Stupid California and their stupid new Cell phone laws.

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
No cite, but I recall an incident where some kids (cheerleaders?) were killed because someone was texting. The police got her cell phone records and proved that the time of the crash *someone *was sending text messages, and it was the driver’s phone.
[/QUOTE]

This happened here (Arizona), and resulted in a no-texting-while-driving law (in City of Phoenix) as of last Fall.
http://www.accidentattorneys.com/regional-content.cfm/state/az/Article/104676/Two-Die-In-A-Fatal-Arizona-Text-Messagin.html

82

[QUOTE=Captain_C]
Well of course not in stop-and-go traffic, you’d hit something! There is too much going on, I think we agree on that point.

I’m specifically referring to expressway driving, which is when I don’t see a problem with using my phone on speaker. Now on further contemplation, I realize expressways may be busier in other parts of the country than around here in central Michigan. For argument’s sake, let’s say 70mph, 2 lanes going the same direction, on-ramps about every 4 miles, and cars spaced about 10 seconds apart (or about 4 vehicles within visible range). Oh, and no weather problems like rain or snow. I base my argument on conditions similiar to this.
[/QUOTE]

At least in southern California this only happens between app 2-315am. And then only if you’re lucky.

83

[QUOTE=THespos]
I don’t drive as well while eating a Big Mac, either. Or talking to my wife in the passenger seat. Just because something distracts doesn’t mean it distracts enough to merit an outright ban. And if it does, then you might as well ban all the other stuff that distracts at least as much.

Oh, and BTW, my objection to the law isn’t as rooted in defining the problem as it is a function of what some governments think is the solution - hands free kits.
[/QUOTE]

There was a campaign in California a few years back against eating while driving. If your big Mac distracts you, it is illegal. There is no evidence I’ve seen that talking to someone distracts you. It might even help, preventing daydreaming.

How many instances do you see of drivers with cellphones doing stupid things? Probably none, since you’re too busy yakking to observe.

As for you being A.J. Foyt - fine for you, but studies have shown that people don’t assess their skills very well. From a paper I’ve published

Here’s the reference:

So, in general, we can’t trust people’s self assessment.

84

[QUOTE=suranyi]
I rarely make cell phone calls while driving, and don’t often receive them. But when I do get them, I’m glad I have my phone. They’re not emergencies, but the calls are usually to let me know about changes in plans, or from my wife to tell me to stop at a store and buy something. Without the calls I’d have to do a lot of extra driving.

So to answer what someone else said, of course people managed without cell phones in the past. But in cases like this, they also used a lot more gas.

Ed
[/QUOTE]

Tell your wife not to call you when you are on the road. Make plans.

When you have breakfast together in the morning, discuss what you need to pick up on your way home.

Oh, that’s right, you probably don’t share breakfast together. You probably get up at 6:30AM for your job, and she gets up at 8 for hers.

Even so, she must know when you are at work, and when you are on the road. Adjust accordingly. I’d rather you spent an extra 50 cents on gas than endanger people’s lives with needless yapping.

85

[QUOTE=THespos]
Has it not occurred to you that some people might be capable of driving and talking at the same time, while others are not?
[/QUOTE]

And I’ll bet some people think they can drink then drive. But you’re both wrong. As I see casdave has already pointed out.

Other than a very brief call, you can not drive and talk on the cell safely.

86

Just get tinted windows an continue to yak away.

87

I love the trend on this board toward referring to every attempt to make an analogy as a strawman. It’s just plain intellectual laziness. Anyway…

I never said self-assessment was the way. And nobody yet has addressed my point concerning hands-free kits NOT being the solution.

I see someone bit on my Big Mac point. I think it’s interesting that the UK seems to look at distraction as the enemy rather than specific instances of doing things that might be distracting. On one hand, at least it’s making an attempt to get to the heart of the matter. On the other, if it’s taken to the extreme, it’s government nannying past the point at which I’d be comfortable with it. I don’t live in the UK, though. So it’s neither here nor there for me.

Believe me, I see this all the time. To me, the most annoying behavior associated with this is the idiot who slows down to an unsafe speed while yakking, especially in the leftmost lanes.

My central point, though, is that handsfree kits don’t solve this problem.

I’ll even go ahead and concede my other point, seeing as how I’m not likely to change minds here. I tend to get pissed off when governments engage in lowest common denominator lawmaking. That’s just me. Wanna lump me in with all the uncoordinated drivers, fine. The law is still asinine in that it doesn’t solve the problem by making things safer.

88

Personally, I find argument through analogy is lazy, rather than your view of things.

It is not intellectually rigorous, if you have some point you wish to make, then you should have the tools at your disposal to make this directly and accurately. This demands a better grasp of your argument, it also saves from being dragged off topic.

The mobile phone issue is one that has enough material to be discussed only within its own context, there just isn’t any need to bring motorcyling into it, unless this is directly related. Since I observe very few motorcycles using hands free or mobiles, the only real way this applies is that they are the victims of rubbish drivers and they do not need such drivers to have another distraction.

In my opinion I actually think hands free is a very bad idea, since an intense conversation using it can be a serious distraction, however legislators have decided for reasons best knwon to them that they will allow these devices.

I can imagine some of the ‘for’ and ‘against’ remarks but my view is that driving is a huge responsibilty, and people should not be put at risk of serious harm or death just because of one persons distraction, to me this amounts to selfishness.

It is entirely possible to pull over to recieve a call, you do see some folk do this.
Death is so completely final and in this instance the reduction in the risk is so easily obtained, I just think that the benefits of one phone conversation are completely outweighed by the responsibility to those around you.

89

[QUOTE=THespos]
I tend to get pissed off when governments engage in lowest common denominator lawmaking. That’s just me. Wanna lump me in with all the uncoordinated drivers, fine.
[/QUOTE]

Keeping in mind that most people think they are above-average drivers, how do you suggest the law be changed so that it’s fair to good drivers and still limit irresponsible behavior from “uncoordinated drivers”?

90

[QUOTE=casdave]
Personally, I find argument through analogy is lazy, rather than your view of things.
[/QUOTE]

Because lending context to a discussion, like looking at how we handle similar risks, is irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that’s it. Trust government to make that decision for you. Even if its the wrong one. :rolleyes:

  1. Selfishness in and of itself isn’t necessarily bad.

  2. Driving is inherently risky on so many levels, I wonder how you have the courage to get behind the wheel yourself.

  3. At what point does the nannying get out of control? To steal from an old “Bloom County” strip, would you support dropping speed limits to save lives? 100km/hr. is fast. No doubt you’d save lives by dropping it to 80 or 60.

91

Any point worth debating has its merits that can be made within its boundaries, context and analogy are not the same thing.

Context is comparing the risk of accident and injury to other situations it is setting an issue relative to an overall picture, to see what we find is acceptable, it is not analogy, which is a rather differant thing.

Speed isn’t the biggest killer, its innappropriate speed that does the damge, going too fast for the drivers ability in the conditions they find themselves in.

Cutting speed limits does not equal reduced accident rates, though there are circumstance where this may be the case.

Bad driving, mistakes things like cutting across in front of others, driving too close etc, these are all far greater risks, the reduction in speed limits in itself is not likely to decrease the risk.
Its also true that the faster an incompetant driver travels, the more likeley they will be to have an accident, or not be able to respond in time.

The fastest roads in the country also have the lowest accident rates per mile.

An incompetant driver is one who is not capable of reacting to changing conditions, distractions are one way of reducing the overall competance of a driver, remove those distractions and that competance is likley to improve.

Selfishness when you are the only one negatively affected by the consequencies is fine by me, but when it is needless, and when it puts others in harms way it cannot be justified.

Driving in my view need not be risky, the best way to reduce the risks further is to ensure drivers are competant, driver training will reduce accidents and is probably better than most of the enforcement methods, however I can’t see extra training requirements being tolerated in the US and then there is of course the evaluation and delivery of training to look at, which effectively makes universal advanced driver training logistically unfeasable.

92

No. That implies that if you ban all cellphone use in cars, at some point someone is going to be pulled over and say “It’s an emergency, Officer.”

At which point the officer in question has two choices:

  1. Believe him and let him go

  2. Haul him in anyway

If she chooses option 1, the law will have been rendered impotent because anyone could have claimed it was an emergency and they would have gotten off scott-free. If she chooses option 2, someone might die if it’s an actual emergency.

And my point was that it’s just as absurd to say “we lived without cellphones until X years ago” as it is to say “we lived without computers until Y years ago” or “we lived without radios until Z years ago” or even “we lived without ambulances until B years ago–why take the risk of having an ambulance speed through the streets when they might hit someone?”. You can go ahead and live in 1882 if you like, but I shall choose not to join you.

Can you explain to me why you need to have your radio on while driving? Would you fall asleep in your car without a radio on at all times?

Again, you’re missing the point entirely.

Voyager, approximately 50% of all drivers are above average, and 48% can easily be considered typical if they are defined as the middle 48%; overlap is not only possible, but inevitable. It’s quite easy to be both a typical driver and an above-average driver, as in the case of a driver in the 60th percentile.

93

Chiming in to say I support any law restricting cellphone use while driving. I wish they’d do it over here! But Thais are notorious scofflaws and would ignore it like they do all the other laws anyway.

Still, I’ve seen at least one study that shows speaking on a cellphone, even a hands-free system, increases the chances of an accident. It’s not the same as talking to somone in the car with you. There seems to be some sort of tunnel vision involved in speaking on the phone to someone. Dunno, maybe you’re unintentionally concentrating on visualizing the person on the other end. But folks who carry on about Big Brother when these sorts of laws are passed remind me of those anti-government survivalists who want to hole up in their cabins in the woods and just be left alone dagnabbit. Sometimes, they’re even the same ones demanding to know why the government has not done anything to correct a situation when it takes a nasty turn for them.

94

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
No. That implies that if you ban all cellphone use in cars, at some point someone is going to be pulled over and say “It’s an emergency, Officer.”

At which point the officer in question has two choices:

  1. Believe him and let him go

  2. Haul him in anyway.
    [/QUOTE]

  3. “Ok, let me see your display for last number dialed”: not 911 (etc)= ticket.

  4. Hit redial, please: not 911 (etc) = ticket.

95

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
3. “Ok, let me see your display for last number dialed”: not 911 (etc)= ticket.
4. Hit redial, please: not 911 (etc) = ticket.
[/QUOTE]

And if the driver claims he was getting an urgent call from his pregnant wife?

96

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
And if the driver claims he was getting an urgent call from his pregnant wife?
[/QUOTE]

He can finish the call right after he signs the ticket.

97

[QUOTE=pmh]
He can finish the call right after he signs the ticket.
[/QUOTE]

Unless of course he’s her obstretician, also. :dubious:

98

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Unless of course he’s her obstretician, also. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

OBs can’t sign their names? Is that a “doctor’s handwriting” joke?

Oh, I see. You’re implying he’s the only doctor.
Why can’t he pull over to take the call?

I suppose if this guy is soooo important that he should be allowed to drive impaired just so he isn’t out of communication with the world that he alone is responsible for saving, then the courts would take that into account.
He should still get the ticket.

99

[QUOTE=THespos]

I never said self-assessment was the way. And nobody yet has addressed my point concerning hands-free kits NOT being the solution.

[/QUOTE]

Quite a few people agree that the only solution is to not talk, hands free or no. I do. But if we can’t get that, it doesn’t mean that using hands is okay.

As for the Big Mac, if enough people ate in the car, anywhere near the number who now talk, I bet there would be a law against eating in cars also. They tend to pass laws like this only when there is an actual problem that ending will get them votes.

100

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]

Voyager, approximately 50% of all drivers are above average, and 48% can easily be considered typical if they are defined as the middle 48%; overlap is not only possible, but inevitable. It’s quite easy to be both a typical driver and an above-average driver, as in the case of a driver in the 60th percentile.
[/QUOTE]

Look at the 3 numbers. Above average and typical are mutually exclusive. Notice that the three numbers add up to 100%. Given that the class of “average” drivers, whatever that means, is a lot more than a single driver, 50% above average is clearly incorrect.

This was self assessment, of course. I don’t think you could do a rank ordering of drivers, the way you can of SAT results, so 60th percentile has no meaning here. You’d have to define clusters of drivers with different capabilities, quite large ones. The study basically asked people to place themselves in one of three clusters, with the reported results.