This law makes no sense to me

[jennyema]

Yes, I read your post. If we believe that theory, then we have to believe that no one ever had an accident before cell phones, no one was or is now distracted while carrying on a conversation before cell phones, that if no one was allowed to even bring cell phone into a car at all, there would never be another distraction caused accident..

The study was all about interactive conversations on a telephone being a different sort of distraction than other conversations. So I'm not sure I understand your point.


"Likewise, it is easy to equate talking to a friend on a cellphone with talking to a friend in the passenger seat. But a December report in The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied debunked that notion. Utah researchers put 96 drivers in a simulator, instructing them to drive several miles down the road and pull off at a rest stop. Sometimes the drivers were talking on a hands-free cell phone, and sometimes they were chatting with a friend in the next seat.
Nearly every driver with a passenger found the rest stop, in part because the passenger often acted as an extra set of eyes, alerting the driver to the approaching exit. But among those talking on the cellphone, half missed the exit.

“The paradox is that if the friend is sitting next to you, you drive safer,” Dr. Strayer said. “When you talk to that person on a cellphone, you’re much more likely to be involved in an accident.”

 

[Adillo303]

Fascinating discussion - No matter what side of the fence you are on plese post your opinion as to first the odds that such a law will be widely passed and second, your opinion as to whether it can be enforced once passed.

Thank you
AC

 

[Mama]

awww, that's a terribly flawed arguement.

they didn't even have cell phones in the 70's...


lol.

it's only common sense that some people are able to use a cell phone and drive very well. but it's also common sense that many, many people cannot. it's just too obvious.

like i said, i almost always believe in the case for more freedom and more personal responsibilty. but since the thing you're doing can (and does everyday) easily harm or kill, you have to err on the lower demoniator.
of course, i think it's not as applicable in less populated areas.

hmmm, didn't anyone ever see jiminey cricket when they were young?

I'm completely with you on this one Buckytom .....did I just say that out loud?

 

[jennyema]

I really think that it has a lot to do with the individual driving. Some folks can talk and drive safely others cannot. Instead of making law after law and taking all the possibly dangerous toys away from each person till we end up with lots of laws that are not enforceable why not just hold people responsible for their actions. Swerve lanes exhibit intention etc. Get a ticket for thatction. Remember, we are paying legislator's salaries

The why have any traffic laws at all? Just pull over the bad drivers

Why hold someone accountable after they kill or injure someone when may be able to prevent it in the first place?

There are studies that claim to show that the ability level of someone driving while on the phone is about the same as someone driving while intoxicated. We don't allow the latter. Why should we tolerate the former?

 

[buckytom]

we should tolerate both.

gimme my keys and a beer. i've got calls to make!

 

[jennyema]

Fascinating discussion - No matter what side of the fence you are on plese post your opinion as to first the odds that such a law will be widely passed and second, your opinion as to whether it can be enforced once passed.

Thank you
AC

1. Widely passed. I doubt it. States are having a hard enough time banning hand-held phones.

2. If passed, it's certainly enforceable. Just like radar detector laws. They can make it against the law to wear a bluetooth device when driving.

 

[quicksilver]

awww, that's a terribly flawed arguement.

they didn't even have cell phones in the 70's...

lol.


hmmm, didn't anyone ever see jiminey cricket when they were young?

I remember, bt. He was my buddy!

But ya know, after 125+ posts, I see no one is going to change anyone's opinion about usage or not, safety or not. Tis ashame!
But maybe we'll all remember this thread and the arguments when they next think of doing anything distracting while driving.

 

[GB]

But maybe we'll all remember this thread and the arguments when they next think of doing anything distracting while driving.

I actually did put my phone down today instead of making a call because I thought of this thread.

 

[Mama]

Good for you GB! Maybe others will too!

 

[DramaQueen]

You guys are right in pointing out that studies can be biased. I haven't read them so I don't know which are and which aren't. A law like that will always be controversial because even if good studies prove this or that about cell phones, where do you draw the line? No dogs in the car? No children? I am most likely to lose control of my vehicle while trying to calm a hysterical child in the back seat.

Ahhhh, now you're getting it. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. I just came home from having lunch with friends and I had one friend in the car. She was talking to me and I made the wrong turn going in the opposite direction. I was distracted by my friends' conversation. My cell phone was not in my hand. Not a dangerous move, just distracted enough to make a wrong turn.

 

[quicksilver]

I actually did put my phone down today instead of making a call because I thought of this thread.

Thanks, GB.

 

[DramaQueen]

1. Widely passed. I doubt it. States are having a hard enough time banning hand-held phones.

2. If passed, it's certainly enforceable. Just like radar detector laws. They can make it against the law to wear a bluetooth device when driving.

Nope, can't enforce it. Just because I have a bluetooth in my ear doesn't mean I'm on the phone. Maybe I use it when I pull over or park to make a call. You have to catch someone in the act of committing a crime before you can enforce it.

 

[Alix]

I'm just glad I live in Canada. We get ticked about not having our snow cleared so you can imagine what this would be like here.

I'm not sure how to state this so it comes out OK so if its garbled it means I edited the crap out of it. Sorry.

When anyone commissions a study they have a predisposition for what they think they will find. And often that is borne out simply because of the parameters of the study. (Keep in mind I'm stating only my opinion, not fact) I believe that if you go in believing that using a cell phone is worse than talking to a passenger then you may place limits on your study that will make that outcome more likely. I think I'd like to see a study about the effects of a screaming toddler/infant vs bluetooth. Or maybe senile old person in the passenger seat vs bluetooth. LOL. I'm not certain how the studies were conducted, but it seems that there are things that could be tested that would significantly change the outcome.

Adillo, I suspect that the law will be widely passed eventually. As BT says you have to play to the LCD and unfortunately that means we have a lot of distracted dorky drivers out there.
Enforcement might be a different story. I think you could enforce handheld usage because if you are seen holding your phone to your ear you are clearly on the phone. Bluetooth...can't prove you were using it unless you get the phone records out to prove it and that could definitely be more $ than its worth.

 

[GB]

Nope, can't enforce it. Just because I have a bluetooth in my ear doesn't mean I'm on the phone. Maybe I use it when I pull over or park to make a call. You have to catch someone in the act of committing a crime before you can enforce it.

You did not read what Jenny said.

They can make it against the law to wear a bluetooth device when driving.

If that is the case then they can most certainly enforce it. If they see it in your ear then you get a ticket. They would be catching you in the act of committing a crime.

 

[Mama]

Ahhhh, now you're getting it. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. I just came home from having lunch with friends and I had one friend in the car. She was talking to me and I made the wrong turn going in the opposite direction. I was distracted by my friends' conversation. My cell phone was not in my hand. Not a dangerous move, just distracted enough to make a wrong turn.

So, are you saying that since there are already lots of distractions while driving, what's one more?

The thing is cell phone usage has proven to be a HUGE distraction. Unlike other distractions that may only last a minute or so, talking on the cell phone often times lasts for the entire time people are in their vehicle.

My husband drives an 18-wheeler and is constantly complaining about all of the bad drivers on cell phones...pacing the vehicle next to them...drifting in and out of their lanes...going 75 on I-75 one minute and 40 the next...having an arguement and their hands will be flailing in the air...and the list goes on. He says the worst are women in SUV's on a cell phone. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with him.

 

[Alix]

Mama, I absolutely believe your husband and agree with him. Can you ask him whether those drivers were using handheld or regular cell phones? I'd bet on the latter.

GB, do you think they WOULD make it illegal to wear a Bluetooth? That just sounds a bit over the top to me. You would know better than I would though.

 

[GB]

I have no opinion one way or the other if they would make wearing one illegal. I have seen crazier things, but I can't really get into them because of the no politics rule. I will say that say some states made it illegal to have a radar detector in your car though so I do not think it would be out of the realm of possibility to do the same for wearing a bluetooth.

 

[Alix]

Wow.

 

[Mama]

He said that when he sees a driver who is driving erratically, they are usually either:

1) talking on a hand-held cell phone,

or

2) either talking to themselves or on a hands-free device because he can't necessarily see their ear.

Maybe 3/4 hands-on and 1/4 hands free which is probably because that since it is not required here, most people don't own/use a hands-free device. Doesn't make them less distracting, just not used as much.

It can't be denied that most people who use a cellphone while driving do not just talk for a few minutes. Conversations last for quite a while. It's not like other distractions that usually only last for a few seconds like changing the station on the radio, yelling at the kids in the backseat (I used to threaten to, and on several occassions did, pull the car over...they knew that was the last thing they wanted me to do), taking a sip of coffee...whatever...other distractions ususally only last for a few seconds. Not that you should ever be distracted from your driving but the fact of the matter is that we live in the real world and there will be distractions. But, if a distraction can be avoided, why not? When is a conversation more important than the life or property of another person?

 

[Mama]

GB, do you think they WOULD make it illegal to wear a Bluetooth? That just sounds a bit over the top to me. You would know better than I would though.

In the states where it is illegal to use a hand-held device, do you think they can't give you a ticket for holding the phone up to your ear even if you say it's not in use?