Advocacy & Safety - Distracted Drivers - Office Work at 60 MPH

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/technology/01distracted.html

:eek:

plus, the feds banned texting while driving for all federal employees today

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/technology/01distracted.html

:eek:

plus, the feds banned texting while driving for all federal employees today

I liked this part:

<quote>
“The brain is fundamentally built to unitask,” said Clifford Nass, a communications professor at Stanford, where he is also a co-director of a new automotive research laboratory.
</quote>

And I wonder how many employees obey that "ban?"

<quote>
Some companies have weighed several factors — including the safety risks and the cost of potential lawsuits — and banned employees from doing work on their phones behind the wheel. (In a survey taken in August of its 13,000 member companies, the National Safety Council found 469 with such bans.)
</quote>

Uh, drive time IS productive when one concentrates ON driving.

<quote>
Mr. Hudson, the Potash salesman, still wishes there could be some compromise on the policy. He acknowledged that he has had more than a few scary moments in the past when he’s “swerved off the beaten path” while multitasking. But he still feels drive time should be productive.
</quote>

Deliberately driving while distracted and causing a death should be treated as murder, injuring someone should be treated as assault and battery.

Isn't it the "false" security of the "wide open road" when the ban really is needed?

<quote>
“You’d think we could have some leeway on the highway — when you’re on open road and you’re wide awake,” he said. “It’s a little over the top to have a 100 percent ban. But then, where do you draw the line?”
</quote>

That is the smart thing to do.

<quote>
He does not drive more than 30 miles without stopping to respond to messages. And he delegates more authority to subordinates so they can deal with problems when he is on the road.
</quote>

Maybe it'll take a few more major and "everyday" businesses and corporations being sued for their employees distracted driving habits for it to really hit home.

. . .Maybe it'll take a few more major and "everyday" businesses and corporations being sued for their employees distracted driving habits for it to really hit home.

I think you are right. Some companies have already made cell phone use while driving on business grounds for immediate dismissal as a way of controlling insurance costs. While compliance is questionable, every little bit helps.

I think you are right. Some companies have already made cell phone use while driving on business grounds for immediate dismissal as a way of controlling insurance costs. While compliance is questionable, every little bit helps.

Exactly, and sadly there isn't any real accurate way to tell if they are complying with the rules. About the only way to would be an inclusion in the rule that when they get in their car that they have to turn the cell phone off. And then call them while on the road. If it doesn't drop straight to voice mail it isn't off.

That wold be the most cost effective way. As I imagine that it would be too expensive for most companies to install the hard/software need to track cell phones to see if they're on or off.

I think you are right. Some companies have already made cell phone use while driving on business grounds for immediate dismissal as a way of controlling insurance costs. While compliance is questionable, every little bit helps.

LOLZ. Last Spring I saw the Verizon Hummer being driven by a guy who was on the phone. And in DC where it's illegal.

What amazes me is how many people 1) at real speed and 2) on twisty roads are doing multitasking. From a bicycle I don't really have time or the position to see many people in their cars. On a motorcycle I'm pacing them and can get a good look. Many folks seem to be morons. It's getting worse, too.

Wish there was a simple solution. Turning off the phone and stopping regularly seems pretty simple to me.

What amazes me is how many people 1) at real speed and 2) on twisty roads are doing multitasking. From a bicycle I don't really have time or the position to see many people in their cars. On a motorcycle I'm pacing them and can get a good look. Many folks seem to be morons. It's getting worse, too.

Wish there was a simple solution. Turning off the phone and stopping regularly seems pretty simple to me.

Good traffic law enforcement is also a key step, once our local PD and state highway patrol started to patrol together on our city's major thoroughfares , the use of hand held/multitasking incidents that I have observed has dropped considerably.

I saw a lady driving while working a crossword puzzle last Saturday!!! :eek: It's not just phones we have to worry about!

Exactly, and sadly there isn't any real accurate way to tell if they are complying with the rules. About the only way to would be an inclusion in the rule that when they get in their car that they have to turn the cell phone off. And then call them while on the road. If it doesn't drop straight to voice mail it isn't off.

That wold be the most cost effective way. As I imagine that it would be too expensive for most companies to install the hard/software need to track cell phones to see if they're on or off.

Company bans are for a simple reason, to protect the company, they don't actually care if you do it or not, in fact most of the calls are likely to be business calls. Where the ban is important is that after you crash, the companies lawyers point to the ban to get them out of needing to share the liability. Since it's banned while on the road for the company, to the point of dismissal, the company can't be held liable if you do it.

As for laws against it, we have had one on the books, here, since before I got my licence, over 30 years ago, it's careless driving. The current law isn't enforced either. The best way to really enforce it is to take a couple of police officers, put them in a beat up old car they drive around, when they spot dangerous or careless driving, they put on a portable flasher and pull you over.
You use 2 officers, one as a driver, the second as a spotter, the spotter is looking for careless and dangerous drivers to pull over, the driver isn't. In larger cities they could switch cars around from between divisions (or precincts), smaller cities could make a deal with someone like rent-a-wreck so that they switch cars every so often. Officers would be required to be in uniform, but not wearing their police hats, which they would put on after they pull you over. The officers switch places once in a while so that over the shift they spend roughly half the time driving and half spotting. I think they actually do this in some parts of Europe. When you start such a program you publicize the heck out of it, even though there is only one car out there, nobody knows what it looks like or where it is at any given time.

Company bans are for a simple reason, to protect the company, they don't actually care if you do it or not, in fact most of the calls are likely to be business calls. Where the ban is important is that after you crash, the companies lawyers point to the ban to get them out of needing to share the liability. Since it's banned while on the road for the company, to the point of dismissal, the company can't be held liable if you do it.

As for laws against it, we have had one on the books, here, since before I got my licence, over 30 years ago, it's careless driving. The current law isn't enforced either. The best way to really enforce it is to take a couple of police officers, put them in a beat up old car they drive around, when they spot dangerous or careless driving, they put on a portable flasher and pull you over.
You use 2 officers, one as a driver, the second as a spotter, the spotter is looking for careless and dangerous drivers to pull over, the driver isn't. In larger cities they could switch cars around from between divisions (or precincts), smaller cities could make a deal with someone like rent-a-wreck so that they switch cars every so often. Officers would be required to be in uniform, but not wearing their police hats, which they would put on after they pull you over. The officers switch places once in a while so that over the shift they spend roughly half the time driving and half spotting. I think they actually do this in some parts of Europe. When you start such a program you publicize the heck out of it, even though there is only one car out there, nobody knows what it looks like or where it is at any given time.

Those are good ideas. As you pointed out there are in most cases laws already on the books that cover these "new" conditions. What I think would be the smart thing to do is before a new law is written and passed that the pre-existing laws are reviewed to see if there are any that apply as written or would need an amendment to cover the "new" condition. As well as which laws can either be repealed or combined.

One problem that I see with the laws in general is that there are too many for any one person to be familiar with them all of the.

Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when there's a couple of thousand or so laws on the books how can the average person know every law that is on the books?

Company bans are for a simple reason, to protect the company, they don't actually care if you do it or not, in fact most of the calls are likely to be business calls. Where the ban is important is that after you crash, the companies lawyers point to the ban to get them out of needing to share the liability. Since it's banned while on the road for the company, to the point of dismissal, the company can't be held liable if you do it.

As for laws against it, we have had one on the books, here, since before I got my licence, over 30 years ago, it's careless driving. The current law isn't enforced either. The best way to really enforce it is to take a couple of police officers, put them in a beat up old car they drive around, when they spot dangerous or careless driving, they put on a portable flasher and pull you over.
You use 2 officers, one as a driver, the second as a spotter, the spotter is looking for careless and dangerous drivers to pull over, the driver isn't. In larger cities they could switch cars around from between divisions (or precincts), smaller cities could make a deal with someone like rent-a-wreck so that they switch cars every so often. Officers would be required to be in uniform, but not wearing their police hats, which they would put on after they pull you over. The officers switch places once in a while so that over the shift they spend roughly half the time driving and half spotting. I think they actually do this in some parts of Europe. When you start such a program you publicize the heck out of it, even though there is only one car out there, nobody knows what it looks like or where it is at any given time.

It's not at all uncommon for cops here to drive around in pairs in unmarked cars doing exactly as you describe, and they also perform random breath testing while they're at it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to make much of a difference, I still see 1 in 5 drivers holding a phone to their ear. People just don't care.

Company bans are for a simple reason, to protect the company, they don't actually care if you do it or not, in fact most of the calls are likely to be business calls. Where the ban is important is that after you crash, the companies lawyers point to the ban to get them out of needing to share the liability. Since it's banned while on the road for the company, to the point of dismissal, the company can't be held liable if you do it.

As for laws against it, we have had one on the books, here, since before I got my licence, over 30 years ago, it's careless driving. The current law isn't enforced either. The best way to really enforce it is to take a couple of police officers, put them in a beat up old car they drive around, when they spot dangerous or careless driving, they put on a portable flasher and pull you over.
You use 2 officers, one as a driver, the second as a spotter, the spotter is looking for careless and dangerous drivers to pull over, the driver isn't. In larger cities they could switch cars around from between divisions (or precincts), smaller cities could make a deal with someone like rent-a-wreck so that they switch cars every so often. Officers would be required to be in uniform, but not wearing their police hats, which they would put on after they pull you over. The officers switch places once in a while so that over the shift they spend roughly half the time driving and half spotting. I think they actually do this in some parts of Europe. When you start such a program you publicize the heck out of it, even though there is only one car out there, nobody knows what it looks like or where it is at any given time.

In NYC it's called the 'Quality of Life Task Force' and they use a taxi cab. But they are more interested in drugs than illegal cell phone use.

For a description, look up Lush Life by Richard Price.