"Phone In One Hand, Ticket In the Other" 419
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that federal regulators plan a pilot project to test 'high visibility' crackdown efforts to curb cellphone use by drivers in two cities, Hartford and Syracuse, spending $200,000 in each city, while each state would contribute $100,000 more. The Transportation Department says it wants to send the message: 'Phone in One Hand. Ticket in the Other,' and plans on ramping up enforcement on state bans of hands-free phones by motorists, advertising the campaigns and undertaking studies to see if the efforts curb behavior and attitudes. Safety advocates say that curbing the behavior requires enforcement and education, which they say has been clearly evident in past efforts with seat belts with the 'Click It or Ticket Program' (PDF) that helped increase seat belt use to 83% nationally. 'It's time for drivers to act responsibly, put their hands on the wheel and focus on the road,' says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who last year called distracted driving an 'epidemic.'"
Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
We have passed a law about the same. But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced. I still see plenty of drivers hand holding a mobile, despite the fact you can get a bluetooth headset for £8 in the UK.
In the UK we drive largely manual gearbox and holding a phone while driving means not changing gear or letting go of the steering wheel while changing gear!
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:5, Funny)
>In the UK we drive largely manual gearbox and holding a phone while driving means not changing gear or letting go of the steering wheel while changing gear!
That's what your knees are for.
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:5, Funny)
I was so shocked I split my cornflakes.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I was so shocked I split my cornflakes.
I was so shocked, Idropped my crossword puzzle and dictionary
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was so shocked I split my cornflakes.
So then you had twice as many cornflakes, yes? Sounds like a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My wife said that the other day she saw a man attempting to eat cornflakes while driving! She was so surprised that she nearly dropped her lipstick!
Re: (Score:2)
You can hold the phone with your shoulder, or if you need your hand to do so you can steer with your elbow. It should be stable enough for the second it takes to change gear with your other hand.
Re: (Score:2)
...and inevitably the phone will be sometimes dropped; in some of those cases the driver won't stop the impulse to look for it...and there you go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You use your hand when it isn't stable, while still using the elbow from that arm to steer.
You obviously lack practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... plus you're blocking the signal, so it needs to boost the power to the antenna. You want fried brainz with that?
If they *really* wanted to fix the problem, they'd increase the dollar amount of the fines. A $200 fine for cell phone use makes people think "gee, I'll save money bu getting an ear-piece."
And an 83% "attach rate" for seatbelts is LOW. Make it $300 a pop and watch people buckle up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Points are psychologically abstract, while the threat of loss of money is more real feeling.
Weigh these two phrases; A) "You will loose 3 points, which, if enough are accrued, will lead to the loss of your license, and possible higher insurance rates."; or, B) "You will be fined $400.". Which is more likely to make you, the common slob, shape up?
I support all measures to curb cell-phone use while driving (all use, but mostly non-handsfree and texting), but all laws are only as good as their enforcement. A
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When I see somebody holding a phone instead of driving, I call the police.
Why? Because about 5 years ago I was almost hit by somebody talking on a phone who drove straight through a red light, and just barely squeezed between my car and the car in front. She never even noticed because she was too busy punching the phone's keypad. I figure I'd rather be as "ass" in the eyes of a driver, then a corpse under their wheels, or have a mangled $25,000 car I have to fix.
IMHO.
Please don't mod me down just becau
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was listen to a NPR show the other day and this was the topic. Syracuse was planning on using off duty officers to look for phone violators.
I can hear the crying now but personally I think it's a great idea. Allow our much underpaid officers a chance to earn extra income and since they will only be looking for driving/phone violators they won't be inconvenienced with having to respond to a real emergency call.
and before I get flamed about my opinions...if you are breaking a law it doesn't matter what reso
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:4, Insightful)
It's people who hold to views like these who are the first in line to buy HD Telescreens.
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:4, Interesting)
I hardly see how they could be considered off-duty when they're out and about looking for violators.
Not sure about other states but in California, state law does not differentiate between an on-duty and off-duty peace officers when it comes to their responsibilities/duties/powers.
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:4, Informative)
Well three weeks ago, mine wasn't a near miss and a distracted young driver who took off when they mistook the green light for going forward for that red arrow for turning across traffic. No car and three weeks left to go in a six week neck brace stint (fractured vertebrae, damaged anterior longitudinal ligament, nerve damage to root nerves of both arms) with a possible operation to follow, I would ere on the side of ensuring drivers place the maximum possible attention to what they are doing and the risks involved with operating a motor vehicle. Deadly business operating a motor vehicle and, whilst a lot of people do it a lot of the time, it does not diminish the significant risk it represents. It Australia there a laws that restrict billboards and roadside signs as they can also distract drivers and it only takes that one distraction at the wrong time to put another road user into hospital.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OF course we SHOULD be pushing to operate FEWER motor vehicles. The fact that a person today spends considerably more time from 20 years ago on the road daily should really be fixed. More mass transit is the way to go... then you have that 30-60 minute commute to read news, a book, music... all markets that are suffering because all people (in the US) is work and drive turning an "8 hour" work day into 11 or more... before they have to do home duties like run kids, etc.
The whole US needs to be slowed down a
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
While you're driving?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you only call when they are being retards (like said woman).
There are lots of people who know how to talk while they drive. The phone and the person on it are the lowest priority. Only a few seem to understand this... feel free to call out the rest.
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
Good luck here, in AZ where I live, it has been at least 2 years since I saw a police officer driving without a cellphone to the ear. I would like them to pass a law against just to see how the officers react.
The officers will react in the same way that they react to all other restrictions which are placed on the 'civilians'. They will claim to have special training which makes them perfect examples of whatever activity is prohibited to civilians. This training, which probably consists of less than 2 days per year (if it is even repeated) is enough to ensure that they are perfectly safe and justified in the action while any 'civilian' who tries a similar act is risking the life of hundreds of thousands of people and should be subjected to such extreme punishments so as to never even consider attempting the same maneuver.
They don't have to follow that law, because their training makes them better than you.
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:4, Informative)
[quote] But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced. [/quote]
That shouldn't be a surprise, despite what people think about police being everywhere. The average cop has a service per person of somewhere between 400:1 to 2200:1, you don't get solid enforcement like that. But anytime there's economic problems the first areas to get cuts are Fire/EMS/Police.
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:4, Informative)
But anytime there's economic problems the first areas to get cuts are Fire/EMS/Police.
I think you mean teachers and the parks service.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From my experience, the last thing that gets cut is rescue services, right after schools. The first thing that gets cut is the local library, citizen's programs, parks & recreation, etc. Perhaps this is differ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
despite the fact you can get a bluetooth headset for £8 in the UK.
Have you ever tried an £8 bluetooth headset? They tend to work fine while you're sitting around at home or in the office, but take them out into a noisy environment (like, say, a car) and nobody'll be able to hear a word you say.
Re: (Score:2)
We have passed a law about the same. But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced
Not to mention the fact that most senior police officers thought such a law was a bad idea - not because being on the phone while driving is safe (it isn't), but because it was already covered by the existing offence of driving without due care and attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hasn't worked in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
We have passed a law about the same. But there's so few Police on patrol the law just isn't being enforced. I still see plenty of drivers hand holding a mobile, despite the fact you can get a bluetooth headset for £8 in the UK.
The trouble with this is that using a hands free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a normal phone. _All_ studies (not sponsored by headset manufacturors) have shown this, again and again. See here [apa.org] here [apa.org] here [sagepub.com] and most obviously here [nih.gov] for a few examples. From that last : "Conclusions - When drivers use a mobile phone there is an increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury. Using a hands-free phone is not any safer.". From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] : "Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[15][16] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[4] and meta-analysis[6][7]. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[17][18][19] One notable exception to that conclusion is a study by headset manufacturer Plantronics.
I can't believe this is not common knowledge yet. The law in the UK differentiates between hands free and normal phoning for _no_ reason whatsoever. Many of these studies were released prior to the introduction of the law in the UK. The cynic in me wonders whether the differentiation is due to the fact that police use hands free, and radios all the time, and making them illegal would make them sad :(. Just to conclude, the people who are tutting at mobile users while talking on their hands free are _just_ as dangerous as those they are frowning upon.
Re: (Score:2)
There are too many variables to measure specific impact of any one of them on "safety".
We've already concluded that it's dangerous to phone and drive at the same time, so that's the "behavior" that we want to see changed.
If you want to make a call, just pull over. Even if you feel like you have such a command of your vehicle that you could easily drive and talk on the phone, o
Re:Don't let go of the wheel.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's likely most people won't accept this, but the bottom line is that some of us are actually capable of handling our vehicles, AND a cell phone. If susie homemaker can put 7 children, a couple dogs and another house wife into her van, and drive around like that, then why is the enforcement centered on cell phones? They are hardly the only distracting item in the cab.
This entire enforcement effort centers on cell phones, but the real threat is something else entirely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and why isn't law enforcement doing anything about screaming kids in the car? i'd have thought t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
THIS. I ride a motorcycle and over time have learned to become highly aware of what everyone else is doing around me. I cannot tell you how many times I have almost been merged into by someone refusing to even turn their head to the side to see if someone is next to them. Cagers also love to pull out in front of us, ride our arses, and in general be effing dangerous to everyone around them. Would love to place it all at the feet of cell phone usage but most of the time it is simple lack of attention, pu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the numbers will just be ignored by folks who swear that that one woman who they saw run a redlight four years ago are the rule, because it's the eleventy thousand perfectly normal, not in any way out
Re:Don't let go of the wheel.... (Score:4, Interesting)
except by the metric, where we actually measure people's ability to drive while talking on the phone?
http://psych.pomona.edu/SRC/Cell%20phone%20study%20summary.pdf [pomona.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
They already know it isn't safe [nytimes.com] to drive while talking on the phone.
Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Interesting)
however, it does seem unfair to punish those who can drive while talking without a loss in attention or skill.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/rare-supertaskers-balance-driving-and-cellphone-use.ars [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The authors also took the time to remind their readers that the supertasking population really is small, so you shouldn't assume you're one of them. Unfortunately, it looks like most people tend to believe they're the exception to this rule
Another result that they don't mention is that apparently you're more likely to be able to do it if you think you can't than if you think you can, at least according to a study looking at general multi-tasking capabilities, rather than specifically talking and driving.
The
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we allow airline pilots to text their friends while landing? I'm sure a few could do it without losing concentration, so why trample on their rights?
I agree that the primary focus should be erratic driving, not any one particular gadget... But the rule of civilization is that some outlying people have to give up some minor liberties to ensure the safety of everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
But the rule of civilization is that some outlying people have to give up some minor liberties to ensure the safety of everyone.
So sayeth the Handicapper General. [tnellen.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1)The issue at hand is talking on the cell phone, not texting.
2)The pilot is in constant communication with the tower through a very phone-like apparatus called a radio.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Airliners have multiple pilots ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Insightful)
The pilot is in constant communication with the tower through a very phone-like apparatus called a radio
Yep, and strangely enough, he's got it via headset. He doesn't have one hand on the radio mike, one on the throttle quadrant, and one on the yoke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The pilot is in constant communication with the tower through a very phone-like apparatus called a radio
Yep, and strangely enough, he's got it via headset. He doesn't have one hand on the radio mike, one on the throttle quadrant, and one on the yoke.
I'll add to this. There are also two people driving.. er flying.
Re:Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a pilot, you'd know one simple three word phrase:
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
A pilot's duty is to act in that order. Fly the plane, know where you are, and tell people. That hierarchy saves lives. Drivers could learn a think or two from Pilots in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Should we allow airline pilots to text their friends while landing? I'm sure a few could do it without losing concentration, so why trample on their rights?
Well, that's a stupid question. At least, in the US, it has been accepted as fact for years (though in doing a little Googling, I see that this may be changing) that there is no airline that allows cell phone communications at any time between takeoff and landing. If the passengers are required to disable their phones, what makes you think that pilots aren't?
Even if passengers are gradually being allowed to communicate, give me one good reason why a pilot would be allowed to use his cell phone while manip
Re:Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Insightful)
I know for a fact that I cannot multitask. However, I believe myself to be particularly good at self-evaluation. I know about psychology, and I read slashdot: I can adapt my self-assessment. I'm a scientist and I don't have a large ego about my regular cognitive skills, I am the typical absent-minded professor type. However, I didn't really realize how poor I was at multitasking until my late 20s, and I am particularly bad at it. I had a couple of near accidents (nothing that would have been severe), but I understand probability and statistics. I know that if I continued to drive distracted, with overwhelming probability I would eventually cause an accident. So I stopped sampling.
This does not describe most people. Many are overconfident and unable to recognize their own deficiencies. Even more don't understand that taking a small risk enough times basically ensures that the low-probability outcome will eventually happen.
I don't want those people deciding what's safe, because you know what, they won't realize they have a problem until they get in an accident. And the first time, they will attribute it to bad luck. My mother in law rear-ended someone while changing the radio station and shrugged it off: bad luck, could happen to anyone.
There are too many people on the road for them to be learning what's safe and what's not by trial and error. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for not being one of those drivers that make me want to arm myself while driving :-)
Re:Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I probably am one of these 'supertaskers'. I'm an EMT and often drive an ambulance. A 14,000 lb 20 ft long vehicle, at speeds in excess of the speed limit. On the wrong side of the road. While navigating, and running the siren and talking on the radio. And telling my crew what to do.
And I've never even once come close to having an accident. Part of this is the training - I've received formal, rigorous training in conducting an emergency vehicle.
So I probably am one of these supertaskers - hell, I basically need to be.
But the key is: DON'T ACT LIKE IT! When you start acting like you're special, you'll screw it up. Even if you *can* manage many things at once, while driving, *DON'T ASSUME YOU CAN!* You still need to check your mirrors, look for pedestrians or other drivers, watch your widths, nt clip the curb, etc.
My point is, it's not so much talking on the phone/doing something else while driving as *assuming* that you can do it safely, because then you won't. You'll take it for granted that the car ahead won't switch lanes, because you've come to the conclusion that you won't mess it up.
So do I talk on the phone while driving? Yes. In the last two years, I think I've spent a grand total of 15 minutes on the phone. Have I ever come close to driving unsafely? No, because I focused on driving. I usually ignore the phone completely while making a turn or shifting lanes, or really doing anything other than going straight with plenty of room in front of me.
I don't think phone use while driving should be illegal, but you should lose your license the first time you're caught driving like a jackass. Though I'm full of crazy ideas, like "the test for driving a 3000lb weapon shouldn't be a mere formality".
Re:Use It, Lose It (Score:5, Informative)
no worse than having a conversation with a passenger
Not entirely true. Talking on a mobile phone is inherently more distracting than talking to the person next to you, for a few reasons:
* Signal/noise. You frequently have difficulty communicating over a cellular link, especially when moving; it's normal to have to repeat yourself, ask the other party to repeat themselves, mentally diagnose communications problems, interpret garbled audio, and re-establish broken connections. Passengers are much easier to talk to.
* Context. People on the phone are more likely to talk about subjects currently relevant to them, like what to buy at a store, how to fix a problem at work, or various off-the-wall topics; they expect your full concentration and send your attention all over the map. Since you're both in the car, passengers are (somewhat) more likely to talk about topics currently relevant to both of you and compensate for the fact that you're driving by simplifying their requests.
* Awareness. The other party has no idea of your current state. A passenger is likely to notice dangerous conditions or notice that you are paying more attention to the road and stop distracting you. If you suddenly break off conversation during a phone call, on the other hand, the other party is more likely to try to distract you even more with inane chatter: "Hey! Hey! Did I lose you? Are you there? Speak up! Hey? Hey? I don't hear anything! Can you hear me? I guess I lost ya! If you can hear me, call me back! I'll talk to ya later! Bye!"
Using a mobile phone while driving is more like having a few wild two-year-olds in the back seat. Which, while still not illegal, isn't a great idea.
How do you tell... (Score:2)
...if a driver is using a hands-free phone? Watch for lip motion?
rj
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Some people sing to the radio. For that matter, some people talk to the radio.
That's the next thing they'll ban. Horribly distracting. Car radios & CD players cause serious accidents [car-accidents.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...if a driver is using a hands-free phone? Watch for lip motion?
Hey I take offence there. Now as a person with a split personality, I feel this is going to discriminate against me while I speak to my other personality. ;)
Bans of hands-free phones? (Score:2)
The Transportation Department says it ... plans on ramping up enforcement on state bans of hands-free phones by motorists...
Why not target hand-held phones before going after hands-free phones?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with phone conversation doesn't lie in whether or not you have to hold your phone, but in the mental resources you have to use to maintain the conversation on the phone.
Hands-free headsets are simply not any safer to use because they don't address the actual cause of accidents: lack of mental focus on driving.
Or... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to reduce distracted driving, just enforce fines on people doing it. Make it so people are likely enough to get caught that they'll think twice beforehand. Slap a huge fine (or worse) on anyone who crashes their car due to an obvious and avoidable distraction. Forget the fancy ad campaign; people don't care. Put the money toward a decent public transit system so people don't have to choose between keeping in touch and traveling.
Re: (Score:2)
They're banning HANDS-FREE phones now??? (Score:2)
The Transportation Department says it wants to send the message: 'Phone in One Hand. Ticket in the Other,' and plans on ramping up enforcement on state bans of hands-free phones by motorists
Wasn't the whole idea that people could use hands-free phones so that they could keep both hands on the wheel? I mean, come on, NY, what gives?
In any case, I believe that CB radios are legal everywhere, and I don't see much of a difference between operating one of those and operating a cell phone, I'm just saying....
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, I believe that CB radios are legal everywhere, and I don't see much of a difference between operating one of those and operating a cell phone, I'm just saying....
CB radios are most often used by professional drivers who usually have had a better standard of training than the average motorist and are less likely to allow themselves to become dangerously distracted.
I.e. mobile phones are only an issue because every idiot uses them.
Dangerous water for civil liberties? (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing in all this that frightens me is the fact that by letting law enforcement pull someone over based on something that is not a clear moving violation, but something the can claim to witness happening inside a vehicle,
we are effectively giving them a tool for racial profiling. This power seems ripe for abuse.
1) See someone who "looks" like they might be carrying something illegal
2) Pull them over, obtain cause to search vehicle
3) If successful, book them
4) If failure, cite them for cell phone use.
How easy is it for a customer to obtain proof that they were or were not texting at a given time?
How easy is it for Law Enforcement?
Is this proof permissible?
cops on cell phones (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in the "great" state of NJ, and while fist-pumping my way home from the bus stop (on foot), I saw not one but two of my town's police officers driving in (seperate) patrol cars while holding a cell phone to one ear. And no, their lights were not on, and there was no emergency. Shouldn't they be held to a higher standard, or at least the same one us serfs are?
I say good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't use "Curb" in driving-related stories (Score:2)
Unless you're talking about an actual curb, driving-related stories should not use 'curb' as a verb.
In addition, the headline says 'combat' while the article includes 'curb' 3 times and no 'combat'.
Please, speak clearly and skip the puns, hyperbole, and 'vivid metaphors'. News first.
Signed,
-The Internet
Heh (Score:2)
Phones need a "I'm driving" mode. (Score:5, Insightful)
I rarely dial out when driving. I hate doing it too. Most of the time if I receive a call, I'll let it go.
So what I want is a separate voicemail greeting or some other way of communicating status which will let me say that I'm on my goddamn way, so stop calling me to ask where I am. Because as it is right now, I can't effectively communicate the difference between this and my usual "I don't feel like taking your call." (There is a difference.)
So really, phone systems need to be designed better for this use case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
like red-light cameras why not just automate this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that good at math, but... (Score:3)
Seriously, it seems to me, a single person with a 30" screen should be able to monitor 16 locations simultaneously without even trying. Using simple motion detection on each camera, it would be possible to make sure each of the 16 windows on their screen could be guaranteed to have traffic on them. As a result, they could probably be sending out 2-3 tickets every minute. At $200 a ticket, that would yield about $500 a minute for $30,000 an hour, $180,000 a day for at least a while.
So they're willing to chip in a whole $200,000 to make this happen? Are you serious? I mean, this could be the biggest cash cow in the history of traffic duty. Forget the policemans' ball, a single full time employee could raise more money for the police department than all the traffic cops in a state combined. Eventually when people start getting better at hiding their phones from the cameras (you don't think they'll stop doing it do you?) people will be cautious most of the time and simply expect they're being watched.
I just can't figure out if the article also talks about banning hands free use of phones as well. Are they seriously saying they want to simply ban cell phone use while driving altogether? It won't happen. It's a waste of time. If they want get people to stop holding phones up to their ears, they have to agree to the hands free or people will just prefer to pay the tickets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what I did to keep myself awake and alert? Whipped out the phone and talked to someone.
Yeah, I suppose pulling off the road, or better yet, staying put is out of the question. I mean, if falling asleep at the wheel is so dangerous to you, why are you driving without adequate rest yourself? Pretty nasty habit you got there.. Too bad somebody will probably have to get hurt before you are taken off the road.. All of a sudden I hate you..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Click it or Ticket", "Over the limit, Under arrest", and its ilk irritate me to no end. I *loathe* being talked down to like a child, with these cutesy slogans
Well, if people didn't act like irresponsible children, it wouldn't be necessary to talk down to them, now would it?
This anti-cellphone jihad really makes no sense to me.
Huh? I saw nothing about anyone being "anti-cellphone". Anti-don't-be-a-fucking-idiot-while-driving, sure, but not anti-cellphone. Where'd you get that stupid idea?
If we're going
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Leebert,
One thing to keep in mind is that these advertisements are not targeted at you. These are marketed towards the buffoons who NEED this kind of reminder.
So don't take it personally. Imagine the ads are being delivered to that one doofus friend of yours who thinks it is uncool to wear a seatbelt or have a "few" drinks before hopping behind the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
"Click it or Ticket", "Over the limit, Under arrest", and its ilk irritate me to no end. I *loathe* being talked down to like a child, with these cutesy slogans. I hate the TV commercials where they say: "If you drink and drive, you WILL get arrested!"
Anyone with half a brain knows that such is not directed at a responsible person like him.
Anyone with half a brain knows that such a certain assertion is clearly false. Doesn't really do much for their credibility.
That I'm willing to agree with. but the they are after the drunks with less than half a brain.
re: Couldn't agree more! (Score:3, Informative)
I hate these damn slogans too.... but for me, I think it's their authoritarian "tough guy" attitude with them that irks me the most. We already have FAR too many problems with police officers who think they're "above the law" and that the best way to handle any situation is to get up in people's faces and bark out commands. Why reinforce this police-state B.S. with radio and TV advertising?
I live in Missouri, but being in St. Louis, I'm real close to the Illinois border, so we hear plenty of IL based comm
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Some people can drive and talk safely.
Yeah. I hear this a lot. And it's true. Everyone seems to be able to use a cell phone and drive safely. Except for the ones that got into an accident. Though, up until that point, I suppose they considered themselves among that group. I personally despise cell phone drivers, but am not sure if I would go as far as a ban. I'm on the fence there. Texting though. Texting is bad. I drive about 45 miles of highway each way on my commute. It's amazing how many driv
Re: (Score:2)
Driving 10 under the speed of the rest of traffic will put you at fault for the accident in many places. It's dangerous driving to be unpredictable like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Mommy should've pulled over to the shoulder. If little susy is calling mommy to tell her that little billy got his arm ripped off by the wheat thresher, I don't think mommy is going to be driving all that well with news like that, cell phone or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If I've ever read a dumb remark it's yours.
Re: (Score:2)
...using the jaws of life. [howstuffworks.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maps. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maps. (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be too young to remember the days of people driving with a paper map covering the steering wheel, the dashboard and (occasionally) the passenger.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, Mr Regulator. Why don't you install "cell phone stops" every 1 mile on the roads, where we can safely pull over and make or receive calls before you tell us that we can't use them.
They're called "side streets" or "parking areas".
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
The biggest bone that I've to pick is that cellphones are no longer merely used for conversations - they are used as navigation systems, directories, and what not. So, how do you know if someone you're pulling over is SMSing or just getting directions? I've the TomTom nav app on my iPhone, and I cannot tell you how useful it is. As a consultant who travels every week, and often to new places, it is worth its weight in gold.
The last thing I need is some idiot small town cop pulling me over cause he sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Three times in this last week I've tried to use a cross-walk with the light saying I had to right of way only to almost be hit by some twat blowing through while gabbing on their phone.
Having a cellphone is a privilege, not a fucking right. The right, in this case, is for me to be able to go about my life and not get run over by some self-serving ass.
10-15 years ago before everyone had one, society still worked pretty OK. What's changed? Only people's perception that they're that important they need to be r
Re:Ummmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Guess what else: every study that's been done on the subject corroborates the argument that passengers are at worst a non-factor while cell conversations are a significant distraction. That's why it's an "inevitable response": your anecdotal argument doesn't beat actual evidence.
Your passengers don't have to be considerate, they have to value their lives. Which means that they will help if they are: (a) sober, (b) awake, and (c) more than about 8 years old. Also, even if your passengers are stupid and no he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell you what, Mr Regulator. Why don't you install "cell phone stops" every 1 mile on the roads, where we can safely pull over and make or receive calls before you tell us that we can't use them.
Are you actually serious? You're really so addicted to making and receiving calls that you feel the need to build special stops "every mile" along the roadside for the express purpose of being able to make a call?
Grow up, and realize you might be out of communication sometimes. If you're such a junkie you can't s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you suddenly need that hand on the wheel, it doesn't have anything in it that would prevent grip.
There's nothing magical about having two hands on the wheel - you can start the maneuver with one hand, drop the phone and then help with the other. That is, if you believe the problem is the mechanics and not the distraction of the phone call itself - which runs counter to every scientific study, and yet is apparently steadfastly believed by almost every group of lawmakers here in the US.
I've seen people do stupid things with a cell phone in their hands. I've seen them do stupid things when it's pretty app
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I have to answer a quick call while I'm driving, it is MUCH safer for me to
..stop the fucking car before you answer.
Which part of "Ignore the ringing phone" is so difficult?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am tired of pet causes like this that demonize slightly risky behavior like driving buzzed and bringing a knife to school, you know, behaviors that make life exciting and worth living. So you might get killed by some dumbass on his phone, if you were a decent driver you should be able to avoid it. I know I avoid getting killed by some prick in an SUV at least twice a week.
So...
You think avoiding drunk SUV drivers is the meaning of life. Haven't you ever had sex or gone fishing or eaten a great meal at a fine restaurant or gone to see a live broadway production or entered a live televised poker tournament in vegas or read a really good book or sat in front of fireplace on a cold winter's night with someone you love and just talked or gone to the beach and made a new friend? There are so many, many things to do that make life worth living that either don't involve huge amounts