Slashdot Mirror
Driver Using Two Cell Phones Gets Year-Long Driving Ban
coondoggie writes "This guy is the poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned in more places. According to press out of the United Kingdom, a man who was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another has been banned from driving for a year. Initial reports said that the driver, David Secker, was apparently using his knees to steer the car, an accusation he tried to refute in court."
Unless of course you are talking on one phone and texting on another. I think there should be jail time for this behavior regardless of whether they injured someone.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
And the sad part is ... the nanny state will use this an example of why we "need" extremely restrictive laws regulating how and when cell phones and other devices may be used while inside a car. A couple of morons with bad habits are going to ruin it for the vast majority who know better than to take their hands off the wheel.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Just a year?
so it should be enough to ban him from using cell phones.
Dale Earnhardt Sr. drove with his knees while wiping mud off his Windshield.
And he won the race! Or something.
"This guy is the poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned in more places."
"was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another
If we have to make an abnormally stupid person a poster boy for average people, shouldn't he be the poster boy for why using multiple cell phones in a car should be banned in more places?
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
And they say men can't multitask
I used to have a coworker who complained a lot about the price of car insurance. Then at some point he complained that he could not find insurance at all. I found it bizarre because I had no problem whatsoever with car insurance and we were practically neighbours.
Apparently he was "extremely unlucky" (his words) because idiots kept stopping without warning in front of him on the street so he got in accidents all the time. Obviously these accidents had nothing to do with the fact that while driving he was also watching movies on his portable DVD because he "wanted to keep his mind busy". I also remember him submitting a bug fix from his laptop while driving.
On a completely unrelated matter: this guy recently went back to visit his hometown... in China.
lucm, indeed.
So the poster child for the argument that cell phone use while driving should be banned is a man who successfully used two simultaneously while driving with his knees?
This story reminds me of a remarkable picture from failblog....
better poster child
Hands off the steering wheel while driving on the highway was against the law before cheap cells phones. That existing law should be sufficient to bust the offender, no new laws required.
I'm curious if his car had an accident avoidance system? If the thought is TXTing is unsafe due to the accidents it cause wouldn't the new "accident avoidance systems" basically solve that?
In the end people will always do things that are distracting while driving, so the question is, how can technology solve the issue?
Certainly sounds like he's much more coordinated than me!!
a man who was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another has been banned from driving for a year.
If he managed to pull that off without crashing or injuring someone, my guess is he (would be/is) actually a fairly safe driver. I couldn't do that. Maybe they should get this guy to teach others how to actually drive. Minus the phones, of course. Couldn't possibly make most drivers worse, anyways. /p.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Doesn't the second cell phone cancel out the first, leaving the driver undistracted?
That you dont even have your license.
How do I know, because if you did you would know what it's like to almost be taken out by some complete dingbat talking on the phone and not watching where he's bloody well driving.
Damned right they should clamp down on this hard, IMHO they didn't come down on him hard enough, if there was ever a reason for the courts to crush someone's car this is it, and make sure the moron's phones are in the centre console.
However the saddest part is, this punishment will not stick, he'll be back on the road in a few weeks with an exemption license (whatever the UK equivalent is), the ruling overturned as being unfair or just plain driving illegally. This moron is going to kill someone and as sods law would have it, not himself and you cry "nanny state", now that is sad.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
What about an IQ test for drivers? What about yanking out the radio for people on the lower end of the scale?
There are some people out there who can't talk and drive at the same time. There are people who are so dumb they get their ashtray confused with the window.
Maybe we should take those people's licenses?
Fight Spammers!
The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous. These people should not be given their licenses back, because they won't learn. Some time ago I mentioned in a journal entry here a similar dipshit who did a similar thing in MN - 80mph the wrong way down the road while texting. To the cop it looks like a drunk driver and from a public safety standpoint it is just as bad. Both should be mandatory felonies on the first offense.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm *so* tired of this "ban cellphones in the car" crusade!
This guy's behavior was obviously reckless and stupid - but that doesn't mean the ANSWER is to ban the devices. I've regularly used a cellphone in my vehicle for YEARS and never really had an issue with it. I've had a total of two accidents in the last 5 years,and you know what? Both times, people rear-ended me and it was clearly not my fault whatsoever. (The first time, I simply came to a stop on a 30MPH road where a guy was making a left turn into a shopping plaza entrance and a woman behind me in her minivan didn't stop. The second time, traffic came to a sudden stop on the interstate, and I stopped in time, but a guy behind me in a pickup truck had worn tires and wasn't able to stop completely.)
I always use bluetooth hands-free kits these days, but I used to simply hold the handset in one hand and that was doable too, though admittedly slightly less safe than a hands-free kit, simply because you can't keep both hands on the wheel while holding one. I don't text while driving, since that's pretty clearly a bad idea.
This whole problem comes down to people needing to use some common sense, and perhaps needing some awareness training. One has to develop a subconscious awareness that anything related to the cellphone is of only secondary priority to driving the vehicle. EG. If I suddenly run into a difficult traffic situation, I tend to tune out the person I was talking to for a little while, to focus on the road instead. Afterwards, I'll simply apologize, telling them I had to deal with some traffic and ask if they could please repeat whatever they were saying. If I'm holding a cellphone and suddenly find it's hindering me from making a turn I need to make, I'll just let go of the phone. It's better to interrupt a phone call suddenly and have to hassle with finding where the phone fell under your seat, after you pull over to the side, than get in a wreck because you didn't want to let go of it!
I suspect if this was actually taught as part of drivers' ed, the cellphone problem would cease to be a real problem.
If this guy gets his license suspended for a year for potentially causing an accident, why does someone who ACTUALLY causes an accident get nothing?
I understand the importance of preventive justice, but it seems like the person that actually causes an accident should automatically be at a higher crime than someone who potentially will cause one.
"David Secker, was apparently using his knees to steer the car, an accusation he tried to refute in court."
What a clever dick!
David Secker, was apparently using his knees to steer the car, an accusation he tried to refute in court.
If he did not want them to think he was driving with his knees when his hands were clearly unavailable, what the hell did he want to convince them he was using to grip the wheel ?
Nullius in verba
The driver was also driving without insurance which would have helped to get the driving ban.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Indeed! A person who was skillfully using two phones at once and didn't cause an an accident is certainly the "poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned." Not causing an accident is clearly evidence of how, um, accident-prone cell phone use while driving makes people!
Liberty in your lifetime
I used to drive with my knees while stabbing the passenger and getting blood all over the windshield making it impossible to see out of. Sometimes I would take their chopped off hands and put them on the wheel then drive that way... but NEVER WHILE ON A PHONE, that's just dangerous, it could hurt people!
This guy should be banned from using his mobile phone for a year.
Back in the late eighties, before all these fancy gadgets came into being, I had (to my eternal amazement) the luck to witness a woman driving 75 mph on 285 west of Atlanta in bumper-to-bumper traffic reading a book. We're talking five lanes full of writhing idiots jockeying for position in a rush-hour race to get there first. That road was (and definitely still is) a horror story in progress. It was only a couple months before that I saw a car wrecked on the median, propped sideways on the concrete median divider, its engine block a good 150 feet down the road. Seriously, they just flat could not stop rush hour traffic to clean up the car, and I suppose an ambulance had taken the corpse(s) away previously. They'd have to wait for a break in the traffic at about 2 AM to get the car and its engine out of there.
A book, for you youngins, is a stack of paper bound together with static text on each piece; when reading one, you are confronted with one to two thousand words at a time, and the words are all longhand. So, for the guy dealing with a couple hundred or so characters of text messages while yakking on the phone -- heh.
There truly is nothing new under the sun.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
This guy is the poster boy for why cell phone usage in cars should be banned in more places.
Shouldn't the poster boy be someone who caused an accident? Who was in charge of the nomination process? Surely there is someone out there who ran into a school bus full of special needs children while texting, or something.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Getting rear ended means it is something totally not your fault.
However I've AVOIDED several rear-end accidents that would also not have been my fault, simply by always checking to see if people behind me seem to be aware I'm stopping while braking. If not, I evaluate options and avoid them as best I can - twice now by going into the shoulder or median, a few times through quick lane changes even if it meant missing a turn.
You really should not take you attention away from ALL parts of the road, even if something is technically "not your fault" an accident sucks and if you can avoid it safely then why not?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As it has been proven that driving while using a cell phone is at least as dangerous as driving drunk, it should be illegal for the driver of a motor vehicle to use a cell phone unless the vrhical is safely parked! EVERTWHERE!
fine get the ass hat cop that is 2 inches from my bumper running a freaking windows terminal at the posted 70Mph speed limit
So, a thought came to mind - should law enforcement be driving with laptops on while in motion? I don't see any problem while at a stop light or when pulled over, but how about while cruising along? Perhaps they have strict rules about it, but just a thought.
Without insurance and driver licenses, all you tards would be forced to the Small Claims arena of the County Court to answer to the ACTUAL DAMAGES caused by your non-regulated right of way. In there, nothing is an accident: it's the result of your decision or investment of your time, good or bad, you are stuck with it to pay-down and you can't blame an insurance company to pay it down for you on a payment plan to re-imburses them.
On the road, there are collissions not accidents: where two bodies sharing a right of way both COLLIDE equally, an exchange where if properly measured then there is no lawsuit that can re-imburse both of you harming eachoters share of the right of way on the road. Whether or not you both agreed to collide with another, it was not an accident: it was an equal exchange of damages. This wouldn't be a problem if these expensive cars stopped sharing the roads of normal people, because normal people are only concerned with helping restore one-anothers car's fitness and ability to travel while the minority only drive cars for the non-productive luxury with aesthetics of a machine that has no foundation in workmanship but a craft of delicate art that isn't durable.
If the road crews would only stop paving the roads, then there would be natural speedlimits, and nothing could regulate you into poverty, but instead the Admiralty on Land military occupation forces everyone to register and be regulated by exorbitant punitive fines as to construe everyone into the perview of that kind of commerce.
Google the Staturoy laws "All Roads are Open as a Matter of Right to Public Vehicular Travel."
This guy was committing attempted murder really.. He knew perfectly well that while speaking on the phone his concentration was not as good, and especially if he was looking at another phone while doing that.. So he didn't have proper control of the car due to not having hands on the steering wheel, and he didn't look at the road..
He was trying to kill someone, and should go to jail for a decade or two..
Also it's amazing how they still think it's the same thing to talk on the phone while driving, as it is to eat an apple or smoke.. I can say for a fact, without any research necessary, that concentrating on watching a movie, or anything else is a whole lot more difficult while talking on the phone, than while eating an apple or smoking.
The big mistake a lot of commenters seem to be making is in thinking they have some kind of right to be anything less than as-safe-as-possible when lives other than their own are concerned, for their own convenience or something it seems. When you are putting others' lives at risk in any potential way, you have no right to be anything other than safe, because every person on the planet has the right to live their life without interference from others.
we all gotta die some time
We all gotta kill someone sometime too, right?
I know I am being trolled, but still!
I have no problem with the added risk of driving with a cell phone. Driving risky to begin with, and the phone is well-within many other risks that are far worse -- like improperly maintained vehicles, poor drivers, ill drivers, and poor conditions. The problem is the same problem as with most problems. People forget that they can solve the problems.
Banning it is not the solution.
There's a small indicator on my licence that says I must wear corrective lenses in order to drive.
What we need to do is to train people to drive while on the phone. Driving is no where near as dangerous has dozens of other things that we do every year. No one wonders if Mario Andretti can drive while talking on the radio at 300+. We fly, we skydive, we scuba dive, we bungee jump, risk money, we carry children, we play with fire.
There are no walls between lanes on the highway. It's risky; we get it.
What I want is very simple. I want the exact same road test that you took to get your licence in the first place. And I want the option to take the same test while using my phone. If I pass, I want another little indicator on my licence that says I'm permitted to use my phone in that way while driving -- because I've proven that I can, the same way I've proven that I can drive in the first place.
Certainly, not everyone would pass. Perhaps I wouldn't. But I'd have the opportunity to train for it. And that's the point.
Instead, what I see now is doubly stupid. I see husbands talking to wives, hands-free so it's legal; then something happens on the road that requires her to shut up. But he won't say that to his wife. And if he does, she still won't shut up. The alternative would have been to say nothing, drop the phone from his hand, and go from medium attension to full attension in 1.5 seconds. And since no human being can be at full attension for more than a few minutes -- life guards train for years to be able to reach 20 minutes maximum -- that's pretty good.
Now look, I give. In a sunny blizzard, in an old mini-van, with loud children in the back seat, the phone would be to omuch. But on a dry road, with inifinite visibility, in a modern sports car, with no children, and a calm passenger, if you still need your entire focus, then you sholudn't be driving in the first place.
So there exists a threshhold in the middle, certainly. But it's not at the ban-all-phones end.
It'd be a busy job I'm sure. There'd be probably dozens of people to punch in the face every day, all across the country. But at the end of the day I'd still feel like I had the best job ever.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Like this http://imgur.com/gallery/9ilRf ?
Of course you don't need your knees to steer a vehicle when you are busy with two mobile phones. Just look at this bus driver who is talking on one phone and configuring a second phone, all the while steering a bus (public transport) with his elbows.
You should be stopped for driving while impaired, not for driving after drinking alcohol. The use of a specific limit - 0.8%, or 0.5%, or whatever - is a poor substitution for plain old good judgement. Some people are impaired while *sober* (like my grandmother, who was allowed to keep her driver's license far, far too long), others are fine at 0.1% BAC, or with a phone growing out of their ear.
Really, if you are sensible, what is the problem? Can't have two hands on the wheel? Watch anyone who drives a stick in city traffic - they usually keep one hand on the shifter. Can't talk while driving? How about with the other passenger. Worse: what if you drive a stick *while* talking to your passenger? Oh no! Now, talking on the phone *while* driving a stick - that is a problem, because you haven't got three hands.
The gp is absolutely right. Beware the the culture of zero tolerance, of substituting strict enforcement of rules for common sense and good judgement.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I mean, the problem with people using their phones while driving isn't an issue of where their hands are. It's an issue of how much of their attention is on the road, and how quickly a distracted driver can react to, say, an oncoming minivan.
I think that's something most (all?) of us can agree on.
But it goes without saying that if the driver was simultaneously using 2 headsets to make calls (which is pretty impressive, in itself), that most people would not object to it, and it certainly wouldn't be illegal.
Clearly this driver is going to be very distracted, and if the driver of a minivan lost control and veered into his lane, he wouldn't be able to react (a) quickly or (b) safely.
So what is it about hands-free phones that makes people thing that they're somehow safer? And of course, by "safer", I mean "slightly less dangerous".
I think the idea that banning cell phone use while driving is a bad idea. I've done it for years without a problem. Thankfully, I have hands free in the car now so I don't have to have the debate, but if you drive with the proper mindset, you won't have a problem.
Put the phone down during dangerous intersections, be mindful of your speed (both too slow and too fast) and don't lean on your elbow when on the phone and always keep your attention on the road and your car. The conversation always comes last: you can always ask someone to repeat what they said.
I just love how absolute you fanatics are about cell phone use and driving. Good drivers can handle it. Bad drivers simply cannot. I'm at least intelligent enough to acknowledge that not all drivers are created equal, and as such, multitasking affects us all differently.
I can drive and talk on my cell phone at the same time. Know why? Because my brain is larger than that of a chicken. I am so tired of being punished for the stupidity of the majority. If I want to use my damn cell phone while driving--I shouldn't be punished for doing so.
... then what body part did he use?
in a country where it's perfectly possible to live without a car, this term is far too short. He should never be allowed behind the wheel on a public road again.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Never mind banned for a year, this moron should be banned from driving for life and be jailed.
worse than trolled, you were pulled in by a spammer account trying to lend legitimacy to another spammer accounts spam.
and that hasn't much spam in it.
If you can't stab a passenger to death with one hand, it's time to go back to Serial Killer Kindergarten.
The man should've got felony reckless driving as a charge...and gone to prison for 5-10.
In the past year I have actually seen A) a guy on a harley in rush hour traffic in our city center holding a cell phone with his left hand (ie the clutch) while riding 15 mph in traffic. B) a guy on a souped up moped going 45-50mph on a limited access road texting.
* neither one had on a helmet - as permitted by South Carolina law. We are trying our darnest to weed out the gene pool.
cell phone use in cars should be banned is a dangerous goal. In every location that has banned cell phone use while driving has seen an increase of accidents. Car accident statistics are the proof. The main reason the increase in accidents is that many people try to visually try to hide their cell phone use - now the drivers hide their cell phones so they have to take their eyes off the road and hands off the wheels (often for long periods of time) now.
If someone is causing problems because they are on a cell phone then that is careless/reckless driving and there are already laws covering that.
BTW: maybe we should ban kids in cars as any parent will tell you unruly kids in the back seat are far more distracting that any number of cells phones you might be using.
The Nanny State tries to protect you from your own stupidity.
This is showing the need for the state to protect OTHERS from your stupidity. That is not nannyism. It's a perfectly legitimate role of the government.
I saw a woman drive while eating a bowl of cereal milk and all. When she was finished, she poured the excess milk out at a traffic light. I had to laugh......
What I want to know is, what was a *man* doing caught driving a Vauxhall (aka: Opel) Tigra?!
If you are seen driving a pink Nissan Micra convertible, everyone knows that you've borrowed the other half's car.
But, to be caught driving a Tigra (or Ford Ka/StreetKa, for that matter), is enough that you should be required to hand your 'man' card in. Status revoked.
I hear someone took a double-dose of his prescribed oxycodone and almost killed himself. He's the poster child for why we should ban all painkillers.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I really think that's the truth. The issue is not one of talking on the phone while driving, it's having to drive at all when one would rather be on the phone or sleeping or whatever else. I really look forward to the day when I can get in the car, say "Car, go to work. Alarm on arrival." and take a nap, read a book, or talk on the cell phone the whole time. Some day in the near future, your car will be a better driver than you are. On that day I will gleefully stop driving.
Too many people are really bad drivers, and it's not always the ones you see, or the ones engaging in socially unacceptable behavior like talking on the phone. I think that every time I see a beer can or bottle lying where it was obviously tossed from a vehicle, but it's just as true of the elderly driver plodding along at 15 MPH under the speed limit.
the problem is that we continue to give licenses to pilot multi-thousand pound vehicles at high-speeds to practically anyone who applies. Why this guy doesn't loose his license forever is beyond me. Driving is a privilege. How about we start treating it that way instead of something any idiot can do.
Talking, texting et al are not the issue. Driver distraction is the issue. Simply talking on a phone is not inherently dangerous, driving with your knees isn't inherently dangerous, I've done it most of my life.
In this case there is no mention of a collision, unsafe speed, unsafe following distance, swerving, weaving, lack of lane control or anything that would indicate a problem. The only thing that raised the suspicion of the officer was the driver talking on a phone at his ear. Talking on the phone is no different than talking to someone in the car. You are not fully concentrating on the road and traffic in either case.
If your car is in decent repair then it only takes two fingers to keep the car driving in the right direction on the freeway. If you are used to high-stress multi-tasking then what he did was trivial. A stock broker used to talking on to or four phones at once while typing on a computer would have considered driving and handling two cell phones at once a simple party trick.
My point is it's not the arbitrary act of two-phone driving or being .08BAC that should be the offense, it should be the outward, visible lack of control that is the offense. Otherwise we deny that people are different and have varying levels of skill and competence.
Inspector Grim called :).
He wants to arrest the bastard who dinged his car.
If you feel the person behind you is too close for your safety, slow down until he either gets the message and backs off, or decides to overtake you. Idiots are marginally safer in front of you, because you can keep an eye on them.
[FUCK BETA]
not with cops, you slow down they follow you longer, you slow down too much then they have reason to pull you over, your acting suspicious
I actually routinely find myself calling friends while driving purely to keep me alive. They keep me awake, especially on long night drives, to avoid exactly what you've mentioned -- if I'm tired, or otherwise distracted. They keep me focussed.
http://imgur.com/WHyxd
Why don't we have him be the human test subject in driverless car systems?
If a cop wants to screw with your day, he will. That isn't a good reason for you not to drive safely.
[FUCK BETA]
its not me who drives unsafe, I am not 2 inches off someone else's bumper playing with a laptop, how did this get turned around?
So many people on this forum seem to think that more laws will make driving safer. And they typically pick on the cell phone users because that it very obvious when they see someone driving badly and you can see them with their electronic device. The problem with that is that there are so many more distractions that you cannot see easily that are just - if not more -dangerous as driving while using cell phones. Some examples:
- reading newspaper while driving
- reading book while driving
- having conversation with passenger while driving
- eating/drinking while driving
- spilling/dropping something in your lap while driving
- adjusting the car radio (for those that still use them) while driving
- reading billboards while driving
- staring a pretty girl on roadside while driving
- not getting enough sleep before driving
- taking medication (even cough medicine) before driving
- putting on makeup while driving
I could go on and on with the number of things that my mother (a former police chief) has seen as the reasons that someone was distracted while driving and causing an accident. Most states have a law that covers all of these conditions. It is usually called something like "Reckless Driving". There are just too many variables to try making laws over specific issues. Then, you have to take into account the people trained to handle many things, at one time, that have to be excluded from the laws for things like cell phone usage. Take police officers. For years, they've had to deal with emergency driving situations while using communications gear.
Bottom line is to let the Reckless Driving laws handle people that are careless. Don't punish those that handle whatever they are doing behind the wheel successfully. Just because you can't talk on the phone (or any of the above situations) at the same time you drive, don't punish those that can walk and chew gum at the same time.
i'll bet that he was driving on the wrong side of the road
You know, pretty much all places already have rules against inattentive driving. Why make a lot of additional rules banning "this one thing that people sometimes distract themselves with to become inattentive while driving"? Just put in heavier penalties against inattentive driving, since that's what people are really worried about. All these creations of additional bans benefit no one but the lawyers.
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
Your are responsible for your own safety. If someone is tailgating you and you don't respond, you are being unsafe. Yes, someone else caused it, but you are still responsible for dealing with it.
[FUCK BETA]
Psst, I think there's an R tailgating you.
Road House!