Advocacy & Safety - I Have Changed My Opinion On Texting While Driving Laws - Rant-ish

It occurred to me today, as our local lawmakers are trying to make it legal for the cops to stop a motorist and ticket them solely on the fact that they are texting while driving, that may not be a great idea after all.

For now, cops can only use the "No Cell Phone" law as an add-on offense for those caught doing something else - like speeding or running a red light or stop sign.

After considerable study of how people text - two hands on the center of the steering wheel while holding their phones between their eyes and the windshield - I have concluded that giving them tickets for that behavior will NOT discourage crack-addict compulsive texters in the least. They can not help themselves and are powerless to go even five minutes without feeling needed or expressing their self importance. So where does that leave them? I'll tell you - it leaves them texting covertly - under the dashboard, in their laps, or on the seat next to them.

So where are their friggin' EYES gonna be when they overtake me as I try to avoid the door zone on a 35pmh road? Certainly not looking through the gahdam windshield! Better to let them text on top of the steering wheel if you ask me.

So my stand, and my vote (if I get one) will be to let them play with their phones in the open. My life is endangered enough by in-car phone use, I do not want to multiply that risk tenfold.

BTW. I pretty much just hate human beings. We are weak and careless. Grrrrr. :notamused:

What I like about texting drivers is that they miss when a stoplight turns green, which leaves huge gaps that I can use to my advantage. :D

What I like about texting drivers is that they miss when a stoplight turns green, which leaves huge gaps that I can use to my advantage. :D

HaHa! Yeah...stop signs too. Happened twice just today! I have observed drivers actually slowing to TRY TO CATCH a red light!

With iphones, blackberries, and droids creeping into ubiquity, texting seems quaint. It's full-blown web-surfing now.

Following a traffic incident, it's pretty easy to reconstruct wireless service records, to determine whether someone in the car was yakking, texting, or surfing. If the driver was alone in the vehicle, this should be treated as a DUI, because the impact on driving ability is about the same.

It doesn't make a difference. People used to read billboards, look at personalized plates, other drivers, changing radio stations constantly, redaing the newspaper, reading books, etc.

Lookee what ad turned up on my OP - probably because I mentioned the words texting or phone.

I photoshopped it just a little. :lol:

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=141962&d=1268793891

Following a traffic incident, it's pretty easy to reconstruct wireless service records, to determine whether someone in the car was yakking, texting, or surfing. If the driver was alone in the vehicle, this should be treated as a DUI, because the impact on driving ability is about the same.

I agree. ...and might I just add, I hate text messaging!

I drive an 18 wheeler for a living and if it wasnt for my droid while driving, I wouldnt have any time to spend on here learning about bicycle safety.

I drive an 18 wheeler for a living and if it wasnt for my droid while driving, I wouldnt have any time to spend on here learning about bicycle safety.And now you do not have the time to pay attention to your driving.

As you know, I seriously believe these devices should be disabled while in motion except for 911 - you know with the GPS chip it absolutely is do-able but I am sure the wireless phone lobby would not have it!

That, and getting the darned TVs out of the cockpit! Now my GPS is quite handy because I am not fiddling for maps and roads when I am going someplace new.

BTW. I pretty much just hate human beings. We are weak and careless. Grrrrr. :notamused:

I directed traffic 3 1/2 hours a day, 5 days a week for 4 years when I worked as a CSO for a police department. During that time, I came to the conclusion that I'd rather a drunk driver was coming at me than somebody on a cell phone, because at least the drunk was TRYING to pay attention.

This was in the days before texting... and I can't imagine that texting is any better. I feel the same way about the bulk of humanity that you do. Personally I think it should be legal for other motorists (or bicyclists) to shoot at any cell phone they see in a car. If it's up next to your head or in front of your face, so be it.

In no time we'd weed those jackasses out.

As you know, I seriously believe these devices should be disabled while in motion except for 911 - you know with the GPS chip it absolutely is do-able

My GPS unit has a drift-alarm, which is useful for camping-by-kayak ... you're right that it's doable.

Now my GPS is quite handy because I am not fiddling for maps and roads when I am going someplace new.You never considered pulling to the side of the road to read the map?

I drive an 18 wheeler for a living and if it wasnt for my droid while driving, I wouldnt have any time to spend on here learning about bicycle safety.

we certainly wouldn't miss you if you put the damn thing away.

I directed traffic 3 1/2 hours a day, 5 days a week for 4 years when I worked as a CSO for a police department. During that time, I came to the conclusion that I'd rather a drunk driver was coming at me than somebody on a cell phone, because at least the drunk was TRYING to pay attention.

Most drunk drivers actually get home just fine.

:)

You never considered pulling to the side of the road to read the map?

Uh, yes........though I will admit to checking it while stopped at a traffic light. It is much nicer having the little voice say when to turn and have the simple map in the line of vision.

I drive an 18 wheeler for a living and if it wasnt for my droid while driving, I wouldnt have any time to spend on here learning about bicycle safety.

Just don't watch any porn (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6150659-504083.html), ok?

*on soapbox*

This issue has become a hot button of mine as well. The terrible reality is that while aggressive and nasty drivers are problematic, distracted drivers are deadly. And there are more opportunities to drive distracted now than ever.

Auto Design:

There was a day when good automobiles were ergonomically designed to distract the driver as little as possible. Buttons and switches were put in different places and had a different feel so the driver could tell which button was which without having to take their eyes off the road. Nowadays, automobile manufacturers are making cars with as few buttons as possible. Instead, they integrate the audio system, heating and ventilation system, and many other systems together ... all using the same buttons and controls and all requiring the driver to take their eyes off the road and look at a heads up display to use them.

I know that the auto makers are doing this so they can maximize features for minimum cost (buttons and switches are expensive). But why is this permitted? Why no standards? Mark my words. The ergonomic incompetence of some of these designs is going to cause some automakers to lose some pretty large personal injury lawsuits.

Cellphones:

Studies have apparently shown that talking on a cellphone while driving, even with a hands free cellphone, is nearly as dangerous as driving under the influence. Yet, it is not against the law. This makes no sense.

Either the studies are flawed, or our laws are flawed. The issue should be investigated, the risk quantified, and appropriate action taken.

Presuming the studies are vetted and determined to be accurate, I think it sensible for us to:

1. Mandate that cellphone manufacturers/cell providers/auto makers devise and deploy a system that prevents the drivers from making cellphone calls, texting, or otherwise, while driving. If they complain that it's not technically possible to do so, then cellphones should be made inoperable for any but 911 calls while mobile. The GPS chips in cellphones make this possible with no change at all in technology.

2. Establish presumed liability for anyone involved in a traffic crash if they can be shown to be engaged in distracted driving.

3. Make it a crime ... yes ... a crime just like drunk driving ... to engage in any activity that has been shown to be as dangerous as drunk driving. IMHO, that would include texting, web-surfing, and the like.

4. If #3 sounds like too much, a good first step would be to simply suspend the license of anyone involved in a traffic accident for a period of time (say, 6 months) if they were involved in a traffic accident while engaged in distracted driving. Talking on a cell or texting within 10 minutes of the accident (from cellphone records) could establish a presumption that they were, and the defendant would have to prove otherwise to avoid punishment.

Frankly, I think the problem is bad and getting worse. This is one place our lawmakers can actually DO something that will save lives.

The problem is that distracted driving is thought of much like drunk driving was 50 years ago ... something you shouldn't do, but punished lightly. And there was little political will to do anything about it.

The sooner we change that the fewer lives will be lost.

*off soapbox*

I'd be royally pissed if I couldn't use my phone while my buddy drove. And GPS sucks down a lot of juice, to always have it on will be a pretty big burden.

Lets for once hold people accountable for their actions and not make companies their corporate overlords and big brothers looking over their shoulders. Tying the hands of the police and saying they can't enforce a law when they see it broken is wrong. I fully support legislation that lets the police do their job. Especially in the interest of safety.

Yeah, disabling phones that are in motion is a silly idea- what about passengers and public transit?

I like that some states (CA, MA...) are on the anti-phone/texting bandwagon, but I feel that the punishments are really light- the first ticket is practically just a warning ($50-100).

Eventually there is going to be the perfect lawsuit where the sympathetic victim establishes that the cell service provider is well aware of how dangerous it is to allow drivers to access their network but figures they can avoid any responsibility. I see a jury of older men who don't have an addiction to their phones. Actually, I don't really see this happening, but I would like it to happen.

And now you do not have the time to pay attention to your driving.

So, Im bigger than everyone else. Im in a truck I can basicly do what I want.

Phones and GPS is fine while truck is moving. My wife or friend can look at the GPS and see where we are going. Itd be dumb to have to stop moving. Same with the phone. I also dont see how being on a hands free phone is any more dangerous that talking to a passenger? Pretty soon you guys will have us driving with toothpicks holding our eyes open and duct tape over our mouths.

The GPS no issue - I think it is safer than using maps while driving or even being distracted looking for street signs and numbers without the map. The only place where it becomes and issue is if you are moving while you are trying to set it. Kind of like texting.

The phone I would argue that even hands free is more distracting than another passenger and I think that is because the other passenger is usually also a driver and two eyes are on the road - but I guess that depends on talking style.

My own personal experience is that I have talked on the phone while driving and am more likely to loose my focus than while talking with another person - so I just don't do it. By the same token, I can't tell you how many times we pulled off the road because of kid fight in the back seat and how many times I see other parents leaning over the back seat swatting at the little ones - same thing with folks with loose dogs etc.

And then putting makeup on in the car etc. I once was on the phone with a coworker who as driving, talking on the phone AND putting on pantyhose (don't ask, I didn't) all while driving and I have (in younger dumber days) managed to get a bra off while driving as well and other things you shouldn't do in a car while driving.

Ok - so maybe I see the point on nanny controls. Certainly the old seat belt systems never worked - first the interlock, then the "decapitator" but I don't think police are going to pull over cell phone users either - not enough resources..........

Maybe if we put some real meat into punishing distracted drivers / sleepy drivers / rude drivers etc. But maybe there are also ways to incentivize the good behavior. So what's the fix?

Eventually there is going to be the perfect lawsuit where the sympathetic victim establishes that the cell service provider is well aware of how dangerous it is to allow drivers to access their network but figures they can avoid any responsibility. I see a jury of older men who don't have an addiction to their phones. Actually, I don't really see this happening, but I would like it to happen.

Did you ever read your cell phone manual? Did you see the part where it says to not use while driving?

lol, Theyd have to text it to people that are driving to get them to read it.

The reason why cell phone conversations are more distracting then a passenger is because cell phone sound quality is absyml, and you have to concentrate more to understand what the other person is saying. In person conversations easily convey full tonal range and its easier to hear what the other person is saying.

What if your passenger had a lisp?

Phones and GPS is fine while truck is moving. My wife or friend can look at the GPS and see where we are going. Itd be dumb to have to stop moving. Same with the phone. I also dont see how being on a hands free phone is any more dangerous that talking to a passenger? Pretty soon you guys will have us driving with toothpicks holding our eyes open and duct tape over our mouths.

I really don't see this as much of a problem. The days of long-haul trucking are pretty much numbered -- even the enfeebled U.S. rails system has already skewered your industry -- and pretty soon, your longest run will be between the depot and the back door of the Big Box Store.

Given your attitude, though, I'm not sure you can handle even that level of responsibility.

The reason why cell phone conversations are more distracting then a passenger is because cell phone sound quality is absyml, and you have to concentrate more to understand what the other person is saying. In person conversations easily convey full tonal range and its easier to hear what the other person is saying.

Actually, it's because the locus of attention shifts internally. There's a whole set of neurological changes that occur when listening to a cellphone that is attached to your ear. This attentional shift is lessened, but not eliminated, when using a speaker phone. The human mind is not multi-threaded, and linguistic processing of any sort will interfere with the interpretation of other sensory data.

I really don't see this as much of a problem. The days of long-haul trucking are pretty much numbered -- even the enfeebled U.S. rails system has already skewered your industry -- and pretty soon, your longest run will be between the depot and the back door of the Big Box Store.

Given your attitude, though, I'm not sure you can handle even that level of responsibility.

At least I dont believe everything I read. Im not a truck driver and I sure dont surf the web when I do drive. Im very sorry about your not understanding sarcasm. haha good attempt at attacking the trucking industry though. I got a good laugh at it. Just to clear things up, I do CAD for a commercial plumbing company. hahaha I cant believe you thought I meant all that about driving the big truck. Im sorry.

...I also dont see how being on a hands free phone is any more dangerous that talking to a passenger?...

I can agree with you there for the most part, as long as they are talking on it hands free.

...The human mind is not multi-threaded, and linguistic processing of any sort will interfere with the interpretation of other sensory data.

Kind of on this note; they did a study a while back and found that people who think they are great at multitasking are actually pretty bad at it.

chalupa - congrats on your bike to car stats. Lookin good man.

I'd be royally pissed if I couldn't use my phone while my buddy drove. And GPS sucks down a lot of juice, to always have it on will be a pretty big burden.

Lets for once hold people accountable for their actions and not make companies their corporate overlords and big brothers looking over their shoulders. Tying the hands of the police and saying they can't enforce a law when they see it broken is wrong. I fully support legislation that lets the police do their job. Especially in the interest of safety.

The notion is to mandate a system developed by the cellphone purveyors and the auto companies to solve the problem. If they can come up with an acceptable solution that does not simply lock out all but 911 calls when the cellphone is in motion, they can certainly do so.

And I think they can surely do better. Sensors that can detect whether someone is in the front passenger seat have been available since the 70s. It would be a simple matter for a cellphone to allow only 911 calls if in motion unless it received a signal from a passenger sensor. Yes, that doesn't prevent the driver from yakking on a cellphone or texting when there are other people in the car, and it would still be possible for someone to leave a 100 pound weight in their car to try to fool the system, but that would go a long way to discouraging most of the distracted driving that I see ... a solo driver texting or yakking. Right now, they are doing NOTHING and have no plans to do anything at all.

And returning to the drunk driving analogy, you'll note that most states do not permit the passengers to drink alcoholic beverages in an automobile. Using the same logic ... why not? I mean ... they're not driving and not a danger to anyone.

I'm hip to the notion of making people accountable for their own actions and not looking over their shoulders. The problems with that are:

1. So far, that has been a dismal failure.
2. That dismal failure means that the innocent people being hit by texters and yakkers are the ones getting hurt. The wrong people are being held accountable.

Maybe the answer is a dramatic increase in fines, but I'm not sure that would work. Generally, increasing punishment does not deter crime. Increasing enforcement does. But I'd be willing to try substantially increased penalties. For my money, that would mean larger fines for the first offense, and license suspension and jail time for further offenses. If this is truly as dangerous as drunk driving, we should treat it as such.

A lot of other discussion here speculates how all the forms of distracted driving compare (putting on makeup, yakking on a cellphone, texting, web-surfing, talking to a passenger, CB, audio system). What should really be illegal and what should not? What should the standards be?

To all of that, I say this .... why guess? Analyze and quantify the problem, and take appropriate action. The problem is that right now, no one is doing squat. Absent legislation, neither the cellphone or the automakers are going to do anything. And most drivers believe distracted driving is only something other people do.

And while we're busy doing squat, people are going to die. Just as people did 50 years ago before we got serious about drunk driving. :notamused:

You can always join B.A.D.D.

Bicyclists Against Dumb Drivers

The notion is to mandate a system developed by the cellphone purveyors and the auto companies to solve the problem. If they can come up with an acceptable solution that does not simply lock out all but 911 calls when the cellphone is in motion, they can certainly do so.

And I think they can surely do better. Sensors that can detect whether someone is in the front passenger seat have been available since the 70s. It would be a simple matter for a cellphone to allow only 911 calls if in motion unless it received a signal from a passenger sensor. Yes, that doesn't prevent the driver from yakking on a cellphone or texting when there are other people in the car, and it would still be possible for someone to leave a 100 pound weight in their car to try to fool the system, but that would go a long way to discouraging most of the distracted driving that I see ... a solo driver texting or yakking. Right now, they are doing NOTHING and have no plans to do anything at all.

And returning to the drunk driving analogy, you'll note that most states do not permit the passengers to drink alcoholic beverages in an automobile. Using the same logic ... why not? I mean ... they're not driving and not a danger to anyone.

I'm hip to the notion of making people accountable for their own actions and not looking over their shoulders. The problems with that are:

1. So far, that has been a dismal failure.
2. That dismal failure means that the innocent people being hit by texters and yakkers are the ones getting hurt. The wrong people are being held accountable.

Maybe the answer is a dramatic increase in fines, but I'm not sure that would work. Generally, increasing punishment does not deter crime. Increasing enforcement does. But I'd be willing to try substantially increased penalties. For my money, that would mean larger fines for the first offense, and license suspension and jail time for further offenses. If this is truly as dangerous as drunk driving, we should treat it as such.

A lot of other discussion here speculates how all the forms of distracted driving compare (putting on makeup, yakking on a cellphone, texting, web-surfing, talking to a passenger, CB, audio system). What should really be illegal and what should not? What should the standards be?

To all of that, I say this .... why guess? Analyze and quantify the problem, and take appropriate action. The problem is that right now, no one is doing squat. Absent legislation, neither the cellphone or the automakers are going to do anything. And most drivers believe distracted driving is only something other people do.

And while we're busy doing squat, people are going to die. Just as people did 50 years ago before we got serious about drunk driving. :notamused:


You hit the nail on the head when you said that enforcement works. That's what I advocate. Accountability only works if someone is holding them to it. That's the job of the police.

If you have teenagers - the technology is already available (maybe not for all phones)

http://turnoffthecellphone.com/

I think everyone of my kids's friends had wrecks driving while on the phone adjusting stuff etc.

My kids KNEW that I meant it when I said "anything happens" or "you get caught carrying passengers" (another major issue with teens and driving) ---- "I take away the keys for good". The only accident we had was one of them was t-boned by another driver who was at fault.

For the friends - well - sometimes parents let their kids get away with stuff because it is more convenient than being a real parent. {"If I took away the keys, Jennifer couldnt drive Michelle to soccer practice anymore" - damned straight -!**

As you know, I seriously believe these devices should be disabled while in motion except for 911 - you know with the GPS chip it absolutely is do-able but I am sure the wireless phone lobby would not have it!

That, and getting the darned TVs out of the cockpit! Now my GPS is quite handy because I am not fiddling for maps and roads when I am going someplace new.

As much as I agree with you, I would rather see a small lower powered jammer installed into the steering wheel that disabled them only for the driver. Passengers should be able to use their cell phones. Also the controls for either the in car or add on GPS should be locked so that the driver cannot access them. With a secondary set installed on the passenger side where the driver cannot safely or comfortably reach them so that the passenger can update the information in the GPS.

As for TV's in the cockpit isn't that already illegal?

Most drunk drivers actually get home just fine.

:)

Don't most drunk drivers also tend to follow the same path home making it easier for them to get home just fine?

most of them stay in the bike lane all the way home.

You know it has really only been in the last 10 years or so that cell phones have become a "necessity" why on earth can't someone NOT talk on the phone or text while they are in car? Do we constantly have to be THAT connected all the time?

I gotta tell you - sometimes I see kids in places in the mountains where you still can't always get a signal and they are wigged out because they can't reach out and touch someone - how many of us old farts managed to go for days without contact with another human being? Have we lost an ability to be alone and think for ourselves in the process?

I see we have put ourselves into a situation where we do need them for emergencies and phone booths are a thing of the past but ......................

The reason why cell phone conversations are more distracting then a passenger is because cell phone sound quality is absyml, ...

Ironic, and funny, typo. ;)

interesting viewpoint. what we need is better voice recognition software so we can speak the TXT reply

You know it has really only been in the last 10 years or so that cell phones have become a "necessity" why on earth can't someone NOT talk on the phone or text while they are in car? Do we constantly have to be THAT connected all the time?

I gotta tell you - sometimes I see kids in places in the mountains where you still can't always get a signal and they are wigged out because they can't reach out and touch someone - how many of us old farts managed to go for days without contact with another human being? Have we lost an ability to be alone and think for ourselves in the process?

I see we have put ourselves into a situation where we do need them for emergencies and phone booths are a thing of the past but ......................

My brother recently took a vacation that was deliberately so remote that his phone didn't work... so that work couldn't call him back YET AGAIN. Took great delight in telling his boss he'd be out of reach of cell service.

sounds good. in 2005 I spent a week in a remote and isolated artists retreat. it was fabulous and I've been on a mission to change my life ever since.

I also dont see how being on a hands free phone is any more dangerous that talking to a passenger?

I know you're joking, and it's been pretty funny. But this is a question that trips a lot of people up, and so it deserves an answer. When you have a conversation with a passenger, you can see their posture and body language out of the corner of your eye. Much communication is non-verbal, and things like whether the person seems relaxed, is moving aggressively, what might be in their hand, etc. Our ape brains can't help but take all of this into account, and use it for things like deciding how reliable whatever you're hearing is. On the phone, when you're not getting this rich information about the person, their intentions, etc, your mind doesn't stop trying to make inferences ... it gets hung up doing so.

This doesn't happen consciously, but it does happen (in all normal humans), and it takes a measurable toll on other things you're doing at the time.

Most drunk drivers actually get home just fine.

:)

So do texters and cell phone users.

interesting viewpoint. what we need is better voice recognition software so we can speak the TXT reply

And then the phone on the other end would speak the TXT out loud to its recipient, who would be freed from the trouble of having to read. It would be kind of like talking on the phone ... but more complicated.


Did you ever read your cell phone manual? Did you see the part where it says to not use while driving?

No. That was printed on paper, so nobody ever read it. As 68 says, they'd have to text or twit it.