Blue Order

The New York Times

October 1, 2005

Note to Drivers: Lose the Phone (and Lipstick)

By DAMIEN CAVE

GREENWICH, Conn., Sept. 29 - When a new state driving law goes into effect here on Saturday, Will Suarez will have to put down his Treo 650 cellphone and stop digging into his briefcase while cruising Connecticut's streets and highways in his Audi sedan.

The new law, one of the toughest in the nation, goes beyond just prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cellphones while behind the wheel. Those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can be fined $100 for any behavior that distracts them from driving - glancing at a newspaper, typing on a BlackBerry, applying lipstick while looking in the rearview mirror or turning to yell at the kids in the back seat.

It is a prospect that Mr. Suarez, 42, like many drivers across Connecticut, can hardly believe is possible.

"I'm in sales, so I work out of my car a lot," he said Thursday, after driving into a parking lot here with his phone pressed against his ear. "It's an infringement of my personal freedoms."

Drivers nonetheless will have to get used to it. Four years after New York passed the nation's first cellphone ban, 22 states and Washington have limited cellphone use while driving. And in the last year, many of those states have gone beyond merely regulating cellphone use among drivers, cracking down on distractions inside cars.

Tennessee and Virginia, going further than most, have passed laws prohibiting the display of pornographic videos in vehicles. In Nevada, lawmakers recently increased penalties for drivers who kill someone while eating, putting on makeup or using a cellphone. In Washington, district lawmakers have banned driving while "reading, writing, performing personal grooming, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo" or while playing video games. At least a half-dozen other states, including Alaska, Louisiana, Delaware and Wisconsin, are considering bans on activities that pull drivers' attention away from the road.

"This is a trend that we're seeing in a lot of places," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "Since the introduction of the cellphone in cars, there has been enormous growing interest in distractions and now they are looking at all aspects of the issue."

Studies have shown for years that holding a cellphone to your ear while maneuvering a vehicle can be dangerous. One 2002 Harvard study estimated that drivers using cellphones may cause about 2,600 deaths a year nationwide and 330,000 injuries.

Hand-held cellphones are not the only problem either. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that distractions are a factor in up to 80 percent of all traffic accidents reported to the police. Even the use of a headset or other hands-free cellphone device can reduce a driver's concentration enough to pose a hazard, the agency found.

"It's the cognitive distraction of the conversation that causes problems," said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the traffic safety agency.

Banning the use of hand-held cellphones will nonetheless make highways safer by reminding drivers to pay better attention, said Connecticut State Representative Richard Roy, Democrat of Milford, who had been pushing for a law against driving distractions since 1998.

"There's nothing worse than seeing someone driving down the road, on the phone or shaving or putting on make-up, and there's a child in the back seat," he said. "They'll say over and over that they love that child but they're putting the child in danger."

Mr. Roy said the law included a provision that allows the police to record which distractions are occurring most often. The Connecticut law includes a ban on cellphone use, even with a hands-free device, for drivers with a learning permit. Mr. Sundeen said that 10 states had recently passed laws limiting the use of electronics by teenage drivers.

In addition to Connecticut, only New York, New Jersey and a few cities, including Washington and Chicago, have outright bans on the use of hand-held cellphones by drivers.

In New York, the police can pull over and ticket a motorist just for using a hand-held cellphone.

In New Jersey, drivers spotted using a hand-held phone can be ticketed only if they are pulled over for a moving violation. But on Wednesday, the state's acting governor, Richard J. Codey, called for a law allowing the police to cite motorists solely for talking on a hand-held phone.

"Strengthening the ban will help us live better with technology," Mr. Codey said.

Connecticut's law follows the trend: drivers can be fined $100 simply for holding a cellphone "in the immediate proximity" of their ear. To be ticketed for other distractions, a motorist must first be pulled over for a moving violation.

Not that all drivers here are comforted by the distinction. Throughout Connecticut on Thursday, motorists said they supported outlawing hand-held cellphones, but had reservations about the law's language banning "any activity not related to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of such vehicle."

Mr. Suarez in Greenwich, who said that he also opposed mandatory seat-belt laws, called the new prohibition "way over the top."

Nancy Neumann, 40, who was shopping on Thursday for a hands-free device at a Verizon store in Trumbull, said the police should not have the right to penalize drivers for eating, drinking or talking to people in the back seat.

"You can grab a soda without even looking and you can swat your kids in the backseat without even looking," said Ms. Neumann, a mother of three.

Kelli Bussan, 36, a stay-at-home mom in New Canaan, said some distractions were impossible to avoid.

"My kids are always dropping their cups," she said, while rearranging toys in her parked gold 2004 Lincoln Navigator. "I have to turn around and get it unless I want them screaming the whole way home."

And what about, some people asked, more personal vehicular occurrences, like kissing or drumming on the dashboard to Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run." Leigh Owen, standing near a Starbucks in Greenwich, said she wondered how the police would handle her own recent embarrassing car crisis: a giant spider camped out just above her head.

"I was screaming 'Oh my God, Oh my God, I'm going to die,' " she said. "I had to jerk the wheel to pull over. Would I get a ticket for a spider?"

Mr. Roy, the representative, said the police will have a lot of discretion in enforcing the law. Several officers in Bridgeport emphasized on Thursday that the law will not be used as an excuse for intrusion.

Kim Nikola, 39, an officer with the Bridgeport police, said that the no-cellphone law will be "just one more thing to keep in our minds."

And for some drivers, the law's extension beyond just talking was a welcome reminder that sharing the road requires concentration. Efrain Rosario, 22, an account manager for a Verizon Wireless store in Trumbull, said that on Aug. 10 he drove his 2005 Scion tC into the back of a Honda while reading a text message from a friend. If the law had been in place, he said, maybe he would have thought twice about looking down to read "What's up?"

"That 25-cent text message cost me a thousand dollars in damage," Rosario said, "and it ruined my night."

Blue Order

I didn't notice this posted before, but if it was, my apologies for posting it again.

EricDJ

Someone around LA has their license plate as "hang up", they went further and made the top of the trim cover say "shut up" and the bottom says "and drive". Very cool when read together

michaelnel

I wish they had a law like that in Kalifornia. But if they did, they wouldn't enforce it.

Bikepacker67

Do these folks even realize how self absorbed they sound?

Blue Order

That was the quote that grabbed me too. "It's an infringement of my personal freedoms." Boo ****ing hoo. Self-centered a-hole.

khuon

The problem with these types of laws is that it's like the anti-bacterial soap problem. The laws attempt to eliminate distraction through legislation instead of dealing with the root cause of the problem. That is that the average motorist is ill-equipped/ill-trained to deal with a driving environment that is full of both intentional and unintentional distractions. Vehicular operations require task management and prioritisation. Simply saying that by enacting a law, we can eliminate distraction-induced accidents is nothing short of white-washing the issue. I would like to see more effort be placed on more thorough driver education/training and rigorous testing. If this means that more people have to actually spend more time increasing their driving skills through training and education, the better off the roads will be. If this means that those who simply cannot pass muster and no longer fit the requirements of "you must be this tall to ride this ride" and end up losing their driving priviledges then so be it. Would it not be better to raise the bar rather than continuing to admit those who cannot exhibit proper decision-making processes like knowing when to use a mobile phone or take a sip from their coffee? Playing whack-a-mole with driving distractions simply is not a scalable nor complete solution.

Blue Order

I'm not at all clear on how training would equip someone to drive better if they're being distracted while driving. Now, if you mean that drivers should be trained to recognize distracting activities as distracting activities, and thus, avoid distracting activities while they're driving, I see no harm in that. I also see no harm in making drivers pay the price for their inattention.

khuon

If you have ever seen how operators of other vehicles are trained... especially those of commercial vehicles, you'll see that such training includes things like how to properly use navigation and communications equipment, how to avoid distractions and prioritise their tasks, how to handle emergency situations. Some operators must also undergo phsychological testing. The standards are far too low today for allowing an individual to get behind a device capable of imparting more kenetic energy damage than a round from an M-16.

o-dog

"It's an infringement of my personal freedoms."

what about the personal freedom of others not to be killed or injured by distracted drivers?

ChroMo2

try driving a 5-speed and drinking coffee. that's legal! it doesn't matter if someone doesn't have the common sense not to drive and talk on a cellphone, because there's always the alcohol impaired operator or the druggie or the mental incapacitant. it's a shame no one has the right of way anymore. no wonder so many deaths and injuries occur on our nations roadways. i'm glad i'm a biker. it's nice to travel where motorized vehicles can't!

Slow Train

>>
Kelli Bussan, 36, a stay-at-home mom in New Canaan, said some distractions were impossible to avoid.

"My kids are always dropping their cups," she said, while rearranging toys in her parked gold 2004 Lincoln Navigator. "I have to turn around and get it unless I want them screaming the whole way home."
<<

This is exactly the type of driver that caused me, years ago, to radically alter my commuting route. I came across way to many SUV's driven by distracted parents swatting at their kids. One time I even had to dive off the road as the vehicle coming at me was zig zaging from left to right.

trackhub

Well, I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I am damn tired of these morons using that argument.

peregrine

*sigh* I know. Why can't some people understand the damage distractions while driving can cause and the seriousness of it?! It's frustrating!

khuon

I had a similar thing happen to me...

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...1&postcount=11

UmneyDurak

Her reply also shows another problem, kids are too damn spoiled. Parents are letting them get away with too much crap.

sbhikes

I think enacting the law is step one in educating motorists of the seriousness of distracted driving. And if any of them actually obey the law, maybe the driving environment will be quiet enough for them to recall the driver training they actually did have all those long years ago.

As for these "I work out of my car I have to talk on the phone" people, maybe they should go work out of an Internet cafe instead.

And that parent--oh boo hoo your kids will scream all the way home. Let them. Maybe it'll teach them to stop spilling stuff. Oh, and maybe if you didn't give them drinks in the car there wouldn't be this problem to begin with. Sheesh!

Sasquatchula

[QUOTE=Slow Train]>>
Kelli Bussan, 36, a stay-at-home mom in New Canaan, said some distractions were impossible to avoid.

"My kids are always dropping their cups," she said, while rearranging toys in her parked gold 2004 Lincoln Navigator. "I have to turn around and get it unless I want them screaming the whole way home."

Hmm, no toys or food allowed in your death-trap? Hey, two problems solved! Personal responsibility, learn to live with it.

michaelnel

Agreed. I think the baby boomer and later generations are the worst parents the world has seen yet.

oboeguy

Wow, every single quote from a driver is negative and pathetically self-centered. It's too bad, though, that these laws won't make a bit of difference. Here in NY where it all started, NOBODY ever gets a ticket for it.

Crazy Cyclist

Thank god she is a stay at home mother, I wouldn't want her out on the streets around me.

noisebeam

Drivers should at least put down the cell phone if taking a drag while running a red light:


See more red light runnng photos here:
https://www.kpho.com/Global/link.asp?L=86906

Al

lsits

UmneyDurak

This is just scary.

Slow Train

That's funny! No hands on the wheel while running the red light. This girl should be the poster girl for why we need distracted driver laws