Cell Phones in Vehicles

[crazymf]

As a bike rider of 31 years, I have never before been subjected to so many unaware drivers in my life as in the past few years. It seems to me that somedays, more drivers than not have a cell phone next to their ears. I've been cut off many times and it is truely becoming a hazard. This article tries to illustrate that prohibiting cell phone use in vehicles isn't the answer.

If it's not, then what is? It's scary out there.

http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/cell-laws.html

[Black Dog]

As a bike rider of 31 years, I have never before been subjected to so many unaware drivers in my life as in the past few years. It seems to me that somedays, more drivers than not have a cell phone next to their ears. I've been cut off many times and it is truely becoming a hazard. This article tries to illustrate that prohibiting cell phone use in vehicles isn't the answer.

If it's not, then what is? It's scary out there.

There's already laws on the books for such things as careless driving and driving without due care and attention. Surely those would suffice if enforced. Perhaps the problem is one of resources.

Maybe we'd have more cops on the street enforcing the current laws if they weren't busy enforcing marijuana prohibition.

[Yaro]

As a bike rider of 31 years, I have never before been subjected to so many unaware drivers in my life as in the past few years. It seems to me that somedays, more drivers than not have a cell phone next to their ears. I've been cut off many times and it is truely becoming a hazard. This article tries to illustrate that prohibiting cell phone use in vehicles isn't the answer.

Define Bike, motorbike or actual bicycle?

I agree that cell phones while driving should be banned, it stuns me how poorly people drive while on the phone. I just don't get it, what is so complex about the practice?

[Riverwind]

I agree that cell phones while driving should be banned, it stuns me how poorly people drive while on the phone. I just don't get it, what is so complex about the practice?

A person cannot focus on two tasks requiring judgment and decision making at the same time - that is why driving and eating or listening to the radio is not as much of an issue but talking on the cell phone is.

In addition, the person at the other end of the line does not see the traffic conditions and generally will not accept pauses or gaps in a conversation while the driver deals with complex traffic situtations. Someone sitting in the passanger seat would not mind such gaps.

[takeanumber]

An arguement can be made in favour of personal freedom.

However, this type of freedom has a direct hazard to the life and liberty of others, and as such, I can't support the use of cell phones in the car.

To head off any pro-cell phone while driving arguements:

I am opposed to the eating of hamburgers or any food that requires two hands to eat properly, or a knife, fork, or spoon.

I am opposed to DVD displays in the front seat.

I am opposed to most GPS systems. I am pro-audio cue GPS systems.

I am opposed to children screaming in the backseat.

When you pose a direct threat to people's lives through an action, you shouldn't be allowed to do it.

[crazymf]

Define Bike, motorbike or actual bicycle?

A motorcycle. I do a lot of riding.

I've answered my cell in my vehicle occasionally so I'm just as guilty as the next guy. I don't know what a hands free unit works like or if it's any better. The article talks about laws governing careless driving etc, but none of us thinks we do anything wrong when we talk on our phones. And BD is right, there isn't enough enforcement.

My opinion is they should be banned in 'moving' vehicles somehow.

I was riding behind a fellow last year on another bike when I witnessed him take not one, but two consecutive calls while riding his bike. The phone was clipped to his back pocket. Unbelievable.

[Tawasakm]

In my home city we are required by law to use a hands free kit while using a mobile (what we call a cell phone) in a vehicle while driving. Most of the time this consists of a unit which you plug into the mobile consisting of a long black wire, a small microphone with a clip and one headphone piece. You simply plug the headphone into your ear and clip the microphone onto your lapel or shirt collar (which holds the microphone somewhere where it is likely to catch your voice) and start talking. It means both of your hands are free at all times. In my experience its no different then talking to a passenger. The voice is even coming from the same side.

In addition, the person at the other end of the line does not see the traffic conditions and generally will not accept pauses or gaps in a conversation while the driver deals with complex traffic situtations. Someone sitting in the passanger seat would not mind such gaps

It is also my experience that if after answering the phone you actually tell the other person that you are driving then there will be an acceptance of pauses. Maybe thats just a cultural difference but I wouldn't have thought Canadians would have reacted any differently.

[cybercoma]

hands free kits are just as bad. a lot of people are still more focused on their conversation than actually paying attention to the road. doing any kind of "other" tasks while driving is a distraction, since it demands a portion of your attention that should be entirely devoted to riving, and I think the police should really start enforcing careless driving laws.

[Guest eureka]

With you on that, Cybercoma. It is outrageous that cell phones should be even allowed into cars. They have been proven to be lethal weapons.

[SirSpanky]

Alright, I'll play devils advocate;

I don't have any links, but my company (a utility with aprox 5000 employees) did a study on attention while driving. They found that it was only marginally more dangerous to drive whilst talking, a difference less than the statistical error of the study.

I've also heard similar studies from various sources; I'll try to find a link or something.

[PocketRocket]

There are 2 kinds of phone calls.

1) Urgent

2) Not urgent

If it's not urgent, you can say "I'll call you back".

If it IS urgent, how hard is it to pull over in a parking lot or an the shoulder of the road???

It should be a personal judgement call based on common sense.

But, unfortunately, "common" sense is not too common.

[crazymf]

There are 2 kinds of phone calls.

1) Urgent

2) Not urgent

If it's not urgent, you can say "I'll call you back".

If it IS urgent, how hard is it to pull over in a parking lot or an the shoulder of the road???

It should be a personal judgement call based on common sense.

But, unfortunately, "common" sense is not too common.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the media is partly or maybe even wholly at fault for promoting cell phone use. The media tells everyone they can be day traders on the internet. The media and Microsoft tout office packages to keep your data flowing. The media makes all workers out to be executives who do business on the fly. People buy that crap and try to emanate the 'lifestyle'.

I flew through O'Hare airport this spring and it was absolutely rediculous the amount of people walking with a cell phone stuck to their head. There were kids with play phone stuck on their little heads. People sitting with earbuds in having conversations with full hand gestures. They looked insane. The rest of the folks seemed to be hunkered in to their laptops.

This age of communication helps us to communicate with everyone except the people in our general vicinity. I've had people at my business actually try to make me wait at my counter while serving them as they take a phone call. How rude. I just leave them standing there when they do that and they have to come to get me to finish up their transaction.

All that stuff I can deal with. However, when someone drives in front of me, across my path or just down the street, oblivious to the surroundings, I have a major problem with it.

All personal freedom issues aside, cell phones shouldn't be used in moving vehicles, period.

[Black Dog]

All personal freedom issues aside, cell phones shouldn't be used in moving vehicles, period.

Agreed. But why do we need new laws? If you're not paying attention because you're yapping on your cel, or not paying atention because your drinking coffee or (as I have seen) reading a book, then you're being careless. Careless driving is already an offense. If this is a huge issue, then the cops should simply step up enforcement.

[crazymf]

We may need laws because people don't tend to self regulate themselves. I think the law could be installed for the same contextual reasoning as seat belt laws were installed.

Or put another way.....I wouldn't hesitate to answer the phone, knowing full well the ramifications. I just wouldn't think it could happen to me. Just this once can't hurt.

Enforcing the present laws merely pick needles from the haystack, whereas a law would blanket the situation plus give enforcers a specific reason for stopping a vehicle, even if they didn't demonstrate undue care and attention.

I do not see a cell phone law banning them from moving vehicles a minus situation at all. There are only benefits, to the general public I mean.

[kimmy]

All personal freedom issues aside, cell phones shouldn't be used in moving vehicles, period.

Agreed. But why do we need new laws? If you're not paying attention because you're yapping on your cel, or not paying atention because your drinking coffee or (as I have seen) reading a book, then you're being careless. Careless driving is already an offense. If this is a huge issue, then the cops should simply step up enforcement.

Doesn't the same logic obviate any sort of impaired driving law?

I think people are simply too stupid to recognize they're being careless. They're ignorant of how much their driving deteriorates when they're talking on their cell-phones.

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, which is that whenever I'm riding my bike (the non-motorized kind ) or passenger in a car, and a car does something careless, I look at the driver and more often than not the driver has a cell-phone stuck to his or her ear.

-k

[Black Dog]

Doesn't the same logic obviate any sort of impaired driving law?

No because careless driving (for example, not paying attention) is differnt from being physically incapable of properly operating a vehicle because of impairment.

We may need laws because people don't tend to self regulate themselves. I think the law could be installed for the same contextual reasoning as seat belt laws were installed.

But as I said, if there are already laws in place, why bother with new ones. Enforce the laws we have.

Enforcing the present laws merely pick needles from the haystack, whereas a law would blanket the situation plus give enforcers a specific reason for stopping a vehicle, even if they didn't demonstrate undue care and attention.

Why stop there? Why not ban coffee cups, vanity mirrors, radios and other potentially distracting things from cars?

All a cell phone specific ban would do is stretch the already taxed resources of law enforcement. In practice, it would be almost impossible to enforce.

I do not see a cell phone law banning them from moving vehicles a minus situation at all. There are only benefits, to the general public I mean.

I think laws need to be assessed partially on their practicality. Since a cellphone ban would be extremely difficult to enforce, it doesn't make much sense to me. Sure it would have some benefit, but then, so would increased enforcement of existing traffic laws.

[crazymf]

Why stop there? Why not ban coffee cups, vanity mirrors, radios and other potentially distracting things from cars?

All a cell phone specific ban would do is stretch the already taxed resources of law enforcement. In practice, it would be almost impossible to enforce.

I don't need to curl my hair in my vanity mirror while I'm driving. I may not drink coffee while driving. Other things that distract drivers should be dealt with as you say under the present laws.

To me the difference is that practically everyone uses a cell phone so it should be looked at differently to all the other distractions and possibly banned specifically.

I think laws need to be assessed partially on their practicality. Since a cellphone ban would be extremely difficult to enforce, it doesn't make much sense to me. Sure it would have some benefit, but then, so would increased enforcement of existing traffic laws.

Agreed. However, a law would do the enforcing by itself for a portion, perhaps the major portion of the public, with no further manpower or resources needed. You know, prevention?

[Black Dog]

To me the difference is that practically everyone uses a cell phone so it should be looked at differently to all the other distractions and possibly banned specifically.

But first we'd have to see if they are really dangerous. If cell phones are dangerous enough to warrant a blanket ban, surely there would be a relationship between the rise in cell phone use and traffic deaths and injuries. Yet the statistics show that deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents are declining. So there doesn't seem to be a correlation between cell phone useage (going up) and traffic accidents (going down).

Stats.

So, why the special treatment for cell phones?

Agreed. However, a law would do the enforcing by itself for a portion, perhaps the major portion of the public, with no further manpower or resources needed. You know, prevention?

People still speed. People still drive drunk. People still refrain from wearing their seatbelt. People still do things that are illegal because they think they can get away with it. People will know a cell phone ban will be hard to enforce, and will act accordingly by not changing their behaviours.

In 2001, New York became the first state to prohibit drivers from talking on hand-held devices while operating a motor vehicle. A subsequent study found the rate of drivers chatting on cellphones declined from 2.3% before the law went into effect to 1.1% during the first few months after the law was passed. But one year later, the rate had risen to 2.1%.

[crazymf]

Well, I can tell you that I see it every single time I ride my bike into Edmonton. Otherwise I wouldn't have started this post. Cell phone drivers are driving severely impaired and to not watch for them and avoid they're continual mistakes would be death.

[Black Dog]

Well, I can tell you that I see it every single time I ride my bike into Edmonton. Otherwise I wouldn't have started this post. 

Anecdote is not the plural of data.

Personally, I'd rather see a ban on SUVs than cell phones (I'm also betting there's a strong correlation to reckless cellphone users and SUV drivers).

Cell phone drivers are driving severely impaired and to not watch for them and avoid they're continual mistakes would be death.

Doesn't that apply to anyone who's driving? The best thing people can do is to pay attention to what they're doing behind the wheel and to their surroundings. And if you see someone on a cell phone and driving carelessly or recklessly, get their license number and call the cops.

But then what do I know? I take transit.

[crazymf]

Yeah, you can twist up what I said to suit yourself, but I'm not in particular disagreement to you, just that the issue needs addressed in some form.

[Black Dog]

Yeah, you can twist up what I said to suit yourself, but I'm not in particular disagreement to you, just that the issue needs addressed in some form.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Twist?

[cybercoma]

black dog is right, we don't need more laws. we just need to start enforcing the ones we have.

[Riverwind]

No because careless driving (for example, not paying attention) is differnt from being physically incapable of properly operating a vehicle because of impairment.

The law makes it an offense to drive with a blood alcohol content of .08% - a level that some hard core drinkers could be at and pass any sobriety test that the cops might choose to use. Therefore that particular law has nothing to do with keeping impaired drivers off the road and everything to do with sending a 'message' to drivers about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a car. For that reason, I think a specific offense regarding cell phone use while driving is useful.

[cybercoma]

No because careless driving (for example, not paying attention) is differnt from being physically incapable of properly operating a vehicle because of impairment.

The law makes it an offense to drive with a blood alcohol content of .08% - a level that some hard core drinkers could be at and pass any sobriety test that the cops might choose to use. Therefore that particular law has nothing to do with keeping impaired drivers off the road and everything to do with sending a 'message' to drivers about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a car. For that reason, I think a specific offense regarding cell phone use while driving is useful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you blown a 0.08 or over? I may as well be an alcoholic and I can tell you that I'd never dream of driving when blowing over a 0.08. My buddy works for the OPP and I've taken a breathalyzer test after drinking all night and blew a 0.06 and would not have driven my car in that condition.

Everyone's different though, I suppose.