"Phone In One Hand, Ticket In the Other"

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that federal regulators plan a pilot project to test 'high visibility' crackdown efforts to curb cellphone use by drivers in two cities, Hartford and Syracuse, spending $200,000 in each city, while each state would contribute $100,000 more. The Transportation Department says it wants to send the message: 'Phone in One Hand. Ticket in the Other,' and plans on ramping up enforcement on state bans of hands-free phones by motorists, advertising the campaigns and undertaking studies to see if the efforts curb behavior and attitudes. Safety advocates say that curbing the behavior requires enforcement and education, which they say has been clearly evident in past efforts with seat belts with the 'Click It or Ticket Program' (PDF) that helped increase seat belt use to 83% nationally. 'It's time for drivers to act responsibly, put their hands on the wheel and focus on the road,' says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who last year called distracted driving an 'epidemic.'"

Comments

Hasn't worked in the UK

[gilesjuk]

We have passed a law about the same. But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced. I still see plenty of drivers hand holding a mobile, despite the fact you can get a bluetooth headset for £8 in the UK.

In the UK we drive largely manual gearbox and holding a phone while driving means not changing gear or letting go of the steering wheel while changing gear!

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[TechyImmigrant]

>In the UK we drive largely manual gearbox and holding a phone while driving means not changing gear or letting go of the steering wheel while changing gear!

That's what your knees are for.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[loufoque]

You can hold the phone with your shoulder, or if you need your hand to do so you can steer with your elbow. It should be stable enough for the second it takes to change gear with your other hand.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[sznupi]

...and inevitably the phone will be sometimes dropped; in some of those cases the driver won't stop the impulse to look for it...and there you go.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Mashiki]

[quote] But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced. [/quote]
That shouldn't be a surprise, despite what people think about police being everywhere. The average cop has a service per person of somewhere between 400:1 to 2200:1, you don't get solid enforcement like that. But anytime there's economic problems the first areas to get cuts are Fire/EMS/Police.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[loufoque]

You use your hand when it isn't stable, while still using the elbow from that arm to steer.
You obviously lack practice.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[commodore64_love]

When I see somebody holding a phone instead of driving, I call the police.

Why? Because about 5 years ago I was almost hit by somebody talking on a phone who drove straight through a red light, and just barely squeezed between my car and the car in front. She never even noticed because she was too busy punching the phone's keypad. I figure I'd rather be as "ass" in the eyes of a driver, then a corpse under their wheels, or have a mangled $25,000 car I have to fix.

IMHO.

Please don't mod me down just because you disagree.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK we drive largely manual gearbox and holding a phone while driving means not changing gear or letting go of the steering wheel while changing gear!

Or the "Hang on a sec...", use the phone hand for required shifting and then resume conversation...

Personally I don't talk on the phone in city traffic - if I get a call then that I need to take, I pull over. On the motorway - drop speed and get into he slow lane, keep better than normal separation... And never in hell would I be texting!

Several studies, sorry no references handy [no pun intended] have concluded that it is not as much the occupied hand as the occupied mind that is the problem with phones behind the wheel

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[acidrainx]

I really hope you're being sarcastic.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Kral_Blbec]

So a near miss 5 years ago is important enough to dedicate limited resources to today?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[negRo_slim]

But anytime there's economic problems the first areas to get cuts are Fire/EMS/Police.

I think you mean teachers and the parks service.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[tomhudson]

... plus you're blocking the signal, so it needs to boost the power to the antenna. You want fried brainz with that?

If they *really* wanted to fix the problem, they'd increase the dollar amount of the fines. A $200 fine for cell phone use makes people think "gee, I'll save money bu getting an ear-piece."

And an 83% "attach rate" for seatbelts is LOW. Make it $300 a pop and watch people buckle up.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[BrokenHalo]

That's what your knees are for.

Yep. A few months ago I saw a guy driving while tootling away on a trumpet with his knees on the wheel. But I guess at least he wasn't attending to his bikini line.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[MrWeelson]

The other day I saw a woman applying her lipstick with one hand and on her phone with the other doing 85mph in the middle lane.

I was so shocked I split my cornflakes.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

If the police do stop someone for driving and using a mobile then all you hear is cries of "Why aren't police chasing murderers?" The problem is, as the summary says, you need education and enforcement. The UK is big on enforcement but forgot about the education part.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[julesh]

despite the fact you can get a bluetooth headset for £8 in the UK.

Have you ever tried an £8 bluetooth headset? They tend to work fine while you're sitting around at home or in the office, but take them out into a noisy environment (like, say, a car) and nobody'll be able to hear a word you say.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[DrVxD]

We have passed a law about the same. But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced

Not to mention the fact that most senior police officers thought such a law was a bad idea - not because being on the phone while driving is safe (it isn't), but because it was already covered by the existing offence of driving without due care and attention.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[slick7]

I was so shocked I split my cornflakes.

I was so shocked, Idropped my crossword puzzle and dictionary

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Scaba]

When I see somebody holding a phone instead of driving, I call the police.

While you're driving?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[germansausage]

Our local police had 18 single vehicle low speed accidents last year, all caused by the officer being distracted by looking at his mobile data terminal while driving. As of last month it is now illegal to text or talk on a phone (except for hands free) while driving. The police have not yet said whether they feel this law applies to their on board terminals or not.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I was listen to a NPR show the other day and this was the topic. Syracuse was planning on using off duty officers to look for phone violators.

I can hear the crying now but personally I think it's a great idea. Allow our much underpaid officers a chance to earn extra income and since they will only be looking for driving/phone violators they won't be inconvenienced with having to respond to a real emergency call.

and before I get flamed about my opinions...if you are breaking a law it doesn't matter what resources they use to catch you. Take responsibility for your actions.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[houstonbofh]

Here is an idea. Why not just take licenses away from bad drivers, and not worry about the reason? Why are people that have had several major accidents still on the road?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK has driving schools and Driving Tests (like most of Europe) that are 1000 times more severe that what you typically find in the US.
State of Florida's written test used to have 20 (already known) questions from a catalog of eighty where you were allowed to have 5 errors.
The driving test was on a little parking lot (car park) behind the building where the test was taken.
People still had problems with this test.
~40,000 + people die on the roads in the USA every year, about half from drunken driving, and the rest of them drive as bad as if they were drunk.
Happily though many jobs are created in the process, from funeral homes, ambulance chasing lawyers, new cars sales, repair shops, to name a few.
Only ~2% of the population have a passport, so how things work elsewhere is unknown.
Idiocy can be a virtue depending on where you live.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Wilson_6500]

That shouldn't be a surprise, despite what people think about police being everywhere. The average cop has a service per person of somewhere between 400:1 to 2200:1, you don't get solid enforcement like that. But anytime there's economic problems the first areas to get cuts are Fire/EMS/Police.

From my experience, the last thing that gets cut is rescue services, right after schools. The first thing that gets cut is the local library, citizen's programs, parks & recreation, etc. Perhaps this is different elsewhere.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[feepness]

She never even noticed because she was too busy punching the phone's keypad.

Wait, so she was talking on the phone and punching the keypad? Or did you follow her and see both these things happening?

Something's not lining up here...

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[DJCacophony]

I wonder how the cops feel about getting their time wasted by some moron who keeps reporting something that isn't illegal.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[oldspewey]

Not illegal? Pretty much every jurisdiction in the developed world has some equivalent of a "driving without due care and attention" charge.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[X0563511]

I hope you only call when they are being retards (like said woman).

There are lots of people who know how to talk while they drive. The phone and the person on it are the lowest priority. Only a few seem to understand this... feel free to call out the rest.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[EEBaum]

I hardly see how they could be considered off-duty when they're out and about looking for violators.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You use the tops of your thighs. Your knees don't have enough give to get a good grip comfortably or let off "just a little" to let the wheel slowly re-center.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem with the law in the UK is it isn't treated the same across the country. For example in most of Devon & Cornwall I've seen people drive past coppers with phone in hand and nothings happened. When I went to Bristol and this came up as the topic of conversation I was told Police there crack down hard on people who use their phones.

Then again I have great respect for Devon & Cornwall police and after 2 years living in Yeovil think the roads would be better without Avon & Somerset Police.

I'm a biker, I've always had to use a handsfree with automatic answer on if I'm waiting for a call while riding and don't understand why car drivers find the concept so hard.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[poetmatt]

so you're saying that when you see them on the phone, *you* get on the phone?

that's a nice little bit of hypocrisy there.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, I mean pulling over is never an option

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[silverkniveshotmail.]

When I see somebody holding a phone instead of driving, I call the police.

Don't you think it's a bit dangerous to be monitoring people's cell phone usage and writing down their plate numbers instead of driving? And I'm sure you pull over before you pull out that pen, paper and phone, right?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[TheABomb]

"if you are breaking a law it doesn't matter what resources they use to catch you. Take responsibility for your actions."

It's people who hold to views like these who are the first in line to buy HD Telescreens.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[TheABomb]

Because they were drunk, or distracted by their kids, or falling asleep, or doing any number of things that weren't talking on a phone, so obviously they're perfectly safe drivers and their accidents were just flukes.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[KingOfTheDustBunnies]

I was so shocked I split my cornflakes.

So then you had twice as many cornflakes, yes? Sounds like a good thing.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Cederic]

Forget the cash amount; there's a 3 point penalty on your licence.

To put that in context, if you reach 12 points within a four year period you lose your driving licence.

As you can also get points for other activities (speeding, running down pedestrians, getting a blow-job while doing 80 in a bus lane), being caught using your phone is potentially a significant penalty.

It's the lack of enforcement that's the issue, not the outcome when caught.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[auLucifer]

Well next time you should invest in one of these

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[timmarhy]

what a load of shit. i agree that a person should lose their license once a pattern of reckless driving is established, but people certainly aren't keeping their license because they are busted drink driving.

i think you need to get off your cell phone and pay attention

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Qzukk]

Wait, so she was talking on the phone and punching the keypad?

Press 1 to report an accident...

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[cts5678]

It's one thing when someone's punching the keypad. It's completely different to be talking on the phone but not punching the buttons. By the way, whenever someone admits to "When I see somebody holding a phone instead of driving, I call the police.", I give them a ration of shit. Why? 2 months ago no emergency responders were responding to emergency calls in this city because people like you, reporting non-emergency problems like that, flooded the 911 center. IMHO, you're an idiot.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[blai]

hey, 5 years ago, lives were important.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[adamofgreyskull]

How the hell do you change gear with your knees??!

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Smauler]

We have passed a law about the same. But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced. I still see plenty of drivers hand holding a mobile, despite the fact you can get a bluetooth headset for £8 in the UK.

The trouble with this is that using a hands free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a normal phone. _All_ studies (not sponsored by headset manufacturors) have shown this, again and again. See here here here and most obviously here for a few examples. From that last : "Conclusions - When drivers use a mobile phone there is an increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury. Using a hands-free phone is not any safer.". From Wikipedia : "Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[15][16] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[4] and meta-analysis[6][7]. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[17][18][19] One notable exception to that conclusion is a study by headset manufacturer Plantronics.

I can't believe this is not common knowledge yet. The law in the UK differentiates between hands free and normal phoning for _no_ reason whatsoever. Many of these studies were released prior to the introduction of the law in the UK. The cynic in me wonders whether the differentiation is due to the fact that police use hands free, and radios all the time, and making them illegal would make them sad :(. Just to conclude, the people who are tutting at mobile users while talking on their hands free are _just_ as dangerous as those they are frowning upon.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[rtb61]

Well three weeks ago, mine wasn't a near miss and a distracted young driver who took off when they mistook the green light for going forward for that red arrow for turning across traffic. No car and three weeks left to go in a six week neck brace stint (fractured vertebrae, damaged anterior longitudinal ligament, nerve damage to root nerves of both arms) with a possible operation to follow, I would ere on the side of ensuring drivers place the maximum possible attention to what they are doing and the risks involved with operating a motor vehicle. Deadly business operating a motor vehicle and, whilst a lot of people do it a lot of the time, it does not diminish the significant risk it represents. It Australia there a laws that restrict billboards and roadside signs as they can also distract drivers and it only takes that one distraction at the wrong time to put another road user into hospital.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

How many jurisdictions ban handheld cell phone use by drivers? You could probably count them on two hands.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Hognoxious]

but because it was already covered by the existing offence of driving without due care and attention.

Which is also never enforced.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Hognoxious]

But what about the majority who are better than average drivers?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[gyrogeerloose]

Wait, so she was talking on the phone and punching the keypad?

Yeah, it was like the time I was working on my screenplay and hit a bump while driving down the Pasadena Freeway. My MacBook landed on the floor and I was so startled that I dropped my phone right in the middle of a call to my agent. Bummer.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to look to the left of your z key
mate, where you will find the shift key, which makes capital letters and stops you from looking like an idiot (Like that idiot circletimesquare)

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[mabhatter654]

OF course we SHOULD be pushing to operate FEWER motor vehicles. The fact that a person today spends considerably more time from 20 years ago on the road daily should really be fixed. More mass transit is the way to go... then you have that 30-60 minute commute to read news, a book, music... all markets that are suffering because all people (in the US) is work and drive turning an "8 hour" work day into 11 or more... before they have to do home duties like run kids, etc.

The whole US needs to be slowed down a bit anyway. We're running around faster doing less. I thought the $4 gas was a great thing. People started driving less and companies started considering other options for workers like more VPN access and adjusted work schedules (4x10 instead of 5x8). This whole "work just a little longer" problem in our US business ethic was finally starting to crack a little...When people have to carpool or catch a train, they actually work to get their jobs done "on time" more consistently. Work on work time, home on home time... what a concept! then the crisis went away and it was back to normal.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Dare nMc]

Good luck here, in AZ where I live, it has been at least 2 years since I saw a police officer driving without a cellphone to the ear. I would like them to pass a law against just to see how the officers react.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

so if that's what the knees are for, how am I supposed to keep my beer between my legs?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Paxtez]

The police aren't going to do anything about it. They *might* make a quick pass thru the area before relaying that they were unable to find the vehicle.

All you are doing it taking up valuable time away from the 911 call takers, police dispatchers and police officers.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Mashiki]

I think you mean teachers and the parks service.

Not around here. Teachers go last, park services are about middle of the road.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Paxtez]

In Hawaii they recently passed a cellphone law, but emergency workers in the performance of their duties are except. I'm assuming that is a fairly standard practice.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what I thought!

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I go out with my friends, I bring along a cheap camcorder. If I see someone illegally using a phone, I record them and their license plate, then give a copy to the police.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[michaelhood]

...and inevitably the phone will be sometimes dropped; in some of those cases the driver won't stop the impulse to look for it...and there you go.

some of us can control our impulses, but unfortunately since most humans can't/won't laws like this become a necessity. unfortunate, that is.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[michaelhood]

I hardly see how they could be considered off-duty when they're out and about looking for violators.

Not sure about other states but in California, state law does not differentiate between an on-duty and off-duty peace officers when it comes to their responsibilities/duties/powers.

/lay interpretation, not a lawyer

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Omestes]

Points are psychologically abstract, while the threat of loss of money is more real feeling.

Weigh these two phrases; A) "You will loose 3 points, which, if enough are accrued, will lead to the loss of your license, and possible higher insurance rates."; or, B) "You will be fined $400.". Which is more likely to make you, the common slob, shape up?

I support all measures to curb cell-phone use while driving (all use, but mostly non-handsfree and texting), but all laws are only as good as their enforcement. And enforcement is only as good as police presence, and in many states this is almost non-existent. Here in AZ, I haven't actually seen cop on the road in weeks, which pretty much means I can do what I wish with very slim chances of getting caught. Meaning there is almost no consequences for my own actions.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

On your hand held cellphone, no doubt? Glad to see you're making things safer for the rest of society!

From the "don't confuse me with facts" dept:
Many of the hands free cellphone laws were passed unanimously, before anyone did studies on the safety of drivers using hands free cellphones. The ONLY study I've heard about, since these laws were enacted, showed those using hands free cellphones had a difference in accident rates from handheld phone users...but the hands free users had the HIGHER rate of accidents!!

I've never heard a public outcry for policemen not to use their hand held microphones while driving...nor have I heard of them having higher accident rates from using them.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Cederic]

A £60 fine (the current level) for speeding doesn't deter me. A £600 fine for speeding wouldn't deter me.

Losing my licence does deter me. Going over 100mph can lead to immediate loss of licence. That's pretty strong as a deterrent.

At which point of financial penalty does the fine become excessive? £6000? For going 5mph too fast?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[sznupi]

Looking at income of the household is a good idea in determining the value of fine. Can be painfull, though not excessive, to a lot more people that way.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Laurence0]

Also, points are much "fairer". There are a lot of people with enough money that they wouldn't care about a £60 fine every so often, but there are a lot of people who are poor enough that a £60 fine could mean they struggle to afford food... Whereas everyone has the same 12 points before they lose their license.

The alternative, I suppose, is to have fines as a percentage of income, like I believe at least one European country does, but that can be abused too, students with rich parents, bankers who've just been sacked and so on have a lot more money than their income would suggest.

That said, the current system's open to abuse too - I know someone who's currently still driving despite having 12 points because he claimed he'd have to close his company down and make everyone redundant if he lost his license. So they let him keep it.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[RadioElectric]

Of course one of the biggest impacts of losing your license is likely to be financial, as for many people it will also mean losing their job (especially the people who are likely to be speeding in the first place).

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Cederic]

Ironically I'd save a lot of money if I lost my licence - around £600/month. A large chunk of that would be fuel costs, but enforced lifestyle changes would save me a bundle too.

Quality of life on the other hand would collapse..

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Heian-794]

My wife said that the other day she saw a man attempting to eat cornflakes while driving! She was so surprised that she nearly dropped her lipstick!

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[IndustrialComplex]

Good luck here, in AZ where I live, it has been at least 2 years since I saw a police officer driving without a cellphone to the ear. I would like them to pass a law against just to see how the officers react.

The officers will react in the same way that they react to all other restrictions which are placed on the 'civilians'. They will claim to have special training which makes them perfect examples of whatever activity is prohibited to civilians. This training, which probably consists of less than 2 days per year (if it is even repeated) is enough to ensure that they are perfectly safe and justified in the action while any 'civilian' who tries a similar act is risking the life of hundreds of thousands of people and should be subjected to such extreme punishments so as to never even consider attempting the same maneuver.

They don't have to follow that law, because their training makes them better than you.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[tehcyder]

Weigh these two phrases; A) "You will loose 3 points, which, if enough are accrued, will lead to the loss of your license, and possible higher insurance rates."; or, B) "You will be fined $400.". Which is more likely to make you, the common slob, shape up?

In the UK you only need 12 points to get banned, so given the choice most people would rather pay a heavier fine than have the points (you get a fine as well as the points here, of course).

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[theaveng]

There are lots of people who know how to talk while they drive.

Yeah well the AAA tested some of these drivers who claim they can "talk and not be distracted by driving". They founded their response time was inordinately slow..... worse than if they had been legally drunk.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[ultranova]

You can hold the phone with your shoulder, or if you need your hand to do so you can steer with your elbow. It should be stable enough for the second it takes to change gear with your other hand.

Or you can just lower the damn phone for a second.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[ultranova]

When I see somebody holding a phone instead of driving, I call the police.

Will you stop to do that ?-)

Please don't mod me down just because you disagree.

You should be modded down for attaching this line to your every message, and not even using the tag field - which can be filtered out - to do so. Write better messages if you don't want to be modded down, don't whine that it's because you're being oppressed.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Roogna]

The thing with all these studies is that they don't take into account whether these people in the studies can drive -safely- in the first place. I don't know about everywhere else, but here in Florida I see plenty of drivers every day who can't manage to signal, stay in their lane, merge properly, change lanes properly, stop for lights or other traffic, manage to stop and go properly at four way stops, and every other disaster you can think of... and most of those people are alone in their car and don't have cell phones against their ears. The ones who ARE talking on cell phones are just as bad as the rest but with fewer hands on the wheel. But with as bad as the norm is in most places I'd be highly curious if any of these studies bothered to check if the people could drive a vehicle at all, or just assumed because they were licensed drivers (Here in Florida the drivers test is performed on a closed course, wasn't that way back where I come from that's for sure!) that they were capable of driving a car.

Now personally, I don't take calls in the car. Because if at all possible I prefer to let calls go to voice mail anyway, in the car or not, stop bugging me, and get off my lawn! ;)

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[tom17]

This.

The other day, I was in a private car park and it was snowy. I admit, I love to have a little play in the snow from time to time. One, it's fun, I cannot lie :) Two, it helps me learn how THIS car feels in slippery snowy conditions, it keeps my 'controlling a sliding car' skills in check and, I feel, makes me a safer driver in slippery conditions. Sometimes I have quite a lot of fun in *completely* empty car parks, lots of drifting etc. The only thing at risk is my rims & suspension.

So this one time in a private car park in Toronto, I reverse out of my parking space. a little heavy footedly, give the steering a flick to put it into a J-Turn and come to a halt. I must have moved backwards about 5 Metres - nothing compared to my normal car park antics. The cop in the police car that happened to be on the road outside the car park was not so impressed. He lectured me about dangerous driving and stunt driving. He 'let me off' but it was private so he couldn't do anything anyway. he did, however put a note in the computer against me that I was doing what I did. I should have stayed in the car park and gone back in my parking space - he wouldn't be able to do anything. I was too slow to think of this at the time.

And the part that makes this relevant to the parent post, and what REALLY pissed me off. When he drove off, he did a huge burnout and fish-tailed the car down the road - "look at me, I can do what I fucking like cos i'm a complete fucking wanker, and there is nothing you can do about it low life commoner" - It's this attitude that really gives police a bad name I feel.

/rant :)

Tom...

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Omestes]

On a rational level, your assessment is absolutely correct, but that wasn't my point. Most people are not rational, and most people assess current risks at a higher level than distant risks. Points are a distant risk, where a cash fine is far more immediate.

Calculating points is a far more abstract thing than thinking "crap, I'm going to lose money for this".

But then again none of this matters given the pretty much uniformly lax enforcement of most "minor" traffic violations. Where I live you might have a 1 in 1000 chance of getting stopped for driving like a moron, so there really isn't much of a threat, no matter what the punishment.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Shotgun]

The problem with public transportation in most of the US is how spread out we are geographically. I have the option to drive myself for 25 minutes, or walk several miles to the closest bus stop, and then spend hours switching between loud, dirty busses with some of the smelliest homeless people on Earth. If I have to work late, I'll have to call someone to pick me up, or spend $50(US) for a cab.

I would like to see small, two passenger, electric "commuter vehicles" that people would drive to a central "station" to dock onto a railroad car. That would carry you to a central station in the business/manufacturing center, where you would drive to work. If you have to stay past normal work hours, you still have transportation home. You stay in your own vehicle for the ride, and still have the ability to leave the driving to AmTrak.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

If only us civilians could get this same "training" and get exemptions for the same crap.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[jridley]

Independent testing has not borne out the "I can talk on the phone without harm to my driving" claim. Most people think they're an above-average driver, and most people think they can talk on the phone without harm.

In actual testing, talking on the phone has ALWAYS resulted in reduced reaction time. Always. And I'd bet that most of those people didn't believe it.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[jridley]

In the US, you MIGHT lose your license if you get a string of DUIs, or if you kill someone while drunk (unless you say you're really sorry). And if you lose your license and get caught driving anyway, they'll fine you a few bucks and tell you not to do that again, boy, or we'll get really mad and tell you not to do it yet again.

After you kill your 2nd or 3rd person, they might start getting tough with you.

Seriously, there are people who have killed people on more than one occasions after multiple DUI convictions in the US and STILL are not in jail and have only gotten a year or two ban.

Driving is, for some stupid reason, considered almost a basic human right in the US, and we can't seem to get laws passed that are properly protective of what IS a basic human right - the right to move around legally in public spaces and not get killed by morons. Or at least, we can't get them enforced.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[jridley]

Forgot to say...but if you kill someone while merely distracted, not drunk, people will more than half the time think of YOU as the victim ("Gee, I bet he feels awful" - "I can't imagine having to live with that the rest of my life") - people immediately think "that could happen to me - I could kill someone accidentally" but they never think of themselves as being killed, because people tend to think of these things as always happening to someone else.

Therefore when someone kills someone else on the road, they tend to want to be lenient on the killer instead of the victim, because they know that they are sometimes distracted themselves and don't pay proper attention.

Drunk driving is only as demonized as it is due to the actions of MADD and some other crusaders.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[stewbacca]

Did I miss something and get whooshed? What correlation does buying HD tvs have with the quoted bit?

Insightful? Huh?

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[TrekkieGod]

The trouble with this is that using a hands free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a normal phone.

Has any of these studies compared this effect to having other people in the car who you are chatting with? Because I've sure as hell done some stupid stuff because I was paying attention to a conversation happening inside the car, and not to my driving (luckily nothing too dangerous...basically, missing a turn and stuff like that).

The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[17][18][19]

That would seem to imply the effect is the same. In which case, governments will be justified in prohibiting cell phone use if and only if they also prohibit passengers in your car (or at least prohibit talking while inside a moving vehicle. I'm sure even if the passengers talk among themselves, and not to you, it's going to be hard for you to not pay attention to their conversation).

If we, as a society, are willing to accept the risk of one, we must be willing to accept the risk of the other.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[stewbacca]

Mass transit won't work in the US because there's no way to get to the office from the last train/bus stop.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[TemporalBeing]

It's one thing when someone's punching the keypad. It's completely different to be talking on the phone but not punching the buttons.

Yes, typing on the keypad is worse then talking on the phone. However, talking on the phone has been shown in numerous studies to be as bad as a drunk driver. And, if I recall, there was something recently about 1:40 people can talk on the phone and drive as successfully as when not. (BTW, those studies typically show that people using hands-free phones are marginally better than those that are not.)

By the way, whenever someone admits to "When I see somebody holding a phone instead of driving, I call the police.", I give them a ration of shit. Why? 2 months ago no emergency responders were responding to emergency calls in this city because people like you, reporting non-emergency problems like that, flooded the 911 center. IMHO, you're an idiot.

I'd give 'em hell on it but not for that reason: (i) they should have been calling the non-emergency number for the State/Local Police - state police in the US is often #77 or *77 depending on where you are, but more (ii) they were then calling while driving themselves! (If I were an officer and received that call, I'd ask for license, address, etc. and then send them a ticket too!)

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[PingPongBoy]

Not so hard - I just say "I have to shift", put down the phone, shift, and pick up the phone again. Using a manual transmission forces you to multitask so much that driving with a phone is not much more of a workload.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[stewbacca]

Radios are a passive device...i.e. you only listen to it. Therefore it doesn't overload the cognitive workload.

And yes, IAACS.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

In california we had this bill passed about a year ago. there is a lot of fight against it because people are finding creative ways to hold their cellphones without using their hands causing a lot of stress for the drivers. I know that i have absolutely no problem talking on the phone while driving because i know how to properly manage priority. If i need to focus more on the road then I can focus more on the road. If i have to focus more on the call i can focus more on the call. I talk on the phone while I drive almost everytime I go out and it's no problem, it's just like talking to my friend. Keeping one hand next to your ear is the same as having one hand on your shifter. Some laws are pointless, just like not being allowed to mount your GPS onto the windshield. Now my GPS is mounted creatively (braced between stuff) and falls quite frequently which is dangerous, and I often lose my position / signal when that happens. It would be a lot less dangerous if I could mount it. It's all about raising state funds anyhow >_>;

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[IndustrialComplex]

Therefore when someone kills someone else on the road, they tend to want to be lenient on the killer instead of the victim, because they know that they are sometimes distracted themselves and don't pay proper attention.

Drunk driving is only as demonized as it is due to the actions of MADD and some other crusaders.
 

And it is because of groups like MADD (interesting use of the term crusader, btw), that I, and a growing number of people simply don't care about the issue anymore.

Not because they were wrong that drunk driving was not viewed as dangerous as it should have been, but because their organizations have gone beyond drunk driving and morphed into some sort of temperance movement. A lot of good programs, like designated driver programs for students, have been opposed because of a very hard line approach taken by MADD, SADD, and related groups.

I'm not even convinced that we should be pushing for the level of punishment that these organizations now seem to be advocating. While I don't condone reckless behavior, I'm not comfortable supporting the ever increasing punitive measures that leave people punished for the rest of their lives.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a law against distracted driving, you don't need a law against cell phones specifically. Just like how if you have a law against murder, you don't need a law against murder using a serrated knife.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[TheFlamingoKing]

Yep. Washington Monument Syndrome - the first line of defense against any proposed governmental budget cuts is to quickly suggest that said cuts will result in the termination of services that people highly value, rather than finding relevant places to cut the budget.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[RockDoctor]

I see the same, and it sometimes infuriates me so much that I put aside my tree-surgery practical homework, stand on the dashboard and "Do the Funky Gibbon" at the offending hands-free driver.

Slightly more seriously - given the number of pedestrians with a mobile camera (with or without phone capabilities), what we need is automatic issuing of tickets to the drivers as long as a pedestrian can produce enough photos to clearly identify the vehicle and the offence. For encouragement, and to forestall complaints from the drivers that "it's just a way of the council raising revenue", the money from the fine should go to the reporting pedestrian.

Caveats : only photos from a pedestrian - the camera angles should make it impossible to have been taken from a car ; admin fee for the council/ police department processing the allegation ; if the motorist wants to dispute the allegation, that's fine, but at risk of the full costs plus an undiscounted fine (exactly as for parking tickets) ; fine goes to the vehicle's registered keeper, and it's up to them to pass it on to the person driving, or pay up themselves ; penalty points on the driving license as per normal ; untaxed vehicle - short trip to the crusher.

Yes, it would turn every unemployed scrote on a street corner into an anti-driver grass, capable of earning a good living from a bad junction. So you'd probably better put the second (and subsequent) ticket per complainer through the tax man. But otherwise, so what? Unemployed people earning taxed money by performing a public safety service. How many more buttons do you want to push?

(Yes, I do have a handsfree for my mobile. Moving it to another vehicle takes about 2 seconds.)

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[HereIAmJH]

The fact that a person today spends considerably more time from 20 years ago on the road daily should really be fixed.

Pushing a mass transit agenda doesn't address the amount of time a person spends on the road. It just changes who is responsible for the vehicle. And in most cases it increases the amount of time on the road.

In the US urban sprawl is the problem. City managers complain about the cost of supporting an ever increasing infrastructure, and then turn around and encourage it through city plans and zoning. Lets push all retail into huge shopping meccas. Office buildings into office parks. We never hear "traffic in that corridor is too high. We'll only let you build your office building IF you also build an appropriately sized apartment building with a few retail shops in the lobby across the street."

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[mabhatter654]

shopping meccas and office complexes are not the problem. That layout reduces crime because it's very easy to patrol empty spaces after hours. The problem is suburbs and poorly built apartment complexes. Everybody wants to live "out of sight" of the nearest neighbors, then complain about the long drive in. We have Office and Shopping well centralized, we need manufacturing and housing more centralized. Manufacturing is the big problem right now. Nearly every new factory in my area the last 20 years is built 15 minutes outside town in a corn field next to the highway. There's absolutely no possibility of anything BUT a car. Bus and Taxi refuse to go out that far, walking is flat out dangerous on two lane country roads.

The issue is do people want to spend 25%-30% of their income just to get around... think how much you pay for car insurance, tags, gas, maintenance.... that's before your choice of payment for vehicle! Changing who is responsible changes everything. On pubic transport you can read a book, phone home, check email, etc... because YOU are not operating. It's still "travel time" but YOU can use it even if it's just to take a nap. That's exactly what American's need is to be forced to slow down... buy better things less often and have time to pursue other interests.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Not TVs, telescreens

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm suddenly reminded of that idiotic cop who was "specially trained" to have a firearm and ending up shooting himself in front of a bunch of school children.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know much about how the law or jail works. Any time someone is arrested for DUI they are thrown in jail, given a fine and given expensive classes that that they must attend. If they fail to do any of these within a short amount of time, a bench warrant is issued and the next time they are checked out by cops they will be going back to jail for the warrant. This repeats over and over until the terms of the sentence are complete. In addition, the maximum term anyone can spend in jail is 1 year. That's why it's jail and not prison.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[negRo_slim]

I envy you then, for I have always viewed a proper education and a community worth living in as the proper tool to fight crime.

Re:Hasn't worked in the UK

[HereIAmJH]

We have Office and Shopping well centralized, we need manufacturing and housing more centralized. Manufacturing is the big problem right now.

We'll have to disagree that centralized anything is a good thing. And maybe your little shops in the mall are empty after hours, but larger retailers run 24 hour operations. If they aren't open to the public, they're cleaning and stocking merchandise.

The reason manufacturing is built in the corn fields is because of zoning. People don't want to hear the trucks, trains, etc from commercial businesses next to residential areas. But rather than tackle creating reasonable designs they segregate everything. And btw, residential is generally centralized, it's just primarily low density.

I don't believe that everyone in America is dreaming of owning their own McMansion. And your 'out of sight' theory doesn't wash in this region either. 3000 sq/ft houses are being built on postage stamp sized lots. I have seen some $.5 million dollar houses with 6-8 feet separation from their neighbor. So it's not that they don't want to see neighbors, they don't want to hear them through a common wall. And if that is the case, we can improve building requirements and get back to building high density housing. And the rarely used innovation called sidewalks, making it reasonable to walk to neighborhood retail and office buildings.

Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a phone in one hand and a ticket in the other, how can you hold the steering wheel? With your legs?

Re:Obvious question

[the_fat_kid]

I usually use my knees.
I think it should be taught in drivers ed

Use It, Lose It

[DesertNomad]

a good slogan - the driver can reclaim their phone, sealed in the same bag the officer had the driver put it in, down at the station 2 hours later. worse than any ticket.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Nerdfest]

I mostly agree with a ban on cellphone driving, mostly because when I see erratic driving, the person is on a cellphone ... however, it does seem unfair to punish those who can drive while talking without a loss in attention or skill. I'd rather see the bad driving punished more harshly, regardless of the cause.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Volante3192]

however, it does seem unfair to punish those who can drive while talking without a loss in attention or skill.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/rare-supertaskers-balance-driving-and-cellphone-use.ars

The authors also took the time to remind their readers that the supertasking population really is small, so you shouldn't assume you're one of them. Unfortunately, it looks like most people tend to believe they're the exception to this rule, as the authors note, "our studies over the last decade have found that a great many people have the belief that the laws of attention do not apply to them (e.g., they have seen other drivers who are impaired while multi-tasking, but they are the exception to the rule). In fact, some readers may also be wondering if they too are supertaskers; however, we suggest that the odds of this are against them."

Re:Use It, Lose It

[pushing-robot]

Should we allow airline pilots to text their friends while landing? I'm sure a few could do it without losing concentration, so why trample on their rights?

I agree that the primary focus should be erratic driving, not any one particular gadget... But the rule of civilization is that some outlying people have to give up some minor liberties to ensure the safety of everyone.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the laws are about revenue not safety don't expect anything like that to happen.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[brian_tanner]

Except that, as has been posted here before, people are terrible at self-assessing their skill. I know, I know, you are different: you are not overestimating yourself, you are one of the 0.025% of people who can talk on the phone without being distracted http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/uou-fdw032610.php.

I know for a fact that I cannot multitask. However, I believe myself to be particularly good at self-evaluation. I know about psychology, and I read slashdot: I can adapt my self-assessment. I'm a scientist and I don't have a large ego about my regular cognitive skills, I am the typical absent-minded professor type. However, I didn't really realize how poor I was at multitasking until my late 20s, and I am particularly bad at it. I had a couple of near accidents (nothing that would have been severe), but I understand probability and statistics. I know that if I continued to drive distracted, with overwhelming probability I would eventually cause an accident. So I stopped sampling.

This does not describe most people. Many are overconfident and unable to recognize their own deficiencies. Even more don't understand that taking a small risk enough times basically ensures that the low-probability outcome will eventually happen.

I don't want those people deciding what's safe, because you know what, they won't realize they have a problem until they get in an accident. And the first time, they will attribute it to bad luck. My mother in law rear-ended someone while changing the radio station and shrugged it off: bad luck, could happen to anyone.

There are too many people on the road for them to be learning what's safe and what's not by trial and error. No thanks.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[feepness]

But the rule of civilization is that some outlying people have to give up some minor liberties to ensure the safety of everyone.

So sayeth the Handicapper General.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Kral_Blbec]

Ironically your post only strengthens the opposing argument.
1)The issue at hand is talking on the cell phone, not texting.
2)The pilot is in constant communication with the tower through a very phone-like apparatus called a radio.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[icannotthinkofaname]

Should we allow airline pilots to text their friends while landing? I'm sure a few could do it without losing concentration, so why trample on their rights?

Well, that's a stupid question. At least, in the US, it has been accepted as fact for years (though in doing a little Googling, I see that this may be changing) that there is no airline that allows cell phone communications at any time between takeoff and landing. If the passengers are required to disable their phones, what makes you think that pilots aren't?

Even if passengers are gradually being allowed to communicate, give me one good reason why a pilot would be allowed to use his cell phone while manipulating an airplane. If any reasonable person is behind airline regulations, then pilots, because of the lives they are responsible for, should be more restricted than passengers in use of personal communications.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Mindcontrolled]

The pilot, however, is trained on how to use the radio. The rule of aviate-navigate-communicate in exactly this order is hammered into everyone in that business. Communication has the lowest priority and is only done when no significant plane-control or navigation task is performed. Apart from that, pilots tend not to jabber on about utter nonsense to their controller, but use a highly formalized and short language. So, this does not strengthen the opposing argument in any way at all.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[DarthBart]

The pilot is in constant communication with the tower through a very phone-like apparatus called a radio

Yep, and strangely enough, he's got it via headset. He doesn't have one hand on the radio mike, one on the throttle quadrant, and one on the yoke.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

I mostly agree with a ban on cellphone driving, mostly because when I see erratic driving, the person is on a cellphone

Here's a though... how about just ticketing people for erratic driving? To simple? I know... it may actually punish people for what we want to punish them for. Crazy, isn't it.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[markov_chain]

Airliners have multiple pilots ;)

Re:Use It, Lose It

[julesh]

The authors also took the time to remind their readers that the supertasking population really is small, so you shouldn't assume you're one of them. Unfortunately, it looks like most people tend to believe they're the exception to this rule

Another result that they don't mention is that apparently you're more likely to be able to do it if you think you can't than if you think you can, at least according to a study looking at general multi-tasking capabilities, rather than specifically talking and driving.

The only question I have about this whole thing is whether they're going to ban drivers from talking to passengers in their car, which I believe is just as dangerous as talking to somebody on a hands-free phone.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Mindcontrolled]

And there are still single-pilot operated planes around, where said prioritizing is even more important. Besides, it is not like that in airliner operations the non-flying pilot is free to jabber away on the radio or to the flying pilot (unless he wants to miss Minneapolis by an hour... ;)

Re:Use It, Lose It

[BrokenHalo]

our studies over the last decade have found that a great many people have the belief that the laws of attention do not apply to them...

Often this is coupled with a correlation between cost of vehicle and attitude of driver. This is definitely borne out here (Perth, Western Australia), where we see a disproportionate number of expensive BMW 4WDs ploughing through roundabouts and traffic-lights with complete disregard for everybody else, while their cashed-up owners gasbag on their phones, not giving a fuck.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[PitaBred]

Thank you for not being one of those drivers that make me want to arm myself while driving :-)

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Turzyx]

What about collisions that could have been avoided by fast evasive action? There's a very good reason why rally drivers always have two hands on the steering wheel. You have a higher degree of control and precision when you use both arms, however good your 'multitasking' skills are.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[BrokenHalo]

The point is, this is all so unnecessary. A bluetooth headset is quite cheap enough to be accessible to anyone with a phone. Even if you don't wear it all the time while driving, it only takes a moment to pick it up and stick it on your ear if the phone rings. I'm not saying this is a complete cure for distraction, but it at least frees up the hands and is no worse than having a conversation with a passenger, which as far as I know is not illegal anywhere.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you talk to someone else in the vehicle, that other person is a second set of eyes which can pay attention to the road. That second person has a vested interest in making sure the driver doesn't crash.

However, on the phone, there is a distraction, since it takes more effort to hold a conversation, let alone that other person isn't watching the road.

Maybe the goal should be to change how motorists get their licenses.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

a good slogan - the driver can reclaim their phone, sealed in the same bag the officer had the driver put it in, down at the station 2 hours later. worse than any ticket.

Actually, I very much agree with this concept. Pull the driver over, take cellphone, sign a waiver, have them come down to the station to pick it up (after a $10 processing fee).

Let the drivers contest it in court if they want. But the city will make a ton of money, the drivers will learn a lesson (you only have to enforce this for 3 months tops in majority of states) and we all get safer streets.

And this will only apply to stupid people.... People with enough attention span to talk / text on their phone and drive 90% of the time will only get caught 10% of the time.

If I fuck up 10% of the time, i deserve to get my phone taken. It will only make me a better driver (multitasker). People getting nabbed 50%+ of the time shouldnt be driving much less have a cell phone in their hand anyway

cheers
-crim

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but the "conversation" has a direct bearing on the operation of the aircraft unlike most (all) typical phone conversations.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[dpaton.net]

If you were a pilot, you'd know one simple three word phrase:

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

A pilot's duty is to act in that order. Fly the plane, know where you are, and tell people. That hierarchy saves lives. Drivers could learn a think or two from Pilots in that regard.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[feepness]

you are one of the 0.025% of people who can talk on the phone without being distracted http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/uou-fdw032610.php [eurekalert.org].

Probably not, but I am one of the 99% of people that can do basic math.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[feepness]

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

No bloviate? O'Reilly will be pissed!

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Renraku]

Great idea. Give the police incentive to pull over any attractive female that's on the phone and take her cell phone away so that they can look through her phone and possibly find naked pictures, to distribute to their other friends.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and strangely enough, he's got it via headset. He doesn't have one hand on the radio mike, one on the throttle quadrant, and one on the yoke.

Not necessarily true. There are plenty of small airplanes with handheld radio microphones. Also the intercom in an airliner is typically accessed from the cockpit through a telephone handset. Not to mention that most police cars and fire trucks have handheld radio microphones. Why is it considered safe for them to drive while using their hands to talk on the radio, but only safe for us to drive while not using our hands to talk on the phone?

-AC

Re:Use It, Lose It

[pushing-robot]

no worse than having a conversation with a passenger

Not entirely true. Talking on a mobile phone is inherently more distracting than talking to the person next to you, for a few reasons:

* Signal/noise. You frequently have difficulty communicating over a cellular link, especially when moving; it's normal to have to repeat yourself, ask the other party to repeat themselves, mentally diagnose communications problems, interpret garbled audio, and re-establish broken connections. Passengers are much easier to talk to.

* Context. People on the phone are more likely to talk about subjects currently relevant to them, like what to buy at a store, how to fix a problem at work, or various off-the-wall topics; they expect your full concentration and send your attention all over the map. Since you're both in the car, passengers are (somewhat) more likely to talk about topics currently relevant to both of you and compensate for the fact that you're driving by simplifying their requests.

* Awareness. The other party has no idea of your current state. A passenger is likely to notice dangerous conditions or notice that you are paying more attention to the road and stop distracting you. If you suddenly break off conversation during a phone call, on the other hand, the other party is more likely to try to distract you even more with inane chatter: "Hey! Hey! Did I lose you? Are you there? Speak up! Hey? Hey? I don't hear anything! Can you hear me? I guess I lost ya! If you can hear me, call me back! I'll talk to ya later! Bye!"

Using a mobile phone while driving is more like having a few wild two-year-olds in the back seat. Which, while still not illegal, isn't a great idea.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[YrWrstNtmr]

2)The pilot is in constant communication with the tower through a very phone-like apparatus called a radio.

The radio (also CB radios) are not phone-like. They are half-duplex tools...you talk, the other party listens. You cannot listen while you talk.
A phone, OTOH, is full-duplex. Both parties can be talking at the same time. And so a part of your attention/processing power is listening for the other party to say something.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[brian_tanner]

Good call. Point taken.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[newdsfornerds]

Some people could probably be trusted to own fully automatic firearms. These people will never run amok killing dozens of former co-workers but in some states we "punish" these people when we prohibit anyone from owning machine guns.
I'm glad of this. EVERYONE thinks they are in that small minority who can drive while talking into a cell phone. So either it's illegal for everyone or for nobody.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[X0563511]

Rally driver's don't drive shitty cars in tiny lanes in full traffic.

The only evasive maneuvers I can usually do is to speed up, slow down, or hit the car(s) next to me.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[X0563511]

I have no sympathy for anyone who puts personal data of that kind on an unsecured device. They made their bed, they can sleep in it.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

The only question I have about this whole thing is whether they're going to ban drivers from talking to passengers in their car, which I believe is just as dangerous as talking to somebody on a hands-free phone.

Actually, it isn't, as the passengers turn out to be extra pairs of eyes that not only tend to stop talking when there's a higher potential for danger, but can alert the driver of things he or she may not see. I believe a couple of studies about this have shown up on /. in the past.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[slimjim8094]

Exactly. I probably am one of these 'supertaskers'. I'm an EMT and often drive an ambulance. A 14,000 lb 20 ft long vehicle, at speeds in excess of the speed limit. On the wrong side of the road. While navigating, and running the siren and talking on the radio. And telling my crew what to do.

And I've never even once come close to having an accident. Part of this is the training - I've received formal, rigorous training in conducting an emergency vehicle.

So I probably am one of these supertaskers - hell, I basically need to be.

But the key is: DON'T ACT LIKE IT! When you start acting like you're special, you'll screw it up. Even if you *can* manage many things at once, while driving, *DON'T ASSUME YOU CAN!* You still need to check your mirrors, look for pedestrians or other drivers, watch your widths, nt clip the curb, etc.

My point is, it's not so much talking on the phone/doing something else while driving as *assuming* that you can do it safely, because then you won't. You'll take it for granted that the car ahead won't switch lanes, because you've come to the conclusion that you won't mess it up.

So do I talk on the phone while driving? Yes. In the last two years, I think I've spent a grand total of 15 minutes on the phone. Have I ever come close to driving unsafely? No, because I focused on driving. I usually ignore the phone completely while making a turn or shifting lanes, or really doing anything other than going straight with plenty of room in front of me.

I don't think phone use while driving should be illegal, but you should lose your license the first time you're caught driving like a jackass. Though I'm full of crazy ideas, like "the test for driving a 3000lb weapon shouldn't be a mere formality".

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Z34107]

I have no sympathy for anyone who puts personal data of that kind on an unsecured device. They made their bed, they can sleep in it.

And hopefully I can, too! ^_^

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

and they want to ban the hands free part of it too. I can get behind not holding the phone to your head.. but banning the hands free part.. well then we need 15 lanes and to re educate drivers that SLOWER traffic keep the fuck right that means if someone behind you is going faster than you MOVE THE FUCK OVER TO THE RIGHT NOW. all this means that I have a 45 min longer commute because of over cautious driver so afraid that the break peddle is the only defense they have. causing chicago expressway cluster fucks. Oh yeah and the the red and blue light don't mean slow to 10mph and GAUK rent a Saw or other slasher movie if you that intrigued by the gore.

I believe all of the present days traffic problems can be aimed at the the automatic transmission and the drivers that require them to be on the road.. remove that and thoes drivers. and Taaa daaa 2/3 less drivers. more room. oh and these are probably the same people who hold the phone to their heads.. (do a study on that.).

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is pilots are on the job and, like any professional, get paid to do what their management tells them to do. Why would a pilot care if they can't use personal electronics while on the job? They are getting paid $50 an hour to sit in a chair.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never been in a car with my grandparents, then.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[CapnStank]

Simple solution. Use a sealed bag. Have the 'offender' sign the bag and turn it over to the cop. That way they know what bag the cell was placed in and can see if the seal was tampered with/opened. Add $5 to the processing fee to cover & profit from the bag and voila!

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Plaid Phantom]

Unless the passenger is reading a book.

Or is a screaming two-year-old.

Or is blind.

Or really just likes to hear themselves talk that much.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Belial6]

Yeah, it will be good to get back to the days before cell phones when no one drove erratically, and nobody ever crashed.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[dirk]

Except that, as has been posted here before, people are terrible at self-assessing their skill...I know for a fact that I cannot multitask. However, I believe myself to be particularly good at self-evaluation.

So people are bad at self-assessing, and you believe you are good at self evaluation and bad at multi-tasking. So by your own definition you are probably one of the few super-taskers, you just can't tell.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[cts5678]

Way to leave out salient facts from your link, such as: "The researchers assessed the performance of 200 participants over a single task (simulated freeway driving), and again with a second demanding activity added (a cell phone conversation that involved memorizing words and solving math problems). " So how often do you think MOST people have to "MEMORIZE WORDS and SOLVE MATH PROBLEMS" when they're on a cell phone conversation? Care to try posting a more true-to-life study that doesn't put such unreal conditions on the experiment?

Re:Use It, Lose It

[frosty_tsm]

The pilot is in constant communication with the tower through a very phone-like apparatus called a radio

Yep, and strangely enough, he's got it via headset. He doesn't have one hand on the radio mike, one on the throttle quadrant, and one on the yoke.

I'll add to this. There are also two people driving.. er flying.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Smauler]

A bluetooth headset also is just as dangerous as using a normal mobile. See my other reply for more details.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Mr_eX9]

Talking while driving or adjusting the radio isn't "supertasking." Do you want to ban drivers from speaking to their passengers too?

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Hognoxious]

What's more pilots and ATC conversations are short, structured and to the point. It's like "Alpha tango three, ascend angels one-five" "Roger", not "And he said she said OMG like WTF? She thinks she's all that well I never, at her age!".

Re:Use It, Lose It

[gyrogeerloose]

Not to mention the fact that, except when taking off and landing, flying an airplane doesn't require the same sort of immediate attention that driving a car does. If a pilot were to lose focus for thirty seconds in an airplane while at cruise, the worst that's going to happen is he'll gain or lose a few feet of altitude or drift off course a couple of degrees. Maybe not even that if the airplane is trimmed properly or is on autopilot. If a driver were to lose focus in a car for the same amount of time he's likely to end up in the ditch--or worse.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

But the rule of civilization is that some outlying people have to give up some minor liberties to ensure the safety of everyone.

No, fuck you sir. You deserve neither liberty NOR security. I don't give a flying fuck if not a single other individual on this planet isn't fit to do such a task, I am, and will continue to do so even if it is made illegal and punishable by *DEATH*. I will continue to do so, and enacting such legislation is only going to put others FARTHER at risk due ot me having to conceal my actions that otherwise have not and will not impare my driving ability. This is exactly equal to telling adults they cannot have steak because children cannot chew (even if there are only 0.000001% adults and 99.9999999%+ children). The only logicial and fair solution is to be allowed to apply for an extended privledged licence that says you are competent to do such tasks behind the wheel. I will *NOT* be punished for others lack of skill. Anyone that disagrees, please jump into a fire along with your family and loved ones. We don't need you on this already over populated planet.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[electrosoccertux]

however, it does seem unfair to punish those who can drive while talking without a loss in attention or skill.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/rare-supertaskers-balance-driving-and-cellphone-use.ars

The authors also took the time to remind their readers that the supertasking population really is small, so you shouldn't assume you're one of them. Unfortunately, it looks like most people tend to believe they're the exception to this rule, as the authors note, "our studies over the last decade have found that a great many people have the belief that the laws of attention do not apply to them (e.g., they have seen other drivers who are impaired while multi-tasking, but they are the exception to the rule). In fact, some readers may also be wondering if they too are supertaskers; however, we suggest that the odds of this are against them."

I went to a hockey game last night and at the beginning we sang something that ended with "Land of the free, home of the brave". It didn't end with "home of the pansies afraid of dying because 1 in 1000 people can't drive an automatic and have a conversation with their passenger"

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

"I probably am one of these 'supertaskers'."

That's not really a given, since when you're driving an ambulance you have sirens blaring telling other drivers to watch out. Other people don't have "I'm on the phone" sirens or flashing lights that read "Caution: Driver is Changing Radio Stations."

"But the key is: DON'T ACT LIKE IT!"

Exactly right. Even the gifted screw up.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Jedi Alec]

And I've never even once come close to having an accident. Part of this is the training - I've received formal, rigorous training in conducting an emergency vehicle.

So I probably am one of these supertaskers - hell, I basically need to be.

So because you're far more highly trained and you have a bigass siren on the roof of your highly visible vehicle, you reckon you have some innate ability?

Why not just take credit for the skills you have acquired through lots of training and practice?

These articles refer to the average dickhead on the road, not a professional driver such as yourself who is, I assume, constantly aware that lives are on the line the moment you get behind the wheel.

I don't think phone use while driving should be illegal, but you should lose your license the first time you're caught driving like a jackass. Though I'm full of crazy ideas, like "the test for driving a 3000lb weapon shouldn't be a mere formality".

As someone who is fortunate enough to live close enough to work to go there by bicycle, I beg to differ on this point. There's a good chance that losing said license will coincide with me or someone like me getting badly hurt. Considering the amount of emergency stops I have to make on a daily basis because jackasses simply aren't paying attention...

Re:Use It, Lose It

[David Jao]

Talking while driving or adjusting the radio isn't "supertasking." Do you want to ban drivers from speaking to their passengers too?

Speaking to a passenger is far far safer than speaking to a cell phone. This meme has to die.

A passenger enjoys the same situational awareness of road conditions as the driver does. In many cases, the passenger is more alert to oncoming threats than the driver, because the passenger is not being distracted by having to operate the vehicle. A passenger participating in a conversation will naturally, subconsciously, and automatically cue the driver to pause the conversation during moments when the driving is dangerous, either implicitly (by delaying a reply) or explicitly ("Hey, watch out for that biker"). The driver can also solicit assistance from the passenger: "Can you watch my other side?" It's also worth noting that the passenger has a significant motivation to contribute to safe driving: a car crash will likely affect him too.

Needless to say, none of these benefits accrues to a driver talking on a cell phone. In addition, even if we ignore the positive benefits of active passenger assistance, technical issues such as poor voice quality and the use of one hand to hold the phone (when not using hands-free systems) also further degrade driver attention compared to the case of conversing with a passenger.

The only scenario where talking to a passenger comes remotely close to the danger presented by a cell phone is in the case of an immature child or a severely disabled passenger who cannot positively contribute to road safety. Even in those cases, the detrimental effect on the driver is less than with a cell phone, because with very few exceptions (e.g. passengers in a full vegetative state), those passengers will still be able to sense dangerous road maneuvers and shut up when the situation warrants, often without the subsequent need for the driver to ask explicitly for any missed previous remarks to be repeated. And besides, I can't think of any situation where you would be talking to a vegetative passenger anyway.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

Drivers could learn a think or two from Pilots in that regard.

Pretty much anyone who has driven for a living, or learned from one who has, knows this on a basic level.

I've been using CB radios in my vehicles since i was 16. Holding a microphone and talking while driving isn't any different than using a cell phone, you judt need to remember that driving comes first, even if you have to repeat "what was that?" again and again. Are they going to start ticketing every truck driver on the interstates?

Re:Use It, Lose It

[RadioElectric]

Well...
*RING RING*
"Hi"
"Hi honey, can you pick up a few things on your way to the party?"
"Sure, what do you need?"
"Well, __________________________________________, I'll pay you back when you get here."
"Don't worry about it, I think that roughly amounts to the money I owe you from lunch the other day anyway." "Ok, see you later, bye!" "Bye!" Yeah... that NEVER happens.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're talking about what they're doing. They aren't discussing the local sport's team, they are passing information that is vital to what the pilot is doing at that moment.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[slimjim8094]

The siren works sometimes, but more as a filter. The people who are left as an intersection clears are the fools who can't drive. So in one sense it's easier to keep an eye on them.

But you're discounting the rest of it, which is by no means trivial.

Personally, I think the benefit of having a large warning device is outweighed by the difficulty of safely driving in the wrong lane on a major street at rush hour.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[slimjim8094]

The 'supertaskers' thing doesn't really mention training. It's possible that one can learn to multitask safely, or perhaps the most effective drivers were born supertaskers.

But you're right. Before I learned how to drive this thing, I would not (and did not) consider myself safe enough to attempt something else while driving. So the training was crucial - but I don't know if it expressed something I already had, or taught m to manage it.

Perhaps most crucially: why isn't 'the average dickhead' aware that lives are on the line the moment *he* gets behind the wheel?

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Volante3192]

It didn't end with "home of the pansies afraid of dying because 1 in 1000 people can't drive an automatic and have a conversation with their passenger"

Or '...because 1 in millions of air passengers have tried to blow up a plane with their underwear' and yet...

Re:Use It, Lose It

[jridley]

How is that worse than any ticket? Hell, my phone isn't even turned on for weeks at a time. Why would I care if I had to stop by the police station to pick it up later? I probably wouldn't even bother for a day or two, until it was convenient to get there.
I've only had two tickets in my life, both for left turn on red where it was (badly) marked as not permitted, and neither of those were at all pleasant experiences. If given the choice I'd happily give them my phone for a few hours. Hell, I'd give it to them permanently, and go buy a new one for $20, to have the ticket waived.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[jridley]

Actually, talking to a passenger has been shown to be somewhat distracting and as contributing to accidents as well. I try not to talk to drivers when I'm a passenger.

It's probably not nearly as dangerous as talking on a phone, but neither is it either as safe or even advantageous to have a passenger there talking to you.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[stewbacca]

Make it like a DUI. You can't just pull somebody over to check if they are drunk (well, in theory at least), but if they are driving erratically, you should be able to see in the cab to see if they have a cell phone, which gives you probably cause to pull them over.

If you just see them using a phone, but they are driving fine, leave them alone.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[stewbacca]

Now, now...be fair. He's merely an "agent of the Handicapper General".

Re:Use It, Lose It

[stewbacca]

I too cannot supertask. The rare occasion I do answer my cell while driving leads to the most awkward conversations ever. Me: "uhhh....hang on.....", Other Person: "alskdf mald;fj ajdkf jfaj fj", Me: "Ok.....uhhh....hang on..."

In other words, I ignore the phone and concentrate on the road, which is quite opposite the norm, evidently.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[IndustrialComplex]

I have no sympathy for anyone who puts personal data of that kind on an unsecured device. They made their bed, they can sleep in it.

The first rule of sensible legislation is to always assume no pity or mercy. Right?

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I probably am one of these 'supertaskers'. I'm an EMT and often drive an ambulance. A 14,000 lb 20 ft long vehicle, at speeds in excess of the speed limit. On the wrong side of the road. While navigating, and running the siren and talking on the radio. And telling my crew what to do.

And I've never even once come close to having an accident. Part of this is the training - I've received formal, rigorous training in conducting an emergency vehicle.

So I probably am one of these supertaskers - hell, I basically need to be.

Or it could be that pesky rule where everyone else has to get out of your way and make the road inherently more safe for your unsafe practices...

Re:Use It, Lose It

[David Jao]

Yes, I do not claim that talking to a passenger is safer in absolute terms than driving alone, only that talking to a passenger has certain benefits as well as certain drawbacks compared to driving alone. On the whole the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. However, talking on a cell phone has no benefits whatsoever, and even worse drawbacks. Cell phone driving is much more dangerous than driving while talking to a passenger.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

You've completely misunderstood. This is about collecting revenue, not the stopping of undesired behavior.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Anonymous Coward]

"* Signal/noise. You frequently have difficulty communicating over a cellular link, especially when moving; it's normal to have to repeat yourself, ask the other party to repeat themselves, mentally diagnose communications problems, interpret garbled audio, and re-establish broken connections. Passengers are much easier to talk to"
          No I don't have frequently have difficulty communicating over a cellular link, and it's not normal. You must have AT&T.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Neffirithion]

Do you want to ban drivers from speaking to their passengers too?

No... no no no no! People in the passenger seat are not the issue, because they are aware of the environment around the driver. If the driver is about to run a redlight during the conversation, the passenger will hopefully say something along the line of "hey, don't run the damn redlight" On the other hand, the person on the phone is NOT aware of the environment around the driver, and will NOT notice such things. Studies have shown this if memory serves, but class just let out and I am unable to find them in time.

Re:Use It, Lose It

[Jedi Alec]

Perhaps most crucially: why isn't 'the average dickhead' aware that lives are on the line the moment *he* gets behind the wheel?

For the same reason we stop paying attention to all the proper precautions when operating other heavy machinery, I expect. we get complacent after a while until we see/experience something really bad. I expect that in your line of work you're reminded of what happens when people screw up in traffic more than often enough to avoid the same mistake.

Oh, great, another slogan.

[Leebert]

"Click it or Ticket", "Over the limit, Under arrest", and its ilk irritate me to no end. I *loathe* being talked down to like a child, with these cutesy slogans. I hate the TV commercials where they say: "If you drink and drive, you WILL get arrested!" Anyone with half a brain knows that such a certain assertion is clearly false. Doesn't really do much for their credibility.

This anti-cellphone jihad really makes no sense to me. If we're going to waste money on "educating" people about the dangers of cell phones, why don't we educate them on the dangers of distracted driving in general? For example, I believe that I personally am probably 10 times more likely to kill someone out of my habit of driving without enough sleep than when I'm talking on the phone. I've seen statistics that falling asleep while driving causing upwards around 20% of fatal accidents.

Come to think of it, it happened last week when I was driving down FL-528 back to Orlando from the shuttle launch - I had been up all night. You know what I did to keep myself awake and alert? Whipped out the phone and talked to someone.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how most Americans are sleep deprived, adding the cell phone on top of it causes many problems. The best thing to do is just keep cell phones out of driver's hands. No exceptions.

I don't care who you are or what you do, there is no reason to be using a cell phone and driving at the same time. And if you are so important that you absolutely need to be able to talk at a moments notice, you'd have a driver - such as the President.

If you're gonna drive - drive. Don't talk.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Leebert]

Some people can drive and talk safely. From my post on the "supertaskers" story:

I believe the reason I can safely drive and talk on the cell phone is because I tend to ignore people talking when I'm doing something else.

In effect, I'm an inattentive listener, so it pretty much doesn't affect my driving, because if I have to do anything driving related, I tune out the person talking to me.

I'm also not afraid to drop the phone (literally) and deal with something if I need to. Anecdote: I was rear-ended once while on the phone. I was watching the rear view, noted the car behind me was going *way* too fast, threw it into gear and punched the gas onto the shoulder. (I dropped the phone in the process) She clipped the driver's side tail of my bumper, then plowed into the car that was (previously) directly in front of me. Picked back up the phone, apologized, briefly explained, then hung up.

That said, I *cannot* dial the phone or send a text. Both are dangerous when I'm driving.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I did to keep myself awake and alert? Whipped out the phone and talked to someone.

Yeah, I suppose pulling off the road, or better yet, staying put is out of the question. I mean, if falling asleep at the wheel is so dangerous to you, why are you driving without adequate rest yourself? Pretty nasty habit you got there.. Too bad somebody will probably have to get hurt before you are taken off the road.. All of a sudden I hate you..

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Leebert]

Pretty nasty habit you got there..

Yep. And my point is that it's a much bigger problem than phones.

All of a sudden I hate you..

So be it. I'm having a frank and honest discussion here. I'm quite willing to trumpet where I do well (driving while talking on the phone), so I should be willing to admit my faults.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[dmomo]

> Some people can drive and talk safely.
Yeah. I hear this a lot. And it's true. Everyone seems to be able to use a cell phone and drive safely. Except for the ones that got into an accident. Though, up until that point, I suppose they considered themselves among that group. I personally despise cell phone drivers, but am not sure if I would go as far as a ban. I'm on the fence there. Texting though. Texting is bad. I drive about 45 miles of highway each way on my commute. It's amazing how many drivers I see looking down instead of forward. The ones doing it "safely" are going about 10 miles under the speed limit. If "safe" means it's not THEM that cause the accident, then fine.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[N!k0N]

If you drink and drive, you WILL get arrested!

dunno about you, but the law here (OH) is as follows (first time offense):
* Administrative License Suspension (ALS) for a prohibited BAC;
* ALS for test refusal = one year license suspension;
* Jail - minimum of 3 consecutive days or 3 day driver intervention program at own expense
* Fine - minimum $250 and not more than $1,000
* Court License Suspension - 6 months to 3 years
* Possible jail time or community service
* Drivers license suspension for 91 days
* Mandated treatment and alcohol education

(ORC 4511.191; among other bits)

while the jail time is only 3d; still covers "arrest".

Obviously all of the above implies you're caught while driving intoxicated but that's a whole different argument. Furthermore, IANAL, so I don't know how much of it would actually be used against you in the event of being cited for DUI.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Abcd1234]

"Click it or Ticket", "Over the limit, Under arrest", and its ilk irritate me to no end. I *loathe* being talked down to like a child, with these cutesy slogans

Well, if people didn't act like irresponsible children, it wouldn't be necessary to talk down to them, now would it?

This anti-cellphone jihad really makes no sense to me.

Huh? I saw nothing about anyone being "anti-cellphone". Anti-don't-be-a-fucking-idiot-while-driving, sure, but not anti-cellphone. Where'd you get that stupid idea?

If we're going to waste money on "educating" people about the dangers of cell phones, why don't we educate them on the dangers of distracted driving in general?

Good idea! We probably should! On the other hand, cellphones seem to have caused a very drastic increase in the number of distracted drivers on the road, and so it makes sense to target that one issue specifically, due to how widespread it is.

You know what I did to keep myself awake and alert? Whipped out the phone and talked to someone.

Here's a better idea: Pull over to the side of the road and take a quick nap. As it is, you just ended up trading one irresponsible behaviour for another. Kinda like a child.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[MyLongNickName]

Hi Leebert,

One thing to keep in mind is that these advertisements are not targeted at you. These are marketed towards the buffoons who NEED this kind of reminder.

So don't take it personally. Imagine the ads are being delivered to that one doofus friend of yours who thinks it is uncool to wear a seatbelt or have a "few" drinks before hopping behind the wheel.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

Love or hate them, they did what they're supposed to: stayed in your head.

I hate 'em too, but I can't deny that I remember them, unfortunately.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[PitaBred]

Driving 10 under the speed of the rest of traffic will put you at fault for the accident in many places. It's dangerous driving to be unpredictable like that.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal to pull over and sleep on the highway.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Teun]

"Click it or Ticket", "Over the limit, Under arrest", and its ilk irritate me to no end. I *loathe* being talked down to like a child, with these cutesy slogans. I hate the TV commercials where they say: "If you drink and drive, you WILL get arrested!"

Anyone with half a brain knows that such is not directed at a responsible person like him.

Anyone with half a brain knows that such a certain assertion is clearly false. Doesn't really do much for their credibility.

That I'm willing to agree with. but the they are after the drunks with less than half a brain.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[BrokenHalo]

And if you are so important that you absolutely need to be able to talk at a moments notice, you'd have a driver - such as the President.

I hadn't realised the President was a chauffeur.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're driving while tired, you're not "doing well". Screw that. You're only as good as your last fuckup. Get the hell off the road! Bad enough with the damn drunks, only to have the likes of you adding to the problem.. I can only hope that if something does happen, you drive off a cliff, or hit a tree instead of a family in their minivan.. You are dangerous

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[jeremyp]

Don't highways in your country have off ramps?

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[X0563511]

... and wake up to Mr. State Trooper and/or Highway Patrol who has a stick up his ass for you doing the responsible thing?

Yea, that works.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be reasonable, it probably made you more likely to cause an accident, not less. The mere fact that it didn't happen is no proof of otherwise.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Cederic]

# If you start to feel sleepy find a safe place to stop (not the hard shoulder of a motorway) as soon as possible
# Drinking 2 cups of coffee or other high caffeine drink and have a rest to allow time for the caffeine to kick in
# Share the driving if possible
# Opening the window or turning up the radio won't work
# A short nap (no more than 15 minutes) is better than getting out of the car for a walk

from http://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/en/advice/roadsafety/driving/fatigue/ (the link Google takes you to if you hit "I'm feeling lucky" on a search for "police advice driving tired").

So yes, do the sensible fucking thing. Even the police agree.

Yea, that works. No sarcasm needed.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[X0563511]

That link is in the UK.

The police in the US are an entirely different breed.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all he's qualified for...maybe not even that.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hadn't realised the President was a chauffeur.

It's certainly a better use of a nigger than electing him president.

Re:Oh, great, another slogan.

[Kymermosst]

Oh, come on. If it was that bad the rest areas would be empty and you'd never see a trucker on a side road taking a nap.

Of course, if you just stop on the side of the road like a dumbass instead of minding those "emergency stopping only" signs, then yeah, the police might mess with you.

It's a distraction

[Lynal]

I saw a few of these signs yesterday. There's a 4 second delay between the two messages. It is very distracting, so mission accomplished.

Re:It's a distraction

[areusche]

This legislation is just pointless fund raising by states. I can understand texting and driving, but putting the damn phone to my head while driving is just as bad as using a handsfree headset. Now I have to fumble around to get the thing onto my ear while driving as opposed to just picking up the phone.

I'm grateful though that I live in a state like Pennsylvania where we don't have pointless laws on the books. Having humans be drivers will always be an unsafe activity.

I've come to accept the fact that I may die from driving whether it's my fault or someone elses. If I want piece of mind I take a train or bus.

Re:It's a distraction

[Kral_Blbec]

Is it really that hard to leave the headset on when you get in the car?

Re:It's a distraction

[wwfarch]

The idea behind the ear pieces is to keep them in your ear so you're not fumbling around when you get a call...

Re:It's a distraction

[dlgeek]

It's not hard to put it on, but extremely annoying on very long drives (such as the 12-14h ones I periodically take). Headsets are generally not very comfortable for such long-term wear. Even more importantly, wearing the headset when not on a call moderately impairs your ability to hear traffic and other such noises. If you're not expecting to be using the phone for the majority of the time, it makes no sense to wear a headset continually.

Re:It's a distraction

[Kral_Blbec]

If you are on 12-14 hour drives without a break, the phone is the least of your safety concerns. I commute about an hour each way and wear mine virtually all day. It has no effect on hearing and i forget I have it on after a few minutes. You don't even have to spend a lot to get a "nice" one. I bought mine used for 15 bucks a year ago.

Re:It's a distraction

[aXis100]

Get a sunvisor mounted bluetooth kit, or a permanent car kit installed. I've used the BlueAnt sunvisor ones many times (my employer gave them out for free) - they were very convenient, quality was good and the batteries lasted alot longer than the headsets.

Re:It's a distraction

[dlgeek]

I usually just use my GPS (integrated bluetooth speakerphone) for calls I'm not expecting and put the headset in for those I am (or make).

idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

the difference is when your cellphone rings you answer it. your seatbelt is a passive device you buckle up.
one in momentary, the other is NOT. this will have zero use.
instead, they should BAN DISTRACTED DRIVING and issue tickets for that. not separate it out into cellphone vs shaving while driving or sipping lattes while driving or screaming at kids in the back seat while driving or talking to shitheads next to you while driving or even using a bluetooth headset while driving.
 

This will be even more successful...

[Anonymous Coward]

...than 2008's "Penis In One Hand, Ticket In the Other" campaign which virtually eliminated the epidemic of vehicular masturbation until the courts stuck it down as sexist.

Re:This will be even more successful...

[crazyvas]

Also known as the "3 strokes law".

How do you tell...

[Deadstick]

...if a driver is using a hands-free phone? Watch for lip motion?

rj

Re:How do you tell...

[gd2shoe]

Nope. Some people sing to the radio. For that matter, some people talk to the radio.

Re:How do you tell...

[Midnight Thunder]

...if a driver is using a hands-free phone? Watch for lip motion?

Hey I take offence there. Now as a person with a split personality, I feel this is going to discriminate against me while I speak to my other personality. ;)

Re:How do you tell...

[julesh]

Nope. Some people sing to the radio. For that matter, some people talk to the radio.

That's the next thing they'll ban. Horribly distracting. Car radios & CD players cause serious accidents.

Re:How do you tell...

[gd2shoe]

Great. A site of anecdotes, which disclaimes itself thus :"Driver distraction is a leading cause of crashes, although the exact figures are difficult to gage because of the unreliability of the data."

And what does it say about radios and CD players?

...looking at the cd player while driving.

I was trying to find my favorite cd to put in and I was reaching for it keeping my eyes on the road. I felt it but couldn't reach it.

I was busy looking for a cd

I don't know exactly what happened that caused the accident, but I do remember reaching over my head to the CD wallet on the sunvisor for a new CD.

I looked down at the stereo to turn up the music.

So don't fiddle with the thing when the car is moving! If you can manipulate the thing by touch (keeping your eyes on the road), then great. Otherwise, you're being irresponsible.

Why do you want a nanny state? Next you're going to tell me that I can't sing to myself even without the radio. (Coming back to my point, watching lips is still not a cause to pull someone over.)

Re:How do you tell...

[Kymermosst]

Would result in too many false positives on me. I'm often cussing at other drivers.

Re:How do you tell...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two people shouldn't be driving the car at the same time.

Re:How do you tell...

[rdnetto]

I agree. And so do I.

Bans of hands-free phones?

[Snarf You]

The Transportation Department says it ... plans on ramping up enforcement on state bans of hands-free phones by motorists...

Why not target hand-held phones before going after hands-free phones?

Re:Bans of hands-free phones?

[mister_playboy]

The problem with phone conversation doesn't lie in whether or not you have to hold your phone, but in the mental resources you have to use to maintain the conversation on the phone.

Hands-free headsets are simply not any safer to use because they don't address the actual cause of accidents: lack of mental focus on driving.

Re:Bans of hands-free phones?

[HolyChao]

So... the phone itself is irrelevant. The problem is that you're having a conversation. Can we make it illegal to have a conversation with a person who is in the car with you?

Re:Bans of hands-free phones?

[mister_playboy]

The difference between having a conversation with a person in the car and a person on the phone has been discussed on /. many times before. The person who is present can react sensible to road conditions and shut up when needed, while the person on the phone cannot.

I don't personally think this legislation is a good idea, BTW. Sleep deprived drivers is a much bigger problem, but that is OK because it is a necessary part of our economy...

The USA has as many contradictions in its attitudes towards driving as it does in its attitudes about sex.

Re:Bans of hands-free phones?

[Deadstick]

The person who is present can react sensible to road conditions and shut up when needed

Never had children, have you?

rj

Re:Bans of hands-free phones?

[Eclectic Engineer]

TFA is confused. Later on, they refer to state bans of hand-held phones. (Yeah, I broke down and RTFA for that one).

Or...

[pushing-robot]

If you want to reduce distracted driving, just enforce fines on people doing it. Make it so people are likely enough to get caught that they'll think twice beforehand. Slap a huge fine (or worse) on anyone who crashes their car due to an obvious and avoidable distraction. Forget the fancy ad campaign; people don't care. Put the money toward a decent public transit system so people don't have to choose between keeping in touch and traveling.

Re:Or...

[echucker]

The original hands-free law has been effect in NY since the end of 2001, if memory serves. In that time, I've heard of exactly four people I am aware of getting tickets. In a short 15 minute / 10 mile drive each way to work, I see roughly 4 people each day that ignore the law. No enforcement, no deterrent.

Re:Or...

[drinkypoo]

Put the money toward a decent public transit system so people don't have to choose between keeping in touch and traveling.

This is a good idea. The rest of your comment is silly. The difficulty of proving that some jerkoff crashed because they were talking to their cubicle mate about the former night's American Idol "results" is the reason we have no-handheld-cells-while-driving laws. So keep the cell phone laws, but put the funds towards public transportation. Maybe jack up the fine while we're at it, so there will be enough money to accomplish something.

Re:Or...

[pushing-robot]

Police investigating a traffic accident should be able to get a driver's phone and sms logs. Or if they notice a half-eaten breakfast/dirty shaver/open notebook computer/whatever in reach of the driver, well, they can put two and two together.

Re:Or...

[drinkypoo]

Now you want warrants, subpoenas, and a lot of other expensive shit. And you also want a jury to agree that having potentially distracting items in the center console or on the seat means you were using them. This is getting higher and deeper.

Re:Or...

[pushing-robot]

I guess we should also abolish those laws that say an open bottle of beer in the center console means you were probably drinking it, too. And get rid of those expensive police-grade breathalyzers and time-consuming sobriety tests. After all, we don't want to interfere with Every American's God-Given Constitutional Right To Do Whatever They Want While They Operate A Three Ton Vehicle At Deadly Speeds On Government-Owned Public Roads Full Of Other People All Without Any Proper Training Or Oversight, right?

sigh.

Re:Or...

[Cimexus]

(Posting to undo mis-clicked moderation, oops. Meant to mod you Funny but clicked the wrong thing >)

Re:Or...

[dkleinsc]

Put the money toward a decent public transit system so people don't have to choose between keeping in touch and traveling.

The interesting thing is that many cities that have good public transit systems still have the most people commuting by car. The reason has very little to do with the convenience or lack thereof, and a lot to do with having to share the public transit system with those people (which is simply any convenient group of people that the speaker is prejudiced against). Some also see it as a lack of status to commute by public transit.

Americans hating other groups of Americans often gets in the way of good public policy, and transit is no exception.

Re:Or...

[drinkypoo]

I guess we should also abolish those laws that say an open bottle of beer in the center console means you were probably drinking it, too.

I don't know if this is still true, but when I was in Texas, the "Open Container" law said that the driver couldn't have one, but other people in your vehicle could be drinking. Laws about open containers are no less stupid than cellphone lawsbecause I could drink a 40 oz. of Coors light (why?) while driving and as long as I didn't chug it I'd receive no measurable psychoactive effect. They're also no more stupid than cellphone laws.

And get rid of those expensive police-grade breathalyzers and time-consuming sobriety tests.

And that highlights the idiocy of your comment, though perhaps you were just trying to be funny? We can test people to see if they are likely to pose a hazard due to their alcohol consumption. No such test exists for excessive cellphone use.

After all, we don't want to interfere with Every American's God-Given Constitutional Right To Do Whatever They Want While They Operate A Three Ton Vehicle At Deadly Speeds On Government-Owned Public Roads Full Of Other People All Without Any Proper Training Or Oversight, right?

If the government hadn't permitted the auto companies to purchase and shut down profitable public transportation systems, we wouldn't need cars at all. I would argue that since this did occur, that citizens should have a "right to drive". The alternative is to rebuild our public transportation systems, or revamp our concepts of employment and rent, to permit people to be able to not need to do it.

Re:Or...

[stewbacca]

They are enforcing the new (one month old) texting and driving ban here in Austin pretty aggressively (as well as the no cell phone in school zones law). I hope they keep it up, because like you said, no enforcement, no deterrent.

I've talked to several people who are opposed to the law (anti-nannystate libertarian types) and they've said they'll just take the ticket and not stop texting. Thus, the fines need to be higher, and they should start affecting their insurance rates (or add the threat of losing driving privs for a few weeks/months).

Maps.

[FlyingBishop]

They can pry my Droid from my cold dead hands. I need to know where I'm going, and Google Maps does that much more safely and effectively than a paper map. Also, Pandora is much less of a hassle than a standard radio. Put it on, music I like comes out, and I don't have to fiddle with it at all.

If they're going to ban cell phones, they also need to ban mp3 players, gps, and radio, which are equally distracting for the 30 seconds or so it takes to configure them.

Re:Maps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pull over, consult Google Maps.

Continue driving when done.

Boy, that was hard.

Re:Maps.

[ciaohound]

They can pry my Droid from my cold dead hands.

...using the jaws of life.

Re:Maps.

[Kral_Blbec]

Its illegal to pull over without a good reason on the freeway, not to mention the greater hazard of re-entering traffic at 70mph with no on-ramp.

Re:Maps.

[cynyr]

and so what did people do before google maps? ohh yea, pull off at the next exit, check paper map, continue on their way.

Re:Maps.

[cynyr]

They have, they fall under the "distracted driving" laws here in the states. Also if you feel that you should be allowed to do much of anything else while operating you multi ton vehicle, you sure need to have your license revoked. Set up pandora etc before leaving "park"(quoted for those that actually drive manual transmissions here in the states). Learn to navigate from memory. To be honest, if you hit me and i even thought that you were doing anything on your list or similar i would be looking for the maximum judgement i could get out of you and your insurance company. That includes talks with law enforcement that it was an unintentional attempt on my life(attempted manslaughter i think it would be). That goes for those in lifted trucks as well.

If it was only 30 seconds every drive then fine, but it's 30 seconds every few minutes. At 60 MPH, 8.8 feet per second, 528 feet per minute, you will go 264 feet in 30 seconds, thats damn near a football field(300 feet + end zones). How is that safe? I mean *NOTHING* could happen in those 264 feet that you were not expecting when you looked away~

Re:Maps.

[Anonymous Coward]

60MPH is 88 feet per second, or half a mile in 30 seconds (60 miles in 60 minutes). Hands on the wheel, eyes and attention on the road. It's not just the law, it's a good idea. Laws saying you can't do this or that while driving are just meant to clarify things for people who do not understand by themselves that this or that is negligent behavior and to give law enforcement a clearer mandate for punishing negligent behavior.

Re:Maps.

[dunkelfalke]

Use a voice-enabled turn-to-turn navigation and enter the destination before you start driving.

Re:Maps.

[cynyr]

ahh yes, even being off by a power of ten, i was the wrong direction, so it should be 2640 feet in 30 seconds, 880 yards in 30 seconds, ~8 football(handegg) fields in that time. Nice and safe.

Re:Maps.

[Cederic]

You must be too young to remember the days of people driving with a paper map covering the steering wheel, the dashboard and (occasionally) the passenger.

Don't let go of the wheel....

[Dr. Zed]

Don't let go of the wheel to shift gears, that's what your knee is for. Whichever leg isn't engaging the clutch can steady the wheel.

But seriously, the summary states, "undertaking studies to see if the efforts curb behavior and attitudes." Notice that it doesn't mention safety. Apparently, the important part of enforcing the law isn't to see if it does anything useful, but simply to make sure the people are properly obedient to the law.

Anyway, drive safe everyone.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[PopeRatzo]

the summary states, "undertaking studies to see if the efforts curb behavior and attitudes." Notice that it doesn't mention safety.

There are too many variables to measure specific impact of any one of them on "safety".

We've already concluded that it's dangerous to phone and drive at the same time, so that's the "behavior" that we want to see changed.

If you want to make a call, just pull over. Even if you feel like you have such a command of your vehicle that you could easily drive and talk on the phone, or if you don't really care if it's safe or not, do the rest of us a favor and knock that shit off. Your phone call isn't nearly as important as you think it is. And if it IS as important as you think it is, then you can take the time to pull over.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[KahabutDieDrake]

Yeah, do that. Pull over on I-5 while everyone else goes by at 80, you can absolutely pull over and stop, have a chat and that's perfectly safe. So safe that I'll read about it in tomorrows OSP flash update. Meanwhile, why don't you fix your makeup, hair, and finish off that mocha. Oh, and your kids are crying in the back seat. The oldest one just threw his icecream against the front window. The dog is barking. The radio is too loud. Your passenger is trying to get your attention to point out the crazy guy on his cell phone in the next car.

It's likely most people won't accept this, but the bottom line is that some of us are actually capable of handling our vehicles, AND a cell phone. If susie homemaker can put 7 children, a couple dogs and another house wife into her van, and drive around like that, then why is the enforcement centered on cell phones? They are hardly the only distracting item in the cab.

This entire enforcement effort centers on cell phones, but the real threat is something else entirely.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[Thinboy00]

They already know it isn't safe to drive while talking on the phone.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[X0563511]

Indeed. The vast majority couldn't handle the car on it's own, let alone the phone in addition.

Those of us who can, pay for their idiocy.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[TheABomb]

Actually, in every conceivable metric*, we are becoming more and more capable of driving safely, especially when plotted against cellular phone proliferation. Now, I don't mean to suggest that correlation implies causation, but I do mean to suggest that lack of correlation implies lack of causation.

Of course, the numbers will just be ignored by folks who swear that that one woman who they saw run a redlight four years ago are the rule, because it's the eleventy thousand perfectly normal, not in any way out-of-the-ordinary things we see happen every day that we remember perfectly.

* Total fatalities, fatalities per X drivers, fatalities per X miles driven ...

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[timmarhy]

no, you can't hold the phone in one hand talk to someone on it and drive at 80mph. you just can't ok, so stop trying to prove your more awesome then everyone else, because your not. if you had a brain you'd realise that if you can't pull over safely and answer the phone, DON'T DO IT. that call isn't more important then the lives of the kids in the car and the lives of all the people driving on the road with you.

and why isn't law enforcement doing anything about screaming kids in the car? i'd have thought that's obvious - because kids scream, it's what they do and there's nothing that can be don about it (by police anyway). douche bags driving around talking on their cell on the other hand, IS something they can fix. it's about controlling the risks you can control.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[timmarhy]

"Actually, in every conceivable metric"

except by the metric, where we actually measure people's ability to drive while talking on the phone?

http://psych.pomona.edu/SRC/Cell%20phone%20study%20summary.pdf

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[BlueWaterBaboonFarm]

You could also learn to float gears (shift with no clutch). Simplifies things a bit.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[KahabutDieDrake]

Lets do an anecdote? OK. I've had a car, with an average mileage per year of min 20k, since 1996. I got a cell phone later that year. I have 7 total speeding infractions. I have never been in a car accident (while driving). I have made and received phone calls while driving.

You say I "Just can't ok". I just did.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[runlevelfour]

THIS. I ride a motorcycle and over time have learned to become highly aware of what everyone else is doing around me. I cannot tell you how many times I have almost been merged into by someone refusing to even turn their head to the side to see if someone is next to them. Cagers also love to pull out in front of us, ride our arses, and in general be effing dangerous to everyone around them. Would love to place it all at the feet of cell phone usage but most of the time it is simple lack of attention, putting on makeup, drinking their coffee, watching their GPS screen. The list goes on and on. Anymore I navigate in traffic with the main goal of trying to make sure as few of the bastards are around me at any given time. I wear full gear all the time but I have no illusions about my fate in a collision so a little paranoia has gone a long way.

The problem is people's attitude and lifestyle choices which includes cell phone usage. The major offenders seem to drive large vehicles such as minivans and SUV's but interestingly enough not large pickups or heavy haulers such as semi's and the like. My personal guess is that the same people who choose a vehicle based on how "safe" it is then stops caring about anyone else's safety. I hate saying it but Susie Homemaker seems to be the worst offender.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[Lunzo]

Studies have shown that talking on a mobile/cell phone has a similar effect on driving skills to being drunk. Other studies have shown that people tend to rate their driving skill as above average.

There's a very high chance you're just an average driver, who is just as affected by talking on the phone as everyone else. Don't phone and drive. I agree with your point about the phone not being the only distraction. By all means cut out the other distractions too.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[Anonymous Coward]

More people drive around talking on their mobile phone and failing to concentrate on the road sufficiently.

I imagine that when I stop you and give you a ticket for nattering away on your mobile phone (and 3 penalty points here in the UK) that you'll probably tell me to go out and catch a mugger, a rapist and a murder. You'll also tell me how you're a much better driver than everyone else. The fact that I've hauled the dead and dying out of cars where one or both drivers being on their mobile phones will later be determined to be a contributing factor in the accident will wash over you because you're better than the rest. In the UK, as a police officer I do not have an exemption when it comes to using a mobile phone whilst driving, and I can at least say I've received significantly more driver training than 95% of other road users. Not to mention I spend hours and hours, every week driving on blues and twos.

I have never been crashed into by a the person fixing fixing their makeup, doing their hair and finishing off their mocha, with a car full of kids, etc, etc. I have been hit *twice* by blokes chatting away on their mobiles, one who leapt from his car, after he'd crashed into my STATIONARY MARKED POLICE VEHICLE phone still in hand telling me to watch where I was going. It took him a full 15 seconds to realise who and what I was.

Enforcement around cell phones is very well placed, if you knew anything about driving at all. Clearly, you don't.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[Heian-794]

Runlevelfour, I couldn't agree more. As a cyclist/pedestrian and occasional moped driver, I'd like to see any and all "safety" measures removed, or at least rethought, with the safety or the people arond the driver made paramount. All they do is cause drivers to become less cognizant of the dangers that their driving is putting the people around them in.

One more bad thing about cell phone usage in automobiles is that the noise level inside a car is ratcheted up another notch (byeond other passengers, the radio, etc.). Car horns are designed to be audible to other automobiles, and thus seem to be quite a bit louder than they were 20-30 years ago. If some distracted driver notices a pedestrian, cyclist, or motorcyclist too late, and slams down on his/her horn, anyone nearby who isn't shielded by an automobile's walls will suffer some severe hearing problems. That injurious volume level is what it is in part because it has to be audible to people inside near-soundproof cars who are also carrying on conversations on their mobile phones.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[tom17]

Yeah :) Also handy to know for when your clutch cable/hydraulics break. Starting can be tough though if you have to be in neutral to start, need foot on brake to start or any other such annoying safety aid.

Tom...

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[LanMan04]

You can call me a Cager if I can call you an Organ Donor.

Actually I have an M license, but still, "cagers"?

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[jridley]

Keep in mind that fatalities per anything is also hugely affected by the safety of cars, which is much higher than it was 20 years ago. You would have to count total accidents, accidents per mile driven, etc. not fatalities or injuries, in order to get an even comparison.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[jridley]

For people driving too close, I suggest a few 1" steel ball bearings in your pocket. When bounced off the ground next to you, they should hit the windshield of anyone driving too closely behind and let them know of their error.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[jridley]

Standard terminology for people in steel cages on the road. You've not heard it before?

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[stewbacca]

I have a simple solution. Since YOU think you can drive and use your cell (doubtful, but most people who deem themselves too important to hold off on a phone call probably rationalize it this way), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My solution is cops can't give cellphone/driving tickets unless the driver is driving in a way that is obviously distracted.

See in my world, all the anecdotal evidence we provide on slashdot about crazy bad driver on a cell phone would be valid, because only the people driving poorly while using their cell phones would be punished. The extremely rare good driver/cell phone user will go unnoticed.

Replace "cell phone" with "make up lady", or "Big Mac guy", or "screaming kids person", etc.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[stewbacca]

There are plenty of cognitive studies that disprove the safety of "hands free devices". The act of holding a phone and driving is not any more dangerous than holding a coffee and driving.

The problem comes with cognitive function. We can actively process two stimuli with little effort. For example, we can pay attention to the road and listen to the radio without much fanfare (anyone calling for the banning of driving while listening to the radio?).

Add a third stimulus, like "responding" and elevate the "hearing" stimulus to "listening" and you have cognitive overload. The basic theory is the brain is good at doing two things at once, but three or more interferes with cognition.

To compensate, we focus more on two stimuli and less on the third. Those of us who can drive (relatively) safely while using a phone generally are completely tuning out the phone conversation (which defeats the purpose of having a phone, which is also why I've stopped answering my phone while driving).

The real dangerous people are the ones who tune out what's going on the road to tune into their conversation.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[stewbacca]

Mod second paragraph up as best-albeit-anecdotal-post ever.

My anecdotes about cell phone drivers add to your list of SUV driving homemakers...Jesus fish and multiple "support our troops" stickers increase the probability the driver is also on their phone.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[stewbacca]

"Fatalities per hundred million miles driven" is no indicator of near-misses, fender-benders, serious injury (non-fatal) and general aggravation caused by idiots talking on their phones while driving.

If anything, the first link only proves that vehicle accidents have become more survivable over the years.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[IndustrialComplex]

no, you can't hold the phone in one hand talk to someone on it and drive at 80mph. you just can't ok,

You must have a very interesting definition of "can't". I can vouch that you most certainly CAN drive at 80mph while speaking on a cell phone. Most people DO have that physical capability.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[IndustrialComplex]

Standard terminology for people in steel cages on the road. You've not heard it before?

Oh we've heard it. We've heard it every damned time some motorcyclist likes to bring up the fact that they ride a motorcycle. We get it. You are free, like a bird... one that isn't in a cage, unlike you, who are not free like a bird that isn't in a cage as you are unfree like a bird in a cage because you are in a car. It has a frame, and that frame is a cage. A cage of your soul.

It's ridiculous. Expecially on Slashdot as I imagine some 300 lb neckbeard riding a 150CC kawasaki and raging about all the 'cagers' threatening his life.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[IndustrialComplex]

For people driving too close, I suggest a few 1" steel ball bearings in your pocket. When bounced off the ground next to you, they should hit the windshield of anyone driving too closely behind and let them know of their error.

I hear this a lot. Which is quite the rational response.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[IndustrialComplex]

Studies have shown that talking on a mobile/cell phone has a similar effect on driving skills to being drunk. Other studies have shown that people tend to rate their driving skill as above average.

And those 'studies' are likely commissioned by groups with no vested interest in pushing for more legislation, right?

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[Anonymous Coward]

The study you linked only studied people between 17-22 years old. Yes teens suck at driving. For the rest of us, driving an automatic with a phone in hand is no different then talking to someone else in the car or listening to music.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[HereIAmJH]

You have more than twice as many speeding 'infractions' in the last 14 years than I have had in 30 years of driving. And I started driving in an era where 'cruising' was normal for teens. Firebirds, Camaros, and burning through a tank of gas every Friday night. I don't think your driving record is making your case that you are capable of handling the distraction of a cell phone.

Re:Don't let go of the wheel....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckwad asshole moderation!

Friends of poor widlle timmy eh?

Now be good and waste your points modding this!

Can someone please explain to me

[discordia666]

Why driving with one hand by your ear and talking via bluetooth on your cell phone is legal but driving with a cellphone in that hand is illegal?

Re:Can someone please explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you suddenly need that hand on the wheel, it doesn't have anything in it that would prevent grip.

Re:Can someone please explain to me

[93 Escort Wagon]

Because if you suddenly need that hand on the wheel, it doesn't have anything in it that would prevent grip.

There's nothing magical about having two hands on the wheel - you can start the maneuver with one hand, drop the phone and then help with the other. That is, if you believe the problem is the mechanics and not the distraction of the phone call itself - which runs counter to every scientific study, and yet is apparently steadfastly believed by almost every group of lawmakers here in the US.

I've seen people do stupid things with a cell phone in their hands. I've seen them do stupid things when it's pretty apparent they're using a hands-free device. I've seen people watching a movie while driving. Heck, a couple days ago I saw a guy in rush-hour, stop-and-go traffic who had a map up mostly blocking his face.

We have laws against distracted driving - but enforcing them costs money that governments are not willing to spend. So our state legislators attempt to demonstrate their value to the taxpayer (in Washington, anyway, they make a pretty nice salary considering they're required to work 60 days every two years) by passing pointless add-on laws, but not providing the funds to adequately enforce even existing laws. As I've mentioned in at least one prior post, I've known a couple of these people - neither one is someone I'd hire for any job because, I've seen them in a real work environment and they were mainly interested in work avoidance.

I'm not anti-law. I support what they're ostensibly trying to accomplish. But artificial distinctions (e.g. hands-free is okay) and lack of funding prove to me they're really not interested in anything but another potential revenue stream.

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

What if little susy needs to call mommy who's on her way home from work because there's an emergency at the house? What if mommy gets pulled over and fined for a purely legit reason? Little susy might be hurt or worse because some asshole lawmaker decided that he's right and the populace is wrong.

Fuck you, ban on cellphones. Punish people when they crash, not before (if they ever do).

Re:WRONG

[Volante3192]

Mommy should've pulled over to the shoulder. If little susy is calling mommy to tell her that little billy got his arm ripped off by the wheat thresher, I don't think mommy is going to be driving all that well with news like that, cell phone or not.

Re:WRONG

[Teun]

And how did you survive when your momma was away getting the groceries?

If I've ever read a dumb remark it's yours.

Re:WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

If she knows how to call mommy, then I'd assume she can be taught to instead call the ones that could actually do something about it - 911 / 112

Re:WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

Little Susy's mom should teach her to call 911 in the case of an emergency.

photo enforcement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't we have the technology to enforce mobile phone use by means of photo recognition software and overhead cameras on highways?

If such an automated system was possible, it wouldn't tie up law enforcement in traffic stops over a 90 dollar ticket...which is nullified if you challenge the ticket in court and provide proof (a receipt) you purchased a handsfree device (at least in CT).

Automatic Drivers?

[Dzonatas]

> "'It's time for drivers to act responsibly, put their hands on the wheel and focus on the road,' says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who last year called distracted driving an 'epidemic.'"

What about cars that drive themselves?

Maybe auto makers should be more responsible!

Re:Automatic Drivers?

[Chowderbags]

Toyota already tried that. It didn't go well.

If the government was a deck of cards.

[Bahamut_Omega]

Off Topic: Anyone got the IP address of the coward posting the flamebait? I'd pretty much want to take the supremacist and toss him to the polar bears. On Topic: Somehow I'd say the slogan makes it sound like the particular government is looking at getting more funds out of the gambling revenues. Rushing roulette anyone. If the government was a deck of cards; how come it's stacked with jokers?

Re:If the government was a deck of cards.

[Anonymous Coward]

Off Topic: Anyone got the IP address of the coward posting the flamebait? I'd pretty much want to take the supremacist and toss him to the polar bears.

You must be a new jew here.

They're banning HANDS-FREE phones now???

[Qubit]

The Transportation Department says it wants to send the message: 'Phone in One Hand. Ticket in the Other,' and plans on ramping up enforcement on state bans of hands-free phones by motorists

Wasn't the whole idea that people could use hands-free phones so that they could keep both hands on the wheel? I mean, come on, NY, what gives?

In any case, I believe that CB radios are legal everywhere, and I don't see much of a difference between operating one of those and operating a cell phone, I'm just saying....

Re:They're banning HANDS-FREE phones now???

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh good - about time.

Studies have shown that it is the distraction of the conversation, not holding the phone, which is the major problem.

North American should disabuse themselves of the notion that there is a Right to Drive.

it's a privilege and when at the wheel you have a very dangerous weapon in your hands. You should not be on the phone as well.

Re:They're banning HANDS-FREE phones now???

[julesh]

In any case, I believe that CB radios are legal everywhere, and I don't see much of a difference between operating one of those and operating a cell phone, I'm just saying....

CB radios are most often used by professional drivers who usually have had a better standard of training than the average motorist and are less likely to allow themselves to become dangerously distracted.

I.e. mobile phones are only an issue because every idiot uses them.

Re:They're banning HANDS-FREE phones now???

[cynyr]

hmm sounds like you think we should have higher driving standards. I agree, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:They're banning HANDS-FREE phones now???

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the whole idea that people could use hands-free phones so that they could keep both hands on the wheel? I mean, come on, NY, what gives?

That's a typo in the article. The program itself is enforcing bans on hand-held phone conversations, hands-free devices are allowed.

In any case, I believe that CB radios are legal everywhere, and I don't see much of a difference between operating one of those and operating a cell phone, I'm just saying....

CB is primarily used by professionals (ie. truckers), or is otherwise seen as a geeky hobby. The people using it are usually smart enough to manage balancing using it with distractions from driving.

Or, looking at it another way, CB doesn't rely on a central transmitter to manage communications. You could track if someone was using their mobile phone at the time of an accident. Not so with CB radios.

Re:They're banning HANDS-FREE phones now???

[Qubit]

(re: hands-free ban) That's a typo in the article.

Some typos are undetectable. Some are a bit funny. Some basically change the fundamental premise of the whole kit and kaboodle.

I we all know which category this fuck-up falls in.

Or, looking at it another way, CB doesn't rely on a central transmitter to manage communications. You could track if someone was using their mobile phone at the time of an accident. Not so with CB radios.

Okay, so perhaps it's a little harder to determine if a CB was used at the time of an accident than a cell phone, but that doesn't change the basic point that using one vs. the other is darn near exactly the same, right down to having to locate the handset, choose a channel (vs. dialing a number), and then occupying one of your hands with it.

Heck, I could wire up a CB handset to a cell phone so that each channel corresponded to a commonly-dialed # and then could make cell phone calls with it. I think the biggest reason why CB radios aren't mentioned in legislation is that nobody, probably not even truck drivers as much anymore, are using them.

If police are experts in traffic safety...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that means it's perfectly safe to drive down the highway at 130 MPH, and talk on my cell phone while driving.
I had to drive to Hartford, CT yesterday, and all the electronic billboards said "Phone In One Hand, Ticket In the Other", but I got passed by an unmarked SUV police cruiser, when I looked over at the driver, he was on his cell phone, and going almost 90 MPH, I don't really think what he was doing was unsafe, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that the hypocrites would give one of the slaves a ticket.

I rarely talk on my cell phone while driving, but I got harassed by some cop while I was picking up a friend at Bradley Airport (near Hartford) because I picked up the phone, and called my friend to ask her which terminal she was at, (a conversation that took less than a minute). Now what would be safer? Picking up the phone, dialing it, and holding it to my ear for 2 minutes? or fumbling around with my bluetooth headset, putting it in my ear, and then fumbling around with the thing? People who do alot of talking on the phone while driving should have heatsets or speakerphone, but a it's just ridiculous to have a law about it.

Also, "Click it or ticket" is BS, it doesn't save lives, it doesn't increase seat belt usage. I grew up in MA which has had a seat belt law as long as I can remember, yet, I've known quite a few people who died in car accidents who didn't have their seat belts on.

Now I live in New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die" where there is no seat belt law, and it seems like more people here wear their seat belts. The NH DMV actually trys to encourage seatbelt use by education, rather than a fear tactic of giving you a fine. In fact, my friends auto insurance (which you aren't required to have in NH) will not cover injuries to passengers of his car if they don't have their seat belts on. So if someone wants a ride from him and doesn't want to wear a seat belt, he makes them sign a waiver that he has printed up and keeps in his glove box.

I have friends in MA and CT who take their seat belts OFF if they are getting pulled over for speeding, because often the cop will write them a $50 fine for not having a seat belt on, which doesn't affect your insurance, instead of writing a $200 ticket for speeding which does go on your insurance, because the cop knows you aren't gonna bother fighting a $50 ticket that doesn't affect your insurance, but you'll fight the $200 one that does.

Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[dmomo]

One thing in all this that frightens me is the fact that by letting law enforcement pull someone over based on something that is not a clear moving violation, but something the can claim to witness happening inside a vehicle,
we are effectively giving them a tool for racial profiling. This power seems ripe for abuse.

1) See someone who "looks" like they might be carrying something illegal
2) Pull them over, obtain cause to search vehicle
3) If successful, book them
4) If failure, cite them for cell phone use.

How easy is it for a customer to obtain proof that they were or were not texting at a given time?
How easy is it for Law Enforcement?
Is this proof permissible?

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[Monolith1]

2001 called, you don't have any civil liberties any more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[Andtalath]

It's really easy since the phone company logs everything you do.
Also, your phone logs it.

Well, barring texting and not sending it of course, that would fall beneath the radar.

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[girlintraining]

...not a clear moving violation, but something the can claim to witness happening inside a vehicle...

So (and in all seriousness here) should giving someone a blowjob while they're driving should be legal? Or smoking pot? Or any one of fifty other things I can observe people doing in their vehicles besides operating it...

we are effectively giving them a tool for racial profiling. This power seems ripe for abuse.

What the f*ck is up with this racial profiling crap? Every single time somebody proposes a law against something, some idiot's gotta stand up and yammer out "but...but... racial profiling!" Here's a fact for you: Racial profiling is a social problem, not a legal one. This law addresses distracted driving. Unless it ends with "but only for [insert race here]," your commentary has no place in this discussion.

How easy is it for a customer to obtain proof that they were or were not texting at a given time?

Look in your call log, or in your sent messages folder.

How easy is it for Law Enforcement?

"Hello, phone guys? We have a warrant for xyzzy."

"Sure, no problem! Fax or email?"

Is this proof permissible?

Yes.

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[alvinrod]

I don't know about your phone, but mine has a nice little timestamp for every text I've received and all that calls I've made. It's fairly easy to look at the log and show that I wasn't texting or on the phone. If they suspect that I tampered with the logs, the phone company likely has logs as well.

The victimization will work well until they fine some innocent person who successfully sues the hell out of them and raises a huge stink. The racism angle makes it even more likely that someone will get a nice settlement and that law enforcement will be a hell of a lot more careful in the future.

If a cop wants to pull you over they'll find several other bullshit reasons for doing it anyhow. I've had one pull me over because he said it looked like I was swerving a lot. Once he talked to me and realized that there was absolutely no good reason he could search my vehicle or suspect me of wrongdoing, he left. This happened years and years ago before I even had a cell phone so it's not like things are suddenly going to change.

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[feepness]

How easy is it for a customer to obtain proof that they were or were not texting at a given time? How easy is it for Law Enforcement? Is this proof permissible?

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ted Kennedy

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[misexistentialist]

In practice cops can pull you over whenever they feel like it. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Generally they are not interested in making up citations, since the frequency of actual violations is enough that they already wouldn't have enough time in the day to write them all.

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[Anonymous Coward]

In practice cops can pull you over whenever they feel like it. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Generally they are not interested in making up citations, since the frequency of actual violations is enough that they already wouldn't have enough time in the day to write them all.

Yes, they can... and every once in awhile they piss off the wrong person.

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[Blakey Rat]

Most states (if not all) already have seatbelt laws. It's a hell of a lot easier to see if someone is using their phone through a window on the freeway then to see if they're wearing a seatbelt... and nobody's been complaining about that law, so I doubt anybody's going to take on your claim either.

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then the victim gets his phone records that show they were not on the phone and the cop was lying. Get a local news caster to do a story on racist profiling local cops and its a PR disaster for the cops.

Re:Dangerous water for civil liberties?

[stewbacca]

This happened to me yesterday. I showed the guy my texting log and when he saw the last text I sent or received was over a week ago, he actually believed me when I told him I rarely text, and I never text while driving.

He wasn't going to ticket me, it was just a warning, but I felt compelled to defend myself anyway, since I'm such an ardent anti-texting while driving person.

911?

[Anonymous Coward]

Along the highways here in California they encourage drivers to call 911 for drunk drivers. This seems contradictory given you aren't allowed to use your cell phone to call anyone. Will you get out of the ticket if a cop pulls you over or will he just hit you with a taser and resisting arrest charge because you stayed on the line?

Re:Ummmm.

[xaxa]

Tell you what, Mr Regulator. Why don't you install "cell phone stops" every 1 mile on the roads, where we can safely pull over and make or receive calls before you tell us that we can't use them.

They're called "side streets" or "parking areas".

cops on cell phones

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the "great" state of NJ, and while fist-pumping my way home from the bus stop (on foot), I saw not one but two of my town's police officers driving in (seperate) patrol cars while holding a cell phone to one ear. And no, their lights were not on, and there was no emergency. Shouldn't they be held to a higher standard, or at least the same one us serfs are?

Re:cops on cell phones

[Anonymous Coward]

They are trained to communicate and drive at the same time, although usually it's on a radio and not a phone. The general population does not have that training nor do they practice as much as a cop does (who may talk on the radio every few minutes all day long).

Re:cops on cell phones

[N1EY]

The reality is this...they were probably on the phone to a LT or at least a SARGE about some matter. The higher-up had called them because they did not want it to go over the radio. Think about it. It is more scary than you think.

Re:cops on cell phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold police to the same standard they hold us to? You must be joking.

Next you'll want to stop cops from running red lights or parking illegally.

Mixed Messages

[Anonymous Coward]

I was contemplating this yesterday, while I drove down the Interstate 17 in Phoenix, AZ. As clear as day, as I going through an Underpass, an Info board encouraged me to Dial 511 for traffic information. Wouldn't I have a just cause to file suit with my local city should I receive a ticket? It seems to me that you would not want to encourage people to do the exact opposite of the law you intend to pass.

I say good.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Every time I see some stupid fucking douchebag barking into his cellphone, or some giggle brained bleeth yammering into her iPhone, I curse the gods for not letting me be able to fire rockets or RPGs at those stupid fucks as they blunder their way down the highway and endangering the lives of the rest of us with their inattention and sense of entitlement.

Re:I say good.

[quacking duck]

Every time I see some stupid fucking douchebag barking into his cellphone, or some giggle brained bleeth yammering into her iPhone, I curse the gods for not letting me be able to fire rockets or RPGs at those stupid fucks as they blunder their way down the highway and endangering the lives of the rest of us with their inattention and sense of entitlement.

There's an app for that.

Re:I say good.

[Anonymous Coward]

You never got the RPG rocket addition and license to kill when you bought your car?
Man your missing out, its a few thousand dollars sure but its so much fun :D

Re:I say good.

[Anonymous Coward]

2nd Amendment. Fire away!

Oh, yeah, maybe curse the law, but not curse the gods.

Re:I say good.

[zarathruster]

That way instead of there only being the possibility of an accident there will actually be one. Makes perfect sense to me.

Re:I say good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for making me Google for "bleeth".

Re:I say good.

[mjwx]

I curse the gods for not letting me be able to fire rockets or RPGs at those stupid fucks as they blunder their way down the highway

A minor nitpick but an RPG is a rocket.

Re:I say good.

[dkleinsc]

No, he was talking about launching a copy of the Player's Handbook and Monster Manual at the other car, so they'll be scared of his nerdiness.

Don't use "Curb" in driving-related stories

[b4dc0d3r]

Unless you're talking about an actual curb, driving-related stories should not use 'curb' as a verb.

In addition, the headline says 'combat' while the article includes 'curb' 3 times and no 'combat'.

Please, speak clearly and skip the puns, hyperbole, and 'vivid metaphors'. News first.

Signed,
-The Internet

Re:Don't use "Curb" in driving-related stories

[Cimexus]

Haha I never thought of that...

Being Australian, we use the British/Commonwealth English spelling 'kerb' for the noun (i.e. the concrete thing at edge of the road), and 'curb' for the verb you are referencing above.

See there is a reason for some of our 'old fashioned' spellings ;)

(Actually, being married to an American, I've found quite a few cases where American English uses the same spellings for both the verb and a related noun, but standard English differentiates the verb from the noun via a spelling difference. The practice/practise, licence/license ones are well-known examples.)

Re:Don't use "Curb" in driving-related stories

[stewbacca]

That's why real drivers call them kerbs.

Re:Don't use "Curb" in driving-related stories

[stewbacca]

I'm an American, but also a racing enthusiast. They've always been kerbs to me, but that's because I don't pretend the Earth ends at the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Phones need a "I'm driving" mode.

[bersl2]

I rarely dial out when driving. I hate doing it too. Most of the time if I receive a call, I'll let it go.

So what I want is a separate voicemail greeting or some other way of communicating status which will let me say that I'm on my goddamn way, so stop calling me to ask where I am. Because as it is right now, I can't effectively communicate the difference between this and my usual "I don't feel like taking your call." (There is a difference.)

So really, phone systems need to be designed better for this use case.

Re:Phones need a "I'm driving" mode.

[cynyr]

would require cooperation from the carriers (unless mandated), good luck. If they do it'll be a $5 option per month.

Re:Phones need a "I'm driving" mode.

[MBoffin]

So what I want is a separate voicemail greeting or some other way of communicating status which will let me say that I'm on my goddamn way, so stop calling me to ask where I am. Because as it is right now, I can't effectively communicate the difference between this and my usual "I don't feel like taking your call." (There is a difference.)

HTC phones running Android have a feature that will let you do exactly this. You can set a pre-written text message and then when a call comes in, you can just hit the MENU button and it will send the caller immediately to voicemail and then automatically fire off the pre-written text message to the caller. Mine is set to, "Sorry, I can't take your call right this second. I'm in my car and don't have my hands-free headset." This way you can gracefully send them to voicemail, but at the same time let them know why you are doing so.

Re:Phones need a "I'm driving" mode.

[SpaceCadets]

On my phone (Samsung), it has differnt profiles (Normal, Silent, Driving, Meeting...), so if I set it to Driving, it has the voice mail "You've called SpaceCadet, I'm driving...", or if it is Meeting it is "You've called SpaceCadet, I'm in a meeting...". Same for texts, if someone texts me it sends an automatic preprogrammed reply. Maybe on your next upgrade see if you can get a phone that does the same - or even if your current phone does it. It took me a while to find the option and work out how to set it up. Once it is going though, it is a blessing. :)

Re:Phones need a "I'm driving" mode.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what I want is a separate voicemail greeting or some other way of communicating status which will let me say that I'm on my goddamn way, so stop calling me to ask where I am. Because as it is right now, I can't effectively communicate the difference between this and my usual "I don't feel like taking your call." (There is a difference.)

Dunno how your carrier works, but atleast here in the Netherlands I have the possibility to set both a long term (permanent) voicemail message and a temporary one, for exactly those type of things.

I.e. maybe you just need to find a better carrier?

Re:Phones need a "I'm driving" mode.

[kramerd]

I don't see why...airplane mode doesn't cost me anything, and kicks in for automatically when I get to the airport.

The iphone might charge for it, but android market already has similar ideas (teen driving mode alerts to let you know when the vehicle speeds or reaches destinations) for free.

Re:Ummmm.

[cynyr]

they do, it's called off ramps and places at them. At least here in the St. Paul MN, there are exits from the freeways in town every 1/2 mile or so, almost every one has a gas station or fast food place with a parking lot for you to make your call at. In the rural areas there is less of an issue for other drivers, at least on the interstate system, on the highway system is just dangerous anyways, traffic going in opposite directions at 60 MPH, with nothing but a line of paint to stop them from crossing it. Also most of the highway system as nothing to prevent animals from entering it. Ever seen what a moose will do to even your largest of SUVs, or even an 18 wheeler

Tickets==Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! You actually think this is about safety?

Tickets==Profit
And now they're adding one more thing they can cite you for.
Sure, they may do it under the guise of improving safety, they'll even pay lip-service to some grieving mothers, but this is really all about more revenue to the town/state/insurance-company.

Re: Tickets==Profit

[slick7]

Tickets==Profit

If Tickets=Profit, then why aren't bars operated by Police officers exclusively?
The Judge (with a Breathalyzer) could be the doorman.
Let's cut out the middleman and get the customers coming and going.

Re: Tickets==Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

If Tickets=Profit, then why aren't bars operated by Police officers exclusively?

Then who would be their customers?

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

what about highways or motorways?

Auto makers more responsible

[watergeus]

I bought a new car this year. To my surprise there was a bluetooth system build in.
Took me a few weeks to find a new bluetooth phone and 5 minutes to get it working.

Perfect. The radio switches to stand-by and I have to press one button to pick up the call.

The phone is now constantly with bluetooth 'on'.
Maybe I should not do that, but I'm living in a rural area.

Re:Ummmm.

[metlin]

Indeed.

The biggest bone that I've to pick is that cellphones are no longer merely used for conversations - they are used as navigation systems, directories, and what not. So, how do you know if someone you're pulling over is SMSing or just getting directions? I've the TomTom nav app on my iPhone, and I cannot tell you how useful it is. As a consultant who travels every week, and often to new places, it is worth its weight in gold.

The last thing I need is some idiot small town cop pulling me over cause he saw me using my "cellphone".

LA County Sheriff on the cell phone in the car

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta get the cops to stop first...
Last summer I saw an LA county sheriff deputy on the cell phone while driving the cruiser in Marina Del Rey.

Heh

[khallow]

I think we're going to have to "curb" your expectations. Or at least insult you gratuitously for having shown weakness.

The fines are too low in California

[Anonymous Coward]

Not enough of a deterrent even though the $25 fine actually turns into over $100 with court fees, etc. Most people don't know this.

Re:The fines are too low in California

[mousse-man]

100 US-$ is still no deterrent. Go to Singapore.

1200 SGD for one offense, the SGD is maybe 80 US cents. Kind of works.

re: Couldn't agree more!

[King_TJ]

I hate these damn slogans too.... but for me, I think it's their authoritarian "tough guy" attitude with them that irks me the most. We already have FAR too many problems with police officers who think they're "above the law" and that the best way to handle any situation is to get up in people's faces and bark out commands. Why reinforce this police-state B.S. with radio and TV advertising?

I live in Missouri, but being in St. Louis, I'm real close to the Illinois border, so we hear plenty of IL based commercials on our radio stations. The IL state ones were some of the most offensive, along these lines. They really hammered home that whole "We WILL give you a ticket!" and "You WILL be arrested!" thing.....

We live in a land of "control freaks" who want to tell everyone else how to conduct their personal affairs. It's always in the name of a lofty goal like "safety!" too. But the fact is, people are unique. Studies have proven that there is a minority out there who really can effectively multitask talking on a cellphone in their hand and driving. Others realize it's an added distraction, but they're only using their phone the bare minimum essential for what they're doing. (EG. Most courier services I know communicate with their drivers via Nextel phones. It's simply not possible to do the job properly if you don't juggle your phone a little bit with your driving. You need to know if dispatch wants you to stop before you reach a destination to pick up an additional package.)

And as others have said, we seem to just be singling out cellphones because they're everybody's favorite item to bash on right now. (Let's face it... It's easy to observe someone driving while they've got a phone held up to their ear. So many people hate cellphones anyway, because they equate them with their workplace forcing them to use one to "keep them on a leash" and so on, they've got immediate negative reactions to what they're seeing.) But who's to say people's car stereos aren't just as bad a distraction, if not worse? Oh! But wait a minute! We don't WANT to address that possibility, because most of us really LIKE listening to the radio while we drive. Never-mind the fact a person might not be able to hear the siren of an oncoming fire truck or ambulance, right? Don't bother counting all the accidents that happen when a person takes their eyes off the road at the wrong moment to change the station or adjust the radio.....

As for driving while too tired? Yep, that's dangerous too ... but again, different people have different tolerance levels. Some people I know can do really long drives straight-through, and have proven their competence at it by doing it time after time after time, without once having an accident. Others (like myself) would have to stop after about half that distance to get some rest and give my eyes a break. Banning cellphone usage in cars is about as sensible as passing laws requiring you prove you slept a minimum of 8 to 9 hours the previous night, any time you're stopped and checked for "tiredness"!

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having done a fair amount of driving, said locations are generally inaccessable from the freeway.

But then again I find talking on the cell phone keeps me awake and alert (better than falling asleep).

like red-light cameras why not just automate this?

[smoothnorman]

don't get me wrong, i'm not fond of any of these technological constrictions on my free-will to "misbehave" -- but, if we've decided to crack down on cell-phone use while driving why not go all big brother tech and: "you have received this ticket (via the post) because a cell-phone number registered to you was recorded at passing through [3] cell towers in excess of [45 mph]" (the [x] as adjustable parameters depending on the strictness of the constabulary)" ??

Get Hollywood and the networks in on it.

[advocate_one]

get them to stop doing scenes where characters answer or make calls while driving unless they're using a proper voice activated hands-free system. Even those are dangerous, but far less than having one hand up holding the phone to their head.

Mandating a headset can be even more unsafe.

[ZorinLynx]

If I have to answer a quick call while I'm driving, it is MUCH safer for me to simply pick up the phone and hold it to my face, talk, then hang up, than to reach for my bluetooth headset, try to get it on my head and adjusted right, make sure it pairs properly with the phone, then answer the call.

I avoid talking on the phone while I'm driving, but seriously, mandating headset use would make things arguably worse, not better, unless you ALWAYS have the headset on and ready to go, and I'm sure most of us don't. And most cars don't have handsfree speakerphone kits.

Re:Mandating a headset can be even more unsafe.

[DJCacophony]

"reach for my bluetooth headset, try to get it on my head and adjusted right, make sure it pairs properly with the phone, then answer the call." Wow, you are seriously doing it wrong.

Re:Mandating a headset can be even more unsafe.

[Cederic]

If I have to answer a quick call while I'm driving, it is MUCH safer for me to

..stop the fucking car before you answer.

Which part of "Ignore the ringing phone" is so difficult?

Re:Mandating a headset can be even more unsafe.

[cts5678]

That's why you put it in your ear and connect it to your phone while you're stopped. OMGWAFI

Re:Mandating a headset can be even more unsafe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now herein lies the real dilemma. Many is the time I've been at home with guests, and I didn't feel like taking any incoming phone calls. It's my frigging phone, and if I don't want to answer it, I won't. Period. The same thing often happens when I'm alone, oddly enough, and it's not just fapping, it's because I want my time to myself for a while. Of course, I *could* unplug the phone, or code in the signal to divert all incoming messages to an answering service. But I found it's actually REALLY simple to just ignore the phone and let it ring off.

Here's the clincher though. My guests would go ape-shit when it rang and I didn't answer. Especially the chicks. They just can NOT fathom how I could let the phone ring and not answer. It drives them to distraction. Several visitors took to answering the phone themselves out of desperation.

I'm trying hard not to be sexist here, but women in general seem to be physically incapable of not answering a phone IMMEDIATELY. They really need that idle communication so badly - there's an underlying force they can not resist. Or more likely, that they rationalise as being critical.

Now married, I finally managed to convince my wife that if she doesn't genuinely want to have that Sunday evening "compulsory" Mother phone call, then instead of forcing me to lie about her whereabouts or availability, we can simply allow the caller ID to inform us that this is a call that we just do not answer. She can now let it ring off, but it's still a major exercise in will power.

Good luck turning off those syndromes and symptoms. Not going to happen. Whether it's a safe activity or not, the coppers are on to an everlasting source of income for distracted driving tickets.

Re:Ummmm.

[xaxa]

what about highways or motorways?

Wait until you get to the next service area, picnic area, etc. It's not difficult.

"hands-free" is not correct

[HolyChao]

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association website, no state has a ban on hands-free phones. Thus, I suspect the bit about "hands-free phones" is a mistake on the part of the blogger.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

Re:"hands-free" is not correct

[sabre86]

Thanks for the excellent link.

dead zones

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just order the cell phone companies to enforce dead zones near any road where only 911 works, other than that the phone would be disabled.

Re:dead zones

[thebagel]

I don't know about you, but I live very near a road, I work very near a road, and the vast majority of the places I want to go are very near a road.

Re:like red-light cameras why not just automate th

[Rockoon]

So passengers can't use their cell phone?

Re:Ummmm.

[aztektum]

Three times in this last week I've tried to use a cross-walk with the light saying I had to right of way only to almost be hit by some twat blowing through while gabbing on their phone.

Having a cellphone is a privilege, not a fucking right. The right, in this case, is for me to be able to go about my life and not get run over by some self-serving ass.

10-15 years ago before everyone had one, society still worked pretty OK. What's changed? Only people's perception that they're that important they need to be reachable every second of the day.

Re:like red-light cameras why not just automate th

[CyberDragon777]

Bus
Taxi
Other driver

Re:Ummmm.

[Comatose51]

You say that as though somehow using a phone is an integral part of driving. Guess what. A couple of decades ago very few people had phones and they drove fine without them. What is so damn hard about not chatting away or doing something else while directing a multi-ton vehicle? If you really need to talk, pull over, stop the vehicle, and carry on with your conversation. You say it as though we can't easily pull over. People pull over all the time on the highway for emergencies such as flat tires. You don't need special flat tire changing areas to stop your vehicle. If the conversation is not important enough for you to do that, then wait and talk later.

Re:Ummmm.

[Vellmont]

Tell you what, Mr Regulator. Why don't you install "cell phone stops" every 1 mile on the roads, where we can safely pull over and make or receive calls before you tell us that we can't use them.

Are you actually serious? You're really so addicted to making and receiving calls that you feel the need to build special stops "every mile" along the roadside for the express purpose of being able to make a call?

Grow up, and realize you might be out of communication sometimes. If you're such a junkie you can't stand the thought of missing a call for the perhaps 10-15 minutes it might take to pull off to an exit and make your important call.. then you need treatment, not cell phone stops.

Re:like red-light cameras why not just automate th

[Montezumaa]

This idea would cause the U.S. Constitution to start dinging like a damned pinball machine. No government, within the United States, has the authority to monitor a citizen's communications without a warrant or the dumb and Constitutional-violating NSL(National Security Letter). Since the government cannot obtain either until after the fact(ex post facto), or when they have proper cause to show a need for either before an illegal action, then this type of illegal surveillance cannot occur.

Nice try, but it will not happen.

Driving while on the phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly I'll answer a call while driving, but I rarely dial anyone while driving. Of all the time while in the car I spend probably less than 15 minutes a year on the phone. Usually it's a 10-30 second call getting a street address or some kind of landmark to look for, or finding out I need to pick something up to eat since Im late and missed out on the grub...or the "how long till you get here?" "x minutes" hang up.

I can sympathize with the short calls to save you 20+ minutes of going home finding out you need milk and having to go out again situations. But then there are people who constantly on the phone, you'll see them if you have the same commute time everyday. The late teens or early 20s girl who drives the red car and always has her head cocked to one side as she goes down the merging late all the way to it's end and merges into traffic that she holds up as she butts her way into it very abruptly without turn signals or any caution. Or the guy who looks like he's asleep at the wheel because his head looks like it's pressed again the window and he can't seem to keep the truck in a straight line because he's too busy holding the phone against his shoulder and the window. And the hands free guys who gesture with their hands, nod their heads, shake their heads, describe their surroundings to the person on the other end as they drive. Sure they COULD have been singing to the radio, but you know better....the same song went on for 10-15 minutes in this stop and go traffic..and it took him way too long to pull up when the traffic would start moving.

Solutions I see are this: People who are chronically on the phone while they drive, just like a drunk driver should have their license revoked. They are addicted to it and can't stop themselves. If they catch them doing this 2 times, fine them, 3rd time take their license. You can't effectively ban them from having a phone because they could have it in another person's name...buy the throw away phones from a gas station, etc. You can treat them as a drunk driver and act accordingly. This will of course single out people who are holding the phone instead of hands free, because they will have the hand to their head or their head cocked holding the phone in place.....so for hands free.......

They could require all hands free sets have very visible lights on them, or strobe a light that's invisible to the naked eye that the cops traffic dash board cams would pick up on. So they have video proof of the headset being on and active.

I don't particular care for the behavior cell phone usage brings out in people, while driving and not driving. It's annoying to be at the doctor's office and listening to phones beep and boop, ring, have people pick up and sit and talk in the room..loudly. It's not even that it's rude, it's just...........it creates a world of people who can't sit still. It's like they need the constant approval of their friends and peers for everything they do, and it's not just the young...Im seeing people with an easy 20 years on me doing this stuff. Leave the cell phones in the car when you got a doctor's appointment, trust people to watch your kids for an hour...and just relax.

Multi use devices?

[nurb432]

But what if i use my iphone to stream music to my car stereo. last i heard its still legal to change the song you are listening to.

Also, what if its hands free mode, but you hold it in the air?

Compared to seat belt click it or ticket

[nurb432]

I still remember when we were promised that the seat belts laws were not going to be used exclusively to ticket a person and was 'just for our safety'.

Now they have seat belt roadblocks.....

Re:Compared to seat belt click it or ticket

[RapmasterT]

can anyone cite an example of a law passed while being claimed "it's not a primary offense, you can't be pulled over for JUST 'x' " that wasn't subsequently made into a primary offense a handful of years later?

Here in washington state, we've suffered that bit of legislative dishonesty in both the seatbelt AND now the cell phone laws.

The facts are undeniable. Using a cell phone is a distraction, and we can pretend it puts a person on the level of Nazi deathcamp guards, but in the real world it's LESS of a distraction than the myriad of other things people do in the car.

Unless you want eating, talking to passengers, using a radio, looking at things off the side of the roadway, all to be illegal too, then you should seriously have second thoughts about these laws.

Re:Compared to seat belt click it or ticket

[nurb432]

Here they never claimed they *couldn't*, but promised they *wouldn't*, which of course was just to get the law passed. By the time they slowly moved to it being a primary reason and acting on it, people had forgotten the promise, now broken.

Re:Compared to seat belt click it or ticket

[Blakey Rat]

Now they have seat belt roadblocks....

Who is "they"? I've never heard of it.

Re:Compared to seat belt click it or ticket

[Anonymous Coward]

Seat belts are for your safety. You should be wearing them at all times when in a moving vehicle (which means you will have to put it on before you begin moving and take it off after you have stopped moving).

Not wearing a seat belt while driving can affect your ability to drive safely (not simply leave you unprotected in event that you hit something with your vehicle or something else hits you), especially in heavy traffic. If you are driving stupidly (inefficiently) because you aren't wearing a seat belt, I am much more likely to stop your vehicle, get out of mine, grab a tire iron, and beat you mercilessly. Granted, you would already have to be a bad driver with a seatbelt for lack of a seat belt to make you so much worse than other drivers that you become my target; but based on your understanding of why driving without a seat belt leaves you open to the possibility of a ticket makes me think you might fail at lots of things.

Re:Ummmm.

[newdsfornerds]

Yeah. Convenience always trumps safety. Well, except when you want to board an airplane.

Re:Ummmm.

[noidentity]

A Cell phone is a multi-use information device. People call you, you call people, you need directions while driving, call people and tell them you're late, whatever.. People have a virtually unlimted reasons to use them, and those reasons don't go away when they get behind the wheel.

Likewise, a handheld video game is a multi-use entertainment device. People have a virtually unlimited reasons to use them, and those reasons don't go away when they get behind the wheel. There's no reason to ban me from playing video games while driving. I can do it just fine. Why, right now I'm driving while typi

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope I never am on the same road within a mile of where you drive. Sounds like you want to be able to talk while driving. If this bugs you that much, buy a hands free car kit or ear piece. And in case you haven't noticed, most roads do have a shoulder that seems to work just fine for stalled cars so you can use that to make a call. Or park in a parking lot or gas station, since we're never in short supply of those. Wow, you are an idiot for placing convenience over the safety of yourself and others.

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, I'll keep an eye out for those next time I'm on the freeway!

Re:Ummmm.

[kramerd]

Cell phone stops exist every minute or so, we call them highway exists. Like there is a single exit in the United States that doesn't have a gas station, with parking spots?! In city traffic, we call them meters, parking spaces, or places of business, roughly every 10 seconds. If anything is so important that you really must impede traffic and pull over to respond, its called the fucking shoulder of the road. There is absolutely no reason to talk on your phone while in traffic (even if its just you and one car in the distance in New Mexico on the highway).

If I see you using a cell phone while driving, even at a red light, I will get out of my car, grab my baseball bat, shatter your window, and tell you to hang the phone up, because you should know better. I have had police officers witness me shattering windows and not arrest me, because I am in the right on this one. I am not the one driving recklessly, and your shattered window is a lot cheaper than the ticket you deserve.

Any data showing increased accidents this decade?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not question that cell phone use impacts driving ability. What I'm wondering is if anyone has a graph that shows an increase in the number of vehicle accidents over the past ten years (as cell phones became more prevalent). It be that the people driving while talking are the same people causing wrecks before cellphones became prevalent. If I saw a trend of more accidents over time, I would be more likely to buy into the new laws.

Most of the cell phone laws allow use of a hands free device. With that logic they should also ban drinking coffee, changing radio stations, blowing your nose, etc. Cell phones are dangerous because they are distracting, not because drivers use one less hand.

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, society has changed just a little bit since then, or are you still watching your Betamax? Besides which, pulling out of and back into traffic creates hazardous conditions as well, which as far as I know are not studied or even acknowledged by the anti-phone crowd. People pull over for flat tires because it's damned near impossible to keep driving with one--that analogy and logic is so flawed I don't even know where to begin.

Changed cell phone behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year I bought a new car and added an optional hands-free bluetooth connection that sends voice calls through the radio. I did this because I knew I drove worse on those rare occasions when I answered my phone in the car. I'm now completely hands-free-law-compliant - and I find myself talking on the phone ten times more than I ever did before! (Probably not the outcome lawmakers and police were aiming for...)

The awesome part is

[OrwellianLurker]

Shitty drivers will stay shitty, and they will stay on the roads. OTOH, when I pull up to a red light I have to worry about getting a ticket for quickly using my phone while I am stopped OR while I am driving down a highway with little traffic. Somehow I'm allowed to eat, talk to people in my car, smoke cigarettes, change clothes, change the song on my iPod, etc. Obviously while you're driving through a city you shouldn't be using your cell phone though.

Re:The awesome part is

[kramerd]

Somehow I'm allowed to eat, talk to people in my car, smoke cigarettes, change clothes, change the song on my iPod, etc.

None of these are true. You can be pulled over for distracted driving for any of these items (smoking cigarettes might be tough; you might have to be lighting matches to make that one work).

Shitty drivers will stay shitty, and they will stay on the roads. OTOH, when I pull up to a red light I have to worry about getting a ticket for quickly using my phone while I am stopped OR while I am driving down a highway with little traffic.

You shouldn't make a call at a red light or while driving on the highway, even if there is no traffic. If you use your phone at a red light, you are a shitty driver, because you are the jackass that sits there for 10 seconds after the light turns green in a left turn lane when the signal only lasts for 12 seconds. Worse, you don't even realize that you are a shitty driver. Buy a fucking bluetooth headset so that you have both hands to control your vehicle. There really is not a time where you have a phone call that you have to take while you are driving. Stop at the next exit and call them back. If it is an emergency, pull over to the shoulder of the road, turn on your warning lights, and call them back when you are not traveling in a multi-thousand pound machine at high rates of speed.

Re:The awesome part is

[OrwellianLurker]

Where did I say make a call? I said "quickly using my phone while I am stopped." This normally entails checking for any missed calls or text messages and sometimes sending a quick message if I have time. I am always very good about paying attention to the lights (I try to watch traffic and I know when my light is about to turn green when I see cars stopping). If you genuinely think people are pulled over for "distracted driving" on a fairly regular basis (outside your area), then you are wrong. I have never seen or heard of this happening. I frequently see people driving distracted. Are you from the UK or something?

When fun is outlawed, only outlaws will have fun

[flaptrap]

If it's okay for the trained police force to communicate in any manner while driving then what makes it dangerous for the ordinary citizen to do so?

Who was it mentioned that this trained police force has an average IQ of 95. And you trust them to remember just how that gun went off.

Just another example of political sharks creating their own feeding frenzy. We wouldn't want someone in a car talking about the police would we.

Of course, I used a headset on the cell phone - until the phone's plug stopped working - but common sense is one thing and spinning the opposite from fear, uncertainty and doubt into a criminal penalty is, um, not what a 'free' country should be about.

Re:Ummmm.

[Bing Tsher E]

It's impossible, for the twitch generation, who were raised on an NES.

Re:Ummmm.

[zarathruster]

Multi-ton vehicle? Jesus wtf do you drive, a tank? My car weighs 1700 lbs.

Syracuse Police

[AVryhof]

So....who will be enforcing this?

I have personally seen Syracuse police driving around yammering on their cell phones. Hell, I have seen it in just about every surrounding area as well.

I'm glad summer is finally getting here, so I can continue to be a good citizen and roll my window down so the other drivers can hear me shouting at them.

Singapore

[Anonymous Coward]

A first-timer convicted of phone and drive offence shall be liable to 12 demerit points and a maximum fine of up to $1000/- or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both. He/She may also be disqualified from driving. The offender's handphone and SIM card will be seized to facilitate investigation. These may be forfeited by the court upon conviction

What constitutes HP driving:
        * the vehicle is in motion; and
        * the driver is holding on to the handphone with one hand; while his other hand is holding the steering wheel and
        * the driver is communicating with any person with that handphone. .

Re:Ummmm.

[man_of_mr_e]

You're seriously suggesting that people get off the highway (even at night) and pull over to some random, possibly highly dangerous area and make a call?

By the way, I grew up in Saint Paul. I know it well, and there are few places I would feel comfortable telling my wife or child to pull over anywhere near any freeway exit in Saint Paul. Offhand, possibly the U of M exit, but that's about it..

No way i'd want them to pull over at Snelling or Lexington or Dale or any exit downtown or anywhere on the east side until at least Little Canada.. Virtually every freeway exit in Saint Paul is in a dangerous or semi-dangerous area.

Re:Ummmm.

[man_of_mr_e]

Don't be ridiculous, a video game requires constant attention, and it's way too dangerous to be distracted by something as mundane as driving while video gaming.

But, who cares?

[zarathruster]

1 in 20 crashes involves a cell phone, 41000 people died in car crashes last year, so maybe 2050 deaths a year are caused by cell phones. Who cares? I am tired of pet causes like this that demonize slightly risky behavior like driving buzzed and bringing a knife to school, you know, behaviors that make life exciting and worth living. So you might get killed by some dumbass on his phone, if you were a decent driver you should be able to avoid it. I know I avoid getting killed by some prick in an SUV at least twice a week.

Re:But, who cares?

[kramerd]

I am tired of pet causes like this that demonize slightly risky behavior like driving buzzed and bringing a knife to school, you know, behaviors that make life exciting and worth living. So you might get killed by some dumbass on his phone, if you were a decent driver you should be able to avoid it. I know I avoid getting killed by some prick in an SUV at least twice a week.

So...

You think avoiding drunk SUV drivers is the meaning of life. Haven't you ever had sex or gone fishing or eaten a great meal at a fine restaurant or gone to see a live broadway production or entered a live televised poker tournament in vegas or read a really good book or sat in front of fireplace on a cold winter's night with someone you love and just talked or gone to the beach and made a new friend? There are so many, many things to do that make life worth living that either don't involve huge amounts of (slightly) risky behaviour or much importantly don't create that risk for others. This is the issue and why drunk driving is demonized (if a police officer can tell that you are buzzed driving, its drunk driving. No two ways about it, you should go to jail for it). The point of school isn't to get a bunch of youngerish people in one place so someone can bring a gun or a knife and maybe hurt or kill a bunch of people. It sure as hell isn't why I went to school, and if I thought for a second it was a remote possibility I would have left (which I eventually did, and not because of graduation).

1 in 20 crashes involves a cell phone, 41000 people died in car crashes last year, so maybe 2050 deaths a year are caused by cell phones.

Logical failure; in order to assume that death rate in car crashes where cell phone use is involved is approximately equal to the death rate in the population of all car crashes would in fact have to assume that cell phones do not cause crashes and that cell phone use is not related to the severity of those crashes. The number of crashes due to cell phone use is not related to the number of deaths involved in those crashes. That 41k deaths is within 30 days, by the way (and is for 2007, not last year). Meanwhile, there were over 10 million vehicle accidents. Each year, how many people on cell phones are hitting parked cars and driving off, not even recognizing they have hit someone? I bet its more than 41000. Each year, how many people on their cell phones are sitting at green lights for 5, 10, 20 seconds, until the light turns yellow again because they aren't paying attention? I bet its more than 10 million. Meanwhile, what about the 15-16-17 year old learning how to drive on their learner's permit? The British expat learning to drive on the right (correct) side of the road? Should they die because some dumbass is talking on their cellphone? Should they get rear ended while stopped at a red light by some dumbass on their cell phone? Should they have to swerve to avoid some dumbass on their cell phone? As a good driver, I shouldn't have to, but I do, all the damn time.

Re:But, who cares?

[zarathruster]

The study I looked at was 41,000 deaths for all of 2007, not just one month. I would venture to say that last year would be higher, but not significantly. Perhaps there were crashes where multiple people died, so even though there were 41,000 deaths maybe there were 38,000 crashes or something like that. So, as far as my logic goes, this was my on-the-fly reasoning: 1 in 20 crashes involves a cell phone. All crashes where someone died were still crashes and we should be able to reasonably say are subject to the 1 in 20 rule that has been established for all crashes whether someone died or not. 41,000 divided by 20 gives me 2050 deaths by cell phone. I am, of course, not assuming any more than a correlation between cell phone use and a crash, as you pointed out. There are lots of other distractions, again, so why choose cell phones? It's a pet cause. As I said, I avoid accidents all the time but usually by someone who isn't even on the phone. As far as meaning goes, I think you can tell that my words had a hint of sarcasm, obviously I don't think that avoiding drunk SUV drivers is the meaning of life, but I sure do get a lot of enjoyment bitching about it to my friends when it happens. But I was really referencing this quest for safety and security in a less than evitable world and how the illusion of safety that these laws give us are only hurting us. All those things you listed that give meaning are exactly what I am advocating, and my examples were merely hyperbole. We need to live dangerously, and this means taking risks. :)

Re:Ummmm.

[Atario]

Guess what else. Having passengers in the car and conversing with them is the exact equivalent of talking hands-free. Are we going to ban talking with one's passengers next?

Before the inevitable response comes of "but the people in the car with you see what's happening and stop talking when you need to pay attention to driving": Apparently, your passengers are way more attentive (and considerate) than mine.

Technological solution is likely better.

[miracle69]

Wouldn't an easier to implement solution be to kill calls where the cell towers determine that the phone is doing xx mph?

Still would be annoying - because passengers can use cell phones - but it would be much more effective at stopping cell phone use while driving.

California has Cellphone laws on the books as well

[gearloos]

You can tell by all the people looking up the laws on google as they drive with smartphone in hand. read: It doesn't deter at all. I see many people doing stupid things while on a cell phone daily on my commute. I am mainly talking about the swerving lane to lane and doing 35mph in a 55mph zone on the local highways.

Federal regulators?

[EmagGeek]

I thought the law prohibited using federal resources to enforce State Law..

Re:Ummmm.

[Smauler]

In the UK there are plenty of motorways with very restricted exits, and very few service stations. The M11 is about 60 miles long, has about 10 junctions (some of them 1 way, so if you leave you can't get back on), and 1 service station. If you don't know which exit is ok to leave at, you can end up going cross-country for 10 miles.

Disingenuous

[Protoslo]

Take a look at some data on the seat belt laws: Maine has the highest fines and primary enforcement (like NY), and has the same seat belt usage rate as Ohio, which has secondary enforcement (only ticketed in conjunction with another primary offense). Most primary states (though by no means all) seem to have higher compliance rates, but this could very well be due to education. I wear a seat belt, not because it's the law, rather because it causes a very small discomfort in return for substantial savings in crash safety. In fact, if it weren't that I don't fancy bouncing around in a car like a pinball (from the back seat anyway), I wouldn't belt in just on the (arguably quixotic) principle of the thing (what I do in my own damn car, etc.).

As for cellphone use...well, I think that dialing a cellphone (or messing with radio/GPS) is best done while stopped or on the highway in light traffic, since it can easily cause me (and others I have watched) to drift out of the lane (or rear-end someone). Texting requires looking at your phone (not the road), so it is easy to see how that can be problematic. Talking on the phone, though, doesn't seems to be worse for my driving than yelling at senators (to myself) on the radio (CSPAN: XM 132!) or spacing out in a quiet car (though it may be the opposite in that case--I'm not convinced that my hindbrain doesn't drive better than my forebrain, though it can't follow new directions worth a damn). I know for a fact is is less deleterious than eating Taco Bell drive-through.

Perhaps I'm just benefiting from the low baseline inherent in my elite status as one of the ~10% below-average drivers. Cellphone laws make me leery of talking on the phone in front off cops, that's about it. Besides, the laws all further set me against them by making an arbitrary hands vs. hands-free distinction (though it is effectively impossible to prove without a subpoena that someone with an integral hands-free kit is chatting on the phone).

I would be very surprised if cellphone tickets made motorists stop talking, any more than speed limits make motorists stop speeding. The perceived "cost" of not speeding and/or talking on the phone is greater than the perceived cost of seat belt use. Whether it is right or not, most people see seat belt use as logical, while they see phone/speeding law as government imposition (and too inconvenient to obey). Others (i.e. sanctimonious assholes), of course, take perverse pride in punctiliously following all such laws and then bragging about it later in internet forums.

It is unclear to me how they can be "spending" $300k/state on this initiative when the states (or cities?) get $100/ticket. It sounds more like they are milking the Federal (state?) government for funds...because they can. I suppose it could be spun as the opportunity cost of not giving out $350 (NY) speeding tickets, assuming it isn't much easier to find a talker than a speeder (as it certainly is in an urban area).

What about other uses?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an iPhone, and I'm often glancing at the map as I drive around a city. Isn't that a legitimate use? What if I were consoling a map book in my hand? Is that illegal as well?

I don't talk on the phone while driving without a headset, but I think there are legitimate uses for our devices while we drive.

Breakdown lane for phone calls = bad idea

[ScottCooperDotNet]

People pull over all the time on the highway for emergencies such as flat tires.

Wouldn't a significant increase in breakdown lane usage increase accidents and deaths?

The number of lane changes required would also slow down traffic. There would certainly be people rushing to pull over suddenly to answer calls as well. And then add the rubberneckers looking to see why someone is pulled over.

One of the local highways, Interstate 93 north of Boston, has sanctioned use of the breakdown lanes during rush hour to add a 5th lane. So people in on that road wouldn't be able to pull over for that, unless they're driving off the road completely.

Rather than have the police target and fine people for this, why not have them go after distracted and poor driving in general?

These are things I see on a regular basis on Massachusetts highways:

Slow merging onto the highway, partially due to short merge areas.

2/3 of drivers do not use turn signals to change lanes.

Passing lane hogs who are not aware the vehicles behind them who wish to pass.

Would-be NASCAR drivers who do 8 lane changes in a mile to get ahead of everyone - by 4 car-lengths worth.

Idiots who believe CSI is going to show up over their fender-bender and so they don't move their vehicles out of the way. These people should be fined if they don't move.

Breakdown lanes not being used to keep traffic moving when roadwork is being done. There's no reason it can't be used, especially multiple State Police are used on significant projects.

The Big Dig just moved the bottlenecks from Boston to elsewhere.

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I see you using a cell phone while driving, even at a red light, I will get out of my car, grab my baseball bat, shatter your window, and tell you to hang the phone up, because you should know better. I have had police officers witness me shattering windows and not arrest me, because I am in the right on this one. I am not the one driving recklessly, and your shattered window is a lot cheaper than the ticket you deserve.

Internet Tough Guy, much?

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't be because the cops are self-righteous vigilantes, like you? I hope you get run over the next time you assault someone.

Too young?

[LostMyBeaver]

I saw it yesterday. Not only are they too dumb to pull over to do it, but they're apparently also too dumb to use google maps

Not that good at math, but...

[LostMyBeaver]

In our current police state (not just the U.S., but most of the western world now) where the police departments have cameras all over the cities and traffic systems, can't they just have 2-3 people sitting at a console, taking snap shots of drivers with their phones to their ears and clicking a mouse button to send them a ticket in the mail?

Seriously, it seems to me, a single person with a 30" screen should be able to monitor 16 locations simultaneously without even trying. Using simple motion detection on each camera, it would be possible to make sure each of the 16 windows on their screen could be guaranteed to have traffic on them. As a result, they could probably be sending out 2-3 tickets every minute. At $200 a ticket, that would yield about $500 a minute for $30,000 an hour, $180,000 a day for at least a while.

So they're willing to chip in a whole $200,000 to make this happen? Are you serious? I mean, this could be the biggest cash cow in the history of traffic duty. Forget the policemans' ball, a single full time employee could raise more money for the police department than all the traffic cops in a state combined. Eventually when people start getting better at hiding their phones from the cameras (you don't think they'll stop doing it do you?) people will be cautious most of the time and simply expect they're being watched.

I just can't figure out if the article also talks about banning hands free use of phones as well. Are they seriously saying they want to simply ban cell phone use while driving altogether? It won't happen. It's a waste of time. If they want get people to stop holding phones up to their ears, they have to agree to the hands free or people will just prefer to pay the tickets.

Re:Not that good at math, but...

[Chirs]

"I just can't figure out if the article also talks about banning hands free use of phones as well. Are they seriously saying they want to simply ban cell phone use while driving altogether?"

If they're not, they should. Pretty much all the studies show that driving while talking on a handsfree phone is almost as distracting as using a handset.

Re:Not that good at math, but...

[stewbacca]

In our current police state (not just the U.S., but most of the western world now) where the police departments have cameras all over the cities and traffic systems, can't they just have 2-3 people sitting at a console, taking snap shots of drivers with their phones to their ears and clicking a mouse button to send them a ticket in the mail?

There are enough violations every day on my commute that I often wish I were a beat cop. I'd write so many tickets, I'd meet my monthly quota the first week. We don't need cameras--we need cops who actually enforce the laws against the violations that happen right in front of them (I've seen people run stop signs and red lights right in front of cops).

All cars by law must be sold with handsfree

[LostMyBeaver]

It should be required by law that all vehicles (including used ones passing through car lots) must be equipped with bluetooth hands free and steering wheel controls. The money gained from ticketing phone users should have a part set aside to sponser a program where all vehicle inspection centers will be required to pair telephones to car hands-free units either free of charge or for a nominal fee of $5 or so.

In order to renew a car's tags, the car owner must have documentation that a bluetooth hands-free is in-fact installed correctly in the vehicle.

Does this punish a shit-load of people who don't talk in their cars on their phones? No. It's a tax that makes it safer for them to drive on the roads with the idiots who do. (I'm one of those idiots, but I have a handsfree).

I would very much like to see something that requires stereo integration as well. Some sort of modular system that would make the phone communicate with a console mounted screen so that people who want to change which song they're listening to don't have to dig in their purses or pockets to break out their phones to do it.

You need better phone hacking skillz ;-)

[jonaskoelker]

Write an app for your phone that picks up the call and plays back a wav file...

(That's why I got the Nokia N900: so I can hack it to do this, and say "I'm sleeping, press 5 to wake me up", and ...)

Re:Ummmm.

[dkleinsc]

Guess what else: every study that's been done on the subject corroborates the argument that passengers are at worst a non-factor while cell conversations are a significant distraction. That's why it's an "inevitable response": your anecdotal argument doesn't beat actual evidence.

Your passengers don't have to be considerate, they have to value their lives. Which means that they will help if they are: (a) sober, (b) awake, and (c) more than about 8 years old. Also, even if your passengers are stupid and no help, if the passengers in 9 out of every 10 other vehicles are a help then there's still much more justification for banning hands-free and not banning speaking to passengers.

Go for it

[lsatenstein]

Here in Montreal Quebec, we have shared insurance. Part of our driver's permit includes an insurance fee to cover, as some drivers are not covered and therefore the province ends up footing the bill. The result is that the Insurance companies cover what the Province does not. The province put in place a law about two years ago, for cell phone use while driving. Both hands must be free. Ergo, the earpiece for communication with the cellphone via bluetooth. The fine, $137, does not include demerit points, but it should. Result-- A measured drop in minor car accidents (fender benders and more serious physical damage) and in injuries. Consideration is being given to legislate that the ubiquitous car radio needs controls to allow it to be adjusted without needing to manipulate on dash radio knobs or buttons.

Cell phone logs?

[phorm]

How easy is it for a customer to obtain proof that they were or were not texting at a given time?

Texting might be a bit more difficult, but in terms of actual calls my bill has logs of the time, duration, and destination #. They record the amount of texts I've made for billing, and don't tell me when or to whom, but that may be information you could request or supeona.

Start by...

[originalLackey]

Issuing tickets to the police. I see more cops talk on their cell phones while driving, (on duty), than civilians.

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies show that talking with your passenger or singing along with the radio while driving is equivalent to driving drunk after a triple lobotomy and being kicked in the nards. Film at 11.

Officers on Cells

[Coren22]

How many officers have you seen chatting on their cell phone? I know every officer I see driving around is on their phone. Maybe they need to start fining all these reckless police officers before it becomes a problem.

So yeah, when the officer pulling you over sets down his phone to give you a ticket, what do you say?

Personally, I have handsfree built into the car and have not had an issue.

Re:Ummmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your car weighs 1700 lbs, but once you fill it with people...

Re:Ummmm.

[kramerd]

This is amusing...my OP has gone from interesting to informative to troll...