"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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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."

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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".

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: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.

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: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: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: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.