Tenspace

First, I refer you to this link from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/03/dri....ap/index.html


My question: If the NTSB wants to ban "inexperienced drivers" from using cell phones, then what standard will they use to determine inexperience? It is my experience that most (85% or more) drivers are either inexperienced or use the experience they've gained rather poorly.

I would think we would need a rating system, like a 1-10 scale of driving ability in order to enforce this.

Looking forward to your comments,

Tenspace

Kinross

All drivers should be banned from using a cell phone while driving. We should also add the following:
Eating,
Drinking,
Grooming,
Sex,
Discipling your kids,
Reading,
ect...

godfry n. glad

I'll second that.

That's "Mothers (or insert your favorite descriptor) Against Distracted Drivers"...

(I kinda like "Intelligent Canadians Against Distracted Drivers". One possible acronymification would be "ICanADD.")

Organize now.

godfry

Detached9

From what I recall regarding the banning of cell phones while driving ordeal, they were banned because conversations require a lot of "conscious thought" (don't make me argue semantics).

So... let's go through your list.

Eating? Doesn't require thinking. You pick it up and put it in your mouth.

Drinking? Nope.

Grooming? Nope. I can "comb" my hair down with my hand in about two seconds (which doesn't require much thought). I cannot start and end a phone conversation that quickly.

Sex? This is another matter. I believe this also is illegal while driving. I believe it'd fall under reckless driving, but someone correct me if i'm wrong.

Disciplining your kids? Mentally or physically? If physically, then use the rear-view mirror as a targetting reference. This shouldn't take you more than two seconds to smack them. (Oh, by the way, I don't agree with this form of discipline, but that's irrelevant)

Reading? While driving? What the fuck is wrong with you? Why don't you just blind-fold yourself while driving? I would assume it'd be illegal for you to endanger the welfare of others by doing this already. I doubt many people do this though, unlike cell phones.

Oh, and the regulation of the cell phone while driving ban is beyond terrible. I've seen police do it. I still see far too many people do this.

I usually turn off my phone if I'm out driving, but occasionally I forget. I've received a few calls on my cell phone while driving, but I either answer quickly with "I'll call you back I'm driving" followed by hanging up and turning off the phone, or I pull over, turn on my "blinkers" and answer the call. It isn't that hard to do.

godfry n. glad

For you, maybe.... But you obviously haven't been paying much attention to your fellow drivers. There are vast numbers of them out there who can't chew gum and walk, much less master a drippy Carl's Jr. hamburger and a cuppa coffee while driving their stick-shift transmission vehicle through city traffic.

Get this: My most hair-raising siting was of a woman "driving" a new (with temp license taped to back window) Honda CRV in the right lane of a 4 lane major arterial through a city district known for its tight lanes and insouciant pedestrians, and the driver had a cellphone in one hand and a burger in the other. That's right...she was doing 30 miles/hour in a tight traffic lane in a congested area with NO hands on the wheel at all. I watched (at a safe distance) for two miles while she finished her burger and kept talking. I'll bet her previous vehicle is on the scrap heap somewhere....

Incidently, she threw the burger wrapping out the window as litter. Now there's a $250 fine, right there.

The point here should be that eating interferes with driving. Eating hot foods leads to possible spillage of hot materials onto sensitive skin parts of drivers....leading to entirely avoidable traffic incidents involving death and destruction. To avoid quibbling over whether the food is/was hot or not, just ban eating while driving. After all, how difficult is it to pull over to the side of the road, put on your blinkers and eat your meal?

Hmmm... I'd say it would depend on _what_. If they're swigging off the ol' Jim Beam or Jack Daniels bottle, then I'd say it was a source of distraction. But then, the spate of stupid tort claims against fast-food drive-through windows that dispense hot coffee should clue you into what we're talking about (see above). I personally think that the beverage thing could be allowable, but that's because I do it on occasion...with cold drinks.

Again... _You_ might be able to handle it, but there are legions of insufficiently attractive females out there who use waaaaay too much drive time applying and adjusting their makeup and "doing" their hair while driving. It's really appalling to see some nutcase barrelling down the interstate at the wheel of some honker SUV with her face a mere three inches from the rearview mirror as she applies her mascara.

I must admit that I actually don't _know_ if it's illegal. If not, it should be...at least while the vehicle is in motion. I have no objections to said practice while the vehicle is stopped, the engine is off and the parking brake is engaged. Hell, if _that_ was illegal, and I'd been caught, tried and convicted for every time, I'd probably _still_ be in the state pen.

I'd say, "Either." The issue is the driver paying attention to the road, rather than other, onboard, distractions. I don't know about you, but if I, as a child, had interfered with the driver (and that was usually my father) doing their job (which is driving), the number of future rides became radically constricted. I suggest that any driver with multiple small children might want to invest in a vehicle with sound-proof separation between driver and backseat passengers, like in many limos.

Actually, it's more prevalent than you might think. From my perspective high atop mass transit or a 10 T GVW garbage truck, I see all sorts of readers at the wheel. The most common, of course, is the map reader, but there are newspapers, brochures, flyers, and yes, books. It is indeed endangering others, as is using a cellphone while driving.

I suspect that these are the same people who assert that they can do both (drive and read _or_ phonechat and drive) safely, despite what you think. And, it seems that they think it has become their inherent right to do so, despite what you think. This is why new legislation (_and_ effective enforcement) is needed, to get through to these morons.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is the regulation terrible? If so, I agree. It's not nearly draconian enough. I've never seen a police officer enforce an "endangerment" statute on a hapless cellphoning driver. Indeed, I've had conversations with police officers who note that the activity is not explicitly illegal and state that it would take egregious violation of other traffic laws before they would either warn or cite a cellphoning driver.

Well, entropy, I've seen the driver of a large delivery truck (10-wheel single-frame of about 6-8 T GVW) move through left hand turns at controlled intersections with a cellphone to their ear (with one hand) while they turn the steering wheel with the other hand, lifting and changing the position of the one hand in order to continue the turn....leaving _no_ hands on the wheel while going through about half the turn. If that's not reckless endangerment, I don't know _what_ is. It's anybody's guess how they handled the subsequent gear changes through the 12-16 gears in order to get up to speed on the major thoroughfare they were turning on to....

Admirable. You should be commended....mostly.

I do not oppose the use of a cellphone in a vehicle, but it should be used either by a passenger or the driver should pull over to the shoulder, to a full stop, and deal with the call. I agree with you, it isn't that hard to do. I don't know why folks can't send messages to the voicemail while driving. What...don't they trust the technology? I'd bet the most have messaging as an option. Those that don't should just turn the thing off before the turn the ignition key.

I think that anyone seen operating a cellphone (or any of the cited sources of distraction) while operating a motor vehicle should be cited, heavily fined and the repeat citations should lead to progressively more severe fines and restrictions on driving privileges, up to and including revocation of the driver's license and insurance coverage. Hand-held and hands-free should be treated the same...the issue is attentiveness, not manual availability.

If I were an insurance underwriter, I'd be pushing for much higher auto liability rates based upon ownership of a cellphone. All evidence seems to indicate that if you own one and drive, you will talk and drive....even if you oppose it.


godfry

Loren Pechtel

The local paper said learner's permits. I definitely agree--an inexperienced driver has no business on a cell phone, nor any non-essential talking with someone in the car.

While it's totally impractical I would like to see something like 5,000 or 10,000 miles of driving before you can talk while behind the wheel.

Detached9

For those types of people, I can only wonder how they ever passed a driver's test.

That'd rightfully piss me off as well. That's the worst case I've heard so far, actually (without causing an accident).

Just like it depends on what you're drinking, it also depends on what you're eating. For instance, there is nothing wrong with drinking a half-liter of Sprite (or whatever) while driving, but there is problems when you're chugging hard liquor. So, I would say you should eat and drink responsibly while driving. There's no need to ban eating and drinking while driving.

I'd like to say I 100% agree with you, but usually when I'm eating while driving, it isn't a full meal. It's a chocolate chip cookie, a reeses peanut butter cup, or some other small snack. I don't eat ice cream while driving since I'd be afraid of spilling it while driving and hence being distracted. I also don't drink hot chocolate while driving for the same reason.

Anyhow, I've never purchased a meal through the drive-thru and ate it before I got home. I might have eaten part of it - the french fries perhaps - but never the whole thing. If you plan on finishing the meal, I'd say you should pull over and put on your blinkers.

I can understand why some people don't do this though. It's mostly due to time-constraints. For instance, they could be on a work break and need to return shortly. To that I'd say they should have planned further ahead (since most full-time job work breaks are an hour long or so).

I was hoping I wouldn't have to make that exemption. The argument here is that "if cells phones are banned while driving, then so should drinking", so... you wouldn't want to argue the law should make drinking alcohol while driving illegal, since it already is! That would not further the argument whatsoever.

Same here. Unless I'm a passenger, then I have whatever I wish.

True. They should act reasonably. I don't think we need to make a law that makes acting unreasonable illegal. That's a bit too far of a stretch for me. Eat, drink, groom, etc. at a responsible level while driving. Where a responsible level is to the extent that the activities don't severely interfere with your driving ability. I know that's vague, but I hate to write up a thousand specifics that someone probably has already tried to do.

Which is a short-term activity for most people. Most of these people have already pulled over to examine the map to get a basic understanding of where they're heading. The only time they need to examine the map after then is for the specifics. I've yet to see someone driving while trying to figure out the location of the city they're in on the map.

I usually have a quick write-out of the directions which only takes a glance to check. Okay, I took 390 South, now I should be looking for a Jefferson Rd exit and take a right there. Something like that. This is figuring out where I'm going responsibly.

I completely agree. Reading paragraphs, having sex, being blind-folded, or talking on a cell phone while driving should be better enforced.

I apologize for the ambiguity. I meant it isn't enforced well. The police certainly aren't cracking down on people using cell phones while driving.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but isn't the law that if you are caught using a cell phone while driving you should be penalized? I don't think all these extra "well only if..." are necessary. If you see someone chugging down a Jack Daniels but still driving responsibly, I think this person should still be pulled over before you find him or her disobeying other traffic laws or endangering others.

Wow. That is another one of the worst cases I've heard of using a cell-phone while driving.

I try to remember to do so. If I don't and I receive a call, depending who it's from (caller ID) and where I am (light traffic rural area vrs 65 mph highway for instance) I either answer the call and quickly end it, or I pull over.

Completely agreed. That would help remind me to shut off the phone before driving.

Much higher? Come on, I'm already 19 and male, I don't need the insurance "much higher".

Godless Dave

Off-topic: Another Rochester, NY area atheist? Welcome to the board! I live in Minnesota now but grew up in Brighton. There are several other Rochestarians and Western New Yorkers on here. I never thought of the area as a bastion of unbelief but I do remember it being pretty secular.

Detached9

lol. I was wondering if someone would think I made those names up. Yeah, I'm from Rochester. My brother lives in Brighton, but I live Downtown.

Isn't there a Rochester, Minnesota as well? Or was that a different state? edit: http://www.ci.rochester.mn.us/ (indeed there is a rochester in minnesota)

I never said I was atheist by the way. But yeah, I am. Although I consider myself an "agnostic atheist" since I believe if there is a god, then there is no possible way to understand it by natural means (since it's supernatural and hence "beyond natural").

Finally, I would say "thanks for the welcome" but I'm not really new here. I used to regularly participate here (registered in March 2001), but I stopped for about a full year for some reason or other (I don't recall exactly why). But, yes, a "welcome back" is appreciated. I'll just take it like that.

GH

I think this is just political fluff. "Inexperienced" is usually a euphemism for "young." Most people with learner's permits are in the too-young-to-vote or too-young-to-care categories. By banning cell phone use by learner's permit drivers only, it looks like they're doing something significant to increase public safety while not alienating many voters or communication companies that may donate to their campaigns.

It probably doesn't matter who they ban them for anyway. Banning cell phones would probably be a lot like mandating seat belts. The seat belt laws are a nice idea on paper, but the only time anyone is fined for not wearing one is when they are caught at a road block or when it's tacked onto a speeding ticket. People often don't follow traffic laws since there aren't any serious legal consequences or moral conflicts (since no thinks he or she will be the one to run down a pedestrian or kill another driver in a collision).