IN considering ban on hand-held phones while driving.

[churchmouse]

There is a law and it does nothing to stop many drivers, why? Because they don't realize how badly it is affecting their driving. Education can come in many forms. If they SAW how they drove, or some other method that allows them to realize how it is affecting them, they'd change their behavior.

Some yes.....many, no.

 

[actaeon277]

I'll take that vs burying my kids and grandkids, killed by a distracted driver.

Incidentally, there are lots of mobile camera systems, fixtures, etc. available. An app is even mentioned up thread IIRC. There are solutions, if we'll just take them.





People already know its against the law, there is no education left to give. They just do it anyway because chances are in their favor they won't get caught. If they are caught, proving distracted driving is difficult if not impossible. Even if convicted, the fine is manageable or damn near nothing.



Distracted driving is a growing epidemic. We either deal with it or it deals with us.
Your loved ones may be next.

There is a law and it does nothing to stop many drivers, why? Because they don't realize how badly it is affecting their driving. Education can come in many forms. If they SAW how they drove, or some other method that allows them to realize how it is affecting them, they'd change their behavior.

Sounds just like the anti-gun argument. Right down to think of the children.

Exactly.
I agree with Denny and KLB.


There is a little known fact that ALL children killed by automobiles are in fact, KILLED BY AUTOMOBILES.
The solution, ban autos. "We either deal with it or it deals with us. Your loved ones may be next "

(Sorry, not a very compelling argument.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes and no. What we see is the massive amount of educating the public that comes along with some of these new laws. The education is what changes behavior for many, for some, it is the law. Seatbelts for instance. For some, they will NEVER wear one, regardless of the law. For some, they only click-it when they see an officer, and more many, it is as natural as turning on the car. I remember wearing mine long before it became law. It became a habit and I passed that habit to my kids. The law made no difference to me and I am not alone in that.

When I first started driving and had a car with seat belts, I started using them because I thought it was a good idea. Then they passed laws telling me I had too. There's just something about somebody telling me I had to that made not want to. I know it's usually (but not always) better to wear them than not.

 

[cmr13]

I don't like it because then it means that if I get a call I have to slam on the brakes and pull over to take it, if I need to. And I shouldn't be forced to buy a Bluetooth headset or car adapter that probably won't even work with my phone.

And yes, it's all the idiots driving stupidly that is the problem. Not the phones.

 

[JollyMon]

I think pulling over on the side of the highway is more dangerous than answering the phone.

 

[Hoosierkav]

"The Invisible Gorilla" (written by the guys who brought you the video of the Invisible Gorilla video) make a point that talking hands free is just as distracting/consuming to your brain's computing ability as talking while holding the phone. Sure, you can't hold the wheel 10 and 2 with a phone to your ear, but your brain is still just as engaged in the conversation, and not on the primary task of navigating a 3,000 lb missile down the road.

I think it is odd that people or legislators will support these bills but have no problem having a dog sit on their lap while they drive.

Moral of the story: You don't need a law to make you shut up and drive, just like you don't need a law to make you to put down the phone and drive. Drive, don't multitask.

 

[churchmouse]

I think pulling over on the side of the highway is more dangerous than answering the phone.

Not to so many who use them. Poorly.

 

[BogWalker]

There are already laws against reckless driving. Reckless driving causes wrecks. Now, phone usage itself doesn't. No, it is a distraction, which leads to reckless driving, which leads to wrecks.

As there are already laws against reckless driving, laws against using cellular phones while driving are redundant. If somebody uses them, yet drives in a safe manner, why should it be prohibited? If somebody uses them and drives in an unsafe manner, there are already laws against driving in an unsafe manner. Therefore an additional law is unnecessary.

 

[churchmouse]

There are already laws against reckless driving. Reckless driving causes wrecks. Now, phone usage itself doesn't. No, it is a distraction, which leads to reckless driving, which leads to wrecks.

As there are already laws against reckless driving, laws against using cellular phones while driving are redundant. If somebody uses them, yet drives in a safe manner, why should it be prohibited? If somebody uses them and drives in an unsafe manner, there are already laws against driving in an unsafe manner. Therefore an additional law is unnecessary.

With out new issues to write new laws about the sitting body of law makers would be found out dated as we have laws against most everything already. They need the jobs.

 

[bwframe]

Sounds just like the anti-gun argument...

How is that exactly?

 

[bwframe]

There is a law and it does nothing to stop many drivers, why? Because they don't realize how badly it is affecting their driving. Education can come in many forms. If they SAW how they drove, or some other method that allows them to realize how it is affecting them, they'd change their behavior.

So what's the plan to educate those with this problem?

 

[hoosierdoc]

They can ban my phone, but not my tortilla sombrero and guac dip

 

[Denny347]

So what's the plan to educate those with this problem?

I dono, I don't have all the answers. I know it wasn't until I realized the devastation caused by drivers not wearing their seatbelts did I start wearing mine.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What is the possibility of a consensus here that since the advent of cell phones driving has become more of a challenge? I certainly notice a lot of brake pedal tapping when clearly there is no need. Or the always popular hitting the direction signal when you are already well into your turn. Then we all love the guy who gets in the left lane a mile before making his left turn, and dropping his speed 10 mph below the limit to prepare for the turn.

Or the corollary to this (which really gripes my fanny), the guy that drives in the left lane of the interstate, and then decides that they need to get off on an exit when they're 50 feet from said exit, and come to a nearly dead stop waiting for traffic to let them over.

 

[spec4]

I don't like it because then it means that if I get a call I have to slam on the brakes and pull over to take it, if I need to. And I shouldn't be forced to buy a Bluetooth headset or car adapter that probably won't even work with my phone.

And yes, it's all the idiots driving stupidly that is the problem. Not the phones.

Are you obligated to answer the phone every time it rings? Are the phones at all a factor in the idiots driving stupidly?

 

[bwframe]

I dono, I don't have all the answers. I know it wasn't until I realized the devastation caused by drivers not wearing their seatbelts did I start wearing mine.

My plan is posted above. Much stiffer fines and defining distracted driving will educate and solve this problem.

 

[Drail]

It's way too late for any law to have any significant effect on the problem and enforcement would be a joke. Anyone who believes making phone use a crime while driving is deluding themselves. Other States have passed these laws and it has not made ANY difference. I drove professionally for years in Indiana and one of the main reasons I quit was because of the number of stupid people I had to deal with EVERY DAY playing with their phones (including just about every single LEO I saw). If the general public is so stupid that they need to be TOLD to put their phones down and concentrate on driving their automobile then they should never have been "issued" a license to operate a motor vehicle upon a public road in the first place. The only solution at this point is to simply design the phones or the automobiles (or both) so that the phones will not work when in a car while it is in motion. Of course neither the phone manufacturers or the auto manufacturers will EVER even consider that solution in spite of the fact that it would immediately solve the problem. The reason we have this mess is that States sell licenses to make a profit. They could not care less how inept the licensees are or how many die every year on the highways. The car makers do not care either. It's just business as usual.

 

[churchmouse]

Are you obligated to answer the phone every time it rings? Are the phones at all a factor in the idiots driving stupidly?

Absolutely on both counts. It is a knee jerk reaction to grab the phone when it rings. My work and so much more was tied directly to the phone. This became very apparent when I retired.

 

[olhorseman]

IMHO there are very few calls that can't wait to be made or taken for the 5 or 10 minutes it takes to get to a place where you can stop. It's our feeling of immediacy and self-importance that makes us pick up that phone. I doubt less than .1% of all calls are true "emergencies".
We are all Pavlov's dogs.
Classical conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[churchmouse]

It's way too late for any law to have any significant effect on the problem and enforcement would be a joke. Anyone who believes making phone use a crime while driving is deluding themselves. Other States have passed these laws and it has not made ANY difference. I drove professionally for years in Indiana and one of the main reasons I quit was because of the number of stupid people I had to deal with EVERY DAY playing with their phones (including just about every single LEO I saw). If the general public is so stupid that they need to be TOLD to put their phones down and concentrate on driving their automobile then they should never have been "issued" a license to operate a motor vehicle upon a public road in the first place. The only solution at this point is to simply design the phones or the automobiles (or both) so that the phones will not work when in a car while it is in motion. Of course neither the phone manufacturers or the auto manufacturers will EVER even consider that solution in spite of the fact that it would immediately solve the problem. The reason we have this mess is that States sell licenses to make a profit. They could not care less how inept the licensees are or how many die every year on the highways. The car makers do not care either. It's just business as usual.

Did you develop the sense where you could see the idiots start to screw up. Not all of them but a majority. Looking in their mirrors and watching body language has saved my bacon more than a few times. Sitting at a lite, lead driver has their head down so you know many behind you are going to miss the green and be delayed because the idiot will not roll on time. Lane weaving and speed variations so bad it causes a sea-saw effect for a mile behind some moron texting/surfing or just jawing on the damn phone. Rolling 5 over the limit in the left lane with traffic and Bozo in front of you slows 10 MPH around a long sweeping curve so he can concentrate on the phone over driving.
Yes, distracted driving worse than DUI. I have seen more than a few mishaps causing injury's out on the big roads.
This was part of the stresses involved with my just getting from point a to point b (sometimes hundreds of miles apart) and one of the reasons I elected to get out of the service truck at 62 instead of sticking it out until 65.
Say what you will, the general public can barely drive in the 1st place and adding a phone to the interior of an already comfortable vehicle just elevates the stooopid