Cop's new "cell-phone use" sting

[Rodimus Prime]

Back on topic. I don't see how people can be getting fined for talking on their cell phones. With a headset it is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.

False. Oh so very false.

They have done multiple studies of this and it proves other wise. it takes more brain power to talk to someone over the phone than a passager.
If you are talking over the phone your brain is trying and forming a mental picture of them and how they are reacting. If they are there in the car with you that is not done. That is a fair amount of brain power.
On top of that you since you are lossing body language your brain is trying to make up for that lost with the mental picture and trying to take a best guess on the rather large parts of missing information it does not have in body langage.

On top of that a passager has awareness of what is going on around the car and will adjust their convocation and reactions to account for it. They can see why it might take a long time to respond to a question. No so if they are on the phone.

Simple fact is when you are on the phone with someone more of your brain is lighted up than if they are in the room with you. That means more brain power is being pulled away from driving.

 

[hafr]

The key here is potentially lethal behavior. DUI's should be handled as a compounding of automobile incidence not a crime in an of itself.

If you are speeding, get in an accident, swerving, run a red light, &c while under the influence the punishment should be compounded greatly. If you are driving within all traffic regulations and just happen to be under the influence there should be no punishment. Perhaps treated like other traffic infractions of a ticket.

Sure driving drunk is a stupid thing to do and something I would not do. Although it is something I disagree with. I realize that if I want to live in a free society. I have to take risks with the choices other people make or put my own freedom at jeopardy.

Allowing people to drink and drive greatly increases the risk of fatal alcohol related traffic accidents. This affects more people than only the driver. Having to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? Ridiculous, it's a personal choice. Not allowing people to drink and drive? Totally fine by me since the lives of others are more important than me being able to drive home from the pub.

But what do you mean with you're willing to put your freedom at jeopardy so you can live in a free society?

Just as a weapon is potentially lethal yet is perfectly legal to own. If you have a weapon during the commission of a crime the punishment is greatly increased.

If you have a few beers, you'll never accidentally shoot yourself or someone else just because your reaction time is impaired by the alcohol.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Honestly I hate the cell phone laws, I can have the same conversation with a hands free device vs holding the phone to my ear. There are plenty of other things more distracting than using a phone. Why do we still have drive throughs?

The irony

Talking on my cell phone is bad yet the highways are littered with advertising on the side of the highway just begging me to take my eyes off the road at 60 mph or more.

The only reason why the State Govt are enacting these laws is because they reap no money from it like they do with the advertising.

Governments are here to protect you folks .....unless there is profit in it.

 

[iJohnHenry]

The only reason why the State Govt are enacting these laws is because they reap no money from it like they do with the advertising.

Stirling logic there.

So, don't do it, and deny them that money.

Or get into office, and change the law to your liking, if you can?

 

[nuckinfutz]

Stirling logic there.

So, don't do it, and deny them that money.

Or get into office, and change the law to your liking, if you can?

We can't. In the US the citizen is under the illusion that they are in control. Governments exist to create order and collect taxes. They can't make money on me using my cell in the car unless they criminalize it. They "can" and do make money distracting me with advertisements facing the highway.

If ending driver distraction was paramount logic would dictate that "all" matter that causes distraction would be abolished. That is not the case so the end goal logically isn't driver distraction but money.

 

[MacNut]

You guys refuse to acknowledge the fact that cell phone conversations steal your focus from driving much more than those other activities. You can chose the right time to play with your entertainment, or talk to other passengers. They are also engaged somewhat in your driving. Someone on the phone is not, and requires that you give them your attention.

I hope that case studies lead to the realization that even hands-free is just as hazardous.

Ban them all. That's why they invented phone booths, and parking lots.

So what is the difference from holding a phone to your ear and using a hands free device? The same conversation is happening. And I don't want to hear the both hands on the wheel argument, I never drive with both hands at all times and I am not doing anything else but driving.

To me eating fast food while driving is far more distracting than using a phone.

 

[nuckinfutz]

To me eating fast food while driving is far more distracting than using a phone.

This

And if driving with a cell phone is so damn important and issue to ban why are all cars mandated to have Bluetooth?

 

[Darth.Titan]

This

And if driving with a cell phone is so damn important and issue to ban why are all cars mandated to have Bluetooth?

There's no requirement for manufacturers to have Bluetooth in all cars. Bluetooth is a popular feature, but in no way is it mandatory.

At least not in the U.S.

 

[rutledjw]

That would be a tough sell, coming as it does via the Criminal Code, not the Highway Traffic Act.

But Careless Driving could be used, and most here would agree that this would be severely militant.

Or, pick your poison level.

I think your "Careless Driving" idea is an excellent one. DUI is too tough, but careless with an upgrade to reckless in the case of an accident seems appropriate! I'd like to see that for talking on the phone as well. Every time I'm behind some fool going 10-20 MPH under the speed limit they're talking on the phone.

----------

So what is the difference from holding a phone to your ear and using a hands free device? The same conversation is happening. And I don't want to hear the both hands on the wheel argument, I never drive with both hands at all times and I am not doing anything else but driving.

To me eating fast food while driving is far more distracting than using a phone.

I can't find the study, but it showed similar, although slightly reduced distraction for hands-free driving overall. What was interesting was that hands-free caused far less distraction in some while in others it was nearly identical

 

[dukebound85]

I find it amusing at the support here for even harsher DUI penalties but for phones, nothing should be done even though it has been shown that cell phone use impairs the driver as much as drinking.

Ironic

 

[MacNut]

I find it amusing at the support here for even harsher DUI penalties but for phones, nothing should be done even though it has been shown that cell phone use impairs the driver as much as drinking.

Ironic

Why single out one distraction and leave 50 others.

 

[dukebound85]

Why single out one distraction and leave 50 others.

Why the support for harsher DUI penalties but no support for any criminalization of an activity just as dangerous and far more commonplace?

 

[nuckinfutz]

Traffic deaths at an all time low

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 32,310 people died last year in traffic accidents, the lowest number since 1949.

NHTSA obtained that number though a statistical projection, which shows that traffic fatalities dropped 1.7 percent compared to 2010 numbers. The announcement, released today, also shows Americans collectively drove 1.2 percent less in 2011 – dropping 35.7 billion vehicle miles traveled. (NHTSA expects the fatality rate to drop in 2011 as well, predicting 1.09 American deaths for every 100 million miles driven.)

U.S. traffic fatalities have dropped seven years in a row, with the 43,510 people dying in traffic accidents in 2005. NHTSA attributes a number of factors to the continued decrease in fatalities including increased seat belt use and more safety devices inside vehicles.

By region, NHTSA noted that accidents in New England dropped the most, 7.2 percent, while accidents in California and Hawaii increased the most, 3.3 percent, compared to the year before.

Tempest in a teapot

Traffic fatalities declining while cell phone usage is skyrocketing yet without a shred of credible evidence our "Boys in Blue" are watching us closely for cell phones stuck to our ears.

Money Making Opportunity just like Traffic Cams.

 

[MacNut]

Why the support for harsher DUI penalties but no support for any criminalization of an activity just as dangerous and far more commonplace?

You mean eating while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Changing the radio while driving?

 

[dukebound85]

You mean eating while driving? Putting on makeup while driving? Changing the radio while driving?

Or drinking?

All potential lethal activities that can wreck families lives by the ****** who chooses to do that behind the wheel.

I am getting at how absurd DUI laws are when a variety of other distractions just as bad have no criminal punishment at all, yet are proven to be just as bad.

Why support harsh laws for the latter but nothing at all for the rest? really,why?

 

[velocityg4]

But what do you mean with you're willing to put your freedom at jeopardy so you can live in a free society?

I meant it is better to secure freedom and have increased risks rather than jeopardizing freedom for the sake of security.

 

[mobilehaathi]

I meant it is better to secure freedom and have increased risks rather than jeopardizing freedom for the sake of security.

I know many would accept this as an axiom, but I think it merits at least a little critical thought (I'm not suggesting you haven't given it such, either). Rigidly adhering to this idea quickly legalizes everything, of which you may be in favor.

I have a hard time seeing the freedom to drive drunk off of my ass as an inalienable right---regardless of how perfectly I drive home. As for cell phone use, the exceptionally easy bluetooth headphone should make this a non-issue.

 

[hafr]

I meant it is better to secure freedom and have increased risks rather than jeopardizing freedom for the sake of security.

Do you lock your car, your house, your bike and so on?

Would you ever write down a password or a pin code and keep it with say your credit card?

Do you feel grooming should be legal?

A person being stopped outside of a bank with written down plans of how to rob the bank, carrying guns, a ski mask and so on - should the police have no right to apprehend him but instead having to wait for him to do something?

 

[dejo]

As for cell phone use, the exceptionally easy bluetooth headphone should make this a non-issue.

How so? Studies have shown that handsfree phones are just as risky as handsets.

 

[mobilehaathi]

How so? Studies have shown that handsfree phones are just as risky as handsets.

Fair enough! I happen to be of the opinion that not allowing the driver to make phone calls/texts (except in emergencies) is so marginally inconvenient that the benefits to road safety easily outweigh the inconvenience.

One wonders how people ever managed to live in a world without cell phones!

 

[iJohnHenry]

One wonders how people ever managed to live in a world without cell phones!

It all boils down to entitlement. Everyone has it, just ask.

 

[steviem]

People take driving for granted and don't seem to afford it the attention that it deserves, whatever other activity they are performing, if caught, these should be careless driving at the very least.

Getting into a car chemically impaired should always be a criminal offense though. Sorry db.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Getting into a car chemically impaired should always be a criminal offence though. Sorry db.

Right.

In Canada, these are the others involving a motor vehicle.

Criminal Code Motor Vehicle Offences

Impaired Driving and Over .80 (253)
Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle (249)
Refusal (254)
Flight from Police (249.1)
Failure to Stop at Scene of Accident
Driving while Disqualified (259)

 

[mobilehaathi]

Right.

In Canada, these are the others involving a motor vehicle.

Criminal Code Motor Vehicle Offenses

Impaired Driving and Over .80 (253)
Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle (249)
Refusal (254)
Flight from Police (249.1)
Failure to Stop at Scene of Accident
Driving while Disqualified (259)

What a fascist country you live in!

The horror.....the horror....

 

[wordoflife]

It's not so much the "talking on the phone" which is causing this. The real problem is that people are doing stupid things while driving such as texting, using the internet, tweeting, playing angry birds, etc while they drive.

These are much more dangerous the adjusting the volume, setting the A/C, changing discs, or looking at the distracting advertisements while on the road.

Thus, cell phones as a whole are being targeted.