"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

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

[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."

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: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: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: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

[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.