Slashdot Mirror
No Hand-Held Devices In Ontario Cars
NIK282000 writes "To cut down on accidents caused by drivers who aren't paying attention, in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text, email, or navigate with your GPS while driving. But it seems to me that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because it is now also a $500 fine to change your radio station, change songs on your MP3 player, or even drink your morning coffee. It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel. Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far."
How does one demistify the windows?
How am I going to pick my nose now?
People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water, while stopped at traffic lights.
Eventually, somebody will realise that people with the first frigging clue about driving (and a self-preservation instinct) do these things WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. It's the people without the first clue of driving who need the attention of the authorities, and these people are ingineous at finding ways of being dangerous while driving exactly 'by the book'. Cops should pull people who are obviously being a danger (all over the road, near misses etc etc), rather than based on a tickbox system (is speed >X? Is driver doing activity Y?) as seems to be increasingly the case in many areas.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
The law applies to handheld electronic devices. So unless your coffee mug is electronic or your climate control is handheld you are probably fine with coffee and a nice temp in your car
My car has simple controls on the steering wheel to control the tuning and volume of the radio/CD player. I would have thought it possible to similarly mount simple A/C contols. Trying to retune the radio, or even just adjust the volume, can be an uneccessary distraction if you have to look away from the road at the controls.
A Canadian truck driver has been fined for smoking in his own truck. His truck is a "workplace" you see, and you're not allowed to smoke at work.
Beware! Definitions have consequences!
Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far.
Here's how I reason. Regardless if I can or cannot drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand, for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case. And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights, then it's a very, very, very small price to pay.
I am the lawn!
Yeah, 'blame Canada' - to put it in context, most Canadians west of Ontario, view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is, hopelessly and utterly broken. So stuff like this isn't a surprise - I don't mean to troll, but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.
Oh, and for those Ontarians in the audience? Yeah, 'Central Canada' would be Saskatchewan. Anything east of that is 'Eastern'. :)
Hands-free Bluetooth devices are O.K., and you'll be allowed to use any phone in the event of an emergency to call 911. Your GPS unit will still be able to direct you, as long as its properly secured to your dashboard.
"Communication devices such as CBs that are hard-wired into the vehicle are not covered by the ban," the official states.
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
In the U.S., and I suspect Canada, cars are the instrument of death more often than guns are. Count then by gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner, cars are more dangerous.
I know people that have been killed or injured by drivers distracted by lighting cigarettes, changing the radio or reaching for something that fell on the floor, like a CD or cassette. It is no different than if someone carelessly shoots a gun off without aiming or caring where it is pointing. Only luck prevents something bad happening.
I have been injured while biking by idiots not paying attention while driving, had my car hit by other drivers changing the radio.
So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough. It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.
Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined. If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked. If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed. They are a danger to others.
Everyone has a right to travel. No one has the right to endanger others. Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actions, no matter how they do so: Car, knife, gun, chemical spill, whatever.
On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that using handheld devices while driving is dangerous, and in our rather busier UK traffic anybody drinking coffee while driving is a risk to everybody else.
However the summary and some of the responses show part of a trend. "Libertarianism" translating as "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, but stop those other idiots". Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness. As a colleague of mind once remarked "when I think how I used to drive when i was younger and put my family at risk, my blood runs cold". I expect lots of posts here slagging off Ontario, but they are right - and remember kids, you can't post a retraction to Slashdot from the cemetary.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I'm going back in my hoose to write a letter to those hosers in my local parilment aboot this!
Aren't the vast majority of cars in the US automatic anyway (apposed the the vast majority of cars in Europe being manual)? Surely that means that Americans have an extra free hand, for GPSs, Blackberries and Big Macs.
My car is controlled by a joystick, you insensitive clod!
Good gawd, that summary is terrible. To say it's not even vaguely accurate is an understatement. The list of what is and what is not allowed is available here.
Copy/pasting for those not interested in downloading the pdf:
What would not be allowed while driving, unless the vehicle is pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked
* Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones
* Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games
* Texting and emailing
* Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player
What would be allowed while driving
* Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
* 911 calls
* Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
* GPS units mounted on dashboards
* Collision avoidance systems
* Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
* Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles
Unless they grow a third arm for shifting, anyway.
Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea?
How do you change gear?
I applaud this law.
When you're in the car driving, that's what you should do, drive. *Not* eat sandwiches, drink coffee, play computer games, telephone, etc. etc. Doing so not only puts your stupid life at risk but mine as well.
Here in Maine, it is against the law to do anything which distracts you from driving. Essentially, this would include texting or talking on the phone if those things are distracting you. I would imagine that this will allow the cop to ticket you if you cause an accident and thus properly assign liability for the accident. It's like getting a ticket for "failure to control you vehicle to avoid a collision" (a typical wording for any time you rear-end the car in front of you).
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Distracted driving is distracted driving. People love to hate other people's cell phones but think nothing of twiddling with the radio or turning to face their passenger as they have a conversation. In general I think these laws on top of laws are a bad idea because there are generally already distracted driver laws. Trying to single out specific items in the law is just silly and is an attempt to cater to those people that want an ever increasing number of laws and power for the state. So great, we outlawed hand held electronic devices. I guess I will have to bring out a mini-Victrola with a crank. Sure it will be hand held and a terrible distraction for the driver but it is not electronic so it must be safe.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
... this is entirely unenforcable. I would stick mainly to cell phone's / texting only, since it really saps your attention. Drinking your coffee or having a bite to eat while you are stopped at a stop light or stuck in traffic is hardly irresponsible behaviour, while attempting to do so while you are driving is. You can't legislate against stupidity, it's unenforcable.
While I feel sorry for deaths and accidents caused by human stupidity you can't legislate against it, I would be more for looking into the viability of equipping cars with attention monitoring devices to see whether such a thing is viable or not, kind of like a blackbox to keep a record of the persons idiocy that can be used as evidence in court.
Perhaps we should ban drive through for restaurants while we're at it?
I work with police radios, 911 centers, etc. like nobody-but-the-IRS's business and recently it has struck me as really odd that nobody makes "hands-free" devices for police radios. "Hands-free" devices make the rest of us safer drivers so why doesn't anybody marketed police radio equipment designed to work with them?
Imagine if the officer never had to take her hands off the vehicle wheel in order to (a) tell the radio unit to change to frequency , (b) press the button mounted on the steering wheel to key the radio to transmit mode and (c) start talking to dispatch...
Police, Fire/Ambulance, etc. DO NOT "need" to be able to use hand-held devices to perform their emergency services and the sooner we stop giving them exemptions from safety rules the sooner they'll step-up to safer ways of doing business.
And add a 'feature' to it:
If you send a photo containing someone driving while using phone/electronic device to the police you will get 10% of the fine. Currently the catch rate for phoning while driving is so low that many people are not bothered by it.
The catch rate for these kinds of things is just to low, and then many people don't bother with it. The one time they get caught they just pay up. Which puts people like me (using bike to get to work) at risk.
More details here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2099
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
They don't enforce it much, but there's no reason to make a cellphone / texting law because they only thing you're technically allowed to take your hands off the wheel for while driving is shifting gears. It's in the Texas drivers handbook that I had drivers ed from in 94 and it's still the law now.
I don't see where another place passing this law is news.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Does this mean that you cannot take your hand off of the wheel to use the turn signals? What about police officers that need to resond to their radios while driving, or even access their on-board computers?
There are more than fifty jurisdictions now that have similar bans in place. Frankly, if whatever it is you're doing while driving makes it so you don't notice the cop until they're pulling you over, you deserve the damn ticket.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
So now we have drivers waving their cell phone cameras around trying to take photos of other drivers talking on their cell phones?
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
You seem to have the idea that if you keep your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road ahead, you will automatically be a better driver. People who do only that tend to fall asleep on long trips. Some things that look like distractions actually serve the purpose of keeping you awake.
My former employer used to have a 'no radios in vehicles' rule. They gave up on that when it was pointed out that vehicles with radios had the same or even a bit fewer accidents than vehicles without radios.
One way to stay awake and alert for many truckers (me included) is to crack sunflower seeds. Don't know why it works but it does. Depriving me (and lots of other guys) of the right to eat sunflower seeds would definitely make the roads less safe.
I agree with what seems to be the consensus. Rules usually have unintended consequences. The fewer rules the better (to a point).
Unfortunately laws have to be made for the majority not the minority. This is a pity. I personally would like to see a world in which nobody was allowed to drive who had an IQ below 145 and had been assessed as safe by a personality test which included tests for psychopathy, sociopathy and reckless behavior. It would keep the roads nice and empty for me...but it won't happen.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
What about changing gear? that typically requires taking your hand off the wheel too...
Also what if you need to do something like scratch an itch, driving around with an irritating itch is probably more dangerous than scratching it.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
There’s equality for you
Most traffic stops are nothing more than you being the random loser in the Revenue Patrol lottery. Adding more stupid things that they can ticket you for has nothing to do with safety, everything to do with revenue collection.
Corporatism != Free Market
So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough. It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.
Anyone who claims they've never driven while distracted is a complete and utter moron. Mod it flamebait, I don't give a fuck but you sir are a fuckwit. It'd be more effective to ban babies from being in the car since an infant in a car seat who has just vomited and is about to choke to death is a far greater distraction than changing the fucking radio station.
I'm almost surprised you haven't suggested that cars need to be banned period.
The correct solution by the way is to teach people how to cope with distractions. AND TEST the driver for being able to cope with distractions. Life is full of them and pretending they don't exist is far more culpable than changing a radio station.
Everyone has a right to travel. No one has the right to endanger others.
First of all there is no "right to travel". Secondly the two are not compatible. There is a risk to yourself and others around you when you travel. It can be minimised NOT eliminated.
Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actions
You mean like existing dangerous driving laws?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, there are computers, hand held radios, and cameras in their cars. It's a driving hand-held electronics boutique in the car. If the cops can break the law with training, then offer the same training to the citizenry. On a side note, it is claimed that GM with have a totally autonomous driving car by 2020, so these laws may be short lived....
"Ones and zeros were everywhere. I even think I saw a two!" - Bender
We are constantly fighting cell phones, texting (what about emailing), and other one offs without taking on the core issue, distracted driving. And as long as there are mothers on the road, with screaming children in the back seat, while they try to fix their makeup as they race to a play date, we'll never face this issue head on. No one wants to discuss how distracting a baby can be, least we suffer the wrath of the angry mother. So we're constantly doing one off bills that catch some people that are distracted and others that are completely safe.
Amen. Now if they'd take demerit points as well....
Stupid stupid Americans !!
If you send a photo containing someone driving while using phone/electronic device to the police you will get 10% of the fine
I've love it if a law was introduced making it allowable for you to hold down your car horn if you saw someone driving with a phone held to their ear, until they stopped. Road rage would become a huge issue, as would burnt out horns, and there are a stack of other things wrong with such a law, but it would be a laugh :)
Living in Ontario, there are many laws that aren't enforced, like not being a tool and driving down the shoulder in a traffic jam. The police enforce that rule once per year. My best bet is that most of the people who get tickets are the people that don't do it on a regular basis, just got caught the once they did it. The people who drive around with their phone stuck to their ear will never get a ticket. Such is life. Just because this rule is in place, doesn't mean I am not still going to be watching for distracted drivers. It isn't their phone that is the issue, it is their driving skills in general. Take the phone out of the picture and they are still distracted by shiny objects.
> ... the mind's eye ...
Your use of this phrase indicates to me that you would have a hard time producing hard psychophysical evidence confirming your theory. In fact, the sense he uses to locate the bottle is called "proprioception" or "kinesthesia", and has little to do with the visual cortex.
> but it also undeniably takes your attention away from the road
As do countless other legal actions like listening to the weather/traffic congestion report on the radio, talking, or even thinking about that project you have to finish at work or what you will say to the person you are about to meet when you arrive. Or would you make it only legal for certified Zen monks to drive?
Excessive, maybe. Necessary SOMETIMES, yes! Mobiles on cars should be controlled in some way, either by law or technology.
I myself was almost run over not long ago while crossing the street on foot by a woman chatting on her blackberry while driving (and using both hans to drive AND chat!) because she didn't see me or the red light!
Does this apply to Amateur Radio or CB Radio?
As someone who has participated in a fair share of drills and emergency prep that has involved all sorts of two way radio in vehicles, this has me curious.
Hands-free equipment isn't often available for two-way radio systems.
73
73! -KB3MGR
These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever. Why? Well, I am glad you asked. This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad, but a hands-free one is ok. Well, science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part, not holding the phone. If holding the phone were the problem, the ban would be on driving one handed. Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction. This being said, there is no reasonable way we could possibly ban talking on a cell phone, especially when the same government almost certainly does everything they can to promote car pooling.
Texting and playing video games while driving are certainly not ok, but I would have thought that not looking at the road while you are driving would already be thoroughly well covered by previously existing laws (we would call it reckless endangerment in the U.S., not sure about Canada).
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Most countries regulate amateur radio at a federal level, not a state level. So I wonder if these new laws implicitly exempt ham radio operation?
We have something similar in many states in the US in that it's illegal to operate a cellphone in a school zone. Again, I've never seen an exception to ham radio (federally-regulated in the US), so it would appear to me that regulations like these have no effect on federal mandates.
You are about to sneeze while driving, do you;
A; Remove a hand from the wheel to cover a sneeze and incur a $500 fine.
B; Sneeze all over the winscreen and steering wheel, obsucring the view and making the steering difficult, if not discusting.
C; Something else
According to all the safety boards the most distracting things while driving are children. (And adults behaving like children). So perhaps children should be put in the boot (trunk) of the vehicle or banned from vehicles?
How did humans survive driving before these rules?
Experience. And maybe specific training.
I don't know how professionals deal with multiple radio calls, complex driving situations, and keeping an eye on their surroundings all at the same time. I have to turn my radio off in unfamiliar areas and ask my passengers to be quiet when approaching busy interchanges.
So I'll grant that emergency personnel, truck drivers, and cab drivers have more robust driving skills than me.
Tinted windows
It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel.
if you aren't allowed to take the hands off the wheel, you can't drive stick (unless you stay on first gear all the trip).
I guess since all yanks drive an automatic geared car this is no problem
off the wheel.
They are going to be driving really slow I guess...
Oh wait... is a vibrator considered a "hand held device"? Oh nooooooooo!
Touch screen devices should be banned while driving because you have to look at them to use them, there is no way to "touch-type" on a touch screen.
For people like me that suffer from night blindness, the several cop cars with extremely bright flashing lights that Washington State lines up along the side of the road every time they do highway maintenance at night actually make things less safe. Here's a hint: I can tell you are doing maintenance by the orange signs. When you shine bright lights into my eyes while I'm driving, I CAN"T SEE, and I'm much MORE likely to run over someone who steps into my path! Could we please ban bright lights on cop cars, at least for non-emergency use?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Ya cavehobbit (sorry but I have to use people with your attitude as examples), don't forget all what you said applies to you on your toy bicycle weaving around cars, going up on sidewalks, ignoring stop signs. Worse yet is guys like you pulling up to the front of the line at a red light when I want to turn right, so that you sit in my blind spot and kick my car because I had the right of way, but you put one foot down and now pretend you are a pedestrian. Give me a break. The majority of those on those two wheel vehicles routinely break most traffic laws. You guys still even manage run into each other on bike paths because you are fiddling with your mp3 players instead of simply stopping off to the side. The one thing you do manage to do well, is when you do stop at a large intersection it to constantly sit adjusting your left nut and make a big show of your penis shifting (or more likely just trying to keep a semi on for the ladies. Woman cyclists just look down at their chest to make sure they are balanced and level).
Um how about we lower the accident rate before I have to pay yet another insurance rate hike because the cell phone abusers were to stupid to use common sence and pull off the road. This law is to protect the rest of us from the terminally stupid and to protect those idiots from themselves as well.
I don't care if Darwin takes those morons out of the equation, but unfortunately we all know it's those guys you will see pacing back and forth on the road (not the side) of an accident scene, talking on their phone while their victim is loaded into the ambulance. I'll leave it to everyone to guess who they are calling and what they are saying on their phone? For the record, I haven't had an 'at fault accident' in over 35 years, but I sure have witnessed all of the above and much, much more idiocy almost every time I go out on the road.
So you can't "navigate with your GPS", well that'll please the TomTom/Garman, et al! I think I'll go back to Honda and ask for a $3000 refund on my fitted GPS unit!
What a crock! Can't take hands of the wheel? What about changing gear? Pulling on the handbrake?
What are people who drive manuals? I think that changing gears might require you to take a hand off the wheel. Is that a fine too? And what is the difference?
http://www.newyorkerstore.com/October-12-2009/I-wasnt-texting-I-was-building-this-ship-in-a-bottle/invt/133708
So yesterday, I'm driving along Highway 118. 80 km/h speed limit.
There's this white van riding my ass. I don't know why, as I'm cruise-controlling at the limit, and the highway is pretty empty.
Eventually he passes me, and sure enough, America plates. Michigan, to be precise.
A minute or two later, I come back across him. He's now stuck behind two cars. The spacing is like this: car1->decent space->car 2->tailgaiting American->decent space->me.
The American keeps having to tap his brakes to keep from running into my poor countryman, who, obviously, is also on cruise.
Eventually, car1 wants to make a left hand turn. So, signals and brakes. Car2 also brakes. American van, at this point, needs to crash-stop, and tries to swerve around the left of car2 to avoid a rear-end collision. This causes him to damn near t-bone car1, who is executing his left turn. So American van tries swerving back to the right, which causes him to damn near sideswipe car2 out of existance. Finally, he gets back behind, and, this is the part that really nuked me, *continues with the tailgaiting.*
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Everybody here is of course going to be all-out against this legislation, and probably quoting diverse bills of rights in the process. Many of the objections will be valid, at least to some degree, but these considerations would not be complete if one doesn't at least try to genuinely understand the other side of the argument.
There is no doubt that being distracted while driving is probably a major cause of accidents, that are sometimes serious. There is also little doubt that mobile devices with complex interfaces constitute a growing threat to people's concentration while driving. It seems to me, that there is a good case for doing something about it now - the question is what can one practically do? And that little word, "practically", is what makes is so difficult; it would be easy if they could simply ban the production and possession of any mobile device or something like that.
The only tool legislators have, really, is legislation, so they have to introduce a law. A law is useless if it can't be enforced, so it has to be simple enough for the average citizen to understand and for the police to enforce, and it mustn't generate huge amounts of court cases. So it seems that the law, as it has been introduced, is not really such a hare-brained scheme as some would argue; it isn't perfect and it won't be popular, but it isn't fair to dismiss it as idiotic either.
As far as I can see, it isn't actually unreasonable to make some rules for how people should behave when they are in control of a car; all you have to do to follow this one is to not use mobile devices that require you to take your attention away from driving. Can it really be true that people who are technologically minded, such as the readers of slashdot, can't think of ways to overcome this challenge?
Some phones already have some sort of speech control; it should be simple to make a Bluetooth device that could be mounted on the steering wheel and would allow yoy some control over mobile devices - it probably already exists. People should stop whining over how unfair the world is. If you believe that technological innovation is somehow going to save us from the impending doom of climate change, biosphere breakdown and resource shortage, finding a better way of interacting with a mobile or gps should be a small challenge.
In Germany you don't eat, drink, talk on the phone, or even hang in the left lane. This has been this way for years. So stop whining and drive!
The actual law passed prevents the use of hand-held entertainment or communication devices. Dash-mounted devices are not included. Non-entertainment and communication devices are not included.
This does not in fact prevent someone from doing their masquera while driving (which I've seen) or painting their nails (which I've also observed) or curling their hair (seen that too). Nor will it prevent or give special mention to people who fumble on the floor of the passenger side for the CD they dropped, while driving at high speeds and weaving around due to a total lack of attention on the road.
I'd much rather let people dial their phones with their hands.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
(sarcasm) So does that mean that I can't use my Fleshlight anymore while I'm driving? Good! That's the ticket I needed to convince my g/f to do fellatio for me while I'm driving now..
"But honey, you have to! I can't use electronic handheld electronic devices anymore, it's the law!" (/sarcasm)
I live in Ontario, and if you read the article carefully it states that hand-held devices are a no go. So you're not allowed to hold your mp3 player in your hand, but if it's mounted on the dash and you can switch songs with one push, you're okay.
The coffee thing is just ludicrous.
How do people who don't understand irony manage to get mod points?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I did a few minutes of searching and it seems that the poster is spouting FUD.
There's no mention of banning coffee in cars. For goodness sake! In fact, while I am by no means a fan of many aspects of government, the text in this bill reminds me of that character of sound reason and sanity which seems to embody Canadian thinking. --Not saying Canada doesn't have its ignorant twits and government corruption aplenty, (it does!), but when it comes to low-level management of basic systems like the highways, this law and the responsible manner in which it will probably be applied, (this based on past experience), just makes sense.
Having been nearly flattened by cell phone drones, and having been in a car which came a hair's breath from causing a major accident on a highway because the driver was trying to look up a number on her cell phone, I think this is one of those laws which is a smart idea. Canadians seem to be less fussy about following social directives we've agreed upon through law. "Using a cellphone while driving is dumb. Stop it." The only difficult aspect is that people will have trouble resisting the urge to answer the phone when it rings. That's the only bit of friction I foresee.
Also. . , to address some of the comments made below. . . Changing gears in a manual car is not a parallel in terms of the level of distraction a driver experiences with a cell phone. After you learn how to operate a standard vehicle, changing gears becomes an act of muscle memory only marginally more demanding than operating the break pedal or the steering wheel. Anybody who has also driven a standard for more than a few weeks will agree.
Anyway, for those interested, below is the bill in its entirety.
-FL
Too many people think of their vehicle in too personal a way. It's not a freedom chamber or mobilized entertainment center. It's a method of conveyance. More people should worry about using their car to get from Point A to Point B instead of worrying about all the things they don't want to be interrupted doing during travel time. In the U.S. alone, 100+ people will die TODAY primarily because people don't regard driving as a serious responsibility. Why is it not enough that the miracle of modern locomotion enables us to shoot across a city in a matter of minutes? People worry about not being entertained or out of touch for the duration of the trip. The only thing that should concern us as drivers of lethal travel machines is getting to our destination safely. If you die, or kill someone, en-route, who called/texted you or which one of your favorite songs was playing will be the least of your concerns.
Laws against cell phone use while driving have been around for years in some places, but I have not seen data or studies to see what effect the laws have had. I expect that it should reduce accidents, but I would also expect politicians to brag about the success of such laws, which I haven't seen, so I can't help but wonder if the laws have had no significant effect.
My webcomic
I live in the UK and I cannot understand why anybody would want a manual transmission on our congested roads. Of course our fuel costs more, but the latest autos are automated manual transmissions and actually do better on fuel mileage than manuals. I've driven both (usually through being stuck in Europe with a manual hire car) and I feel considerably safer in the auto. It's one less thing to think about, and after all the manual transmission is not a design feature - it's a failure, a technological throwback to the pre-cybernetic era. Having watched morons take both hands off the wheel to change gear too often, I think I would actually go so far as to ban all mobile phone use by drivers in moving manual transmission cars, and all GPS use in manuals unless there is a passenger to operate it, and legislate to phase out manual transmissions on road vehicles.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
As an Ontario resident I'm happy that I should no longer see texting while driving (yes it really happens). Something that concerns me even more is the number of drivers I see with their pets sitting on their lap or laying in the back window while they drive. One can remain in control of a vehicle while talking on the phone, but if Fido jumps on your lap from the passenger seat or backseat, it is very easy to lose control. All pets should be in a kennel or in a caged off area of the vehicle (station wagon, van), otherwise a fine should be immediately issued.
Because I'm in BC now, and it was just a few days ago that they passed the anti-cellphone, and it still doesn't take take effect until early next year.
There is a law against "smoking in the workplace," as well, but I've yet to hear of any truckers being nailed for it while doing so in their trucks.
"...it seems to have been taken a little too far..."
No it hasn't.
You are piloting 2-4000 pounds of metal that kills people when you hit them with it. Driving and the other men, women and children on the road deserve your full attention.
If I had my way you'd get your license taken. If you don't pay attention to what you are doing on the road you aren't worthy of the privilege of driving. Looking where you are going is a requirement to do it safely.
End of story.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
What about microphones for the police? I get it. The police are more professional and mentally equipped to handle the additional multitasking. Please don't try this at home. Go about your business.
Ok, so now, to change radio stations, besides driving you also have to watch out for police cars. Yeah, that increases safety.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
They charge you extra if you don't accept it there and then.
A little like RIAA extortion.
"it requires you to take your hands off the wheel"
Sucks if you drive a manual then. No changing gear for you!
Why are people in the position to make laws so small-brained? How do they fail to see the grand picture? Driving carelessly should already be an offense, changing GPS target or tweaking the stereo or heating/AC as your drive through a busy junction is already careless or dangerous driving! Doing it on a straight road with sparse traffic isn't, as the time your eyes are off the road in front of you is minimal and you'll have checked for relevant hazards.
On the other hand, modern cars have a lot of controls on the wheel itself, including gear change and stereo control. Wonder if this pretty much makes these "optional extras" mandatory in that state? Wonder if any car companies made a campaign contribution?
It would seem incentive enough that driving badly can result in injury, death or jail time, simply for being negligent in your responsibility to navigate the road safely. I think it is arrogance that makes legislators think that a problem has a legislative solution. It is an example of those who have only incompetent hammers, seeing everything as a nail.
Many cars require you take your hand off the wheel to do the following:
God forbid if there's a cop nearby when it starts pouring rain, near dusk, and you have a lot of mouth breathers in your car fogging up the windows.
Perhaps they should bad all roadside advertising, people waving those stupid "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" signs, radio in cars, informational road signs, pretty ladies jogging, erect giant curtains around accident sites, and anything else that can be considered a distraction.
This sounds like an asinine law.
I don't know where they got this list of things you can't do, but the "official" handout from the government of Ontario very clearly states what you CAN and CANNOT use while driving.
You CANNOT use:
-Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones
-Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games
-Texting and emailing
-Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player
You CAN use:
-Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
-911 calls
-Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
-GPS units mounted on dashboards
-Collision avoidance systems
-Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
-Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles
This is available on a PDF printout here.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I tell you it's the French on the roadsigns. It confuses people. It's not the handheld devices...
Also, convert to the English system of measurement canucks! No wonder people are having trouble having to convert Kms to Miles..
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
If someone is driving dangerously because theyre fiddling with their phone or whatever, pull them over for driving dangerously... ITS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW... no new laws are needed!
I guess guns count as hand held devices also. Someone needs to create a foot controlled text messaging device, so it is no longer a hand held. I'll start working on the foot controlled guns.
You're a pretty good driver, right? You can fiddle with the radio, adjust the temperature, even safely drink coffee while driving. However, have you looked at your fellow drivers? They're idiots! You see them poking away at their Blackberry at 75 MPH, weaving back and forth while juggling things in their car, being completely oblivious to surrounding traffic as they scream at their passengers. My parents had a tree badly damaged when a neighbor hit it while fiddling with the radio while pulling out of the driveway!
Cars are dangerous. When someone fucks up property can be damaged and innocent people are sometimes injured or killed. As such, I damn well want laws to try and reign in the idiots, since sometimes it's my property or my life on the line. Going after people for reckless driving isn't nearly as good. Part of the reason people get sloppy is because the overwhelming majority of the time nothing bad happens; they don't so much as creep out of their lane. The first time anyone may discover that the idiot in the car next to you can't safely talk on the phone and drive is when they hit another car. You can bust them for reckless driving then, but I'd rather they didn't hit me in the first place. If this means I need to suffer the terrible oppression of not being able to legally talk on the phone while I drive, I'm willing to accept that. Somehow the founding fathers failed to enshrine your right to talk on the phone while driving into the constitution. It's not an inalienable right. Get the fuck over yourself and accept this amazingly minor infringement on your freedom for the betterment of society as a whole.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
In flight training they cover this... Aviate, navigate, communicate... in that order. Pilots are trained to deal with changes in workload and to consciously manage their attention.
It is a proven fact that you DONT want drivers giving 100% attention 100% of the time theyre behind the wheel. it leads to fatigue and highway hypnosis. Having occasional distractions which keeps your mind active and keeps the thought processes fresh makes you a BETTER driver... IF you can manage your attention correctly.
What we need is driver training. When pilots make a minor goof, the FAA doesnt give them a ticket, they suspend their license until they get some remedial training... they dont want your money, they want you to be safe!
When you goof up in a car & get a ticket... you pay your $100 and what have you learned?
if you have a manual transmission?
I guess if taking your hands off the wheel is illegal, then turning on wipers and headlights and even shifting gears is now a ticketable offense. This law is idiotic.
Here in America, it's already illegal to engage in distracted driving. Here is what you can be cited for:
* driving over the posted limit, and in most places, >10mph under the posted limit
* changing lanes without signalling
* failure to yield when required
* "california stops"
* failure to maintain control of your vehicle (which includes drifting out of your marked lane)
* reckless driving
* tailgating
* hindering the flow of traffic
* driving "left of center" (although in many states you can drive left of center to pass in agricultural counties, even where passing zones are not marked. I once drive behind a very slow-moving truck carrying farm equipment for >20 miles because there were no marked passing zones and I didn't know it was legal)
* traveling in the breakdown lane (except where/when it's legal)
etc. etc.
Even though there are already laws on the books that can and should be enforced aggressively, liberals are pushing to ban texting, talking, changing the radio, and so forth. EVEN THOUGH THE LAWS THAT ALREADY COVER BAD DRIVING GO UNENFORCED!! More often than not, any time anyone says "there ought to be a law" there are probably already 5 laws on the books that can be more easily enforced to fix the problem. We already have FAR too many laws and probably need to repeal 95% of them.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Do the police have anything better to do I wonder?
Is this how we want law enforcement to spend their energy? Going on patrol, filling out paperwork, having court dates, etc. all because someone talked on their phone while driving.
Enforcing laws costs money, and the revenues generated from ticketing people does not offset that, it simply transfers the cost from the general tax payer to the ticketed folks.
How many accidents would this law have to prevent in order to break even? How many cell phone blitzes would the police have to go on before people were scared enough to make sure they abide by this new law? I guess I should expect my insurance premiums to go down now that world is a safer place right ?
I wish parliament could spend time on something more useful. Something that is clearly helpful to society. I do not think it is that hard to find real problems to solve.
I certainly can't argue with that line of reasoning.
[citation needed]
Well, gee, it didn't look at it that way.
That truly would be Nirvana.
Wow! A Slashdot Grand Slam! Well played, sir, I bow to your posting prowess.
+0 Meh
Argh. I'm not terribly keen on sharing a road with people who are changing tracks / radio stations but it's only a quick button press so I trust you can be sensible about when you do it and hopefully you won't kill yourself or me. But drinking hot liquids whilst driving? Seriously? If you're stopped in traffic with the car in neutral then I guess that's fair enough, maybe you expect that on your commute and so you bring the coffee to give you something to do. But if you're drinking it whilst actually driving - that's less a question of a "a sensible driver can do it safely" and more a way of self-identifying as an unsafe driver. I contend that *by definition* if you think you can drive safely whilst drinking coffee you probably can't drive safely.
Maybe I'm being a little harsh since where I live we have quite a dense city road network and a lot of windy rural roads. It's also very busy. Maybe if I lived in Canada with its wide open spaces I'd think it was less of a problem. Nevertheless, I'd *still* think it's irresponsible to drive whilst drinking coffee (what if you met an animal on the road?) and as soon as you get into an urban area it's just ridiculous and irresponsible. Drinking hot drinks is worse than drinking water (which would still be bad if you took hands off the controls) since you will instinctively not drop it into your lap, even if there's an on-road emergency.
If anyone's thinking "I can do this safely because I'm an above-average driver"... Welcome to the 99.99999...% of drivers who believe they're above average!
The fact that people overestimate their skills in this way is why intrusive legislation like this becomes necessary. I'd be much more in favour of leaving this matters to individual judgment if people were able to perceive their own failings accurately. Next time you get cut up, think to yourself "maybe I should have driven more defensively" and strike a blow for freedom of choice.
That makes sense. It is obviously much safer to navigate using a big printed street directory and drive erratically while you look back and forth between your street directory and street signs, stopping every few feet while you try to get your bearings. Yes, this legislation makes sense!
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
If they aren't specific, people find loopholes. It would be nice if we could apply common sense in the court system (a single dangerous/distracted driving law would then suffice), but that will never happen or be enforceable.
The biggest problem is laws that supercede previous laws needing to still have the verbage of the original, with links, etc, making them bloated and not easily understandable (see healthcare reform in U.S.). Better to simply kill old laws when the new one is written, as is done in RFC land. Oh well.
So many of these stupid laws talk about hands free being the way to go. FAIL. When I built my first car PC and onward, I focused on safety by making my interfaces eyes free. A handheld MP3 player that reads out directory names as you switch, etc... is safer than an in-dash, traditional radio.
man, I see it now.
Police: "Eh, you took your, eh, hand off the steering wheel, eh. Thats a fine, eh."
Driver: "Eh, I had to shift out of 3rd gear. eh"
Be seeing you...
Though this was a good idea...
No it wasn't.
There are really three entirely different kinds of distractions, and we need to deal with them differently, I think.
The first is visual distractions. Looking at stuff in the car. Your radio, your AC, your iPod, whatever.
We can solve this by having more intuitive controls that can be found by touch, or at least can be found by looking but adjusted by touch so people glance away for a second to grab the control, but then look back at the road.
The second is, for lack of a better term, 'hand distractions'. Let's face it, we all drive with one hand. Holding a drink and driving is not difficult, nor should it cause a problem most of the time. Yes, if we're in an emergency situation we'd want two hands, but, in reality, 90% of auto accidents don't give people much time to react in any way except slamming on the brakes.
The problem is when we try to hold two things, and end up juggling them and the wheel. Or holding an mp3 player in one hand and pushing buttons with the other hand. Or holding a burrito and trying to wipe off our shirt.
This, strangely enough, could be solved in exactly the 'wrong' way...by making it easier for drivers to hold things. Cupholders are already doing that, and they have mounts for mp3 player, and some sort of table for food for the driver would seem a good idea.
The third is concentration distractions, and there's not a hell of a lot to do about that. People driving when sleepy, people driving and talking angrily on their speakerphone, people chatting with others in the car. (Which is why my state, for example, bans the amount of people that can be in the car of teenage drivers.)
The other two distractions also cause concentration distractions if we're not careful.
Incidentally, anyone find it funny they specifically exempt calling 911. I guess that's for if someone sees a something major outside their car and doesn't have a hand's free kit, but I'm just laughing imagining people actually in auto accidents dialing 911 during the accident. (And wondering how that could possibly be a good thing.)
Most people call 911 after an accident. Although, strictly speaking, sometimes their engine is still on, and they technically are still operating a motor vehicle.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
From what I see, it's "handheld devices" that are banned. The car radio/gps/etc. are not handheld, and coffee isn't a device.
... hands-free "beer hat" sales skyrocket in Ontario.
Have gnu, will travel.
By the time a US driver hits the 16 lanes of traffic on the 401 north of Toronto (all doing 120k or better) you couldn't pry his fingers off the wheel with a screwdriver. By this time he has come from Detroit, (or Buffalo on the QEW) and has been traumatized by the new Canadians zipping by at the speed of light. If he has neglected to opt for the 407 (daylight robbery in the form of tolls by the Spanish owners), he is caught on the QEW which is a linear parking lot between Appleby Line and the Gardiner Exp. downtown. Its best then if he is packing lunch and a novel to pass the time. If you are enticed to stay with the traffic on the open stretches and they find you 20k or more over the limit, they fine you $2500cdn and impound your car on the spot. Best to keepit under 72mph. Actually I like driving there as they seem most professional.
meh. Pushed far enough, radios have been illegal in Manitoba for years....
I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
Where your eyes are pointing is much less important to safe driving than where your attention is. If you can't complete the whole grab, open, etc. with your water bottle without even remembering that you took a drink then you are still diverting some of your attention away from the task of driving and so were a less-safe driver during the time it took to complete that task.
That's one of the key foundations behind why drivers holding a conversation via a "hands-free" device are more likely to get in to an accident than drivers holding a conversation with someone actually in the car with them -- when the other party to the conversation is in the car, they can self-initiate conversation pauses during more-dangerous driving situations to allow the driver to return more of his attention to actually driving instead of the conversation. Neither type of converation involves eyes leaving the road, but studies have clearly shown this safety difference.
The problem with this law, aside from the obvious, is that it doesn't take into account future technologies very well.
we are at a crossroads right now with technology... we are moving to, or have moved to a Mobile world. Everything has come to a 'push of a button'. when in lies the problem.
Once more items move to a touchless interface this law will become moot. and we should once again be aloud to adjust the temperature again, or find a better radio station.
what about distractions outside the car... ie
100,000+ Cars
Pimped out cars
Hot Chicks/Guys
Movies in other cars (for that matter, i didn't see anything about not being aloud to watch a movie while driving)
Accidents (on the other side of the highway)
Several years ago I was accelerating away from a toll booth, trying to ignore noisy fighting kids in the back seat and fiddling with the air conditioner controls enough to take my eyes off the road and not realize until too late that the car far out in front of me was in fact stopped.
I total'ed the car when I hit it, and thankfully we were all ok.
I might have had a different result if there was a law preventing fiddling with dashboard controls.
Not that I like the concept.
What's next? Are they going to make it illegal to cover your mouth if you sneeze or cough while driving? That requires you to take your hand off of the wheel.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Well, the problem isn't really people doing this. It's beavers and moose in cars that cause these issues. It's a known fact that if a beaver is talking on a cell phone, it is more prone to plowing into an igloo on the side of the road. Safety first.
It applies to handheld electronic devices, thus:
"because it is now also a $500 fine to change your radio station"
No. Not on the car's built-in system.
"change songs on your MP3 player"
Yes. If a handheld system.
"or even drink your morning coffee." :-)
No. Not unless it's an electronic coffee cup
The province I'm in has a similar law that has been in effect for more than a year. It's no big deal -- except for the idiots that I still see driving around while talking on their cell phone who apparently can't afford a headset.
It's like whoever wrote that summary couldn't figure out something as simple as the intersection of "handheld" and "electronic device". I can think of only one logical reason: hey, dimbulb, stop trying to read legislation and submit slashdot summaries from your smartphone while driving!
No, I had the distinct impression that you actually thought the colloquialism had something to do with actual brain function, since you used it in the same paragraph where you claimed that a particular action was connected with use of the visual cortex.
As for the rest of your reply:
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
I fail to understand how citing other common actions which can take one's attention off the road, in the name of defending the action which you condemned for doing the same thing, is a straw man. In what way did I distort your position?
Your ignoring my request for actual sources supporting your original argument and instead giving an unrelated exposition about logical fallacies and valid argumentation techniques makes me wonder if your original argument was argumentum ad ignorantiam? Oh noes! You've got me doing it now!
That is why its called a slippery slope.. And yet another fine example of it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
When will these buffoons realize *you cannot save everyone*. We should let people crash and die. The more people who distract themselves who die off the better. Instead of airbags, we should have air-bombs. Accidents would blow up those involved. ...Killing the victims saves us the cost of their medical care, disability payouts, and their endless lawsuits.
Hopefully after awhile people would actually watch what they are doing behind the wheel.
You make a smarter car that self parks, has a backup camera, 40 air bags, voice activated GPS etc and I'll show you the idiot who takes advantages of these things and kills themselves or someone else because they cannot do the basic task required when operating a motor vehicle which is BEING ABLE TO DRIVE.
So what do i do? Cut off my John Thomas? Throw away those french ticklers? Stop having children like those members of the Presbyterian religion?
I say i should have the right to keep my John Thomas... i should be able to walk proudly into a store and ask the pharmacist for a CONDOM.
Every sperm is precious... la-la-la
Yes I do live in Ontario...and i'm proud of it. Just the other day i said to the pharmacist.......
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
You're allowed to use your horn for one reason: to make other drivers aware of you.
This law would suggest that while talking on a cellphone drivers aren't aware of their surroundings wouldn't it? So, get on that horn until he notices you and stops talking on the cellphone.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
What could be more dangerious than having to take one hand off the wheel and coordinate is with a leg pressing down a peddel, all whist driving at speed.
I read this new law months ago, and yes, it does make it illegal to drive any car with even a built-in clock/radio/cd player. Read the law for yourself: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2099&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill
"78. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver."
Built-in clock/radio/cd player? yes, covered under "other device in the motor vehicle [...] visible to the driver."
"Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,
(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;
(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);
(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;
(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or
(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle."
Any mention of anything relating to a clock/radio/cd player? nope!
Section 78 above is for all devices; hand-held wireless communication devices are covered in section 78.1 (as mentioned in 78(2)(b)).
In my opinion, much worse than phone users are women that apply makeup while driving, especially when they move the rearview mirror to use it to look at themselves, meaning they now have no situational awareness.
I've even seen women use an eyelash brush as they are driving. One pothole could easily put the brush in her eye, and you can bet she won't stay in her lane if that happens.
"Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far."
No. It was never a good idea.
Like people with jobs that require them to drive? So a bus driver gets a pass when they chat with their spouse all day on their personal cell but the guy that has an outside sales gig and so by definition is on the road most of the day has to park every time he wants to take a business call?
i could see the need to focus so closely on keeping both hands on the wheel at all times might cause accidents. is it a $500 fine to scratch your nose? how well does one drive with an itchy nose...? it is simply baffling that these things need to be explicitly outlawed. a *law* against texting while driving? so now do we have to have a law against cooking dinner behind the wheel; reading books; bathing; feeding one's pet elephant... how stupid *are* people.
Typical of a government bureaucracy, this law misses the point. All the studies I've heard about indicate that hands-free or not, talking on the phone takes your mind off of driving and that's what causes the accidents. I'm not aware of any statistically significant variance in accident rates between hands-free or not. When will we start electing scientists instead of money-fueled politicians? In my life, I hope?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I need more buttons on my steering wheel