Another new law

[+bittsen]

I see the NYS law making body have expanded the "cell phone" law to include texting, also included is "holding the device" included are GPS's, comments?? At a $100.00 for just holding the device in your hand could be expensive.

 

personally I live in western NY and I whole heartedly believe in the texting while driving ban. hell I even agree with the GPS portion of the law. if I'm going somewhere I enter the address into my GPS BEFORE I start driving, not while I'm driving. on my way to work last week I saw 6 people on their cell phone's merge without looking. I probably saw 3 or 4 people actually texting while driving, and they obviously weren't paying attention. so the expanded cell phone law in NYS makes a whole world of sense to me.....

 

Texting while driving makes complete sense. So does reading a newspaper while driving (it's for the same reason).

I am guilty of texting while driving and admit that it does cause a HUGE distraction. Since I don't own a vehicle GPS, I shouldn't agree so easy but I have programmed a friends GPS while in the car (he was driving) and admit it is also very distracting.

Those two laws make sense.

[+KBI]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

[+bittsen]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

 

And as I said before, so is an attractive woman, especially in a bathing suit. They should be banned as well.

 

[+KBI]

I think nowadays laws are written to generate revenue not for safety reasons.

That's true. If the purpose of traffic enforcement were safety, then we could expect to see folks getting pulled over for failing to signal, for following too close, for driving too slow in the far left lane ... and we would also see law enforcement officers *always* setting good examples in traffic instead of committing all those offenses themselves on a regular basis.

 

Nope, it’s much easier for them to lounge on the side of the road with the radar gun. Less effort, and a more provable – and more revenue-producing – "offense."

 

Wanna test whether the cops are more interested in safety versus income? Next time you see a speed trap, try flashing your lights to warn oncoming traffic. Be sure and do it so another cop can see you. You *will* get pulled over. If it’s only safety they’re after, they’ll thank you for helping them slow folks down. What happens instead, of course, is you get a citation for interfering with their revenue – I mean, enforcement operation.

 

EDIT: Removed the echo echo echo echo

Edited July 20, 2009 by KBI

[FourQ]

I may not make any friends after posting this but IMHO using anything whilst driving should be an offence.

 

A friend of mine was nearly killed because a car driver chose to talk on his mobile phone and wasn't paying attention.

After an emergency stop and evasive action my friend, who shall remain nameless gave chase.

Being a convertible it was easy for the mobile to be snatched from the driver's hands and was promptly thrown towards the roadside.

 

I was nearly killed a year and a half ago when someone pulled out nine feet in front of my bike and we even made eye contact! No phone, no SatNav, just not paying attention. If that can happen when someone's trying to be sensible on the road then a phone, GPS, SatNav, MP3 player and everything else should be banned from use whilst driving, without exception.

[+Knight2000]

I cache with a guy who uses his csx for driving directions. It really worries me how he holds it and drives. He says it's the same as looking at the speedometer, but it's not.

 

I like the law. It is dangerous holding a GPSr and driving. Yeah, i have done it. Today actually, but its not as safe as it could be.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Something I repeat almost everyday I work, "Driving is your first priority while behind the wheel. You are responsible not only for yourself, but your passengers and everyone around you. When I work an accident it almost always boils down to either inattention or impatience as the cause of the accident. I'd rather write you a ticket for [insert violation] than work your accident." (The others are impaired or complete disregard to common sense, but are much fewer in frequency.)

 

If folks won't use common sense and keep their first priority on driving, then I do think it's time for a new law.

 

And I repeat this just about every day.

 

I am sick of laws being made because a small majority of people can't utilize common sense.

 

Small majority? That's not even sensible...but also likely not even close to true. I would bet the minority are the ones who don't use elec devices while driving...

 

Common sense is even more of a scarcity...as evidenced by many posts in this thread alone.

[+Rockin Roddy]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

 

Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I think nowadays laws are written to generate revenue not for safety reasons.

I think nowadays laws are written to generate revenue not for safety reasons.

That's true. If the purpose of traffic enforcement were safety, then we could expect to see folks getting pulled over for failing to signal, for following too close, for driving too slow in the far left lane ... and we would also see law enforcement officers *always* setting good examples in traffic instead of committing all those offenses themselves on a regular basis.

 

Nope, it’s much easier for them to lounge on the side of the road with the radar gun. Less effort, and a more provable – and more revenue-producing – "offense."

 

Wanna test whether the cops are more interested in safety versus income? Next time you see a speed trap, try flashing your lights to warn oncoming traffic. Be sure and do it so another cop can see you. You *will* get pulled over. If it’s only safety they’re after, they’ll thank you for helping them slow folks down. What happens instead, of course, is you get a citation for interfering with their revenue – I mean, enforcement operation.

 

Not sure where you're from or how those laws there work, but failure to signal, following too close, driving to slow in the speed lane...all illegal here and enforced somewhat! I also didn't know putting on a shield and gun made people perfect?

[+Team Four Paw]

How has driver education changed since some of you old timers started driving?

 

I'm fairly young, not quite half way to dead yet, but I had to take a Drivers ED course when I was 15. It was required that I had X amount of time behind a simulator, class time, and real time. My nephew now 18 wasn't required to do any of that. He read a small pamphlet, drove around the block a few times with his mom, and then took his test.

 

The problem is these lawyers and politicians would rather do away with Drivers Education to cut cost then write stupid laws to extort money out of poorly educated/trained/ drivers.

 

Proper education will fix distracted driving, not some stupid law.

[+Rockin Roddy]

How has driver education changed since some of you old timers started driving?

 

I'm fairly young, not quite half way to dead yet, but I had to take a Drivers ED course when I was 15. It was required that I had X amount of time behind a simulator, class time, and real time. My nephew now 18 wasn't required to do any of that. He read a small pamphlet, drove around the block a few times with his mom, and then took his test.

 

The problem is these lawyers and politicians would rather do away with Drivers Education to cut cost then write stupid laws to extort money out of poorly educated/trained/ drivers.

 

Proper education will fix distracted driving, not some stupid law.

 

My mom never wore her seatbelt until she was made to pay the fine for said offense...funny, she now wears it religiously. Wonder if that was taught to her through the enforcement of the law??

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

 

I think it's a combination of your ow profile, drivers of many SUVs aren't used to such a large vehicle, and an attitude of "I'm bigger, so I'm protected. Who cares about the other guy?"

 

I've not read any studies or anything, but just have observations from years of driving everything from motorcycles to big rigs, and nearly everything in between. Folks seem to think they can go from a Honda Accord to a GMC Yukon without adjusting their driving habits. If they learned to drive in a small car where you can simply do a slight turn of the head and cut of the eye to check a blind spot, that's what they're going to do in a much larger vehicle. In reality a blind spot is much larger and you have to check much more carefully.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

That makes a lot of sense and something I hadn't considered. That would explain why professional drivers don't drive into me even though they are driving much bigger vehicles. They've been trained. Perhaps drivers licenses should be given based on the class of vehicle so that people would have to learn the basics of each type before taking to the road.

 

While a low profile might be a problem as worse one is folks who see you as a pedestrian when, in fact, you're traveling much faster. Motorcyclist have it bad because when folks are driving on "auto pilot" they don't recognized a motorcyclist as another vehicle. They're used to seeing something car-sized or larger and a bike simply isn't. That and because it's smaller it appears to be further away at first glance. So distance and speed conspire to get "cagers" turn, and pull out, in front of motorcyclists.

 

I have trouble seeing motorcycles as well sometimes and bicycles can be even worse. However, I try to be very careful since I used to be a bicycle commuter and remember the fear of doing that. Also, my beloved lost one of his friends when he was hit by a car while motorcycling. I would hate to be the cause of someone's injury or death.

 

It is difficult for me to gauge the speed motorcycles are going and since they are so much more maneuverable they trick my mind at times, which is expecting one kind of turn radius and motorcyclists have a much smaller one. It is easier when they ride in packs since it creates a bigger object in my vision.

 

That's not to mention folks will bully a bike out of their way. A buddy had a guy look him in the eye while he was merging into his lane. "Yes, I know you're there. I see you're already occupying that lane, but I want it. No need for me to slow down or speed up. I'm bigger so get out of my way. Besides, what are you going to do about it?"

 

You definitely have to drive and think defensively. The fools are out in force.

 

Now that is just wrong.

 

Do drivers attack motorcyclists in the same way they do bicycle commuters? (e.g. throw things at them or put their hands out to push the cyclist off the road or purposely drive close enough to force the cyclist off the road, etc.)

 

Carolyn

Edited July 19, 2009 by Steve&GeoCarolyn

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Do drivers attack motorcyclists in the same way they do bicycle commuters? (e.g. throw things at them or put their hands out to push the cyclist off the road or purposely drive close enough to force the cyclist off the road, etc.)

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

 

Carolyn

 

Yes they do unfortunately. It's sad to see people act as reckless as they do.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Team Four Paw]

How has driver education changed since some of you old timers started driving?

 

I'm fairly young, not quite half way to dead yet, but I had to take a Drivers ED course when I was 15. It was required that I had X amount of time behind a simulator, class time, and real time. My nephew now 18 wasn't required to do any of that. He read a small pamphlet, drove around the block a few times with his mom, and then took his test.

 

The problem is these lawyers and politicians would rather do away with Drivers Education to cut cost then write stupid laws to extort money out of poorly educated/trained/ drivers.

 

Proper education will fix distracted driving, not some stupid law.

 

My mom never wore her seatbelt until she was made to pay the fine for said offense...funny, she now wears it religiously. Wonder if that was taught to her through the enforcement of the law??

 

Your mom was probably driving before they made seat belts mandatory in cars and not to mention the laws regarding seat belts didn't show up until quite some time later.

[+Rockin Roddy]

How has driver education changed since some of you old timers started driving?

 

I'm fairly young, not quite half way to dead yet, but I had to take a Drivers ED course when I was 15. It was required that I had X amount of time behind a simulator, class time, and real time. My nephew now 18 wasn't required to do any of that. He read a small pamphlet, drove around the block a few times with his mom, and then took his test.

 

The problem is these lawyers and politicians would rather do away with Drivers Education to cut cost then write stupid laws to extort money out of poorly educated/trained/ drivers.

 

Proper education will fix distracted driving, not some stupid law.

 

My mom never wore her seatbelt until she was made to pay the fine for said offense...funny, she now wears it religiously. Wonder if that was taught to her through the enforcement of the law??

 

Your mom was probably driving before they made seat belts mandatory in cars and not to mention the laws regarding seat belts didn't show up until quite some time later.

 

And that has to do what with learning the laws through enforcement of them? She never did wear one and now does because she was ticketed...'nuff said about that! The laws about phones were likely implemented before most of us drove since cell phones didn't even exist when most of us started driving, I bet the law enforcement will have the same effect though!

[+Team Four Paw]

How has driver education changed since some of you old timers started driving?

 

I'm fairly young, not quite half way to dead yet, but I had to take a Drivers ED course when I was 15. It was required that I had X amount of time behind a simulator, class time, and real time. My nephew now 18 wasn't required to do any of that. He read a small pamphlet, drove around the block a few times with his mom, and then took his test.

 

The problem is these lawyers and politicians would rather do away with Drivers Education to cut cost then write stupid laws to extort money out of poorly educated/trained/ drivers.

 

Proper education will fix distracted driving, not some stupid law.

 

My mom never wore her seatbelt until she was made to pay the fine for said offense...funny, she now wears it religiously. Wonder if that was taught to her through the enforcement of the law??

 

Your mom was probably driving before they made seat belts mandatory in cars and not to mention the laws regarding seat belts didn't show up until quite some time later.

 

And that has to do what with learning the laws through enforcement of them? She never did wear one and now does because she was ticketed...'nuff said about that! The laws about phones were likely implemented before most of us drove since cell phones didn't even exist when most of us started driving, I bet the law enforcement will have the same effect though!

 

My point was that your mother grew up in a different era and I'm sure didn't fully understand the importance of seats belts. More so you completely missed my point in my previous post.

 

My nephew who has no experience driving, no classroom time, no training. He can't put his iPod, cell phone, etc. down for 5 seconds. Now we're going to throw him behind the wheel of a 4000lb car.

 

...and you honestly think some law is going to help educate him after he gets ticketed. Will that be before or after he kills someone?

 

Complete lack of education and training because it's no longer a requirement. There is a whole new generation of kids just like him hitting the streets.

[+StarBrand]

Seems to me we shouldn't have to ban texting while driving - the mere fact that anybody would consider such a ban tells me that it is badly needed......

[+Arrow42]

Seems to me we shouldn't have to ban texting while driving - the mere fact that anybody would consider such a ban tells me that it is badly needed......

 

That's some circular logic you got going on there.

 

Anyway, part of my philosophic oppression to "nanny-state" laws is that the more of them we have the more we rely on the government to tell us what is right and what is wrong.... the more that happens the more we "need" these laws.

 

I think there is, in fact, too big of a price to pay in the name of safety.

[+bittsen]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

[namiboy]

"come in, over...come in, red alert....we got a stage 5 car bragger here....come in over"

 

It is a sad fact of life that Carmen (the car) requires endless compliments so car bragging is a simple necessity at times; car maintenance, as it were. Of course, she is so cute that perfect strangers compliment her, ensuring that she is well-fed with praise. (I know they are perfect because they like Carmen.)

 

In this case the question was not an excuse to show her off (though that is always fun) but to find out why SUVs apparently want her dead. Any ideas? Perhaps it is jealousy?

 

Carolyn

 

i was just funning. that's a very cool car, i think it looks even better than it's pontiac brother. jealous, never.

[+StarBrand]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

Oh please!! you are not actually equating texting while driving with "essential liberty"??? Are you??

 

What utter nonsense!! If you are not smart enough to figure out that you need to pay attention to the road instead of a "text" or plugging coordinates into a GPS while driving - then we REALLY do need a law.

 

Such behavior invites "nanny" state laws.

[+Arrow42]

 

Oh please!! you are not actually equating texting while driving with "essential liberty"??? Are you??

 

Yes, we both are. These laws are simply more bumps down a slippery slop we have been sliding down for decades. Some day it will be something you like to do that will be "under attack".

 

What utter nonsense!! If you are not smart enough to figure out that you need to pay attention to the road instead of a "text" or plugging coordinates into a GPS while driving - then we REALLY do need a law.

 

Such behavior invites "nanny" state laws.

 

I think your confusing us with people who condone texting while driving.

[+bittsen]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

Oh please!! you are not actually equating texting while driving with "essential liberty"??? Are you??

 

What utter nonsense!! If you are not smart enough to figure out that you need to pay attention to the road instead of a "text" or plugging coordinates into a GPS while driving - then we REALLY do need a law.

 

Such behavior invites "nanny" state laws.

 

Such an aggressive reply.

 

What we have are emotional laws. We should not have emotional laws.

Laws for safety should be for safety.

Laws for stupidity are pointless.

Maybe you need a law to keep you away from texting but I don't. I realized it was bad and stopped doing it.

 

Maybe we could just have a law that requires people to prove they aren't STUPID before they get behind the wheel?

Come on, haven't you ever yelled "stupid driver" before?

 

It's not cell phones, text messages, seat belts or GPSr's that are the problem, its STUPID people.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm all for laws which make my life safer while on the roads, be it speed laws, stop sign laws (we should all adhere to the 3 second stop law, but I see plenty of drivers who think glancing during a rolling stop is good enough), or phone/GPS laws...

[+KBI]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

No, I'm sorry, but it appears that Flask is correct.

 

According to this study, hands-free cell phone devices do not reduce driver distraction.

 

And according to this Wikipedia article: "A University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone conversations."

 

If you are aware of any authoritative contradictory information, please post links.

[+Rockin Roddy]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

No, I'm sorry, but it appears that Flask is correct.

 

According to this study, hands-free cell phone devices do not reduce driver distraction.

 

And according to this Wikipedia article: "A University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone conversations."

 

If you are aware of any authoritative contradictory information, please post links.

 

Yep, different studies made by differing parties can and do sometimes lead to differing opinions, mine being based upon info from the MSF site, you can google that for any links! Ooops, here's the link to MSF, you can read to find the info though...or just read the site and learn more on safe driving (this is aimed at anyone, not you personally KB!) MSF: Motorcycle Safety Foundation

 

One of the major differences with talking on a cellphone and talking to a passenger is a passenger is more likely to be paying attention to the roads like the driver is supposed to, a passenger has a better idea of when to shut up and hang on while a person on the other end of the cellphone has no idea of what is going on...that and the phone being stuck to the driver's ear like it's the most important thing on earth.

 

btw, I said nothing about hands-free...

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[Dinoprophet]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

No, I'm sorry, but it appears that Flask is correct.

 

According to this study, hands-free cell phone devices do not reduce driver distraction.

 

And according to this Wikipedia article: "A University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone conversations."

 

If you are aware of any authoritative contradictory information, please post links.

I see your 2001 U of Utah study and raise you a 2004 U of Utah study.

 

I'd also point out that the Illinois study states: "These results must be interpreted with caution, however, given that relatively few studies directly examined the impact of passenger conversations."

[Dinoprophet]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

No, I'm sorry, but it appears that Flask is correct.

 

According to this study, hands-free cell phone devices do not reduce driver distraction.

 

And according to this Wikipedia article: "A University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone conversations."

 

If you are aware of any authoritative contradictory information, please post links.

I see your 2001 U of Utah study and raise you a 2004 U of Utah study. Also, yours is about headsets, not passengers.

 

I'd also point out that the Illinois study states: "These results must be interpreted with caution, however, given that relatively few studies directly examined the impact of passenger conversations."

[+dakboy]

I hope this spreads to other states as well and we soon see it nationwide! Distracted driving is DANGEROUS driving and could be deadly.

There already are laws in place that address distracted/reckless driving. This new law is just a revenue generator.

 

BTW, this new law is not a primary offense. You can only be ticketed for it if you're already being pulled over for something else. You cannot be pulled over/ticketed solely for texting while driving.

[+bittsen]

I hope this spreads to other states as well and we soon see it nationwide! Distracted driving is DANGEROUS driving and could be deadly.

There already are laws in place that address distracted/reckless driving. This new law is just a revenue generator.

 

BINGO!

 

Find something that a large percentage of people will do, then TAX it.

 

Think alcohol, cigarettes, driving (gas tax), etc.

If you can't tax it, penalize it financially.

Edited July 20, 2009 by bittsen

[+dakboy]

Not sure where you're from or how those laws there work, but failure to signal, following too close, driving to slow in the speed lane...all illegal here and enforced somewhat! I also didn't know putting on a shield and gun made people perfect?

I see at least 3 police officers a week who are speaking on their cell phones without a hands-free set while driving - despite the fact that it's illegal in this state.

 

It's also illegal for a police officer to speed without his lights/sirens going, but I see that daily.

 

I don't expect them to be perfect, but police officers should be leading by example. Not giving each other free passes.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Not sure where you're from or how those laws there work, but failure to signal, following too close, driving to slow in the speed lane...all illegal here and enforced somewhat! I also didn't know putting on a shield and gun made people perfect?

I see at least 3 police officers a week who are speaking on their cell phones without a hands-free set while driving - despite the fact that it's illegal in this state.

 

It's also illegal for a police officer to speed without his lights/sirens going, but I see that daily.

 

I don't expect them to be perfect, but police officers should be leading by example. Not giving each other free passes.

 

I wholeheartedly agree and have stated such to our finest on several occassions (my dad and mom both dated LEOs after separating)...

 

As far as someone saying there's already a law against reckless driving, there's also a law against rolling stops and other foolish moves...also reckless driving. I'm glad our LEO have specific laws they can enforce when those drivers try to find loopholes and such. If we have to pass laws to stop the ignorance of texting, phoning or GPS usage, so be it!

 

I think the lawmakers were getting tired of people complaining they didn't realize they were breaking a law, even if ignorance isn't an excuse. Give them a law all nice and in their face, maybe the roads will get safer!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I hope this spreads to other states as well and we soon see it nationwide! Distracted driving is DANGEROUS driving and could be deadly.

There already are laws in place that address distracted/reckless driving. This new law is just a revenue generator.

 

BINGO!

 

Find something that a large percentage of people will do, then TAX it.

 

Think alcohol, cigarettes, driving (gas tax), etc.

If you can't tax it, penalize it financially.

 

I'm just glad I'm not overly paranoid and believe the mean old gobment peoples are all out to suppress my life and persuit of happiness...

[+bittsen]

BINGO!

 

Find something that a large percentage of people will do, then TAX it.

 

Think alcohol, cigarettes, driving (gas tax), etc.

If you can't tax it, penalize it financially.

 

I'm just glad I'm not overly paranoid and believe the mean old gobment peoples are all out to suppress my life and persuit of happiness...

 

Your reply is laughable.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Not sure where you're from or how those laws there work, but failure to signal, following too close, driving to slow in the speed lane...all illegal here and enforced somewhat! I also didn't know putting on a shield and gun made people perfect?

I see at least 3 police officers a week who are speaking on their cell phones without a hands-free set while driving - despite the fact that it's illegal in this state.

 

It's also illegal for a police officer to speed without his lights/sirens going, but I see that daily.

 

I don't expect them to be perfect, but police officers should be leading by example. Not giving each other free passes.

 

btw, do you just turn a blind eye when you see these infractions, or have you made complaints in the proper way? By proper way, I might not mean to their superiors (although a good idea, unlikely to bring about any change), but maybe bringing it to their attention publically (newspaper letter to editor for example)...or you could just complain about it privately and see where it gets you! An occassional picture also helps too, should you find yourself in a convenient situation to catch such infractions...safely (i.e. NOT while driving please)!

[+Rockin Roddy]

BINGO!

 

Find something that a large percentage of people will do, then TAX it.

 

Think alcohol, cigarettes, driving (gas tax), etc.

If you can't tax it, penalize it financially.

 

I'm just glad I'm not overly paranoid and believe the mean old gobment peoples are all out to suppress my life and persuit of happiness...

 

Your reply is laughable.

 

Funny, I thought that about some of the comments I've read as well!

[+RS67Man]

I hope this spreads to other states as well and we soon see it nationwide! Distracted driving is DANGEROUS driving and could be deadly.

There already are laws in place that address distracted/reckless driving. This new law is just a revenue generator.

 

BINGO!

 

Find something that a large percentage of people will do, then TAX it.

 

Think alcohol, cigarettes, driving (gas tax), etc.

If you can't tax it, penalize it financially.

 

You can call it a revenue generator if you want, you are entitled to your opinion. Because most states have not made cell phone use a primary offense, meaning people will not be pulled over for just committing that offense, your argument holds no water. However it is a law put on the books to give law enforcement and the courts the ability to prosecute offenders who have caused a collision because of cell phone/GPSr/distracted driving, and levy fines because of the damage and injuries their actions have caused. You can cry out about how your liberties are in danger, but does that mean you can endanger mine, as well as my health and well being, by driving distracted because you feel that laws like this infringe on yours? You can say all you want about how good of a driver you are while using a cell phone, and I will say bull. No one can can multitask and still keep the same level of attention on the task of piloting any vehicle that is required so everyone is as safe as possible.

[+bittsen]

BINGO!

 

Find something that a large percentage of people will do, then TAX it.

 

Think alcohol, cigarettes, driving (gas tax), etc.

If you can't tax it, penalize it financially.

 

You can call it a revenue generator if you want, you are entitled to your opinion. Because most states have not made cell phone use a primary offense, meaning people will not be pulled over for just committing that offense, your argument holds no water. However it is a law put on the books to give law enforcement and the courts the ability to prosecute offenders who have caused a collision because of cell phone/GPSr/distracted driving, and levy fines because of the damage and injuries their actions have caused. You can cry out about how your liberties are in danger, but does that mean you can endanger mine, as well as my health and well being, by driving distracted because you feel that laws like this infringe on yours? You can say all you want about how good of a driver you are while using a cell phone, and I will say bull. No one can can multitask and still keep the same level of attention on the task of piloting any vehicle that is required so everyone is as safe as possible.

First of all, many states it IS a primary offense.

Second, the cell phone will still be used as a reson to pull someone over even if its not a primary offense. Why? Because they will pull you over, say you were drifting in the lane, write you the citation for the cell phone, and if you don't get the rest of the equation, then you aren't paying attention.

 

It's a revenue generator. Sit on a city council sometime when they are brainstorming about how to generate revenue and your eyes may be opened.

[+RS67Man]

First of all, many states it IS a primary offense.

Second, the cell phone will still be used as a reson to pull someone over even if its not a primary offense. Why? Because they will pull you over, say you were drifting in the lane, write you the citation for the cell phone, and if you don't get the rest of the equation, then you aren't paying attention.

 

It's a revenue generator. Sit on a city council sometime when they are brainstorming about how to generate revenue and your eyes may be opened.

 

Then with that, I really do hope you are the next to get pulled over and fined the top amount for cell phone use, you deserve it if you drive distracted. Better you than me financing the governments spending. After you spend a few $$ for driving stupid like that, maybe you will get the idea not to do it anymore. Then we will finally have one more non distracted driver on the road.

 

BTW, I want it to be a primary offense, so idiots who think like you do will get pulled over and stop endangering me on the highways.

[+Rockin Roddy]

BINGO!

 

Find something that a large percentage of people will do, then TAX it.

 

Think alcohol, cigarettes, driving (gas tax), etc.

If you can't tax it, penalize it financially.

 

You can call it a revenue generator if you want, you are entitled to your opinion. Because most states have not made cell phone use a primary offense, meaning people will not be pulled over for just committing that offense, your argument holds no water. However it is a law put on the books to give law enforcement and the courts the ability to prosecute offenders who have caused a collision because of cell phone/GPSr/distracted driving, and levy fines because of the damage and injuries their actions have caused. You can cry out about how your liberties are in danger, but does that mean you can endanger mine, as well as my health and well being, by driving distracted because you feel that laws like this infringe on yours? You can say all you want about how good of a driver you are while using a cell phone, and I will say bull. No one can can multitask and still keep the same level of attention on the task of piloting any vehicle that is required so everyone is as safe as possible.

First of all, many states it IS a primary offense.

Second, the cell phone will still be used as a reson to pull someone over even if its not a primary offense. Why? Because they will pull you over, say you were drifting in the lane, write you the citation for the cell phone, and if you don't get the rest of the equation, then you aren't paying attention.

 

It's a revenue generator. Sit on a city council sometime when they are brainstorming about how to generate revenue and your eyes may be opened.

 

Personally, I don't CARE if they profit from the law if the law helps to make the roads safer, I say let the irresponsible drivers beware! You sound as if you agree it's a bad thing to drive distracted, just that you're worried your rights are being stomped on...do you need the right to drive distracted? Or (and here's where my earlier comment comes from) are you truly believing that slippery slope theory?

[+Rockin Roddy]

First of all, many states it IS a primary offense.

Second, the cell phone will still be used as a reson to pull someone over even if its not a primary offense. Why? Because they will pull you over, say you were drifting in the lane, write you the citation for the cell phone, and if you don't get the rest of the equation, then you aren't paying attention.

 

It's a revenue generator. Sit on a city council sometime when they are brainstorming about how to generate revenue and your eyes may be opened.

 

Then with that, I really do hope you are the next to get pulled over and fined the top amount for cell phone use, you deserve it if you drive distracted. Better you than me financing the governments spending. After you spend a few $$ for driving stupid like that, maybe you will get the idea not to do it anymore. Then we will finally have one more non distracted driver on the road.

 

BTW, I want it to be a primary offense, so *irresponsible drivers* who think like you do will get pulled over and stop endangering me on the highways.

 

Might want to tone it back a touch, this isn't really meeting with the TOU of the forums!!

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+bittsen]

First of all, many states it IS a primary offense.

Second, the cell phone will still be used as a reson to pull someone over even if its not a primary offense. Why? Because they will pull you over, say you were drifting in the lane, write you the citation for the cell phone, and if you don't get the rest of the equation, then you aren't paying attention.

 

It's a revenue generator. Sit on a city council sometime when they are brainstorming about how to generate revenue and your eyes may be opened.

 

Then with that, I really do hope you are the next to get pulled over and fined the top amount for cell phone use, you deserve it if you drive distracted. Better you than me financing the governments spending. After you spend a few $$ for driving stupid like that, maybe you will get the idea not to do it anymore. Then we will finally have one more non distracted driver on the road.

 

BTW, I want it to be a primary offense, so idiots who think like you do will get pulled over and stop endangering me on the highways.

 

So you want ME to get pulled over for using a cell phone even if I'm not distracted and driving fine, not endangering anyone?

 

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

The point is that some can drive while on the cell phone and some can't.

Just like some can type without looking at the keys and some cannot.

 

Not all people are created equal. What is distracting for one may not be distracting for another.

 

And I guarantee this. Most judges will still talk on the cell phone while driving and give you the only fine they are allowed to give. Ask a local judge if they are happy that they can no longer adjust fines...

[+BlueDeuce]

So you want ME to get pulled over for using a cell phone even if I'm not distracted and driving fine, not endangering anyone?

 

Yep, YOU. I wonder how many of YOU thought you were driving just fine before.... BLAM!!!

 

Did I mention ?

[+Royalott]

Why would you want to hold your GPSr while driving?

 

I once saw a cute little airhead putting her contacts in while driving down I-75 near Detroit during rush hour. That was years ago and I am sure she is dead now. Traffic accident I suspect...Probably poked her eye out too

 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/dro...e03/summary.htm

 

Old report and I'm sure things have changed since then.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/275387...ss-drivers.html

 

It's not the ticket I fear, it's where we're headed that scares the crap out of me.

What about that second link scares you? Is The Man really coming down too hard on people who kill others?

 

I am all for it myself. A driver is suppose to be driving the car, not watching tv or talking on a phone or texting. They are no more alert than a dang drunk. I don't feel the cops are intruding on me, I feel the airhead is intruding on my rights. We forget who the enemy is here.

 

 

Hahahahahhahaah Got me!!

 

... or looking at cute girls... sorry... way to easy...

[+RS67Man]

Might want to tone it back a touch, this isn't really meeting with the TOU of the forums!!

 

Well, it has bee QFTed, so I cannot edit it. I get a bit..... you know, when someone feels they can do something that no one can possibly do because they do not feel the law should not apply to them and endanger others lives in the process. This is my formal apology for flying off the handle, but I still believe in what I say.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

"come in, over...come in, red alert....we got a stage 5 car bragger here....come in over"

 

It is a sad fact of life that Carmen (the car) requires endless compliments so car bragging is a simple necessity at times; car maintenance, as it were. Of course, she is so cute that perfect strangers compliment her, ensuring that she is well-fed with praise. (I know they are perfect because they like Carmen.)

 

In this case the question was not an excuse to show her off (though that is always fun) but to find out why SUVs apparently want her dead. Any ideas? Perhaps it is jealousy?

 

Carolyn

 

i was just funning. that's a very cool car, i think it looks even better than it's pontiac brother. jealous, never.

 

Thank you! You are a person of great taste and refinement. She is a sweet car. I knew you were joking. I laughed out loud when I read your post.

 

I didn't mean that you were jealous. I meant the SUVs.

 

Whenever I'm frustrated about being nearly killed by an SUV I picture the SUV taking control away from the human. The human must be distracted or helpless in some way or the SUV couldn't take over. But what could the SUV's motive be? It is obvious. Carmen is prettier than any SUV so of course those unattractive SUVs must feel fierce jealousy and their little machine hearts go kill crazy.

 

Up until Coyote Red's excellent explanation, this was my best theory for the reason SUVs seem to want Carmen dead. (It drives my beloved out of his mind whenever I propose the SUV Envy Hypothesis.)

 

Carolyn

Edited July 20, 2009 by Steve&GeoCarolyn

[+Rockin Roddy]

Might want to tone it back a touch, this isn't really meeting with the TOU of the forums!!

 

Well, it has bee QFTed, so I cannot edit it. I get a bit..... you know, when someone feels they can do something that no one can possibly do because they do not feel the law should not apply to them and endanger others lives in the process. This is my formal apology for flying off the handle, but I still believe in what I say.

 

No need to apologize, just don't get yourself in hot water while making your point! I edited my quote for you, should you want to do the same!

 

and on that note, I'm off to bed so i can ride responsibly on my way to work in the wee early morning hours!

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+flask]

as for cellphones, it isn't actually the physical use of them that makes one so impaired as a driver; it's the way a cellphone conversation uses brain function.

This is true. That’s why the "hands free only" laws are pointless.

 

Driving while chatting on a cell phone is mildly distracting, but no more distracting that driving while chatting with a passenger. If driving with a cell phone is to be banned, then driving with passengers should be banned as well.

Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite.

No, I'm sorry, but it appears that Flask is correct.

 

According to this study, hands-free cell phone devices do not reduce driver distraction.

 

And according to this Wikipedia article: "A University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone conversations."

 

If you are aware of any authoritative contradictory information, please post links.

 

Yep, different studies made by differing parties can and do sometimes lead to differing opinions, mine being based upon info from the MSF site, you can google that for any links! Ooops, here's the link to MSF, you can read to find the info though...or just read the site and learn more on safe driving (this is aimed at anyone, not you personally KB!) MSF: Motorcycle Safety Foundation

 

One of the major differences with talking on a cellphone and talking to a passenger is a passenger is more likely to be paying attention to the roads like the driver is supposed to, a passenger has a better idea of when to shut up and hang on while a person on the other end of the cellphone has no idea of what is going on...that and the phone being stuck to the driver's ear like it's the most important thing on earth.

 

btw, I said nothing about hands-free...

 

i don't remember exactly where i heard it, but there was a study that monitored brain function with cellphone use as opposed to a live conversation, and there was a significant difference in the quality and location of the brain activity.

 

the researchers supposed it had something to do with the cellphone being right up in the person's ear AND the fact that the person is communicating with someone not present and therefore using more brain function to visualize the other party.

 

past the monitoring data, though, the ideas about the "why" of it were conjecture and open to wide interpretation.

[+KBI]

btw, I said nothing about hands-free...

Yes, you did. That may not be what you meant, but it’s what you typed. You quoted my entire post, then responded to it by saying:

 

"Completely false, but thanks for chiming in! It is, in fact, quite the opposite." (Bolding mine.)

 

If you didn’t mean it the way it sounded, then maybe you should choose your words more carefully.

 

One of the major differences with talking on a cellphone and talking to a passenger is a passenger is more likely to be paying attention to the roads like the driver is supposed to ...

It is clear from this comment that you did not read the documents I linked.

 

That’s fine. Believe whatever you like. I’m just linking what I found on the first page of my Google search results. You are not arguing with me; you are instead butting heads with academic researchers who have been putting heavy science into this stuff.

 

But I’m sure your intuition beats their science.

[+mchaos]

Here is where I sit on this subject.

 

I hate when people are on the phone or texting, thats worse, I yell at my gf all the time for texting while driving.

 

As for the GPS. I will admit, I hit buttons on the one I use for driving nav, but I usually try to have it set b4 I am even driving, or will have a passenger do it. Most of the time I pull over if I am alone and have to mess with it, or wait till I am stopped at a traffic light.

 

As for hand held gps which I use for caching, I hold that thing while driving mostly because I don't have something to hold it for me while driving. Its already set tho, and I just look to see where I am. Glance at it. I would use a cradle if I had one. I looked once, but couldn't find one for it.

 

Ideally I use miopocket on my MIO car GPS with Beeline, so I can use that while driving and will tell me how to get there, then when I get there I use the hand held. Thats usually when I have it all planed out.