Cell Phones in Vehicles

[Tawasakm]

Its 0.05 in Western Australia. It used to be 0.08 but that was deemed to be too high.

[Mad_Michael]

US institute of Insurers has just released a report (sorry, I don't have a link since I read it offline) stating that cell phone users operating motor vehicles are four times as likely to be injured as non-cell phone users.

On this basis, it is only a matter of time before the insurance industry starts pushing for regulations - or applies a substantially higher premium for cell phone users.

Previous studies have indicated that the instant you start talking on a cell phone while driving, your reaction times drop to those equal to a 70yo man.

[Riverwind]

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.

My point is the 0.08 (or 0.05) is an arbitrary line that does not apply to all people (in fact some people are charged with driving over 0.08 even though there is no evidence of impairment). You could argue that this law is not required because the law governing driving while impaired should be sufficient. However, I argue that setting a clear definition that is not subject to personal interpretation is useful. For that reason a seperate law regarding cell phone use while driving would be also be useful.

[Mad_Michael]

My point is the 0.08 (or 0.05) is an arbitrary line that does not apply to all people (in fact some people are charged with driving over 0.08 even though there is no evidence of impairment). You could argue that this law is not required because the law governing driving while impaired should be sufficient. However, I argue that setting a clear definition that is not subject to personal interpretation is useful. For that reason a seperate law regarding cell phone use while driving would be also be useful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our governments routinely use arbitrary standards for law enforcement. For example, marijuana is classified as a "narcotic" for the purposes of law enforcement. This is entirely arbitrary as marijuana is not a narcotic substance. Our police, courts and governments all collude with this fiction.

I could probably fill this entire thread with examples such governmental arbitrariness.

On this basis, I'm suspect of any specific argument against 'arbitrariness' that does not apply to all such arbitrariness. If it doesn't apply to all, then the argument is suspect.

[crazymf]

I'm suspect of any specific argument against 'arbitrariness' that does not apply to all such arbitrariness.

May I use that one?

[Mad_Michael]

I'm suspect of any specific argument against 'arbitrariness' that does not apply to all such arbitrariness.

May I use that one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as there is no little 'circle-R' thingie, it is public domain. Please feel free.

[crazymf]

Text is so dry. I wish there was a way to convey inflection. We could have laughed together over that one.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think that cellphone should be banned for drivers. Other people in the care can use cellphones but not the driver. The driver has a job to do. Cellphones will distract them even more. You're 4 times as more likely to crash while talking on a cellphone.

[michao]

I'm sorry to offend anyone but i think women are the biggest problem on the streets, they are either to careful or not careful enough, for example, sometimes when crossing the street car are on coming of course they are suppose to stop for the one who is waiting to walk or alreayd walking at the crosswalk but nearly always when a woman is driving she simply drives by while a man stops, this may be a problem in only alberta but i find them the largest problem on the streets and if you add cel phones to that then it is a problem.

[Mad_Michael]

I'm sorry to offend anyone but i think women are the biggest problem on the streets, they are either to careful or not careful enough, for example, sometimes when crossing the street car are on coming of course they are suppose to stop for the one who is waiting to walk or alreayd walking at the crosswalk but nearly always when a woman is driving she simply drives by while a man stops, this may be a problem in only alberta but i find them the largest problem on the streets and if you add cel phones to that then it is a problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've obviously not see Chinese people drive...

[michao]

well yes thats a problem too, but just one thing at a time

[RB]

I'm sorry to offend anyone but i think women are the biggest problem on the streets, they are either to careful or not careful enough, for example, sometimes when crossing the street car are on coming of course they are suppose to stop for the one who is waiting to walk or alreayd walking at the crosswalk but nearly always when a woman is driving she simply drives by while a man stops, this may be a problem in only alberta but i find them the largest problem on the streets and if you add cel phones to that then it is a problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

when women are purchasing insurance for their cars it is somehow much cheaper than men - could this be traced to some relationship of safety

I do the text messaging

Well, I try to stay off the roads on the weekends I find that the women seem to grow exponentially with this driving then - I mostly suspect they borrow their husbands cars and head off in glee - maybe that's when you see them Michao

[SirSpanky]

So the solution = only white, hispanic, black males can drive?

I am unsure if these comments are meant in jest, or seriousness.

[Melanie_]

I'm sorry to offend anyone but i think women are the biggest problem on the streets, they are either to careful or not careful enough, for example, sometimes when crossing the street car are on coming of course they are suppose to stop for the one who is waiting to walk or alreayd walking at the crosswalk but nearly always when a woman is driving she simply drives by while a man stops, this may be a problem in only alberta but i find them the largest problem on the streets and if you add cel phones to that then it is a problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I only drive when I can't get some big strong man to chauffeur me around. And I never stop for pedestrians - can't they see me coming and get out of the way? After all, I'm generally chatting on my cell phone with a girlfriend about hair and clothes and makeup, and since she's driving too we can't both be expected to watch the crosswalks and oncoming traffic.

[crazymf]

I'm sorry to offend anyone but i think women are the biggest problem on the streets, they are either to careful or not careful enough, for example, sometimes when crossing the street car are on coming of course they are suppose to stop for the one who is waiting to walk or alreayd walking at the crosswalk but nearly always when a woman is driving she simply drives by while a man stops, this may be a problem in only alberta but i find them the largest problem on the streets and if you add cel phones to that then it is a problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I only drive when I can't get some big strong man to chauffeur me around. And I never stop for pedestrians - can't they see me coming and get out of the way? After all, I'm generally chatting on my cell phone with a girlfriend about hair and clothes and makeup, and since she's driving too we can't both be expected to watch the crosswalks and oncoming traffic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My sarcasm beeper's going off, beep, beep BEEP, hehe

[Black Dog]

I'm sorry to offend anyone but i think women are the biggest problem on the streets, they are either to careful or not careful enough, for example, sometimes when crossing the street car are on coming of course they are suppose to stop for the one who is waiting to walk or alreayd walking at the crosswalk but nearly always when a woman is driving she simply drives by while a man stops, this may be a problem in only alberta but i find them the largest problem on the streets and if you add cel phones to that then it is a problem

But can someone who doesn't know how to stop a sentence be trusted to stop a car?

[PocketRocket]

Yeah, I only drive when I can't get some big strong man to chauffeur me around. And I never stop for pedestrians - can't they see me coming and get out of the way? After all, I'm generally chatting on my cell phone with a girlfriend about hair and clothes and makeup, and since she's driving too we can't both be expected to watch the crosswalks and oncoming traffic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The scary thing is they're both driving the same car, whilst talking to each other on cells

Seriously, I've seen people talking on cells who are driving perfectly well; aware of what is going on around them and responsive to it.

I've seen others who completely lose their concentration while on the cell.

But the latter are generally borderline-incompetent drivers to begin with.

So, yeah, if you really REALLY have to talk on the phone, pull over in a parking lot or on the shoulder of the road.

It's like that old drinking/driving tv spot; "The life you save may be mine", er, sorry, "YOUR OWN", yeah, that's it, "your own".

[Guest eureka]

There have been many reports of studies on cell phone use in cars over the past couple of years. I have not seen one article defending them or arguing safety.

I have seen a number stressing the dangers and the distraction to all users. There is, apparently, no safe user. Even the presence of the phone I seem to recall can be a distraction at times since the possessor can be thinking about a call to be made or received.

Hands-free is also no safer. It is the mental distraction that is the danger. I have also known of senseless accidents that are the consequence of talking while driving. They are becoming quite common though sometimes hard to prove. Ask any Provincial Offences prosecutor.

[mcqueen625]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I agree there are already laws on the books regarding due care and attention, I disagree with respect to drug enforcement, since I have work with addicted youth for a number of years, and most if not all began their path of drug use with Marijuana. In many cases teens will tell you that the high wasn't intense enough so they tried something stronger. Legalize Marijuana and what drug will be next that people will be saying, we can't stop it so we may as well legalize it. I read an article which quoted the former Mayor of Vancouver as wanting the Methadone Clinic to provide clean crack pipes to Crack-Cocaine addicts to cut down on the spead of disease, and it went so far as to suggest that they be allowed to smoke theri Crack at this clinic, so they would be in a safe environment. What's next? Why not just legalize all drugs and the problem of enforcement will just go away. I contend that the line must be drawn somewhere and the line cannot be subject to change just because it costs money for enforcement.

We could all live in fantasyland where maybe the corporation's will voluntarily agree to again pay 50% of the tax burden instead of getting 90% from individual Canadians. I don't think that is likely to occur at least not willingly, but fantacy is nice once in awhile. Where I live in Eastern Canada, my province gives corporations tax holidays, in one recent case $4.5 to $5.5 million per year, and just before that they cried poor-mouth and slashed police and fire department budgets, resulting in the layoff of both police and fire personnel.

[mcqueen625]

Hands-free is also no safer. It is the mental distraction that is the danger. I have also known of senseless accidents that are the consequence of talking while driving. They are becoming quite common though sometimes hard to prove. Ask any Provincial Offences prosecutor.

So what's the answer, make it offense to talk while in a car, as if the police don't already have enough reasons to stop a vehicle? Using a hands-free is no more dangerous than talking to another passenger while traversing down the road, or listening to the car stereo, because all these things are distracting to some degree.

Anyone with common sense should relaize that if your phone rings while you are driving and it is not hooked to a hands-free, it should be either left to ring, or the drivers should safely pull off to the shoulder of the road before answering the call. The same should apply for making a call, it should be done while pulled safely to the side of the road. I employ a hands-free on longer drives, but for inner-city driving I simply let the phone ring until it goes to voice-mail or I allow someone else in the car to take the call.

I do believe that when police observe a person driving with a cell phone stuck to their ear that they should immediately stop them, and cite them for driving without due care and attention, because they definitely are not in total control of the vehicle if they have one hand holding a cellphone to their ear.

[crazymf]

Reality check!!!!!!

When that phone rings, a lot of people HAVE to answer it. I've had people at my business completely tune me out halfway through a transaction to answer the sacred phone. I've gotton so I just leave them standing there and leave the room, rude for rude.

I strongly suspect that while driving, the same people tune out the road.

[August1991]

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.

I agree with Riverwind's response to BD. The impaired driving code is not sufficient. We must make this explicit and it's unfortunate that the Tories didn't include this in the recent change for driving while using drugs.

Based on purely anecdotal evidence in Montreal, the ditzy moves are usually drivers with cells and, yes, women seem to use cell phones while driving more often than men.

To my knowledge, no jurisdiction in Canada has passed a law about this and I don't think any driver has been charged with dangerous driving because of cell phone use. I wonder whether the police or insurance companies have stats on cell phone use and accident incidence.

Chatting on a mobile phone is at least as dangerous as driving while over the legal alcohol limit, research suggests.

The University of Utah study, like others, found hands-free mobiles were just as distracting as handheld ones.

The work involved 40 volunteers using driving simulators, and the authors say there is now enough evidence to warrant banning all mobile use when driving.

Currently in the UK, using a hand-held phone while driving is banned but the use of hands-free phones is permitted.

BBC

When that phone rings, a lot of people HAVE to answer it. I've had people at my business completely tune me out halfway through a transaction to answer the sacred phone. I've gotton so I just leave them standing there and leave the room, rude for rude.

This is something that I've never quite understood. It is considered extremely impolite to break into a private conversation between two people but answering a phone and then chatting is considered normal.

[crazymf]

Yep, and it continues. My own wife complains about this issue but has herself answered a call in our lawyers office even after I told her to shut it off while it was ringing. After the fact, she doesn't know why she had to answer it, but she did.

Strange...

[Chuck U. Farlie]

The one thing to be noted, if it hasn't been said yet, is that each person has significantly different skill levels.

For a hobby I fly ultralight aircraft. We have to communicate with landing strips and other pilots while flying and thinking in 3 dimensions rather than in just 2 such as when you are driving - nevermind the thought we have to put into meteorology, thermal lifting, crosswinds, etc.. But there seem to be a lot of pilots who can think about many things at the same time. By the way - I have had conversations on a cell phone while flying an ultralight... it's no big deal.

Now consider truck drivers... they have GPS systems, cellphones, drive 14 hour days, radios, time limits, log books, and traffic to consider... all while controlling 40000 pounds plus of equipment.

Some people can do many things at once, some can't.

Personally I do my best thinking while driving or operating something... ultralight, motorcycle, car, truck, whatever.... my driving is instinct and routine, meanwhile my mind can wander and consider whatever is going on in my life.

Perhaps this should be part of the licensing process... if you can drive and talk at the same time... fine... if you can't, you have a condition on your license. Conditions already exist if you can't see well enough, for example, so why not create a condition in that you can't do two things at once?

I am also annoyed everyday at the people driving 10km/h below the speed of traffic, people that switch lanes without looking, or people who fail to recognize traffic conditions all because they are on the phone.... but to make a blanket law that covers everyone fails to recognize that different people have different skills. I think the laws that exist cover the problem. If an accident occurs, the police have an investigation, and if the accident is the fault of a certain driver for any given reason they get a careless or dangerous driving charge.

At the end of the day, you can judge your own skills... be realistic and don't do something you are not capable of.

[geoffrey]

I agree with Farlie.

This is unlike drinking and driving. I've never seen a case of a drunk being able to operate a car as proficiently as sober. I know many including myself that have no problem driving while on the phone (I use a handsfree most of the time). I don't have a vast amount of time in my life open to wasting, being a full-time student and full-time employee, the two hours in my car a day are very important to me getting everything I need done. And I do so safely.

I'd rather see higher consequences for those that get into accidents while talking on the phone, rather than punishing or limiting everyone, where many can talk on the phone no problem while driving.

Again, what's the difference from talking on the phone with a handsfree to talking to the person in the passenger seat. Are we to enclose the driver in a sound proof bubble next?