Here's a controversial one from Chicago. I'll be interested to see what opinions spring up.

Chicago recently passed a ban on cell phone usage while driving within the city limits. Do you think this is a good idea? Is this another example of over legislating or is it a good measure to help reduce traffic accidents? Will it help reduce traffic accidents at all?

Many cell users drive badly, but not all.
Some drivers also drive badly, using the radio tuner, eating, looking at passenger while talking, etc.
Will the governments prohibit these things too?
It is not the use of cell phone that is the problem. It is the driver itself. They should be less tolerant with bad drivers, no matter what is the cause of it, may it be cell phone or radio tunning, etc. And let the ones that use a cell phone correctly alone.
BTW, they are talking about doing the same in the whole province of Quebec.

Pardon me for getting a bit out of subject...
It's like when they say they want to take the alcohol limit down from .08 to .05 because there is too many accidents involving drunk drivers. But why limit to .05 when all the time there is an accident with a drunk driver they say: "He was 3 times over the limit." Then we heard that he will be out of jail after two months or worst, he'll get a fine instead of jail time.
They should leave the limit at .08, but give bigger penalties to those who get caught over it.

We've had such a ban in Scotland since 1st December 2003 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/01/mobile_phone_driving_ban_comes/) (England and Wales a few months later) and it has had both positive and negative results. Of course, smoking, eating, and drinking (non-alcohol) while driving hasn't been banned and I would consider them just as bad.

No controversy for me;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm

Whenever I see erratic driving, more often than not its some idiot on the phone.

We've had such a ban in Scotland since 1st December 2003 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/01/mobile_phone_driving_ban_comes/) (England and Wales a few months later) and it has had both positive and negative results. Of course, smoking, eating, and drinking (non-alcohol) while driving hasn't been banned and I would consider them just as bad.
Actually they are, you could suffer the same penalty for eating and drinking at the wheel, and could have for many years;)
It's very simple, whilst somebody's holding and talking on a mobile they are not in control of the vehicle, what happens if you want to change gear when talking on the phone, who's holding the wheel?
no jokes please:D

If a calls necessary - what does it take - a few minutes to find somewhere to pull over safely and use the phone?

Whats the problem?

Anyone too self important to think that their phone call is more important than the safety of others should be dealt with accordingly.

10 years inside would do it for me!

while travelling through New York I noticed signage on I84 that they have already enacted a ban on cell phone usage without a hands free device. Also talking about enacting a similar ban in Pennsylvania.

I have noticed that there seems to be a physiological short circuit that develops in the cerebrum when one's arm bends at the angle appropriate to put a phone to the ear. My own driving suffers if I don't plan ahead enough to have my earpiece in place when the phone rings, so I normally don't drive without it (or leave the phone) just in case. While I won't say I'm not distracted while talking with the hands-free device, I am no more distracted than when someone else is in the vehicle and I'm not inclined to take my eyes off the road to look at them. :rolleyes:

while travelling through New York I noticed signage on I84 that they have already enacted a ban on cell phone usage without a hands free device.

As a NY state resident I can attest to this. The law has been in place for a couple of years. Sadly though it is still VERY common to see drivers using the hand held phone.

I rarely talk on my cell and I still think the law is a waste. Someone somewhere made some $$$ on it or it would have not have happened in the first place.

There are some extremely talented people on the roads these days. Some can talk on the phone, put on makeup, read the paper, drink coffee and eat a burger while driving. Pity they can't figure out how to use turn signals.

Pity they can't figure out how to use turn signals.

100% agree on this. It happens so often that everytime, I just yell it out loud in my car (of course, only myself in the car). I've seen so.....many people turning, changing lanes without ever turning on that d....signal.

Also, maybe because that I do it and I expect others to do the same, at least, they should raise their hand to show as a "Thank you" for those who slow down and let them join the lane. Whenever, people do something for you, don't you need to thank you for that? :mad:

UUrrrgh... I hate people who don't use their turning signals when changing lanes. I swear it causes more accidents than actually speeding, using cell phones, etc.

I feel like it would be a good change if they banned hand held cell phone usage, but I don't really see anything wrong with using a hands free device, as long as it doesn't lower your ability to hear the traffic outside of your car. Using earpiece hands free devices should be a huge mistake. I believe there already is a law here against using headphones while driving, I wonder if this law applies to cell phone headsets too....

I feel like it would be a good change if they banned hand held cell phone usage, but I don't really see anything wrong with using a hands free device, as long as it doesn't lower your ability to hear the traffic outside of your car.

Hi Vassago,

The research I have seen stated that the problem with using a mobile whilst driving was that people started to concentrate on the conversation more than the driving. You can see this on the BBC link I posted; people using a hands free phone still had slower reactions than people who were over the legal alcohol limit.

I've spoken to a number of guys who have to be contactable by there employer at all times and have therefore been provided with handsfree sets , and everyone states that what the research says is true, it is very different talking on the phone than talking to a passenger, a passenger will normally be patient about responses if the driver is concentrating, or even stop talking in certain traffic situations, the guy on the other end of the phone just gets irate.

Brian

I've spoken to a number of guys who have to be contactable by there employer at all times and have therefore been provided with handsfree sets , and everyone states that what the research says is true, it is very different talking on the phone than talking to a passenger, a passenger will normally be patient about responses if the driver is concentrating, or even stop talking in certain traffic situations, the guy on the other end of the phone just gets irate.

Thats an interesting point Brian. It seems this is very harsh on the driver; they are aware themselves that the phone is a distraction, yet they are required to have one. If one of these drivers was in an accident whilst on the phone who would be held to account? The driver, or the employer? It would seem to me that whatever it is they are wanting to accomplish by having a phone in the vehicle could be done by other methods (i.e. the vehicle can be tracked in many other ways, and they could text the driver so he can receive the message safely when its convinient for him).

Thats an interesting point Brian. It seems this is very harsh on the driver; they are aware themselves that the phone is a distraction, yet they are required to have one. If one of these drivers was in an accident whilst on the phone who would be held to account? The driver, or the employer? It would seem to me that whatever it is they are wanting to accomplish by having a phone in the vehicle could be done by other methods (i.e. the vehicle can be tracked in many other ways, and they could text the driver so he can receive the message safely when its convinient for him).

But again, this also depends on the awareness of the driver and the person on the other end of the phone, which is something not measurable by any means, so how do you make a law based on something that you can't prove one way or the other?

But again, this also depends on the awareness of the driver and the person on the other end of the phone, which is something not measurable by any means, so how do you make a law based on something that you can't prove one way or the other?

Its very simple. A phone call isn't important. People's lives are. I could go on but I've had a drink at the office party here and I'm not likely to add anything sensible at this stage. I do completely disagree that there is no proof; the studies that have been done refute your claim, the link is posted previously. Anyone who has spent any time on the road knows this to be true.

I think the point that Vassago was trying to make (or at least is similar to) is that a skilled driver talking on the phone is likely to be less a hazard on the road than an idiot without a phone. Perhaps drivers with a clean record should be exempt from the law since they've demonstrated driving skills and good judgement?

I think the point that Vassago was trying to make (or at least is similar to) is that a skilled driver talking on the phone is likely to be less a hazard on the road than an idiot without a phone.

Hi Kraj,

Yes I can see the point that Vassago is trying to make. My point is that the idiots far outnumber anyone else ;-)

Perhaps drivers with a clean record should be exempt from the law since they've demonstrated driving skills and good judgement?

A clean driving record to me is not an indication of good driving skills and judgement. It could simply be down to the fact that they only drive one hour per month. I will conceed that anyone who has passed an advanced driving test has displayed better judgement and driving skill. However the logistics of the police having to check who are the advanced drivers and who are not would be time consuming and expensive (just in case you are not aware Kraj, the advanced driving test in the U.K. is a test where your driving is tested to a greater degree. One of the most difficult points IMHO is that you have to clearly articulate what you are doing and why. This alone would make me fail ;-S)

Again, I stand by the point that people's lives outweight phone calls.

Perhaps drivers with a clean record should be exempt from the law since they've demonstrated driving skills and good judgement?


I'm afraid I would have to agree with 'monkey on this one. My wife has a perfectly clean driving record and scares me to death when she drives:eek: . Definitely should not be allowed to use the phone while on the road.

Using earpiece hands free devices should be a huge mistake. I believe there already is a law here against using headphones while driving, I wonder if this law applies to cell phone headsets too....

Vass...they're not ear-plugs, they're ear-buds.:D There really is no notable difference in what you can hear while using a hands free. I have used the 'buds until I recently acquired a bluetooth wireless...marvelous! One touch to answer, voice dial, hang-up...definitely the way to go for commuters. While using, I can still hear the radio, external traffic, and even a valve-knock from the occasionally acquired cheap gasoline:eek:

Yes I can see the point that Vassago is trying to make. My point is that the idiots far outnumber anyone else ;-)
No argument here :D

A clean driving record to me is not an indication of good driving skills and judgement. It could simply be down to the fact that they only drive one hour per month.
Good point. But in any case a person with a clean driving record is less a danger on the road, regardless of the reason.

I will conceed that anyone who has passed an advanced driving test has displayed better judgement and driving skill. However the logistics of the police having to check who are the advanced drivers and who are not would be time consuming and expensive (just in case you are not aware Kraj, the advanced driving test in the U.K. is a test where your driving is tested to a greater degree.)
I actuall wasn't aware you had such a test in the UK. Sounds like a good idea. In the U.S., though, that information is at the fingertips of the police; there wouldn't be the slightest increase in cost or time investment.

Again, I stand by the point that people's lives outweight phone calls.
I certainly agree, but many people's career is driving-based and telephone communication is necessary. So, what about someone's life versus someone's livelihood?

I certainly agree, but many people's career is driving-based and telephone communication is necessary
Then they need only invest in the latest hands free kit, and in any case if they're using the car as their office how are they going to write anything down whilst driving and answering the phone all at the same time? In any case my mobile service provider provides me with an answering service, the messages can be picked up at any time. Don't you guys have the same service?

So, what about someone's life versus someone's livelihood
Without doubt, life, I can't see how you can even question the difference:confused:

Good point. But in any case a person with a clean driving record is less a danger on the road, regardless of the reason.


Hi Kraj,

Not sure I follow your logic there. I think a clean driving licence indicates you have not been caught infringing traffic laws, no more, no less. For instance, lets say someone passes their driving test on the first go after only a few weeks training, then don't drive for two years. I would say that person's driving is not "road tested". I think most people would be in agreement that in the U.K. you only really start to drive after you have passed your test and get out on the roads. I wouldn't say this is the same in the US; there it seems you have a far more sensible approach and teach driving skills in schools (as far as I am aware).



I actuall wasn't aware you had such a test in the UK. Sounds like a good idea. In the U.S., though, that information is at the fingertips of the police; there wouldn't be the slightest increase in cost or time investment.

Yes, the advanced driving test is a good idea, it means you pay much less in insurance. It may be that the police can easily check the type of driving licence here too; however working in Local Government in a technical field, I doubt it very much ;-)

I certainly agree, but many people's career is driving-based and telephone communication is necessary. So, what about someone's life versus someone's livelihood?

I don't agree that telephone communication is necessary. Surely if you are driving on business there is nothing that is so important that you have to respond that immediately. I think a far better idea would be email. The driver could be alerted to a message with a sound (or even a voice) which tells them of the urgency of the message. The computer should then only give the full message (via a screen or voice) when the vehicle is stationery with the engine switched off. If the driver needs to communicate with head office, he can do. Here in the UK, there are plenty of places to stop even on the longest journeys. Hell, most people from the US would consider driving across the UK as a quick drive I expect. Now whether this would work in the US with much greater distances, I couldn't really say Kraj.

The penalty for holding a phone to your head while driving (obviously not the official title) is $135 and 3 demerit points in Australia. I have no problems with it, and if it's an urgent call it's not hard to push the speakerphone button while watching the road.

I have no problems with pulling over, however by law here, we're also required to turn off the engine and remove the keys from the ignition. I think it's the new "over-protective parent" technique.

It's the same for Drink Driving (which i do not condone at all). 2 weeks ago, after drinks in our hotel room my friends went to get some forgotten bags from their car. The key was in the door and he was rifling through the backseat when cops tried to pull him up for drink driving. Once your key is in the car door your a drunk driver. Because his car had an immobiliser on the engine he wasn't charged (although the car was examined for any sign of being unroadworthy - my mates can be pretty cheeky)

Pardon the tangent rant :rolleyes:

back to work now :o!

I spend alot of time on the road. average about 2500 KM a month. In Australia we have had the mobile ban for a couple of years. I get quite irrated by other drivers that fail to observe basic laws. The laws are there to benifet all drivers. People who talk on mobiles don't indicate, as they don't have a sparehand to use. they drive at inconstent speeds. Slow down speed up. My thought is would they drive any better with the mobile phone shoved up there arse. Because i would quite willing to volunteer to put it there......sideways.

Ash

Well, I have had an accident while using my phone so I can say from first hand experience that a law banning isn't all that bad. Granted I was just traveling about 10-15mph through my neighborhood with the morning sun directly in my eye and the car I hit pretty much in a blind spot, but nevertheless I think that if I wasn't trying to dial a number at that exact time then I most likely would not have hit the other car. :o

The thing that made me angry about that accident is that the other person and her two kids were for all intents and purposes perfectly fine after the accident aside from being shaken up. Then almost exactly 2 years after the accident I receive a notification that they filed a lawsuit against me. Hmmm, nearly two years after the accident just magically coincides with about the same time that their eligibility for filing a lawsuit was up. Those cheap, lazy, good-for-nothing B@st@ards decided at the last moment that they'd try to take me for whatever they could while they still had a chance. Fortunately, my insurance company covered whatever they got which I think was very little anyway. The one bit in the lawsuit that really gets me is although the husband was not involved in the accident he was suiing me for "Loss of Consortium" which is a load of crap because the woman wasn't injured or anything. That whole "loss of consortium" bit is SO abused its not funny. Anyway, I'm finished ranting. Bye bye now.

suiing me for "Loss of Consortium" which is a load of crap because the woman wasn't injured or anything. That whole "loss of consortium" bit is SO abused its not funny. Anyway, I'm finished ranting. Bye bye now.

Women have a nasty habit of losing consortium anyway even without a car accident :cool: :D

I wonder if one can sue one's own spouse for loss of consortium? :rolleyes:

I wonder if one can sue one's own spouse for loss of consortium? :rolleyes:

Yes, it's called divorce :D

I also wonder what police would do (nothing?) if I can capture anyone breaking traffic laws on a camera and then turn it in to police?

Myselft, while driving, got cut-in by so many cars and they did not even use their turning signals :mad:.

I also wonder what police would do (nothing?) if I can capture anyone breaking traffic laws on a camera and then turn it in to police?

Myselft, while driving, got cut-in by so many cars and they did not even use their turning signals :mad:.


Sort of reminds me of many years ago when driving with some friends of my we spotted what seemed to be an obvious drunk driver. We thought we'd follow him to see if we could report him, but I think at some point he realized we were following him and he sped up and began driving more recklessly than ever. We decided it was best just to back off and let it go. Too bad cell phones weren't common back then.

I also wonder what police would do (nothing?) if I can capture anyone breaking traffic laws on a camera and then turn it in to police?

Myselft, while driving, got cut-in by so many cars and they did not even use their turning signals :mad:.
I'm not a cop, judge or lawyer, so I don't know for sure what legal recourse is available, but...

If you took video of the offender and filed a complaint, the police could petition a judge for an arrest warrant, arrest the driver and charge him/her. If that person went to court, you'd be subpoenaed (wow, I almost spelled that right first try) as a witness to confirm the video. How likely is it that a police department would actually go through all that for a minor traffic violation? Well I think you can answer that one on your own. You're much better off pulling out your cell phone and reporting the driver. Unless there's a cell phone ban in the area. ;)

I think a clean driving licence indicates you have not been caught infringing traffic laws, no more, no less.

This is true in many ways. I admit that I'm not the most astute driver on the road and I'm had my share of accidents and tickets, but there really does seem to be an element of luck involved. I swear I've known much worse drivers than myself who have not been involved in any or as many accidents/tickets that I have before and it really has to have some element of luck and/or karma if you believe in that sort of thing. Some people just seem to have worse luck in being in the wrong place at the wrong time and unfortunately I think that I'm one of them. :(

Yes thats absolutely right, its just the matter of luck. But the cell phones while driving are big distraction in real sense. And I think the ban on cell phones while driving is justified.

Yes thats absolutely right, its just the matter of luck. But the cell phones while driving are big distraction in real sense. And I think the ban on cell phones while driving is justified.

I agree...!

it is a very good idea. ppl behave like jerks while they are on their cell phone and driving

[QUOTE=Vassago;448647]UUrrrgh... I hate people who don't use their turning signals when changing lanes. I swear it causes more accidents than actually speeding, using cell phones, etc.
QUOTE]

Until I bought one I thought BMW didn't fit their cars with indicators. They do you know! I love them, they're a great invention, they not only let other road users know your intent, but they are also very good manners. But just using the indicator doesn't make it your right to pull in front of someone either -they are extremely guilty of that in Scotland, mostly with cars who's steering wheels are on the wrong side of the car :)

The ban on using mobile phones whilst driving hasn't been that great a success here, you still see it way too often. Mothers with babies in their cars ! For goodness sake, get a grip!!

it is a very good idea. ppl behave like jerks while they are on their cell phone and driving

People behave like jerks when they are driving :eek:

it is a very good idea. ppl behave like jerks while they are on their cell phone and driving It's not the people talking on their cell phones who are the problem - They may have headsets and that's no worse than listening to the car radio. it's the people who are reading and sending text messages that are the real menace as are those that must look at their maps while speeding along.

In the Uk the real problem with the cell phone law is the definition of driving, ie being in the car with the engine running, don't laugh, think about it.
My daughter was caught in a traffic jam , after no sign of movement for 40 minutes she dug her phone out of her bag turned it on and contacted the office to let them know she would be late for a meeting she was to chair, As she put her phone away she noticed a policeman taking his life in his hands as he dodged traffic to cross another road, she soon found why he was doing this as he knocked on her window and proceded to book her for using a mobile phone while driving!!! Oh yes he appreciated that she was going nowhere but the law is the law.
I wonder how many more victims he got toward his target that day.

Brian

In the Uk the real problem with the cell phone law is the definition of driving, ie being in the car with the engine running, don't laugh, think about it.
My daughter was caught in a traffic jam , after no sign of movement for 40 minutes she dug her phone out of her bag turned it on and contacted the office to let them know she would be late for a meeting she was to chair, As she put her phone away she noticed a policeman taking his life in his hands as he dodged traffic to cross another road, she soon found why he was doing this as he knocked on her window and proceded to book her for using a mobile phone while driving!!! Oh yes he appreciated that she was going nowhere but the law is the law.
I wonder how many more victims he got toward his target that day.

BrianAnd then the police wonder why people don't respect them anymore. It is a sad state of affairs when people only get a caution for threatening people with a knife while Brian's daughter gets a fine and points on her licence for a purely technical breach of the law putting no-one at risk.:confused:

And then the police wonder why people don't respect them anymore. It is a sad state of affairs when people only get a caution for threatening people with a knife while Brian's daughter gets a fine and points on her licence for a purely technical breach of the law putting no-one at risk.:confused:

Brown has raise extra money to pay for the wars somewhere:rolleyes:

Brown has raise extra money to pay for the wars somewhere:rolleyes:

I thought Bliar was the hated warmonger? Is Brown one too?

I thought Bliar was the hated warmonger? Is Brown one too?

He was in on the act from the start:mad:

Oh yes he appreciated that she was going nowhere but the law is the law.


Presumable he'd have booked her for abandoning a vehicle had she stepped outside the car to make the call.

I nearly got wiped out by a car overtaking on a hill on a bend. I was pleased that there was a traffic cop behind me. The cop didn't flinch, he was more interested in stopping me because the car was registered to someone who had lost his liscence. He was rather miffed to find that I was legally driving the car :eek:

It's not the people talking on their cell phones who are the problem - They may have headsets and that's no worse than listening to the car radio. it's the people who are reading and sending text messages that are the real menace as are those that must look at their maps while speeding along.
Agree on the last two points, but can't agree on the first bit.

Listening to the radio can be done passively, talking to someone can't. If someone's concentrating on a conversation their reaction time will drop.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html
I know plenty of people argue that the fact they're not holding a phone means they're not distracted, but the brain is still not giving full attention to the most important thing if it's distracted by holding a conversation.

On the subject of dangerous driving. Maybe they should take a look at the number of zombies out there on prozac and the like driving around our streets. I understand doctors are legally obliged to inform the DVLA if a patient is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, why not do the same for everyone they prescribe antidepresants, or other mind altering drugs to?

[QUOTE=reclusivemonkey;448857]A clean driving record to me is not an indication of good driving skills and judgement. It could simply be down to the fact that they only drive one hour per month.
/QUOTE]

Nooooo! I used to drive an average of five hours a day. Him indoors gets very upset that after stupid number of years I'm still driving like I'm in my test, LOL. It's just habit. Does it make me a better driver? Probably not. Have I a clean lisence? Sure do, but I think that's 99% luck rather than judgement. ;)

On the subject of dangerous driving. Maybe they should take a look at the number of zombies out there on prozac and the like driving around our streets. I understand doctors are legally obliged to inform the DVLA if a patient is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, why not do the same for everyone they prescribe antidepresants, or other mind altering drugs to?

I think the Police did a song about something like this. 1984 was a great year for thinking about this type of thing.

Agree on the last two points, but can't agree on the first bit.

Listening to the radio can be done passively, talking to someone can't. If someone's concentrating on a conversation their reaction time will drop.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html
I know plenty of people argue that the fact they're not holding a phone means they're not distracted, but the brain is still not giving full attention to the most important thing if it's distracted by holding a conversation.I take your point but drivers do speak to their passengers without breaking the law. If we followed your view then mothers shouldn't be allowed to drive their children if they are the only adult because children can be very distracting.

I take your point but drivers do speak to their passengers without breaking the law. If we followed your view then mothers shouldn't be allowed to drive their children if they are the only adult because children can be very distracting.
A conversation with passengers stops if there is suddenly a situation that requires more concentration on the part of the driver. Someone on the other end of the phone doesn't stop talking under those circumstances, since they don't know it's happening.

As far as the mother thing goes, if someone isn't capable of concentrating on driving then they shouldn't be driving. Yes, obviously kids can be distracting, but if the person considers themself competent enough to be in control of a large metal object moving at high speeds, then they should also be capable of blocking out non-essential stimuli to at least some extent. Even if we say that having kids somehow gives one the right to not pay attention when driving, the children would be classed as an unavoidable distraction. Someone being unwilling to wait until they pull over to make/receive a call is deliberately creating a distraction.

Talking on the phone - hands-free or not - takes someon's attention away from the most important thing at hand: driving. If the only person at risk were the one on the phone, fine, I couldn't care less if they crash. Unfortunately, it's other drivers and pedestrians who are put at risk.

My point was that there is a sliding scale of distractions while driving and the boundaries between what is legal and what is not do not always correspond to the actual degree of distraction.

Remember that the majority of accidents are not alcohol related or cell phone related. They are caused by momentary lapses of concentration

Remember that the majority of accidents are not alcohol related or cell phone related. They are caused by mementary lapses of concentration
And you don't think that being engaged in a conversation with someone who isn't in the vehicle can lead to lapses in concentration?

And you don't think that being engaged in a conversation with someone who isn't in the vehicle can lead to lapses in concentration?Of course. But other things which are not illegal can cause lapses too. That's my point. Children can be a major distraction. So can the radio. So can having an argument with your partner. The list is endless. I personally feel that people shouldn't smoke and drive especially if they have a manual gearbox.

As a side-note. There's a grocery store in my town that employs some kid to dress up in a monkey suit and dance about with a big sign with the newest offers. This is right alongside a big intersection. I'm just waiting for the day when that store gets sued for causing a wreck.