Advocacy & Safety - CHP to crack down on cellphone and e-device use while driving

http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2010/08/sacramento-area-6.html

I approve.

Like you I approve, just a pity its not a zero tolerance policy all the time not just a couple of days. But yeah, on the whole a good thing.

Did you read some of the comments? Apparently, its only "other" drivers that are the problem not the commentators themselves LOL

I love zero-tolerance for any and all moving violations. The CHP and the other participants, deserve praise from all for doing this most dangerous of jobs. I'm pretty sure doing traffic stops is the most dangerous job in law enforcement. Sadly, my city and county police/sheriffs are cowards and won't do traffic stops.

I see more motorists than ever driving around with a cellphone to their ear, crack down or not, it doesn't seem to deter a lot of our local Cali motorists.

I see more motorists than ever driving around with a cellphone to their ear, crack down or not, it doesn't seem to deter a lot of our local Cali motorists.

Exactly.

My province recently passed a law, making it illegal to operate a cell while driving a motor vehicle. Problem is, they included a clause excluding headsets. I believe it's been proven that it doesn't matter if you're talking on a bluetooth or physically holding the cell to your ear, it's still a distraction.

Anyways, I still see lots of people driving around, talking or texting - hasn't made much of a difference, except there's at least 300 people in my city who are $300 poorer and minus four points off their license. It's almost worse - now, when people get a call, they pull over and whip out the phone. It doesn't matter where they are - freeway, bike lane, wherever. Now other people are slowing down to pass them, craning their necks to see what's wrong. Such a liability on the freeways here.

I find it sad that so many no longer hold the phone to their ear, but hold the phone up using the speakerphone. Now, last I checked, that isn't HANDS FREE is it? Are they that cheap they cannot purchase a hands-free device or just plain ignorant of what hands-free actually means? As to the various comments, so many complain that the police are using their phones - they are EXEMPT from the law - good or bad, still exempt. These operations shouldn't be advertised, seems to defeat the purpose. Just ticket the idiots without warning them, they've had their chance already.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2010/08/sacramento-area-6.html

I approve.

+1,000

I see more motorists than ever driving around with a cellphone to their ear, crack down or not, it doesn't seem to deter a lot of our local Cali motorists.
Today, I saw a woman pulling out of parking space just move her phone from her hand to between her ear and her shoulder.

Since it is still legal in the D.C.-Metro area to do that stupid behavior, I didn't say anything.

The ban on only 'handheld' calls is pretty meaningless. As already mentioned, the safety studies show that it's the loss of attention due to concentrating on the phone call that causes the problem, not the act of holding the phone in your hand. The legislation just lets the politicians say they've done something, lets the cellular phone companies sell more accessories, increases police revenues, and does almost nothing to actually improve safety.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2010/08/sacramento-area-6.html

I approve.

X1000

And if the current fines aren't enough to pay for enforcement, increase them.

I just wish they'd have zero tolerance on texting and phoning every day, 24 hours a day.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/stoneham/features/x145186853/Driver-hits-Stoneham-bicyclist-after-cell-phone-distraction

Cell phone violations carry a minimum fine of $20 for the first offense

Good initiative, but talk about slaps on the wrist...

As we see with speeding, fines don't do much. I'm all for mandatory community service. We'll start at a day for first offenses and quickly ramp up from there.

As we see with speeding, fines don't do much. I'm all for mandatory community service. We'll start at a day for first offenses and quickly ramp up from there.

+1!

Something that impacts everybody (20$ probably means nothing to a lot of people)

As we see with speeding, fines don't do much. I'm all for mandatory community service. We'll start at a day for first offenses and quickly ramp up from there.

+1 on mandatory community service.

I'd do both.

Increasing penalties doesn't do much to deter behavior. But increasing enforcement does, and the fines pay for enforcement.

+1 on mandatory community service.

I'd do both.

Increasing penalties doesn't do much to deter behavior. But increasing enforcement does, and the fines pay for enforcement.

Completely agree.

My province recently passed a law, making it illegal to operate a cell while driving a motor vehicle. Problem is, they included a clause excluding headsets. I believe it's been proven that it doesn't matter if you're talking on a bluetooth or physically holding the cell to your ear, it's still a distraction.

Well ... the distraction comes from having a (two-way) conversation with a person whom isn't there, whom you can't see (to "read" body language), not from holding a phone to your ear with one hand. :D


As to the various comments, so many complain that the police are using their phones - they are EXEMPT from the law - good or bad, still exempt.

What's dangerous for the goose is perfectly safe for the gander.

I find it sad that so many no longer hold the phone to their ear, but hold the phone up using the speakerphone. Now, last I checked, that isn't HANDS FREE is it? Are they that cheap they cannot purchase a hands-free device or just plain ignorant of what hands-free actually means? As to the various comments, so many complain that the police are using their phones - they are EXEMPT from the law - good or bad, still exempt. These operations shouldn't be advertised, seems to defeat the purpose. Just ticket the idiots without warning them, they've had their chance already.
Well not exactly exempt, while on duty they would be for duty cell phones (for calls only not texting) but many departments do have a policy in place stating an officer should pull over to use the cell phone while driving unless an emergency overrides such.
Same thing for seatbelts most states that have a mandatory seatbelt law exempt the police. But again most departments have a policy stating officers must wear the seat belt for high speeds. Most of us don’t wear the belt driving around in the city (slow speed) in case we have to get out at a moment’s notice (such as someone shooting out the window.)

I stop when I receive a phone call but mainly because it’s in my pocket and I can’t get to it unless I stop. :p

The best solution for fines would be the German way. You pay according to your net worth. The whole "I can afford the ticket" crap would end in a hurry if you paid thousands for a speeding or cell phone ticket. The United States has to be one of the most backwards countries on the planet when it comes to so many things. People actually think it is only their business when they are doing them on a public roadway - nope - it is everyone's business. A friend of mine was nearly killed by some idiot on a cell phone - caused his car to flip over three times on the freeway. No phone call is worth another persons life, sad some think so.

The ban on only 'handheld' calls is pretty meaningless. As already mentioned, the safety studies show that it's the loss of attention due to concentrating on the phone call that causes the problem, not the act of holding the phone in your hand. The legislation just lets the politicians say they've done something, lets the cellular phone companies sell more accessories, increases police revenues, and does almost nothing to actually improve safety.

Are the systems that patch the bluetooth through the stereo/GPS system safer, or does it present the same dangers?

Anybody notice any increased enforcement today?

I see more motorists than ever driving around with a cellphone to their ear, crack down or not, it doesn't seem to deter a lot of our local Cali motorists.

Motorists, cyclists, people walking. Too many of them are clueless about their surroundings.

Are the systems that patch the bluetooth through the stereo/GPS system safer, or does it present the same dangers?

As Prathman said, it's the effect on the brain/though processes of carrying out the conversation which causes the loss of concentration, not the instrument itself.

Why this should be worse than carrying on a convesation with a passenger, I don't know - has anyone come across anything on that? I do know that all the research papers I've come across support the theory that using a cellphone is as bad as, or worse than DUI.

As we see with speeding, fines don't do much. I'm all for mandatory community service. We'll start at a day for first offenses and quickly ramp up from there.

+1,000

Have them serve their community service in the ER cleaning up, as well as in rehab facilities, and trauma wards. So that they can see what happens when they drive distracted.

As Prathman said, it's the effect on the brain/though processes of carrying out the conversation which causes the loss of concentration, not the instrument itself.

Why this should be worse than carrying on a convesation with a passenger, I don't know - has anyone come across anything on that? I do know that all the research papers I've come across support the theory that using a cellphone is as bad as, or worse than DUI.

Yep, even the "Mythbusters" did an experiment that proved that theory. They had all three of their (if I remember correctly) assistants doing the actual driving. And when they were talking on the cell phones they were worse then if they had been drunk.

Why don't CB radios cause the same problems as cell phones?

What I've read (I think in the excellent Traffic) is that a passenger can understand easily when you need to pause to pay more attention to the road, and also functions as another set of eyes to alert you to hazards.

Why this should be worse than carrying on a convesation with a passenger, I don't know - has anyone come across anything on that? I do know that all the research papers I've come across support the theory that using a cellphone is as bad as, or worse than DUI.

It's really not the conversation itself that causes so much distraction. It's the fact that you're talking to somebody who's not there, so that you know a lot less about what's going on. With less data to form inferences from, your brain gets hung up on the process, and works harder to extract the info it needs from what's left ( tone of voice, stuff like that ). You can see your passenger, even only from the corner of your eye, so you know they aren't making aggressive movements, don't have weapons available, aren't getting naked, or enjoying food, or..., etc.

Humans live in the company of other humans, and depend fiercely on each other for our survival. This has been true for all the millions of years we've been separate from the other apes. Many of the things about how our minds work that make us so smart, are inference centers, and especially social ones, that "clue us in" on our environment ( other people ). Hostility was a much bigger problem in the past, and it was very important to be able to judge a character. All of the skills we've evolved to do that go on in the backs of our minds constantly, whether we try to read people or not, and whether we realize it's going on or not.

You can read more about this in books like How the Mind Works (http://www.amazon.com/How-Mind-Works-Steven-Pinker/dp/0393318486) (by Stephen Pinker, PhD of Harvard), Religion Explained (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281483790&sr=1-1) (by Pascal Boyer), on Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=mind+reading), or any of the Theory of Mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) literature.

On top of all that, a passenger can see when another car is coming at you, or the road is getting icy, and clam up...

When laws are at odds with facts, basic logic, and common sense, there's a good chance that a money trail should be followed. In this case, flowing from telecommunications industry lobbyists' hands into politician's pockets.

It's really not the conversation itself that causes so much distraction. It's the fact that you're talking to somebody who's not there, so that you know a lot less about what's going on. With less data to form inferences from, your brain gets hung up on the process, and works harder to extract the info it needs from what's left ( tone of voice, stuff like that ). You can see your passenger, even only from the corner of your eye, so you know they aren't making aggressive movements, don't have weapons available, aren't getting naked, or enjoying food, or..., etc.

Humans live in the company of other humans, and depend fiercely on each other for our survival. This has been true for all the millions of years we've been separate from the other apes. Many of the things about how our minds work that make us so smart, are inference centers, and especially social ones, that "clue us in" on our environment ( other people ). Hostility was a much bigger problem in the past, and it was very important to be able to judge a character. All of the skills we've evolved to do that go on in the backs of our minds constantly, whether we try to read people or not, and whether we realize it's going on or not.

You can read more about this in books like How the Mind Works (http://www.amazon.com/How-Mind-Works-Steven-Pinker/dp/0393318486) (by Stephen Pinker, PhD of Harvard), Religion Explained (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281483790&sr=1-1) (by Pascal Boyer), on Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/index.php?s=mind+reading), or any of the Theory of Mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) literature.

On top of all that, a passenger can see when another car is coming at you, or the road is getting icy, and clam up...

Interesting stuff, thanks

it is being enforced in los gatos ca

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15733447?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

I see more motorists than ever driving around with a cellphone to their ear, crack down or not, it doesn't seem to deter a lot of our local Cali motorists.

Same in this neck of the woods. I was living in Newfoundland in 2003 when a similar ban was passed. The local constabulary couldn't even enforce basic traffic laws much less cell phone usage. I saw more drivers gabbing away than before. And now the same thing in Ontario since the ban came into effect.

Yep, even the "Mythbusters" did an experiment that proved that theory. They had all three of their (if I remember correctly) assistants doing the actual driving. And when they were talking on the cell phones they were worse then if they had been drunk.

Have you looked at those three? If they have to be allowed on the road, I'd rather have them on the phone, drunk, smoking a bong and typing on a laptop. It's got to be better than when they're "thinking normally."

Besides, if you take away the phones, more people will just go back to eating, shaving and putting on makeup. What they need is a crackdown on all of the violations that indicate distracted driving, regardless of the distraction.

Motorists, cyclists, people walking. Too many of them are clueless about their surroundings.

Yep, a few weeks ago I saw a hipster on his fixie, not wearing a helmet and riding down one of our busiest streets talking on the cell phone. And he was hands free alright, hands not on the bars while riding. Given how bike-unfriendly our town is I thought "geez, we just got set back another few years..."

Poster girl.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2010/08/10/20/3W11CELLJUMP.xlgraphic.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

Congressman doing live talk show interview on telephone, speeding, and gets off, even after admitting he was speeding. http://kogo.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=125548&article=7432518