Slashdot Mirror
Legal Restrictions on Cellphone Use Gain Traction
Carl Bialik writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that States are scrambling to impose tougher restrictions on cell phone use by drivers, addressing what safety experts say can be a deadly distraction. From the article: 'Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have written legislation on the issue, mostly since 2003, [...] This year, other legislatures are tackling the subject, and two states have passed laws on it. [...] While no state has banned talking on a cell phone while driving, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C., have the most restrictive laws: Except in emergencies, motorists in those states can use cell phones only with hands-free devices, such as earpieces. Restrictions vary across other states. Some prohibit teenagers, bus drivers and drivers with learning permits from using cell phones -- even with earpieces.'"
Anyone tried concentrating on the road with two sqabbling under-10's in the back? It's far worse than any phone conversation.
Except in emergencies, motorists in those states can use cell phones only with hands-free devices, such as earpieces
I thought it was the distraction of talking to someone whom you cannot see that was the problem - most drivers can steer the car with one hand.
So what now, ban drinking coffee in cars, applying lipstick while driving? After all, this also causes the driver to take one hand off the wheel.
Don't they *think* before making these laws?
Hmm, so the driver got into an accident while he was:
- phoning
- sleeping
- driving
- having drugs in the system
Incidentally, he was also breathing, and (presumably) had a good meal within the last 24 hours.Now, in you're opinion which combination should be outlawed? Driving and Breathing? -> Don't think so! ...) I don't really think that this accident should be hold up as an example for the dangers of driving while phoning! I don't argue that phoning may distract you, but please, if you want to illustrate that point, please use an example where there weren't any other more likely causes! If anything, the phone keeps you awake!
Driving and drugs? -> Makes more sense already.
Driving and sleeping? -> Makes lots of sense!
Driving and yucking on the phone? Hmm, with all the other stuff going on here (drugs, sleep,
So this kid took drugs and fell asleep while driving, and somehow the cell phone is to blame? I think I'm confused...
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Are these attempts to increase safety, or a puritanical knee-jerk reaction? Hard not to notice that there are not similar laws against smoking/arguing/eating/etc. while driving, http://www.misc2.com/whisper.html has a scenario on how this plays out long term...
Many countries already have offences such as Driving without Due Care and Attention. This is fairly non-specific and can be used against any driver who endangers others by performing a non-driving activity (such as having their groin scalded by superheated coffee) whilst nominally in control of a moving vehicle.
The same problem is had by those who fiddle with their GPS while driving, or even the entertainment system. Must we introduce specific legislation for each device?
It should be noted that I do agree with the clampdown which is already in place in much of Europe. Handsfree units are convenient and quite comfortable to wear now, especially the lightweight BT varieties such as the Plantronics 640 which even my wife wears without problems.
If you don't like the cost of BT, there are still wired headsets which often ship for free now or are a very low cost extra.
See my journal, I write things there
No, you are absolutely wrong - driving while talking on the cell phone is extremely dangerous, hands-free or not. Just because you haven't been in an accident yet doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Studies have shown that it's the concentration one needs to carry on a cell conversation that causes the distraction, so hands-free doesn't even help.
It's most certainly NOT the same as drinking coffee of listening to the radio...
Your brain tunes out the radio when you need to concentrate, but it makes more effort to keep up with the conversation when you are talking... and it's worse when you're on the cell phone because you're not hearing the other person with as much clarity as you would if they were sitting next to you, so your brain has to divert even more resources to deciphering what the other person is saying.
Applying make up and doing some other things are certainly worse, because applying makeup typically requires looking in the mirror; but eating or drinking, while not completely safe, are at least safer than either make up or talking on the phone.
I'm sick of people claiming it's not dangerous because they do it and haven't had an accident. That doesn't mean it's safe! I also get annoyed when someone claims that they are a better driver while on the phone than a lot of other people who are concentrating on the road; even if it's true YOU are still a better driver while YOU are concentrating on the road.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
So you're suggesting that the law should be based on someone's evaluation of their own capabilities?
"I think I can handle talking on the phone while driving, therefore it's legal. It's those other scatter-brain guys who are the problem."
"I think I can have five drinks and still drive home safely, so it's legal. It's those other guys who can't handle their liquor that are the problem."
...all the other reasons these careless drivers cause road problems. Seriously, Cell phones are a good start, but how about addressing the hypocrisy of SUVs. A vehicle with a Gross Weight of over 3 tons gets special tax incentive for work use, so they all get claimed, but vehicles over 3 tons also get regularly banned from certain roads for being over weight limit, which these same owners pretend doesn't apply to them. Not to mention that they should require a trucker license to pilot such a beast, which they would need if the federal regulations weren't rewritten specifically to get these things into the hands of Soccor Moms everywhere.
:-\
But that's not politically safe to talk about.
How about minimum driving ages being changed? It shouldn' surprise anyone that kids under the age of 18 account for a HUGELY disporportionate piece of the accident pie. How about something like a learners permit (requiring a licensed driver in the car until 17 instead of 16. How about a restricted license (to work and back, etc...) until 18. Give these kids a chance to learn how to drive before we shove them off on their own. Seriously, now we give them a permit at 15.5 yrs and by 16 we shove em out of the driving nest to fly on their own. Them we get outraged at the damage they cause.
But that's not politically safe to talk about either.
How about some real draconian legislation to end drunk driving. If you are drinking and driving in this day and age, you, sir, are a fucktard. Seriously, have NEVER seen an afterschool special? Is your head planted so firmly in your own buttocks that you failed to hear the upteen warning shouted from every media outlet we can bring to bear on the topic? Of course not. That's why if you drink and drive, giving you any "1st offense" effect is a waste. You knew. You did it anyway. Manditory jailtime. Manditory removal of license...not restricted license, REMOVED license. It's a priviledge and you just lost it. STFU and pick up a bus schedule on the way home from the jail when you get out.
But that also is not politically safe to talk about.
How about serious legislation to curb car use in general. Something to give commuters and travellers a real alternative. People will bitch, though, because God forbid (no, literally God forbid---I mean car use is a right spelled out in the King James Bible, right?) anyone points out just how many lives are lost every year because the bar is so low on who we are willing to let careen through our neighborhoods behind the joystick of a 2+ ton screaming fast hunk of metal.
But that's DEFINATELY not politically safe to talk about.
Americans need to end their love affair with their cars.
But I guess cell phones are a good start.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
"It's most certainly NOT the same as drinking coffee of listening to the radio..."
Bullshit. In both cases, you take your eyes off the road to either line up the coffee cup to your mouth OR to fiddle with the options on the stereo. You can shake your head all you like, but there were plenty of studies showing the dangers involved with both of the cases you described.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard that comparison several times and I thought it was just wrong. After all, I talk on the cell phone and my driving is pretty good. That is what I thought at least, until I started riding a motorcycle on the street. You notice everything when on a bike in the middle of a bunch of distracted car drivers, and soon I started noticing several patterns. The biggest was that people talking on a cell phone can be spotted easily.
You all can tell yourselves that you don't do that. That YOU ARE a good driver, and you probably normally are. But so am I.. And so are probably 50% of the people I spot weaving and hitting the brakes 1 second later than they should.
you take your eyes off the road to either line up the coffee cup to your mouth
If you seriously need to look to bring a cup to your mouth, you need to work on your coordination...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Personally, I don't see this as being much different from speed limits. Cell phone restrictions, visibility requirements, speed limits, DUI laws, and everything else aren't just for the driver's protection. They're for the protection of the other people on the road too.
The difference between a cell phone conversation and talking with a passenger is that a passenger can help you looking at the road and slow the conversation when in heavy traffic.
Someone on the phone will not and will not understand so easily why there is a pause in the conversation because the driver notice something strange.
A passenger have a better understanding of his/her responsibility not to distract the driver than someone in his/her office/living-room.
This is valid for normal peaceful conversation. For fights or seductions as some touching may occur, the physical presence may be an additional distraction and cell phone may be a better solution.
Phone sex would definitely be less distracting than real sex while driving.
That's true, but in tests leading up to the UK ban, it was found that drivers using hands-free kits are almost as dangerous as those on hand-held phones. The distraction is the main problem, not the fact that you've only got one hand on the wheel. It's not the same as someone sitting next to you, because usually someone sitting next to you can see both you and the road ahead, and will instinctively shut up when they sense that you need to concentrate on approach to a hazard.
The UK government proceeded to implement a ban on hand-held phones only, and a lot of "responsible" organisations have since been promoting the highly-dangerous habit of driving while on a hands-free kit. It will be interesting, in a macabre kind of way, to see whether the introduction of the anti-mobile-phone legislation here actually correlates with an improvement in road safety.
The only really safe way to use a phone in a car is when you're not driving it at the time. I don't care how urgent your business call is, or that you need your other half to put the kettle on now so the coffee's ready when you get home. Either pull over in a safe and legal place and make/answer the call, or wait until you've arrived. Anything else is dangerous driving, and should be prosecuted under your local dangerous driving laws regardless of any phone-specific restrictions. If it really was safer than not making the call (e.g., you're calling the emergency services a good reason) then that should be a sufficient defence in court.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'd be surprised if requiring a headset changed anything.
It's usually not so much the act of holding the cellphone, that's distracting for most of these people that are, IMO, unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, I think it's the conversation that they get lost in.
Holding a cell phone is really no more challenging than say, changing out a CD or holding a drink, and certainly not as difficult (or crazy) as applying makeup, yet there's never been a movement against those specific activities. The cell phone conversation just seems to send some into la-la land.
I suspect that an intra-vehicular conversation would also be just as likely to result in an accident with some drivers, y'know, the kind that prefer to keep their eyes on the passenger rather than the road.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The whole idea is to prevent the accidents in the first place. Because they are preventable. No one can legislate against acts of God, brake failure or people mis-judging things, but this is 100% in the hands of the people doing it. They can't claim an accident if they weren't paying full attention to the road.
As for idiots and bears, well they're the ones that get eaten, not some innocent bystander, so there is no real similarity there.
BTW, I agree about being criminally responsible, but that doesn't mean you don't at least try to prevent accidents.
Cell phone use is 100% avoidable when driving (or in the cinema, hospital, library where-ever). The damn things have only been around for 15 years or so, what ever did we do without them ?
It's funny that people who would advocate a technical/legal solution to cell phone use in cinemas, seem to be completely laissez-faire about something that will ruin your life, not just a stupid movie !
The only reason that a car is less dangerous and disruptive is because of the widespread inconsideration of motorists. This is one of the few cases where blaming the victims is a widely accepted philosophy, probably because almost everyone in the U.S. drives a car. Nobody likes to accept responsibility, even for such simple things as paying attention to cycists.
Then again, philosophical consistency doesn't seem to be widespread among drivers in general. Take this statement:
"I value the of other people's right to have a smooth commute."
Obviously not. For many folks, a bike ride is their commute. I'm sure you understand this, but apparently haven't internalized it, judging by your earlier assumption that the cyclist to whom you responded was cycling for pleasure. Communities that have continuous bike lanes and/or suitably wide sidewalks leading to every possible commuter destination are certainly rare, and possibly non-existant. That means that, for most bike commuters, at least a portion of their commute will involve use of a road. Shouldn't that portion be a smooth commute, without inattentive drivers who don't understand the road use rights of cyclists causing problems?
You asked earlier if a poster had the money to buy a 1000 dollar car. Perhaps the poster doesn't; this is not an uncommon situation for hourly workers in my country when you factor in costs of gas, insurance, taxes, and maintenance. Or perhaps they do, but would then have to spend a large portion of their minimal resources on unpleasant transportation, which is generally the nature of a thousand-dollar car. I've owned a few. Not everyone accepts the paradigm of "drive the car you can barely afford to a job you hate so you can pay for the car" as a viable lifestyle.
Last year I spent just shy of 2500 dollars on insurance, maintenance, and fuel for my car. Insurance is expensive here if you're an under-thirty male driver; at least my car was already paid off. While I was making payments, that figure was more like 5600 dollars. That is a sizable portion of my after-tax income. After realizing what a sucker that made me, I went shopping. Now I own a $300 bicycle, I do my own maintenance, my physical condition is much better than it was this time last year, and I have more money to spend on wonderful new experiences like health care and fresh food. A brief period of unemployment was considerably less spooky without an insurance or fuel bill. My attitude and energy have improved as a result of eliminating stressful Florida commutes.
Now, I suppose I could give all of that up so that a pack of oblivious motorists can "enjoy" their commute.
Naaah...I have a better idea. I think I'll just keep using these roads, funded as they are by my taxes, and if some folks find it too difficult to drive and pay attention to other commuters simultaneously, then I'll suggest that they shouldn't be driving.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)