SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
It's not uncommon to see drivers with one hand on the wheel and the other holding a phone. Perhaps you've even done it yourself? (I'm taking the fifth here.) If Oregon lawmakers pass HB 2377, it will be illegal to use a hand-held cell while driving anywhere on the west coast. Similar laws in California and Washington went into effect in 2008. Both states allow drivers to use "hands-free" devices if they are over 18. While Californians can be pulled over if a cop sees them holding a phone, Washington made driving while yapping on a hand-held a secondary offense (meaning they have to be pulled over for speeding, say, before they can be fined for cell phone use). The Oregon law, awaiting senate approval, would follow California's more strict example.
Some say the proposed ban is unnecessary, making the case that talking on the phone does not lead to unsafe driving. Others argue the law doesn't go far enough, pointing to research (pdf) that shows drivers are equally impaired whether they are talking on a phone in their hand or using a hands-free device. One group that's sure to benefit from the bill is retailers. If other states are any indication, Oregon's proposed law could act as a stimulus for stores that sell hands-free devices. (OPB's intrepid reporter Pete Springer asked us if a velcro strap — or a rubber band! — would count. We're not sure.)
Do you talk on the phone while driving? Do you use a device that allows you to keep both hands free? Have you ever been in accident that as a result of cell phone use? How would a ban on hand-held cell phones in the car affect you?
Tagged as: car · cell phones · nanny state
Photo credit: sara.atkins/ Flickr /Creative Commons
-
Visiting California after they had changed to 'hand-free' we've noticed a LOT of people driving badly because they were trying so hard not to look like they were on their phone! BAD, bad driving.
My position with this and all other dangerous, undesirable behavior is the same, if we are not willing to spend the money to actively and aggressively police and enforce it don't even try.
And I can just hear a new version of the Oregon mantra --
"Now the government is telling me to BUY cell phone equipment. Get out of my pocket!" We are the original 'Don't tell me what to do' state.
Good folks will follow the rules, bad folks won't. And the less it's enforced, overtime, many of those good folks will 'stray'.
Sad, but true. Human behavior...
-
Are there any laws in place about texting while driving? I find this mode of communication much more distracting than talking on my phone, even though I can do it for the most part without looking down. And I KNOW I'm not the only one (I am far less prolific than many of my friends). We've discussed how stupid we would feel if something bad happened as a result of our tactile communications, but it hasn't thus far (to us anyway), and from what I know there isn't a law against it. So basically, we know it's really unwise and will inevitably lead to discomfort or disaster, but continue to do it anyway as long as it's legal.
-
I admit that sometimes I do this and I feel conflicted about holding the phone out in front of me, so that the road is also in my field of view, and not wanting to be obvious about it to other drivers. I've found that pre-programming templates into my phone helps a bit. Examples being: "On my way!", "Running late", or "Call me".
-
After hearing part and reading of this, last night, I saw a Beaverton cop talking on his hand-held radio mic, whilst proceeding through a left turn in an intersection on Hwy.10.
Should I go ahead with a citizen's arrest? How is that different from anyone else driving and talking on their cellphone, other than the radio frequency, Kenneth, and the disruptive coil cord attached to his mic?
It's a dumb law aimed at an easy target.
-
While it's possible that the Police reserve some sort of special training that the rest of us don't, it does give the impression of a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
-
That's an interesting point. Wonder if it intensifies focus since the radio talk is subject related (no pun intended).
I wonder also if the spoken directions from satellite services is distracting or focus compelling...
-
Police are exempt. Get a hands free device, they arent expensive. Why all the crying over nothing? Big deal. Get over it.
-
Here we go again. Too many tainted apples ruin responsible cell phone use for those of us who drive responsibly and attentively.
I will argue the ban isn't necessary even though I've nearly been taken out numerous times by cell-phone drivers and Portland police responding to calls.
I've owned a cell phone since 2000 and have talked on it while driving a handful of times. I don't like to talk while I drive because I know I am not paying full attention to driving or the conversation. I pull over if I decide to engage in a lengthy or involved talk.
Humans can't and don't multi-task; they switch attention between two or more actions rapidly while their attention to each action deteriorates.
Why won't people take responsibility for their actions so enslaving legislation and bans are not created in the first place?
Many of you feel you are losing your so-called freedom, but you won't look in the mirror and acknowledge that you create many of your own problems through your sense of entitlement and the abrogation of your responsibility to your fellow beings.
How effective will "hands-free" enforcement be? I've seen hands-free drivers waving their hands agitatedly while arguing and driving. Hands-free drivers will falsely feel more secure while driving. The inattentive driver problem will get worse.
The cell phone ban is unecessary, stupid, ineffective, expensive, and it won't fix a problem that is ultimately each person's responsibility.
I hope cell phone users decide to hang up and drive. Nobody is making you talk and drive. Nobody is forcing you to buy a hands-free head set. Rebel against Stupidity.
-
Having some background on the statistical signifance of accidents caused by cell phone distraction would really add a lot to this discussion.
-
Oregon Sean: You'll find a few numbers here: http://www.nsc.org/resources/issues/factsheet.aspx
-
I like your attitude!
-
Big deal. Buy a hands free device.
-
Jewels,
Hands free devices cost money. If studies show it doesn't make us safer than it's a waste of money lining the cell companies pockets and the insurance companies could potentially raise rates if you get a "cell phone" ticket.
-
how about if we ban eating/drinking, smoking, listening to music, blowing one's nose, applying chapstick, or doing anything else while driving that could possibly take the hands/mind of the citizen least capable of multi-tasking off of safely driving his vehicle?
we could just take all of our privileges to the lowest common denominator. and then enforce it.
-
The problem does not come from having one hand on the wheel and the other hand holding something else. The real problem is with anything (like using the phone) that requires use to be engaged with a distraction the reduces our engagement with the primary activity of safely operating a vehicle while paying attention to a multitude of things going on in the external enviornment - like other cars.
-
I have found that most of the people who cut me off in traffic and generally drive dangerously are on their phones. However, I do not believe that there should be any law against using your phone while driving. There are plenty of laws already in place to address the issues. If law enforcement would cite people for failing to indicate, reckless driving and for tailgating then not only would we cut down on accidents but also on instances of road rage. I carpool and use my car phone to call my partner in advance to let them know I am getting close. (A 30 second call tops) That call saves time, gas and parking spaces downtown. It also is much safer than pulling over to the side of I5 to make the call. I would accept a law similar to Washington’s as a compromise. It seems fairer in that you have to be doing something dangerous to be cited. The only accident I have been in, in the past 20 years was a lady who hit me from behind while putting on makeup.
I will never stick one of those blue tooth things on my head if I can ever help it. Rummaging in the car for the hands free and then dialing seems more dangerous than just dialing and talking.
Another thought. Will CB radio use also be banned? If not, can I get a big cell phone that has a cord to a mic and a speaker in the car and talk on that legally or is only one form of communication going to be regulated?
-
I have never used a cell phone while driving. Therefore, banning use of cell phones while driving would not affect me other than to make my travel safer by eliminating a distraction for other drivers. I saw a driver run a red light while yapping on a cell phone -- she did not even seem to be aware that she'd run the light! Luckily, I was driving defensively and slammed on the brakes.
I have not been in an accident because of cell phone use, but I have come close. I think all cell phone conversations should be banned because it is the conversation not the hand-holding that causes the distraction. People can stop or pull over to make their calls and let voice mail take the incoming ones.
It is very easy for me not to use a phone while driving because I do not own a cell phone. I would strongly support a total ban. When a person is at the wheel, his job is to drive -- not eat, put on makeup, talk on the phone, use a computer or any other task that takes his mind off his driving.
I hope the legislature will ban the dangerous practice of using a cell phone while driving -- as well as eating, putting on makeup, using a computer, and all those other distracting tasks that should not be done while behind the wheel.
-
Cell phones while driving? Dangerous? Yeah, but it's all relative. One hot summer day I was cruising down I-5 in California and was passed by a woman who had one barefoot rested on the steering wheel while she applied nail polish. But at least she wasn't talking on a cellphone with the other hand.
-
While I am no authority on the subject, talking on a cell phone or texting while driving are activities that seemingly result in an impairment. My primary mode of transportation is a bicycle and I am noticing a lot more people using bicycles to get around these days. Personally, I have had some very close calls with people driving erratically while talking on their cell phone.
Without empirical data, it's difficult to determine whether it is the physical act of holding the phone or simply carrying on a conversation that causes the impairment in judgment while driving. Whatever the case may be, a driver with both hands free to operate the vehicle is a reassuring image to a daily bicycle commuter. To my way of thinking, the H.B. 2377 ban on handheld cell phone usage while driving is simply a call to common sense.
-
I've seen people texting and/or talking on the phone while riding bikes and even motorcycles. Those are equally unsafe.
-
Hooray! I support this strongly. Would like to see "hands free" banned as well.
The fact you have one hand on the wheel and the other holding something else like a phone, beverage, burger, etc. is not the problem. The thing that makes using any cell phone while driving dangerous is the fact that it engages the user in a way that reduces their ability to operate a motor vehicle as safely as they could otherwise. Talking on a telephone distracts a driver from what's going on around them, e.g. other vehicles, bikes and pedestrians.
I'm a pretty serious motorcycle rider and my many years of riding experience have convienced me that the greatest external risk to my safety is other drivers. In the past 3 years I have probably had 9 very close calls with automobiles. In 8 of those 9 instances the person driving the car was using their telephone when they did something unsafe and put me at risk.
What's even more maddening is that I suspect nearly 100% of the in-car phone use is either unnecessary or could be postponed until done driving.
I just hope the law (if enacted) actually get enforced!
-
The 13-year-old daughter of a friend of mine was run down and killed while walking to school by a driver who was talking on her cell phone. (This was in Lebanon, OR in September a couple years ago.) I was rear-ended by someone chatting on her phone.
A study was done that showed people who talk on cells while driving are as impaired as drunks. It's the mental distraction, not the physical handling of the phone. Similarly, a person in the car next to you can tell when traffic conditions take priority. The person on the other end of a phone conversation cannot.
This SHOULD happen and should be a primary offense. Any of you who thinks you can handle it fine... well, you sound like any drunk walking out of the bar who says, "It's only a couple of blocks away." You're putting MY life in danger, so hang up and pay attention to the road.
-
If it is the mental distraction then: What about people in the car talking to you? What about people with pets? What about people with children in the car? Are they not distracting?
-
How would this bill affect users of 2-way radio systems e.g. CBs, amateur radio (aka "ham" radio), police, fire, etc.? If these aren't to be monitored, what specific provisions in the bill cover these groups? Thanks!
-
The bill provides a carve-out as follows:
"(i) To a person using a function of the mobile communication device that allows for only one-way voice communication while the person is:
' (A) Operating a motor vehicle in the scope of the person's employment;
' (B) Providing transit services to persons with disabilities or to senior citizens; or
' (C) Participating in public safety or emergency service activities."
More info here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/hb2300.dir/hb2377.1ha.html
-
It seems like this exemption would apply to taxi drivers, bus drivers, tow truck drivers, and truckers.
-
It seems to me that when people are talking on the phone while driving they often do not bother to use their turn signals. This makes it difficult for other cars, bikes, and pedestrians to know if they can move or not. This seems to me to be indicative of a lack of awareness caused by this divided attention. We really don't need to talk while driving.
-
I find that this is one of the reasons why it is good to practice defensive driving.
Also, when I am riding my bike anywhere that cars will be I have my front and rear light on and flashing, day or night. It makes it really easy for cars to notice me and react accordingly. It is also the law to have the front light on and flashing after dusk.
-
I'm AGAINST this! I'm conflicted, but still very much against it. I don't personally talk on a mobile while driving and I have to admit I have a hatred towards those who make it a habit of talking on a mobile while driving. But, at the same time I suspect that some of us can do it well. If you can do it well, should you be punished because most can't? Even if you can prove it hinders everyone at least a little bit---I still suspect that those who can handle a mobile and drive well, are no more dangerous then bad drivers without mobiles. So why should they be punished?
I am EVEN MORE AGAINST IT, because of the exceptions to the law. As if, police or any of the other exceptions are somehow more gifted at driving that they should be able to talk and drive and everyone else can't. How does that make sense? It is either dangerous and no one should do it or it shouldn't be a law.
I love these lame statistics, that allegedly tell everyone what is going on. But, really they say nothing important. Bad drivers are the problem on the roads. Not cellphones, not eaters, not talkers----but, bad drivers. -
This is about the fuzziest logic I've seen in a while. There are, after all, many people who can drive well after drinking more than the legal limit. Why should THEY have to follow the 'drinking/driving' laws just because other people can't handle their liquor?
Just a thought ...
-
I had the same thought about driving and drinking. Though also:
Perhaps if people insist on using a cell phone, they can apply for a special permit, and need to pass a driving (simulator?) test while on a phone, being asked simple quiz questions. And with the audio drop outs so the driver really has to think filling in the missing words.. And they have to pass both the driving test and the audio quiz.
-
Bob88salem:
Transaction costs will prevent your "special permit" scheme from bearing fruit.
The ban is a smart idea as it will, inter alia, likely provide incentives that increase overall social welfare:
- If people are required to purchase devices that comply with the new law, they will likely have incentive to maintain such devices and put them to good use;
- People may be inclined to use public transportation more frequently in order to free up their yapper or to avoid dealing with the new law.
-
valdaquende and Bob88salem,
Fuzzy logic really? You're wrong!
Yes. You are absolutely correct about the drinking. I actually thought about that before I wrote this, that many people can drive just fine with a drink. It is quite possible that some people may drive better after having one drink then with none. Perhaps you would like to point out what is fuzzy about it? Because the alcohol doesn't do it. I bet many impeccable drivers can drive better after one drink then an average driver with no drink.
I'm not a drinker either, if that matters. -
scottmil: Then you are against the drunk driving law as it is, if you fail the breath test, it does not matter that you were driving just fine (this would only apply if Oregon brings back random check points, a topic of a previous talk out loud.)
fred: What if the fee for the special permit covered the transaction cost and then some, and was good for about 10 years; I would guess it would be less than $250, or around $25 a year? Or subsidized through a cell phone tax? (I'm generally against more restrictions, taxes and fees, but I do think talking on a cell phone while driving is probably one of the most dangerous (to innocent 3rd others) legal activities one can do these days.)
-
Bob88salem,
Yes, I am against the drunk driving law as it is. Any law that says if you cross some decimal point then everything changes is too arbitrary, to hold any real weight in deciding innocence or guilt. -
Bob88salem:
So, rather than just speak into a headset in compliance with a new law (which other states have similarly adapted as a safe alternative to handheld devices), you suggest either a special permit ($) or a cell phone tax ($)? I don't think that people who use hands-free cell phone devices would be too thrilled about paying a tax to support people unwilling to go with the flow.
Adding another 100 pages to the Oregon DMV Code of Regulations Book for a section on "Handheld Cell Phone Device Permits" and developing a "quiz" for dissenters of the proposed law don't sound like realistic endeavors. There might be other unintended consequences: Would the addition to the DMV protocol tend to change the DMV employee customer service speed from molasses-in-the-winter-time-slow to completely inert?
-
Veldaquende and Bob88Salem,
The sticking point with this (as with many other things) is politics and money. It would probably be expensive to test drivers to determine their limit. People seem to like it when the law is the same for everyone. Whether that is rational or not, for some it feels better.
In a sense, cell phone are no different. I would love it if we simply put some of these resources toward a public education campaign (using research based methods for maximum effectiveness) along the same lines are drunk driving, not just for cell phone use, but for all kinds of distractions, to help keep people mindful. At the same time, just like with people who drive badly due to drink, ticket the people who drive badly due to distraction.
-
At least in the case of the cell phone permit, you'd need some sort of tag on your car, so that you wouldn't be pulled over and so other people wouldn't build up resentment towards those they see talking on the phone. Unfortunately, another complication that simply doesn't make it worth the while.
-
I think it reasonable to request (subpoena if necessary in the case of fatalities) cell phone records for the hour surrounding the time of the accident. Should further investigation be required to discover duration of a call taking place at the time of the impact, there should be compelling testimony or evidence to support usage of the phone or communications device by the driver.
-
This is not such an interesting topic, it's a no brainer! Sometimes Oregon is so libertarian. I'm surprised there's no argument for driving with a visible gun in your hand.
-
The more I listen, the more I think an increase in public transportation may be our most direct route to travel safety!
-
It's a great way to spread germs.
-
Is there a 'safe cell phone talking speed?' Perhaps cell phones are inappropriate for high traffic- high speed high ways but okay on low traffic low speed roads?
Lisa- Portland
-
I thought of this as well. Less attention goes into highway driving than in-town driving because there are virtually no turns or signals to stop at. Perhaps a distinction could be made, but politically, I think it would just create a mess where no one would end up happy.
-
I like that people are communicating more but I see this cell phone problem as a good argument for more and better rapid transit. Let someone else do the driving and you can read, talk, nap, or watch the scenery.
-
Twice, in the last three years, my car has been struck by drivers who were talking on cell phones while they were driving. One lady pulled out into an interesction while talking, noticed the oncoming trafic and decided she had made a mistake, backed into me trying to back out of the intersection and, while still talking on the cell-phone, drove away. I have seen at least a dozen other incidents involving cell-phone use.
Part of the problem is that we all have the lifetime habit of paying attention to the physical phone and, more importantly, holding the phone to our ears, thus blocking our peripheral vision on teh cell-phone side. Requiring people to use blutooth headsets would at least allow them to LOOK around them while they drive.
As to exemptions, NO ONE should be allowed to cell-phone and drive unless they are using a hands-free device. NO ONE! Allowing exemptions to this rule merely allows a more selective bunch of people to have cell-phone accidents.
I love Hasso Hering's litany of the irresponsible driving habits he indulges in ... while railing against a common-sense approach to cell-phone use.
-
Which parts of the brain are used for driving, talking on the phone, watching TV, smoking, etc. Could a conflict be proven?
-
Several years ago I read about research done at UCLA that showed that a person's peripheral vision narrowed when they spoke on a cell phone. The researchers did not find the same effect with listening to the radio or having a conversation with someone in the car. I remembered this because I was hit by a woman on a cell phone. She had stopped at an intersection and then pulled out into the intersection and hit me (there was no stop posted for traffic in my direction). She said she didn't see me.
-
this is fascinating. I believe it based on my own experiences. I feel better not talking on my phone while driving because I had this sense that I was not seeing.
-
This is interesting. I wonder if it is more the result of having one's focus narrowed due the extra concentration required to actively communicate on a cell phone, as opposed to passively listening to the radio.
Another point made on the show is duration. Eating in the car or changing a CD usually go by pretty quickly. Phone calls can last for tens of minutes.
-
Thank goodness for this hopeful law. Although I rarely talked on my cell phone while driving, I quit completely when the daughter of someone I knew was killed by a driver using her cell phone.
I see people do terribly neglectful things while talking on their cell phone and driving, much more frequently than while eating, talking to kids, etc. On Wednesday I saw someone sail past a stop sign in the park blocks next to the farmers market (lots of kids and peds there), while on her cell phone. I've nearly been hit 3 times as a ped in a crosswalk by drivers using their phones. Other things I've seen drivers talking on their cell phones doing: turning wrong way onto one way streets and continuing on; hitting a car, realizing it and continuing on (we checked the parked car for damage); missing traffic controls, weaving into the wrong lanes.
I just don't believe the studies that say there's not significant distraction. I haven't read the conditions of the studies, but they are probably too controlled to show real behavior trends, and I completely believe that people are not admitting their cell phone use when they have violations.
-
There are a variety of distractions that distract different people depending on their individual habits. . . .smoking, eating, hair brushing, music changing, writing to do lists, telling a hand recorder your to do list. Laws are difficult to create for indiviudal habits. Where they are useful are for behaviours shared by the general public. Talking on the phone is something everyone does and therefore it is most effective to focus our states time and energy towards targeting this behaviour rather than waist time and money on less shared behaviours.
Cameron- Portland
-
I believe that we have a choice while driving in our car regarding our phone. We are not required to answer the cell phone when it rings. We also can pull off the road when we decide to talk on the phone. It comes down to assessing what is a true emergency. Are most phone calls so critical that they cannot be delayed a few minutes until there is a more appropriate time to talk? I know someone that was killed while walking across a crosswalk due to a driver talking on their cell phone. I have a hard time imagining that the phone call that the driver was engaged in was so important that it could not have been delayed.
Jon
-
Maybe public education on reducing cell phone use to situations where it's just a brief exchange and prefferably on the highway where less attention is needed would reduce accidents, but still allow us to utilize the convenience that the phones allow.
-
We operate multi-ton machines at high speeds by manipulating a wheel that can make the difference between life and death by being turned a fraction of a degree at the wrong moment, and we do this while mentally computing the speeds and intentions of all the other vehicles around us.
And in the middle of this we think it's okay to hold a device in one hand to have mostly unnecessary conversations with other people?
I absolutely support this law.
-
I think you are somewhat under estimating the ability of our brain to utilize hand eye coordination and multi-task, but I see your point.
-
The technology is currently available to shut down cellphones that are moving, and it is specifically tailored to the automobile.
Few organizations have chosen to use this technology in any major way.
This technology negates the need for enforcement, as the phone does not work when moving at a rate of speed beyond walking - it can be manually overridden, but requires a decision to do so on the part of the user.
-
This technology would, of course, also prohibit passengers in the car (or on public transport) from using their mobile phones.
-
The technology would indeed apply to all vehicles - but does have an override as noted above.
For that matter, who hasn't had the phone yapping wonder sitting behind them on the bus or train blithely barking away at thier phone. BTW this technology is a software upgrade to cell systems, so it is not terribly expensive. 911 calls are automatically exempted by the software.
-
I can only imagine that after the first time someone justifies the use of the override button it would be all down hill from there.
-
Speeding (within reason) also does not cause accidents, despite what the second-rate statistics may say. Bad driving causes accidents. You can speed and be just as safe as someone going the speed limit. It just so happens that many people who speed are also reckless, but it isn't the speeding itself!!!
-
Whyizit that when there are two or more people in a car and one of them is on a cell phone that most of the time it's the driver who is on the phone? Also, I have to agree that talking with passengers can be as distracting as talking on the phone. However, passengers provide another pair of eyes who can call out suddenly when there's a dangerous situation. The person on the other end of the cell phone doesn't have that advantage.
-
I admit that I drive horribly when having a lengthy conversation, even with a passenger. It's just too much concentration diverted from the driving act.
-
Twice, in the last three years, my car has been struck by drivers who were using cell-phones while driving. In one case, a lady pulled out into an intersection while talking on a cell, then noticed the oncoming traffic and decided that she had made a mistake, threw the car in reverse and backed into me and, WHILE STILL TALKING, put it in forward and drove away. I've seen at least a dozen other incidents, in Albany, that did not involve damage but which might well have, if other drivers had not made up for the lapses of cell-using drivers.
There is nothing wrong with requiring that cell-users use headsets or bluetooth devices. There should be NO exceptions. ALL of the carve-out people can use these devices as well as the general public. These devices are available and inexpensive and there is no excuse for not using one.
I love Hasso Hering's litany of the irresponsible driving habits that he indulges in while he's railing against the idea of limiting this one.
I have heard, in the media, several reports of insurance studies that say that about 30% of accidents involve the use of cell-phones. Why is there no statistical data on this being mentioned?
-
This is a little off topic, but over the last year I've noticed people driving too slow in the passing lane. Is it me, or do Oregon drivers not understand that it is polite (and the law) to move into the right lane so faster traffic can pass in the left lane?
I'm also enjoying the new crosswalk law. Many times seemingly healthy kids talking on their cell phones cross at a slug's pace while 20 or 30 cars backup in both directions waiting for them. Chop chop, my little entitled, rude children.
How about a TASER season for oblivious cell phone users? Never mind, I'd probably tase the innocent due to my righteous indignation. Don't people raise their kids any more to know they aren't the only people in the world?
>Sigh<
-
They don't understand, this problem is indeed a big problem! A much larger problem then cellphone use. I bet it causes loads of accidents. Americans in general don't know what a passing lane is. If you get in the passing lane behind them and start to speed up, rather then moving over they slow down. Entitlement---nobody is going to tell me what to do.
-
The fact is, people like to get into a lane and then space out. Driving is typically not fun and people would rather listen to their radio then pay attention to what lane they are in. Also, it is very tempting to use the passing lane when traffic is heavy and it doesn't seem to make a difference.
-
Hasso said it pretty good, he doesn't fool with the CD changer while in traffic requiring full attention... The problem with cell phones is that it is difficult to stop talking and listening when going from no traffic to problem traffic. Most other distracting conditions, you can stop doing them. P.S. Farmers insurance gives discounts to non smokers!
-
Because smoking is a distraction? Interesting.
-
We've heard that the dramatic rise in mobile phone use over the last decade has not been accompanied by a similar rise in accidents. We also heard that when prohibitions went into effect in New York in 2001, mobile phone use by drivers went down dramatically there. Was there a corresponding decrease in accidents? As far as I can tell, there is no real evidence to support the link.
Personally, I would rather have the violations aggressively enforced, rather than the putative causes. Pull over and ticket people who are driving poorly, regardless of the reason, rather than those who are driving within the law (even if not at their best) while on a mobile phone.
-
Fully agreed. Let's be rational.
-
I wonder if it would help to require part of driver training to be a course on driving with a cell phone. And part of driver testing.
-
HELLO!!!!! HELLO!!!! CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!!!!
Tow Trucks should be held to this law also..... Especially when they are heavier than the average vehilce. Being heavier, they can be more of a killer than the average vehicle.
Last June 2008, A 21st Century Towing Truck ran a red light on TV Highway and narrowlly missed me. He was so close that I could see the fine print on his side door and I noticed he was on his Cell phone. Had I not been in a habit of looking both ways before proceeding on a green light, I would not be here today.
No.... tow trucks need to be paying attention to the road just as much as anybody else .... Hands free phones work in tow trucks too.
-
This is a good point. I think another solution to this type of abuse of exception to a law, would be to report the offender to either his employer or the police or both, and after a certain number of safety violation reports, his license to drive a tow truck would be revoked. And any accident (no matter whose fault) if the person with the exception were on the phone, the license would be revoked.
-
Does the research show that accidents caused by professional drivers using heavy vehicles result in increased injuries or deaths, in a significant way? Even a small car has a lot of kinetic energy when it's going moderately fast and can cause major destruction.
-
I travel a great deal in my auto and use the "hands free" option with my phone. I strongly disagree with the current speaker (albany editor) that indicated "he sees no additional problems" by phone usage.
Most of my issues are in the slower traffic situations, in towns, when people are shifting gears, holding the phone to their ear, and trying to make decisions.
I'm all for enforcing the new law.
-
Being on the cell is definitely a distraction while driving. I knew someone who was killed driving to Mt. Hood to take his son skiing by someone in the oncoming traffic who leaned over to pick up his cell phone (which wasn't even ringing - the guy simply HAD to have his phone near him at the cost of a life).
My husband's vehicle has a button he pushes when he gets into the car to transfer all calls to voice command hands free which then allows him to have a conversation similar to having a passenger in the car without holding anything or fumbling for bluetooth, phones, etc. I feel Land Rover was absolutely considering the safety of the driver by offering this option.
Bluetooth is simple to use but enough of a hassle that most of us choose not to utilize it even when we have it. If every vehicle offered the voice command hands free option and made it easy to use we could be solution oriented and end this discussion about how to micromanage every driver. As it stands now, if the phone rings while we are driving, we need to use good judgement, how urgent is the call - really?
-
I would be great if we could all afford in-dash cell phone interfaces with the controls on the steering wheel, but that is just not the case.
While I'm sure that safety is a concern for Land Rover as a sales factor (i.e.: profit), its probably more likely they knew people would pay for the convenience (i.e.: more profit).
-
As a cyclist, I'm more aware of and impacted by the more subtle errors that motorists do such as drifting out of lane. Vulnerable users take on an inordinate amount risk caused by inattentiveness, regardless of the source.
-
As a fellow cycler, I go out of my way to use side streets without main traffic flows and failing that I will drive in the lane (when the speeds are reasonable) when there isn't a bike lane to make sure that I'm seen and not ignored.
-
I agree that the problem is enforcing laws already on the books regarding safe driving. I see all sorts of unsafe behavior that may be related to cell phones or may be related to nothing other than poor driving skills. Chances are that people who drive unsafely using a cell phone are also driving unsafely without using their cell phones. People tend to drive safely will do so whether they are using their cell phones or not.
-
AAA did a study with a comera in the back seat and found that eating while driving and have small children in the car were far more dangerous than using a cell phone. Ron Sheldon
-
I have a little different twist on the conversation...I have a tendency to get really drowsy when I'm driving, especially if I'm stuck in bumper-to-bumber traffic. I have found that calling someone and talking to them keeps me awake in a way that listening to the radio or rolling down my windows doesn't. I think that would offset any problems using a cell phone might cause.
-
Sorry to say, but a good night's sleep my be a better answer.
-
WE have the law in Washington, It doesn't work. No one enforces the law as you need to be viewed doing something else to be stopped. The very worst one's I see everyday is truckers these people have enough to do without talking on phone.
I saw a younger lady yesterday eating with one hand and useing the phone with other hand as she drove with?? Perhaps with a third hand unseen?
-
It's psychological. I'll never be convinced you can truly safely drive while talking on a cellphone since observing someone not be able to remain *stopped* at a *stop light* across from me about 6 years ago when I was opposite them at the same light in an intersection. I thought I'd spaced out and missed the light turning green when I saw them start up before I expected to, but indeed, the light was still red. I honked at them, and when they looked up (not able to see th light above them then), I noticed they had a cell phone to their ear, and were very deeply engaged in conversation and completely unaware the light was still red. (And yes, they were nearly hit by cross traffic). I've also seen many pedestrians and bicyclists walk or roll into cross traffic mindlessly while talking on cell phones. While *walking*. We all truly "lose our minds" while talking on a phone, and I don't want to make exemptions for tow truck drivers, etc. without their being a driver training component/certification as well. Hang up and drive! The conversation can wait. You are still loved, important and popular. And will be 20 minutes later after you've safely arrived at your destination without talking on your cellphone at the same time. (Notice how little peop can resist answering a ringing phone - it's emotional - they think someone's life may depend on their answering. Just tryin not answering yours sometime. Challenging, huh?)
-
Very true, the psychological component is very strong. Only, how do you get everyone to go to therapy or start thinking rational about the situation. It's another example of human nature trumping reason.
-
We all know it's a distraction, but do we really need any more unenforceable laws? I don't think so. We need more enforcement of existing proven safety laws (speed limits, chemically impaired drivers, etc). I see this as a typical misguided attack on a specific technology that has a lot of aesthetic nuances to it.
If real safety were actually a concern (i think we want it, but are not willing to endure the changes ourselves), we'd be talking about banning cars altogether, or at least building car free zones, massively bulk up public transit, impose annual drivers tests, impose automobile weight class taxes (so people would drive lighter safer (for other people) cars), convert all portland parking spaces (residential areas too) into paid spots, impose tolls on the bridges for cars, change our lives in a serious way. But we aren't willing to do these things, because we are selfish beings who feel as if we have a right to too much.
Btw, I drive, bike and walk daily, I use my cell phone anytime i feel like it, but I do obey the laws in NY and CA (i've lived in both) and WA. I'd gladly support a full ban on cars in the city!!! I want to face that challenge. I'd also obey the cell phone ban if it passes, but again, we don't need any more little band aid laws.
-
Hopefully, one day we can have our cake and eat it too. Perhaps when cars drive themselves, in the not too far future?
-
I'm a professional driver, driving a big yellow school bus around Metro Portland and our company forbids the use of cell phones while driving although we do have a two way radio which requires us to take one hand off the wheel if we are driving. Most of the trucks and buses of the variety that we drive have 22.5 inch wheels and require our full attention. Doing anything other than driving is dangerous. A slight deflection of the 22.5 inch wheel that is about 40 inches tall could lead to a disastrous accident. I was listening to the program after my am shift, but did not take out my phone to make my comment. I have used the phone before while driving in my personal vehicle and found it to distracting. Anything that takes away from the needs of metro driving is dangerous! You don't often get a second chance.
-
It was my great pleasure to be on the program today. One thing I wanted to get acrossed but ran out of time; When you are driving you should be driving. Any distraction, including all of the ones listed by the listeners, is dangerous. Keep in mind that when you are traveling at 60 miles per hour you are covering 88 feet every second. What can happen in a second if/when you take your eyes off the road?
Second point: Most laws are there to encourage you to do the right thing. Whether it is speeding, talking on a cell phone, drinking, anyone with common sense knows the right thing to do, please make the right choice when it comes to violating any law. Do the right thing.
-
Many people are in denial and will not admit it. Using a cell phone while driving is quite similar to being under the influence of drugs. Left handed people are proven to excel at multi-tasking; it is a biological brain function of the left hander.
It has been proven by medical tests that the mind is blanked out (for most people) while talking on a cell phone in a much different way than while drinking coffee, eating, talking to the passenger next to you or even reading a book while driving. Do not confuse the difference of all these varied situations. They are not the same, just as many different variances in life occur daily. We are not sacrosanct when behind the wheel, but some people feel special and invulnerable when they are in their private vehicle world. A special last rite of passage. Literally last!
Those in denial are taking the attitude that they are an exception; think about it; just like a drug addict, they want to contend that it won’t happen to them. Like a smoker, “I am going to quit tomorrow, on New Years, at the first of the month, because the excuse is the denial, a number is special, anything when you are addicted to information . . . We are driving ourselves to a quick death for the addiction to the technology . . . Have you ever had a meaningless conversation on a phone that could have been avoided? Is that cell phone call important enough to kill yourself; or someone else? -Mark, Left handed artist, astronomer
-
Well, if everyone thinks they are "special enough" to do it, then that is the majority and maybe it should rule. If anyone has a problem with other's cell phone use than they may want to just consider it the cost of their own convenience. Cars kill but we don't ban them because their perceived benefit exceeds the perceived cost.
-
Comments are now closed.
Personally, I would be willing to give up (or reduce--hope I don't get caught!!) cell phone use in cars if the science says that it makes driving significantly more dangerous.
I'm concerned that some people will behave more dangerously if they are scrambling to put on and plug in their "hands free" devices every time the phone rings, not to mention the evidence that using them is equally distracting.
I'm glad that the legislature seems to be taking a reasoned stance on this. Perhaps it's a good first step to eliminating cell phone use while driving completely.