There’s always a reason to pull you over:
Going 31 in a 30 mph zone.
Air freshener (or handicapped parking permit) hanging from your mirror.
License plate frame covering part of the license.
Did you signal your turn (lane change, etc) exactly 200 feet in advance?
Looks like your tail light wasn’t working back there.
And of course: You were going a bit from side to side in your lane. Requires a DUI investigation.
That would kind of defeat all the laws requiring mandatory liability insurance, wouldn’t it? Some broke kid yapping on the phone hits you, crippling you for life, and you get to collect nothing because his insurance doesn’t cover it and he is essentially judgement-proof.
I guess that would put the burden on other people (drivers and pedestrians alike) to then purchase insurance that would cover them if they were hit by a driver talking on a cell phone.
Well, yeah. But in reality this doesn’t happen too often. People driving and using cellphones while doing so far outstrip the number of resources law enforcement has available. Which is another reason these laws are kinda stupid: they are routinely ignored because they aren’t enforced.
I can’t believe I am the first to post this:
*You can take the driver away from the cell phone, but you can’t take the risky behavior away from the driver. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers who are nearly as prone to crash with or without the device. The findings may explain why laws banning cell phone use in motor vehicles have had little impact on accident rates. *
Interesting article, although I don’t think that the data necessarily supports the conclusion. It states that the cell phone ban has reduced cell phone usage. So far so good. But that may only be due to “law abiding” drivers following the new law. If the “law abiding” drivers are more than 50% of the driving population, then usage will go down. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that more than 50% of drivers follow the laws. However, perhaps the majority of accidents are caused by the bad driver minority. As the cell phone usage in general became more and more prevalent, more and more “bad” drivers began using their cell phones while driving. As a result, they made up for the reduced accidents of law abiders, by creating more accidents of their own. This gives even more reason to enforce the ban and punish more heavily. The bad drivers become even worse with cell phones in their hands.
The problem with that is that there’s simply no evidence that it is. Over the years when cell phone use has expanded to become nearly universal, auto safety has inexorably risen. Crashes and fatalities have continued their historical pattern of dropping, unaffected by all the drivers talking on their phones during that time. Similarly, laws banning cell phone use in cars have produced no identifiable additional reduction in harms in those areas.
I recognize that the lab data quite clearly finds a significant increase in distraction. It’s an open question why that effect doesn’t translate into actual empirical harm on the road. I’ve read that some insurance companies believe that people on the phone compensate by reducing other distractions (radio, passenger, food, makeup, just looking around), but as far as I know that’s just speculation.
I don’t doubt that you and some other people can drive and talk on the phone at the same time perfectly safely. There are also people who can safely drive 100+ MPH, and some who can drive well enough while somewhat drunk. But the laws are written for the majority of people’s safety and skills, so that’s why speed limits are under 100 MPH, and there are blood alcohol limits, and there’s more laws regulating cell phone use.
That’s very true. I have fairly good hearing, but my cell phone sound quality often causes me trouble. I can talk to someone in person and do something else, but with a cell phone conversation I have to focus much more. I think also with a conversation in person I can see the person’s mouth, expression, hand gestures, and other things so that even if I miss something they say I can figure it out by context. With a cell phone conversation, I have to listen more carefully since I can’t see them and since I might miss a few words anyway from the cell phone sound going out.
I live in the Bay Area. It appears that there is some talk about raising the fine, which would help. We actually have cops parked on the shoulder looking for carpool and cellphone cheats. In any case, since the law went into effect I’ve seen far fewer people driving like they are drunk at 8:30 am, so it seems to have helped.
I was down in your area last week, and took 5 from 101 to Anaheim. Yes, people go fast, but there are fewer lane changers and nitwits who feel they need to leave 10 car lengths when going 10 mph. I hate to admit it, but I think you have better drivers than we have.
This is really the issue with any sort of ban, not just cell phone ban. The problem is, the amount of resources it would take to effectively enforce it would be ridiculous and, even then, it wouldn’t catch people using hands-free devices, which as the OP mentions are banned in some circumstances, and wouldn’t prevent people from driving distracted by other means. I know someone who got in an accident just looking at his GPS and another just changing the volume on his stereo. If we’re going to ban anything, we need to ban all distractions, but then how do we determine a distraction. That drivers are getting distracted and causing accidents is a sign that they’re probably a poor driver in the first place. Maybe we should just be more prudent about who should be able to drive rather than pretty much just allowing anyone who wants to do get a license.
Maybe because a punishment shouldn’t be imposed until you are convicted by a jury or an impartial magistrate? What else should the government be able to take from you when you are accused of a petty traffic infraction? The car?
If you get pulled over for a DUI, they confiscate your car, even if you have 't been in a crash. This occurs even after random DUI traps in which drivers haven’t even been observed driving erratically. I suppose it really depends on what you consider to be petty.
Not anyplace I have ever lived. If there is someone who is legally able to take your car home, you go with the LEO & the car goes home. If there is no one to do that, it is towed and you get it back upon the storage & towing fees being paid. Maybe we just have a different idea of what ‘taken away’ or confiscated’ means.
It is not like the DEA taking your property… yet…
As to distracted driving, from all I have read here, I am so glad none of you have gone into commercial aviation. If a pilot can’t listen to & talk on the radio, ignore a person puking in his lap on landing in rough air and have smoke of an unknown origin in the cockpit or a hundred other things that can & do happen more often than you think, he and his passengers will die. Big airplane or little airplane, first, last & always flying the airplane comes first.
When operating an aircraft, NOTHING is more important than flying the airplane… That should also apply to any machine that can hurt the operator or others from inattention.
But we allow those who can’t focus to operate them. Even after many times proving that they can’t.
If we did not tolerate the lax enforcement & the repeat offenders, it would not be a problem but it is a problem and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
I think we are so terrified of falling under that bus that we will only ever fuss and cry but never do what is necessary to fix the problem .
I am so glad I am old and an old pilot that I have known for a long time that there is nothing more important than flying the airplane. I do not need a law to convince me to pay attention. Apparently that is not the norm with most people.
I don’t follow you here. Surely you aren’t suggesting that they let you drive the car drunk to the jail for booking.
If no one is available to drive the car, they tow it as a safety measure, not as a punishment. You just can’t leave the car off to the side of the road until the suspect sobers up.
I don’t understand why cell phones are singled out. I can be fiddling with the car stereo, the GPS navigation, reading a book, a map, putting ketchup on a hamburger while shifting gears, applying makeup (if I were a chick), lighting a cigarette, and (in some states) actually popping open a beer, but if I glance at my phone that’s per se bad.
It’s an over and under inclusive feel good measure. Just enforce it like any other distracted driving. If some guy is weaving between lanes because he is composing a novel on his phone, cite him for distracted driving. To me is doesn’t matter why someone is distracted.
I live in Ohio also, where do you see a license suspension for a conviction? In Ohio a Minor Misdemeanor is punishable by a fine of no more than $150, no jail time. It does not mean you will necessarily be fined that upon conviction.
In Ohio police can NOT arrest for a MM unless a few statutory exceptions present themsleves, one is refusing to sign the citation.
As stated in the law here, and also supported by Ohio Constitutioanl law, not metioned though, Muncipalities can make the same law a higher offense, an M-4 to an M-1 if they wish, this is not in conflict with the general laws under Article 18, sec. 3’s Home Rule authroity.
Confiscation before conviction? It seems to there would be a Due Process concern here. Even after conviction, the same.
If not a seizure for a criminal conviction, they may try a civil forfieture, but for one offense? I may see it for recidivists, yes. One STRIKE and you are out? This raises Constituional issues.
How much trouble do want to take for a crime that will start to disappear by the end of the decade? We should see actual robocars on the road by the end of the decade. I suspect the extra price will be wiped out by insurance savings. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have laws against manually operating a motor vehicle within 30 years.
The license suspension is for violators under 18. Its right here: Ohio: Cell phone laws, legislation – distracted driving
Is this before or after we get our jet packs?
You answered the question in your last sentence.
Except for extreme weather/road conditions, I don’t drive with two hands on the wheel. My 2010 car, like most newer cars comes with bluetooth built in. If your car doesn’t have it, you can buy one that clips to the visor for < $100 & one that goes in your ear for < $30.
However, our lawmakers have decided to “get tough” & ban how your hold the phone & not the conversation itself. In my case, physically holding the phone isn’t a distraction, since that hand wouldn’t otherwise be on the wheel anyway. I’ve also tried an experiment, holding my hand up to my ear does not alter my peripheral vision at all as my hand/arm is too far back to block my view.
What banning handheld phones does do is it allows the politicians to show the constituents back home that they are “doing something” about this “horrendous” problem.
There is a simple answer to this problem, but no one has cojones to bring it about. The cell phone companies seamlessly hand your off from tower to tower as your drive down the road. If your call is not with 911 (or other registered emergency numbers), don’t make this so seamless; drop the call. By pulling over & not going tower to tower to tower, you’re call would go through. Yes this would be an inconvenience to your passengers, or those on public transit, but it’s a small price to pay to keep us all safe.
You obviously don’t know much about robocars. They are already legal in Nevada.
You might want to read this blog
http://ideas.4brad.com/taxonomy_menu/2/95
I expect the United States will run behind the rest of the world in this technology, because we have too many lawyers.