Chapel Hill Bans All Cell Phone Use While Driving

[demingo]

I think there is a line to be drawn here, and it is not necessarily easy to do, but I feel the way you are attempting to draw it is in such a way that we ought to do away with all traffic laws. Why have speed limits, stop signs or anything at all if they limit your freedom?



That is why this law is a "secondary" violation. In other words, you can't be pulled over for using your cellphone alone. You can only be fined for it if pulled over for something else.

This may not be 100% effective, but I'd rather try it than nothing at all. If it saves even one human life, then it is worth it.



Again, there is a fine line between enforcing safety and going overboard and infringing on peoples freedoms. This - I don't believe is anywhere near that line. If you are part taking in risky behavior that threatens the lives of others, you should be stopped.

I guess we just disagree on that fine line. I do not think we should abandon all laws. Laws keep society fuctioning and that is a very good thing. I personally think the dangerous are over exagerated and the root of the problem lies in how we license drivers and not cell phone use in particular.

 

[demingo]

Stupid lack of an editbutton.

To me this is akin to blaming school shootings on violent video games and not parenting. A large part of the population enjoys M rated titles responsibly in the same manner a large part of the population uses cell phones in cars responsibly. We should root out the core cause and not go for easy blame.

I know when I personally use my phone I make sure to use it in "safe" situations such as uncongested highway driving where I have ample reaction time. When I am pulling into traffic and I am on the phone I ask the other party to hold until I feel comforable that I can safely talk. There is risk in everything we do, but I think with proper licensing testing and responsible use, cell phones would be far less dangerous to use in the car.

 

[tuksonrider]

Lemme guess. Illegal to be on a phone and driving, but totally alright for a cop to drive and be on the radio with dispatch at the same time.

I don't think it's any less distracting for a cop, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

No more calling 911 to report a roadside emergency or accident to help out unless you pull over too?

 

[danm]

I guess it's time to pull that old CB radio out of the closet....

 

[Inacurate]

And for all people that think that they can drive fine while talking on your cell phone, you probably can't. You just don't realize you are driving like an asshole because you are distracted.

Drove five years for a delivery courier service and at certain points, I was on the phone, scanning a package and reading my next stop while still driving.

Never had an accident once.

It's a matter of mental power, seriously. People may laugh, but the DISTRACTION happens because you're unable to multi-task sufficiently enough to handle both tasks at a certain level of effectiveness. IE; drive without causing an accident.

I still would like to see a test given where your multi-tasking ability is thoroughly tested and evaluated quarterly for the sole purpose of being able to talk & drive at the same time. Along with a waiver of course, declaring your liability if you did cause an accident.

Pipe dream, I know. But I can dream.

 

[kcmastrpc]

I personally think cyclists should be banned from all roads that contain motor vehicle traffic. It is far too dangerous for you to be on the same road as a 2 ton car. The number of times I have seen a cyclist cut infornt of me to make a turn is insane. Roads should be limited to motor vehicles only.

see, this is where you're wrong. cyclists don't cut in front of you to make a turn. they occupy the same road. where you feel they're "cutting" in front of you, they're actually occupying that lane as a motorcyclist would. this is why on busy streets i'll gladly take the lane, because it's there for me to use as well.

i'll easily travel at 20-35mph on a flat road, faster going downhill.

maybe you should get off the cell phone, observe your surroundings, and ask yourself why they are in the middle of the lane with their arm out before you try to cut them off to go around them.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

It's a matter of mental power, seriously. People may laugh, but the DISTRACTION happens because you're unable to multi-task sufficiently enough to handle both tasks at a certain level of effectiveness. IE; drive without causing an accident.

The human brain is completely incapable of effective multitasking.

All it can to is time share, or switch its attention back and forth between tasks. For the period of time you are paying attention to your conversation or your route, you are not paying attention to driving.

It's not just me, or just less capable people, or just men, or not women, it's the human race as a whole, and there are no exceptions.

Humans can not multitask. Period.

"People can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves," said neuroscientist Earl Miller. And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself."

Never trust your own brain. Only trust objectively verifiable data.

 

[Sparky]

I am all for it.
Could you get fined for talking to the ONSTAR service?

 

[kcmastrpc]

Humans can not multitask. Period.

I don't understand why people refuse to understand this.

The human brain is a single-core processor, we don't have hyperthreading or anything like it.

ANY distraction in the vehicle is dangerous - even speaking with a passenger. It's a lesser-of-two-evils type situation. Passengers CAN be an assistance while driving in heavy traffic, bad weather, or stressful times. While talking with my wife in the car she will sometimes hit the 'air brakes' when I'm engaged with her, and I'll quickly hit my brakes because of my observation of her rather than the road.

People on the cell phone can't do that, they can't sense when the weather is bad, the traffic is bad, or if you're driving on a pedestrian-riddled city street rather than an interstate.

 

[sleepeeg3]

"I wasn't using my cell phone occifer. I was letting it rest on my shoulder cuz it was tired.."

Ban phone and then send everyone in this thread that defended cell phone use while driving to Mumbai to learn how much it sucks when people are selfish drivers.

Calm down ...now focus - I want extra cheese and pepperoni on my pizza. Chop chop!

 

[sleepeeg3]

Never trust your own brain. Only trust objectively verifiable data.

But do I trust my own brain to trust objectively verifiable data? I am so confusored!

 

[haunter]

You don't need to communicate on the phone while driving; you need to communicate with passengers.

wrong.

I also think that speaking with passengers is less distracting. Additionally, I've had a family member pulled over for eating while driving, so it is possible to get pulled over (and cited) for other types of distracted driving.

also wrong, studies to prove it

see, this is where you're wrong. cyclists don't cut in front of you to make a turn. they occupy the same road. where you feel they're "cutting" in front of you, they're actually occupying that lane as a motorcyclist would. this is why on busy streets i'll gladly take the lane, because it's there for me to use as well.

i'll easily travel at 20-35mph on a flat road, faster going downhill.

maybe you should get off the cell phone, observe your surroundings, and ask yourself why they are in the middle of the lane with their arm out before you try to cut them off to go around them.

wrong. where I am we have bike lanes, and too many bikers are assholes that use them but think it entitles them to skip stop signs, not stop or signal when turning etc just like asshole drivers

I ride a motorcycle and I still think its a stupid law.

especially if its so vague, that I cant use pandora or gps on my phone, becuase ya know, thats still using the phone, and communication is a pretty vague word

 

[kcmastrpc]

wrong. where I am we have bike lanes, and too many bikers are assholes that use them but think it entitles them to skip stop signs, not stop or signal when turning etc just like asshole drivers

I ride a motorcycle and I still think its a stupid law.

especially if its so vague, that I cant use pandora or gps on my phone, becuase ya know, thats still using the phone, and communication is a pretty vague word

i personally pull over when i need to fiddle with my garmin for GPS functionality - same thing before GPS even existed - i'd pull over to read a map.

sure you had some douchebags who would try and read a map while driving and they were a danger to others on the road. i have no problem with ticketing them.

as far as bike lanes, those are a joke and more dangerous to bikers than anything. most people don't look for cyclists on the side of the road - but if they're in the lane of traffic, you're more likely to see them. also consider the amount of traffic that crosses into bike lanes.

i've seen trucks parked in bike lanes, causing me to move into the lane of traffic when people don't expect it. i'm moving fast on my bicycle, fast enough to where if i round a blind corner or turn, and theres a truck in my lane i have to move over - fast.

i've seen people running the opposite direction in the bike lane. seriously. i'm not kidding, they're running in my lane - because slow/old people are on the sidewalk.

i've seen people casually drift into the bike lane because it's there and is a buffer for their distracted driving.

anyways... bike lanes are an "option" the law states that cyclists can take up as much of the lane as they feel is required to operate their 'vehicle' safely. there is no minimum, or maximum - that is up to the driver when they pass them, which is 3 feet. that is the rule in most states. if there is glass/gravel/crap on the shoulder/bike lane, i will take the lane and let people get as mad as they want.

 

[Maplehamwich]

Everybody knows better than everybody else. And all studies are wrong, only "first hand" anecdotal evidence means anything.

 

[J-Tal]

Lemme guess. Illegal to be on a phone and driving, but totally alright for a cop to drive and be on the radio with dispatch at the same time.

I don't think it's any less distracting for a cop, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

No more calling 911 to report a roadside emergency or accident to help out unless you pull over too?

Listen to a police scanner, the conversation goes something like this.

"Address again please"
"3129 elm"
"Thank you"

Now listen to someone on a cell, easy to find one, the loudest guy in the store/restaurant totally oblivious to anyone around him.
"BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH................................"
Like they are off in their own world.

For some reason people often seem to get lost in the conversation, just watch them in a store let alone behind the wheel of a car.

 

[motomonkey]

People always resist rules prohibiting them from doing something they shouldn't be doing. In the face of science, statistics and data, they feel they know better and feel inconvenienced and even somehow slighted for being told they shouldn't be doing what they have been doing all along. It's like putting their judgment in question, so rather than giving in, and doing the right thing, they put up a fight.

Sometimes you just have to ignore these people and put these rules in place for the better of all people, to reduce the number of horrific deaths, even when unpopular. I hope this is what happens nationwide in this case.

And exactly at what point does this stop? Doctors in England proposed banning kitchen knives with sharp points, as they were overly dangerous. you have to balance personal freedom, and individual responsibility with obligations to society as a whole. England has crossed this line at times to the point of silliness. California is following this path also. banning realistic looking airsoft guns because some teenager wins a Darwin award when Police order him to drop his airsoft gun, and he points it at them... You cannot protect people from every possible permutation of stupidity with laws. attempting to do so is just not logical.

OK, that is enough on this thread. I need to go sharpen my lawn darts, going to invite the neighbors over for some Nekkid twister and drunk Lawn Darts.

 

[mrtheshaggy]

As a person that rides bikes along the road, this makes me happy.

You bicyclers are a bigger road hazard than cell phones. Everyone swerving into oncoming traffic to get around you.

Telling bicyclers they can't use sidewalks is moronic.

 

[demingo]

see, this is where you're wrong. cyclists don't cut in front of you to make a turn. they occupy the same road. where you feel they're "cutting" in front of you, they're actually occupying that lane as a motorcyclist would. this is why on busy streets i'll gladly take the lane, because it's there for me to use as well.

i'll easily travel at 20-35mph on a flat road, faster going downhill.

maybe you should get off the cell phone, observe your surroundings, and ask yourself why they are in the middle of the lane with their arm out before you try to cut them off to go around them.

Actually they do cut in front of you. Cyclists do not belong on our streets. Our streets were not created for them, they are not funded by them. And if a cyclist happens to impact a car, the result is always one sided. I support any laws which keep cyclists off roads with automobile traffic. Cyclists are incredible hazzards and completely dangerous when you try to pass them.

When you guys start paying yearly excise tax on your bikes plus a usage that is rolled into purchasing gasoline I will rethink your right to the road, until then, stay off.

 

[kcmastrpc]

Actually they do cut in front of you. Cyclists do not belong on our streets. Our streets were not created for them, they are not funded by them. And if a cyclist happens to impact a car, the result is always one sided. I support any laws which keep cyclists off roads with automobile traffic. Cyclists are incredible hazzards and completely dangerous when you try to pass them.

When you guys start paying yearly excise tax on your bikes plus a usage that is rolled into purchasing gasoline I will rethink your right to the road, until then, stay off.

wow, it must be nice to be so woefully ignorant.

my cumulative 200lbs does not destroy the roads like your 4000lb vehicle, or the 10 ton semi / dump truck. my bicycle has little to no impact on the our environment, our roads, or our commute. i do pay for the roads when I use my vehicle for long distance commutes or for emergencies through road/excise tax - and i also pay attention to my surroundings and give respect to those who are responsible enough to give our roads, our environment, and our tax hungry overlords a break.

your impatience and selfish attitude is dangerous. if there is a vehicle behind me and wants to pass I will move over to give them room in my lane when it's safe to do so. i will not jeopardize my safety for your lack of patience or planning.

http://www.renostreetcar.com/who-pays-for-roads-and-do-bicyclists-pay-taxes/

 

[nobody_here]

i don't know why this is even a debate honestly

phone is for talking, not driving

car is for driving not talking

nobody is going to say you are a better driver while talking on the phone, or that driving makes you a better communicator

the two can be completely separated and everyone would be better off in the end

or is that to "common sense" for ya'll?

 

[Tudz]

Bicycles on roads are a nuisance at best and create safety problems at worst. I agree we should be promoting bike riding instead of driving, but I disagree it should be on roads designed for vehicles which are much larger, accelerate much faster and travel 60-110km/h. They slow down traffic when they occupy a lane, allowing less cars to get through a bottleneck or a traffic light and they create a danger when drivers have to get around them.

Anyway, I agree, cell phones are shit and people shouldn't use them. Its not the same as talking to a passenger, research agrees...

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/chatty-driving-phones-vs-passengers/

I personally think the "extra set of eyes" argument is bullshit, but it doesn't change the fact talking to passengers is less distracting. Personally I think it has more to do with the fact passengers are more likely to quieten down during periods of increased risk and drivers are more likely to shut up during periods of increased risk when talking to a passenger compared to when talking on the phone. Either way, its less dangerous.

When I'm driving, I place my phone where I can see it, when it rings, I look at it, if it looks like something that can't wait until I reach my destination I simply pull over (into a side street if there's busy traffic) and ring back straight away. If they were desperate to talk to you and you thought they weren't, they'll ring a second time and you can then proceed to pull over and find out what the emergency is.

Police radios are a different kettle of fish. They shouldn't be having long drawn out discussions over police radios for one and second is that it's a necessary evil for them to perform a job of protecting and serving the community, just like a police car, an ambulance or a fire truck will speed and go through traffic lights when necessary, despite the fact it carries an increased risk.

 

[NKDietrich]

Bottom line is that if this was about safety, these laws wouldn't specifically single out cell phones. They choose cell phones because it's a trendy topic so it gives them political "Think of the children" credit, and they know people won't put them away. Some people require them for work, others have simply come of age in an era of connectivity and are willing to simply accept the occasional ticket as the cost of living.

That's right. They make these laws knowing and hoping people won't obey them. They want the revenue from the tickets, and that's it.

Fact: Traffic citations are a huge stream of revenue for municipal governments. This is why these sorts of laws come about during tough economic times. The city is looking for every penny it can wring out of people. They won't accept a tax increase without serious political fallout, but fines for "illegal" activity go over much more easily with the public.

Society today places more emphasis on staying connected, both in our social lives and work lives. This is a fact that will only grow more true as time goes on. The demand for connectivity increases, but at the same time, we also spend more time on the road than ever before. I'm sure many of us have had jobs where we are required to be reachable as a condition of employment.

If it comes to a choice between risking losing my job, and risking paying a ticket once in a while, it's obvious what I'm going to choose. If Johnny Q. Facebook has a choice between going out of contact with his friends for hours a day, and risking paying a ticket, it's obvious what he's going to choose.

These laws are a waste of time and the people who support them are naive children.

 

[Tudz]

*snip*

Bottom line is people think, backed by research, that it is dangerous, so they're implementing a law to combat it. Of course traffic citations are a huge form of income, and there are some laws that are genuinely moronic and in many peoples' opinions don't help safety but are purely revenue raising, however it has been shown that phone usage in a vehicle reduces awareness of the road and creates a safety risk...

wiki[/URL]]Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[19][20] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[9] and meta-analysis.[11][12] The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[21][22][23] For example, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that merely listening to somebody speak on a phone caused a 37% drop in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are managed.[24]

If you're gonna argue its shit because its revenue raising you might as well argue that all traffic laws are shit because they're revenue raising. Personally I have no problem with people doing genuinely unsafe acts on the road is a form of revenue for the state, that's fine by me. Take their money away and redistribute it through state spending, sounds fair to me.

If it becomes illegal, you won't have to worry about losing your job over it because your job will drop the requirement to have you available while driving. Your job can't force you to break the law and I'm not lawyer but I'm sure its gotta be illegal for them to fire you on the basis you wouldn't do something illegal.

 

[sparks]

It should be done nation wide with BIG Fines for both the driver and the carrier.
MAKE AND AND ALL use of phones while driving outlawed.
the manufactures can do it MAKE THEM.

41% more accidents and that is just the ones they can prove were caused by a phone.
How many accidents were caused by them and they just ran one person into another and drove away...WHAT HAPPENED, I didn't see I was on the phone.

I love to be driving and you can say oh they got a call...
how can you tell...well its an 8 lane highway and they are in the fast lane.
SMOOTH LANE for the cell user...speed drops from 70 to 35 and they can't stay in the lane.
gas, break over and over.

the light changed idiot. COME ON oh sorry I didn't know we were interfering with your conversation.

Jam on those breaks ....sure the idiot on the other end of the conversation is telling you how to get there.

ON AND ON AND ON

$1000 for first offense
$5000 and a year in jail for the second offense
THIRD $10000 and 5 years in jail and PERMANENT removal of their license.

 

[NKDietrich]

Bottom line is people think, backed by research, that it is dangerous, so they're implementing a law to combat it. Of course traffic citations are a huge form of income, and there are some laws that are genuinely moronic and in many peoples' opinions don't help safety but are purely revenue raising, however it has been shown that phone usage in a vehicle reduces awareness of the road and creates a safety risk...

Distracted driving in general raises risk factors, why do these laws only cover cell phones? Should they not be broader and give law enforcement discretion to fine people who are doing other unsafe activities while driving? The motivation here seems suspect.

 

[kcmastrpc]

Distracted driving in general raises risk factors, why do these laws only cover cell phones? Should they not be broader and give law enforcement discretion to fine people who are doing other unsafe activities while driving? The motivation here seems suspect.

I would imagine it's because an officer can observe a person using their cellphone, texting, or otherwise driving erratically and if need be, prove it in court if they wish to contest it.

An officer can still observe unsafe, erratic driving, and ticket you for it. You'll likely also have to undergo a sobriety test as well. Failing to observe lane discipline, improper signal usage (or none at all), excessive speeding or under-speeding, are all things which you can rightfully be fined for. This goes right along with failing to operate your vehicle in a manner which you agreed you would, signing a contract stating you would, and being given a license by your state that grants you this privileged.

You don't have to agree with the law, you can always walk into your DOT office, tell them you admonish their audacity to tell you what you can and can't do while you operate a heavy machine on public roadways and throw your license in their face - stating outright that you won't abide by their oppression.

Just a heads up, they'll probably laugh at you.

 

[Tudz]

Distracted driving in general raises risk factors, why do these laws only cover cell phones? Should they not be broader and give law enforcement discretion to fine people who are doing other unsafe activities while driving? The motivation here seems suspect.

There are places which have bans on other things while driving, such as eating while driving. Though I still think eating and driving is less dangerous than being on a phone and driving, I'll personally eat energy bars and such while driving as I don't think it affects my cognitive function, just means I have a couple less fingers to drive.

A lot of places also have "dangerous driving" laws, where you can be fined if a cop sees you do something like swerve or drive erratically then notices you are doing something like eating or drinking something while driving, claiming it's affecting your ability to drive. That would be the "broad" strokes you are talking about.

They can't just say "you must have no distractions while driving", as that would be too broad and open to interpretation. Out here in Australia before we got speed limits we had "drive as fast as is safe", which meant you could drive 150km/h on a winding road and claim it was safe, though a cop might disagree.

They also can't just give a huge list of "don't do's" without proper research, otherwise that truely would be labelled as revenue raising. Talking on a phone has had research and been proven to be a distraction, hence they can (try) and regulate it.

The main impractical thing about talking on phone laws is the impracticality of enforcing it. If you have a phone in a hands free and a cop sees you talking on it, what's to say you can't just turn it off before they pull you over and claim you were singing along to the radio (which you proceeded to turn off when getting pulled over), it just doesn't seem easy to regulate.

 

[NICKSTAR]

Wait wait wait I mean I don't need any gubmit socialism telling me how to drive! If I want to make a peanut butter and banana sandwich on my center console at 85 mph I damn well better be allowed to.

How about you take into consideration that your terrible driving can effect people around you?

I think the click it or ticket law is more "socialistic" law than this one.

I somewhat agree with this law. Nothing causes me more road rage than seeing the soccer mom run a redlight while having her phone glued to her ear driving her tank SUV.

 

[TheGardenTool]

Good. I can't wait until a nationwide ban is in place. I have experienced people driving slow, lane drifting and simply not paying attention...all because they are on their phones..way too much.

I see more of that when people are slowing down to look at the wreck on the other side of the road.

 

[Tudz]

I see more of that when people are slowing down to look at the wreck on the other side of the road.

Yeah, they should totally ban crashes to stop people getting distracted and causing crashes

 

[RyanR100]

I see more of that when people are slowing down to look at the wreck on the other side of the road.

Rubbernecking is human nature, cell phone usage isn't.

However, your point is well taken, considering how many accidents are caused by people playing with their phones, which in turn causes everyone on the other side of the road to rubberneck. So, ban cell phone use, reduce accidents and then we reduce rubbernecking.

It's a win win.

 

[demingo]

You don't have to agree with the law, you can always walk into your DOT office, tell them you admonish their audacity to tell you what you can and can't do while you operate a heavy machine on public roadways and throw your license in their face - stating outright that you won't abide by their oppression.

Just a heads up, they'll probably laugh at you.

Funny, I'd much rather vote out idiots who pass laws like these. So far the thought of losing an election has kept horrid laws like these out of MA where I live. I will make sure to continue to vote in a manner which will keep horrid laws like this out of our books.

As an aside for all those who think this will help... Research has proven that laws which ban texting on driving had no impact on accident rates. The two primary reasons are over estimates of how many accidents were caused ONLY because of texting (usually driving ability and comprehension of traffic play a large part)., the second reason being people are hiding thier phones below the line of sight into their car. By hiding the phone they are even more distracted and cause a greater hazzard.

In the end you have a new law that has negligible effect on public safety. We need to stop passing kneejerk laws based on horrible research. The studies conducted on the distraction of phones are always from a simulator. If you believe a simulator and actual driving have anything in common go play GT5 and then become a race car driver...

 

[Tudz]

The studies conducted on the distraction of phones are always from a simulator. If you believe a simulator and actual driving have anything in common go play GT5 and then become a race car driver...

Ya know, when our race team started playing racing sims (Live for Speed) for fun and someone bought in a G27 to play it, the first comment from many of the drivers who'd never played a racing sim was how amazing it was that the car behaved the same. Then after a few months of everyone on the team playing the racing sims, surprise surprise, it was the team drivers who ended up topping our in house leaderboards. In fact the best guy I know from rFactor (who unfortunately didn't drive for our race team) was a national level amatuer driver as well who had won state level hill climb and go-kart championships. One of our current drivers on the team was actually a guy who so quickly took to Live for Speed and was beating everyone we decided to give him a shot in the real car and he was close enough to our regular drivers we made him a driver as well.

Not saying simulator = real life, but there are simularities and there's reasons why simulators are used by many institutions where it's not practical to give people a lot of actual seat time due to safety or financial reasons.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

As an aside for all those who think this will help... Research has proven that laws which ban texting on driving had no impact on accident rates. The two primary reasons are over estimates of how many accidents were caused ONLY because of texting (usually driving ability and comprehension of traffic play a large part)., the second reason being people are hiding thier phones below the line of sight into their car. By hiding the phone they are even more distracted and cause a greater hazzard.

In the end you have a new law that has negligible effect on public safety. We need to stop passing kneejerk laws based on horrible research. The studies conducted on the distraction of phones are always from a simulator. If you believe a simulator and actual driving have anything in common go play GT5 and then become a race car driver...

Just because a law isn't effective doesn't mean we shouldn't pass it. This is the same line of reasoning junkies have been using to legalize various drugs over the ears and it is just plain BS. If a law is put in place for a valid reason, and it isn't effective, then you have to change the way you enforce it, rather than drop it all together.

Short term, I agree. People are defiant. Long term this can be part of a larger message including safe driving campaigns to push the message that driving while talking on the phone is socially unacceptable. Especially when they have ads touting the law and little Johnny asks his mommy "Why are you breaking the law"... I'ts all about using guilt to achieve the goal of better safety, and the law is part of the equation.

So what happens when you pass a law like this:

1.) Well, some people are going to abide by it. Either guilted into it, or just because they don't want to get in trouble or are the law abiding sort. This will reduce accident rates somewhat.

2.) Some people will try to hide their cellphone use so no one can see it, causing more distraction and increasing the accident rates somewhat.

On the whole, the accident rates are fairly stable.

Initial laws used blanket bans and made them primary offences, so you could be pulled over for it. Then people started thinking about #2 above, and this has led to second generation laws where they make it a secondary offence. In other words, you can't be pulled over for using your phone. You are pulled over for driving erratically, and then get an extra fine if it is shown you were using your phone.

The theory is that this will eliminate #2, as there is no need to hide your phone and then we are only left with #1, which should result in a slight reduction of accident rates.

The studies conducted on the distraction of phones are always from a simulator. If you believe a simulator and actual driving have anything in common go play GT5 and then become a race car driver...

They do this for a very good reason, because statistics from actual accidents don't control for driver behavior. There is very rarely a video camera in the car showing what the driver is doing right before the accident. You have to create a controlled experiment. This is how science works. If you don't believe in approximated controlled experiments, then you should probably disregard most scientific advances in the last 300 years

Simulators are not going to be perfect representations of driving, they never will be. But they are sufficient to - as in this peer reviewed study from the University of Utah - show differences in peoples response times depending on what they are doing in a car-like situation.

Accidents are all about response time, and we know from human factors engineering that the human brain is TERRIBLE at multitasking. Instead it splits tasks up in to small pieces. Essentially time sharing the brain. Doing any other task that requires thought at the same time, will increase your response time and thus increase likelihood of an accident. It does not matter if the simulator tests aren't perfect.

Funny, I'd much rather vote out idiots who pass laws like these. So far the thought of losing an election has kept horrid laws like these out of MA where I live. I will make sure to continue to vote in a manner which will keep horrid laws like this out of our books.

You keep doing that, and I'll keep voting for the opposite

Stopping dangerous behavior that leads to people being injured, maimed and killed is one of my top priorities, and I will ALWAYS vote for it.

 

[demingo]

Just because a law isn't effective doesn't mean we shouldn't pass it. This is the same line of reasoning junkies have been using to legalize various drugs over the ears and it is just plain BS. If a law is put in place for a valid reason, and it isn't effective, then you have to change the way you enforce it, rather than drop it all together.

We have far too many laws on our books that are ineffective and counterproductive. While I will admit I've taken an extremist position in this thread to spur discussion, I still feel this is over reaching. The role of government to enforce public safety needs to be balanced with civil liberties. Many people do not enjoy the slippery slope argument but it is of valid concern. My parents, as you know, originate from a country where that slippery slope became very dangerous in the 1970s and 80s. From the stories they tell me of how that society functions I worry about the same here.

Your drug argument is a great example. I believe the government has no business in telling an adult what they should put into their bodies. It is a bit of a reach however let me present you an example of why I think laws such as this are dangerous. I know you were at one point a very avid counterstrike player. Now, "studies" have linked violent videogames with violent behavior and increased brain activity in the regions of the brain which control anger and impulses. Does this mean we should ban violent videogames as they can pose a threat to society? After all, there have been mass shootings in which games were blamed as cause or inspiration.

It is a very fine balance between the "good of the people" and the freedoms of man. I tend to lean more on the personal freedoms angle as I have heard too many horror stories of what can happen when people start giving up liberties. I do not want to head the way of the Soviet Union or even current day UK. You will always have people who make bad choices and good choices. Laws shouldn't restrict society based on the bad choices of a few. In relation to this law, there is a massive difference between using a cell phone while driving on a highway with minimal traffic and using a phone in busy city traffic. I don't know why people try to frame driving as a very difficult task, but it is generally not. Just as one can safely drink alcohol or do drugs, one can safely talk on a phone and drive. It comes down to personal responsibility and knowing when it is safe to use a cell and when it is not. I do not believe we need more government oversight or interference in our lives. The only "true" solution is a technical one which I think is an intrusion on our rights. You could state installing mandatory breathalyzers in all cars regardless of prior conviction would save lives by reducing drunk driving, however I feel this too would violate personal freedom to an excessive level.

 

[Tudz]

You could state installing mandatory breathalyzers in all cars regardless of prior conviction would save lives by reducing drunk driving, however I feel this too would violate personal freedom to an excessive level.

I'm not sure how that violates personal freedom? It would be inconvenient as all fuck, but the only freedom it would violate is drink driving, which is not a freedom anyway. It also wouldn't eliminate drink driving because people would get friends to start their cars. Unless you have one of those annoying ones where you have to retest yourself every 15 minutes... I drove a friend's car with one of those and the damned thing is a danger in itself.

But yeah, still not seeing the "violate personal freedom" thing.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

We have far too many laws on our books that are ineffective and counterproductive. While I will admit I've taken an extremist position in this thread to spur discussion, I still feel this is over reaching. The role of government to enforce public safety needs to be balanced with civil liberties. Many people do not enjoy the slippery slope argument but it is of valid concern. My parents, as you know, originate from a country where that slippery slope became very dangerous in the 1970s and 80s. From the stories they tell me of how that society functions I worry about the same here.

Your drug argument is a great example. I believe the government has no business in telling an adult what they should put into their bodies. It is a bit of a reach however let me present you an example of why I think laws such as this are dangerous. I know you were at one point a very avid counterstrike player. Now, "studies" have linked violent videogames with violent behavior and increased brain activity in the regions of the brain which control anger and impulses. Does this mean we should ban violent videogames as they can pose a threat to society? After all, there have been mass shootings in which games were blamed as cause or inspiration.

It is a very fine balance between the "good of the people" and the freedoms of man. I tend to lean more on the personal freedoms angle as I have heard too many horror stories of what can happen when people start giving up liberties. I do not want to head the way of the Soviet Union or even current day UK. You will always have people who make bad choices and good choices. Laws shouldn't restrict society based on the bad choices of a few. In relation to this law, there is a massive difference between using a cell phone while driving on a highway with minimal traffic and using a phone in busy city traffic. I don't know why people try to frame driving as a very difficult task, but it is generally not. Just as one can safely drink alcohol or do drugs, one can safely talk on a phone and drive. It comes down to personal responsibility and knowing when it is safe to use a cell and when it is not. I do not believe we need more government oversight or interference in our lives. The only "true" solution is a technical one which I think is an intrusion on our rights. You could state installing mandatory breathalyzers in all cars regardless of prior conviction would save lives by reducing drunk driving, however I feel this too would violate personal freedom to an excessive level.

I hear what you are saying, but it is a stretch to say that passing laws to prevent idiotic behavior that costs lives will result in forced labor camps and a single party state.

If that is the case, why haven't drug laws, stop signs, firearms safety laws, etc. already accomplished these? These are examples of laws that free countries across the world implement, implement well and have no further negative impacts. For each law that is enacted you have to balance the pro's and the con's. Is the freedom to talk on your phone wherever you please really worth the 3092 confirmed deaths in the U.S. alone in 2010 resulting from cellphone distracted driving. (actual number is likely much higher, these are just the confirmed instances) I say no.

When we get to the point where additional legal restrictions have impacts to freedoms that outweigh the consequences, then I feel we should oppose them and vote them down.

Our system is one with checks and balances, and while it doesn't always feel like it, it is ultimately responsible to the people. The lines we draw between safety and liberty are very very difficult to determine on an individual basis, but when you factor in a huge electorate it becomes much easier to determine where that line lies, at least after the fact. That s why we go through political swings in this country. Once one side has gone too far as determined by the electorate as a whole, they are handed a defeat, and its the other sides turn, until they go to far, and the pendulum swings back in the opposite direction.

Because of the system we have and the tradition of electoral freedoms, I feel we run no risk of walking down a slippery slope to tyranny, at least not from laws like this.

The biggest risk we have for tyranny in this country, is from the effect of big money on the political process, and the impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2009. This has the potential of single handedly killing democracy in our country. Distracted driving laws? Not so much.

 

[demingo]

I'm not sure how that violates personal freedom? It would be inconvenient as all fuck, but the only freedom it would violate is drink driving, which is not a freedom anyway. It also wouldn't eliminate drink driving because people would get friends to start their cars. Unless you have one of those annoying ones where you have to retest yourself every 15 minutes... I drove a friend's car with one of those and the damned thing is a danger in itself.

But yeah, still not seeing the "violate personal freedom" thing.

Very simply. The most basic form of personal freedom is that no one should have to do anything they do not want, and should be able to do anything they do wish to do. This is the concept of free will. Now, EVERY law violates free will. It is a restriction placed on what on can do. As a society we pick and choose what we are willing to give up in freedom because we feel it is beneficial for the group as a whole. For example, while I am free to steal a car, we have decided this sort of action has a negative effect that is large enough for us to limit this freedom. Laws are not absolute, they are relative.

Each law must be looked at from this perspective. Is the positive outcome of the law great enough to justify taking away free will. Many laws fall under this category, otherwise we would not have a functional society. Back to my point, forcing someone to use a breathalyzer you are removing their ability to choose not to, hence limiting free will.

Now it is up to society as a whole to decide how much "freedom" as defined by free will they are willing to give up for safety. I am not an anarchist, and I believe laws serve a purpose and better our society. With that said I do not just easily agree to restrictions as I think they should have very clear and sizable benefits.

 

[Benzino]

Helena, MT has had this for a few months now and is actively enforcing it. Chapel Hill is not the first city to do so, but probably the first city of substantial size to do so.

 

[arr4ws]

cars now have bluetooth built in . How the fuck could they know im talking to someone and not to myself or whatever?