage of a new law often has an educational component that can supplement ordinary educational efforts. It also eliminates the argument that texting or talking isn't a distraction where there's no specific law on the books. And it should make it easier for the person hit to recover damage since there's one more ticket the miscreant driver should receive in the event of an accident.

All of which assumes that cell phone drivers should be singled out. If you don't think so, you need to lobby your legislature and fund some accident studies. I bet you could get some seed money from Verizon and the rest.

boaz47

Don't need to lobby, I don't text and Bluetooth is legal. And why bother if they aren't enforcing the first law or the second law? It isn't like they don't have other things to do. And a $20.00 ticket hardly seems worth it when a parking ticket generates more. I don't do a lot of things that can get me ticketed for distracted driving. However in the Law nothing is elemenated just because you received a Ticket. That is what lawyers are for.

If they didn't enforce driving while distracted laws what made anyone feel they would enforce cell phone laws? Like I said if you aren't enforcing one law witting a second law isn't going to light any fires under anyone. But that is now already proven so why bother? Now cars even come with cell phones installed. Programs like on star will make calls for you and ask you questions while you drive. The law hasn't deterred people form using cell phones at all. Now they simply use them hands free. Funny thing is the police are still taking their hands off the wheel to talk on their radios and commercial drivers can still use hand held push to talk cell phones. Yep, it is so dangerous for a 4000 pound car but a 80,000 pound truck is perfectly safe using a hand held. wasted ink. But who really cares? You can simply write another law to cover the first two or three laws no one care to enforce. You cell if the cell phone law was valid couldn't they just remove the distracted driving law? And if the distracted driving law was enforced would they need a cell phone law? By the way Merry Christmas to all.

kdshapiro

Technially you are partially right. If one if reading a text, looking down, with their phone at waist level, technically they aren't texting. But the cop will notice the head looking down rather than at the road.

kdshapiro

Maybe to appease the anti-law crowd, all driving laws should be eradicated from the books and replaced with one distracted driving law. I'm okay for that as long as the range of fines go from minimal to maximal with the police having the ability to write the ticket as they see fit and the court system accept it.

stever

Well, then you lose the education component. Folks in here are well versed, but Joe Public may not know that his driving capacity is hammered by simply talking on a cell. Passing a new, specific law together with the occasional headline about someone getting tagged for texting can change make those people aware of the risks.

Cops generally go to driving school and truckers have CDLs that are, in theory, tougher to get. But yeah, that kind of stuff needs to be dialed back a bit too.

The last time I pulled up at an intersection next to a cop, the officer was engrossed in his laptop. Six people could have run the red light and he never would have noticed. :P

boaz47

This isn't rocket science. Lets take someone's favorite law when compared to this issue, DUI. They don't have to have a specific law dealing with scotch and another for beer and another for wine. The general DUI will cover the whole thing. Now if people drive under the influence of Pot, coke, or crack do they have to have a specific law? Or does DUI cover it. How about prescription pills? You guessed it they don't need a specific law. So lets suppose they, the police, decide it isn't worth their time to enforce. I am not suggesting they do but just suppose. Would it do any good to pass a law against Pot? Would it do to pass a specific law against beer? And here is a kicker, we now have a local education campaign on TV to assist the CHP in the enforcement of suspected DUIs. Guess what they are asking people to do? You guessed it, call the CHP or dial 911. They are asking the average untrained joe or joey to pick up their cell phone and call to report suspected DUI. Did you get that? DIAL 911 or whatever the local number for your CHP might be. Do you see a contradiction here? Someone in here has insisted dialing and talking on a cell phone is "worse" that driving under the influence and the CHP is asking people to call and report the supposed less evil? It isn't just California either, I have seen the signs along the road in Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. What educational message does that send?

stever

The implied message is to safely pull over to the shoulder, stop, and call. :shades:

boaz47

:P I toss the fertilizer flag. The implied message? The operator will ask questions that you can't answer from the side of the road. we all have listened to 911 calls on TV.

stever

Ouch - well, hopefully that'll be the last one of those flags I get this year. I'm running out of floor space.

boaz47

Don't worry, you get to toss all the old ones out January 1st.

stever

Speaking of the educational component:

"[G]roups like NSC and AAA are gearing up for massive public awareness campaigns on par with those that were successful in turning public opinion against drunk driving.

One watchdog group has already gone as far as filing a lawsuit against the Bush administration, charging that records on traffic deaths related to phone use by drivers is being withheld by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

Groups to Push for More Curbs, Education on Phone Use Behind the Wheel in 2009

boaz47

Oh yes, this is all Bush's fault. Johnson had Kennedy killed, there were space aliens killed in Roswell and we never landed on the moon. They all fit together. :sick:

stever

Information wants to be free. :shades:

nippononly

I think I will stay out of this thread permanently, it sucks me back in! Are we seriously proposing writing a new law for every thing we want to educate the public on from now on??!! That is absurd. How many laws do we want as a society? Personally, I say the less the better.

kd, if you seriously think that cops are now going to be pulling over people who they noticed looking down, I need to gather some links to videos of all the outrageous things police completely ignore routinely, every day, out on the roads. Not to mention they will be killing precious time on a driver who may or may not (since they could have been looking down at any of a dozen or more things, only one of which is a phone) have been breaking a law with a tiny fine and no driver penalty, when they could be giving out those juicy speeding tickets which, let's face it, occupy 99.9% of all enforcement time of every cop on the road. That is not an accident, they are directed to do so by the cities and counties paying their fairly high salaries, who want to see lots of expensive speeding, red light, and stop sign tickets rolling in, along with the revenue they generate.

There are counties along I-5 between LA and SF where going 15 over the limit will cost you well over $300, NOT including traffic school fees, and that's the speed everyone is going out there! Which do you suppose those counties want sheriffs and CHP giving out, the $300+ speeding tickets or the $20 cell phone tickets??

Bingo!

stever

every time I think I will stay out of this thread permanently, it sucks me back in!

Gotcha. :shades:

The driving distracted laws aren't working. Why not a new one? Or maybe make all driving distracted infractions a $300 ticket?

boaz47

"The driving distracted laws aren't working. Why not a new one? Or maybe make all driving distracted infractions a $300 ticket? "

good post but lets see if I can fix it for you?

The driving distracted laws aren't being enforced. Why not a new one, that won't be enforced? Or maybe make all driving distracted infractions a $300 ticket even if they never write the ticket? After all weren't the legislators forced to give themselves a monster raise for all the hard work they have been doing making up these laws that aren't enforced? Looks like they are spending the money they aren't getting. So how about this? everyone that supports a law that isn't enforced just sends in the money it will cost to pay for an officer that will get paid for simply enforcing that new law? What a concept, planning on how to make a law work? Oh forget it, just write a law outlawing accidents, that will solve everything.

stever

To quote Justin Wilson, I garontee that a lot of drivers have no idea that there are driving distracted laws on the books. Passing cell and text laws gets people upset and they notice the issue. The law abiding ones will cut back on the yakking and texting.

If the local cops are told to enforce the driving distracted laws, unless they pull over the mayor or Paris Hilton and it winds up on the tube, no one but the person nabbed is going to notice.

boaz47

In government we are taught that, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Drivers education and the drivers hand book say, "you are responsible for following the laws of the state in which you are receiving your license." when you sign the paperwork to apply for your license you "agree to follow all the rules of the road and laws of the state while operating a vehicle in that state." Or I forgot, another law we aren't expected to pay any attention to. We need another law that adds another fine for breaking a law we agreed not to break when we got our license.

"Here is you ticket for parking in a no parking zone Mr. Smith. Here is another ticket for falsely agreeing not to park in a no parking zone when you applied for a license, and here is one for perjury when you said you didn't realize you couldn't park in a red zone, it was on your test."

stever

So, you either have a bunch of guilty, but ignorant drivers, or a bunch of educated ones with only the miscreants intentionally violating the law?