makristal

What do you guys think about this whole law. I mean, I can understand the benefits towards having this law enabled; primarily because you can stop dumb drivers from being dumb. But it's irritating that it's a primary offense. I personally don't think it should be, seems a tad unconstitutional; while there is no amendment that talks about limiting the medias in which people can communicate, it does take away from our freedom of speech.

I think if you're in an accident and someone saw you or can confirm you were on your cell phone then your insurance should just rape you; however, if you're just speeding, and talking on the phone; I'm completely conscious of the fact that I'm speeding and don't think the cell phone has any sort of effect on that.

They're just setting people up to find new ways to use their free hands or to find new ways to craftfully sneak in a phone call or text messages. Voice operated texting software exists, but its accuracy is laughable.


Please try not to just flame me or anyone for their opinion on this law, I just want to see what people think of it and for what reasons, just trying to make some fun discussions :-)

Anijo

I'm all for it. I hate getting stuck behind people going significantly under the speed limit because they're on a cellphone.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I think that as a general rule, limiting distractions while driving is a good thing. I also agree that 'texting' (also includes emailing, surfing, navigating, etc...) while driving pulls so much of your focus (and hands, in the case of the dumbest) away from driving that it really should be a primary offense.

That being said, the more auto manufacturers introduce new safety measures that remove the driver from equation, the more those drivers can ignore what is going on around them and find time for other stuff.

Automatic transmissions, auto-stop, self park, lane drift warning, exhaustion measurement, etc...

If drivers want to get from point A to point B with minimal involvement on their part and take care of their business while doing so, they have a method of transportation for that. It's called a BUS.


Leave the roads to those of us who actually care about driving.

makristal

Those are both good points, but for instance, there are drivers (probably like both of you and myself) who are quite capable of calling someone and driving at the appropriate rate of speed, so it's more of a bother in my opinion.

Remember when comcast had the switch over to digital cable? And the government gave a subsidy/coupon to people to help with the transition? Well the government should have had the same thing for this as well. Granted BluTooth prices are only from like $50-$300, but it just becomes an expense that people don't want to incur in this economy.

pdxhak

iTrader: (2)

What does primary offense mean in Washington?

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

...



Did you just seriously suggest that the government should provide everyone hands-free bluetooth devices? I am assuming you don't mean giving everyone the cash for them, since a large portion of it would be used for drugs, alcohol, and other non-driving things.


Since when is maintaining personal responsibility something that the government should handle for us?

And you still talk about freedom of speech?



I'm sorry, but you just lost quite a few points here...

Flashwing

The fact is that even talking on the cell phone while driving does effect your driving. Talking alone takes quite a lot of your brain's computing power and combining that with having to handle visual information while driving and you have a delayed response in things happening around you.

This most certainly should be a primary offense. There have been numerous independent studies performed showing that texting while driving is MORE dangerous than driving drunk.

Anyone who says "I'm a good enough driver to operate my cell phone and drive" are lying. You're not a good driver. A good driver would do no such thing. It's more than having skill, it's about being focused.

We should always be working towards improving the safety of cars because over 40,000 people die every year in auto accidents. However, the problem is people in general have not been sold the idea that continued drivers education is beneficial.

We have training and education for various dangerous tasks and other skills which require constant recertification. Driving requires one test when you get your license and then nothing for the rest of your life.

Frankly we wouldn't need the mountain of safety features if people invested in their driving education. Learning how to share the road with others, how to control their vehicle in an out of control situation and how to drive properly at high speeds would save thousands of lives every year.

Normally I don't support legislating people's behavior but cell phones need to be outlawed behind the wheel in every fashion. Proof you were using your phone during an accident should place 100% fault on you.

Distracted driving accounts for the majority of accidents.

/rant

makristal

No no, I'm not suggesting the government at all pays completely for a bluetooth or gives people cash. I understand that most people would use the money for illegal things or even stupid things, but a coupon would suggest that the government is trying to comply with corporations for you to get a better deal. Like I said, I'm not thinking that they should discount like 100% for people because Bluetooths aren't that expensive to buy in the first place; but having like a coupon issued for people for like 12% off a bluetooth or something, would at least make the transition easier for people.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I do agree. Safety is important. I am just commenting the side effect from most of the safety items being developed that remove the driver from the circumstance. A better method IS a proper driver's education from the beginning, and continued evaluation for additional training after that.


And I'm not just talking about laws of the road, although RI has the 2nd or 3rd worst knowledge of the laws of the road in the US (17% knowledge level, as in only 17% of questions answered right combined among all respondents). Laws of the road are important, but so are knowing simple car control basics and looking ahead (among other things).

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

If you can pay for a cell phone and cooresponding plan, you can pay for a hands-free bluetooth.


If you can't pay for the hands-free bluetooth, then LEAVE YOUR PHONE ALONE WHEN DRIVING.


It's simple responsibility. No one is forcing you to own a cell phone, no one is forcing you to talk or text on it while driving. The law is simply making it harsh on you if you you can't be responsible about it.

makristal

Understandable, completely. That's a very good point. If they want to go for a safety thing then they should start having driving tests for people 60 and over every year to make sure they are still competent enough to be on the roads. Seems like here in WA, there are a lot of just terrible drivers off of their phones as well. As soon as a drop leaves the sky, people just slam on their brakes and start causing accidents.

And I'm not saying that people can't afford the bluetooth. It was just my suggestion.

Aipex8

iTrader: (1)

Like Oregon, a cop can pull you over if he sees you on the phone, not just add that as an offense if you are pulled over for something else.

I disagree completely. I consider myself an excellent driver and even taking a quick call to say "can I call you back, I'm driving" is distracting. I support this law and hope people abide by it... Seems like I still see many people on their phones when I'm down in Oregon.

IMHO, ANY conversation, whether holding a cell phone to your head, talking on a blutooth headset, talking to the person in the passenger seat, or especially texting, is distracting you from driving. I suppose sealing off the driving compartment from the rest of the passengers in a soundproof, cell signal cancelling box is too much to ask though!

makristal

^ Hahaha! You have a good point. Seems like if I saw you driving it would be an equally large distraction because I'd be drooling while staring at your car as you passed. :-)

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I believe Colorado has a "distraction" law, where if there is anything about your car which could cause a distraction to other drivers, you can be fined for it, and/or issued a repair order.

Meant to target such things as bizarre lights, but it does leave a lot of room open for interpretation.

makristal

So if I had like a Ferrari, which is usually an eye catching car, and someone got in a crash...Would that fall under the same category?

Flashwing

I've installed a hands free bluetooth system into my RX8 and even when using that I can tell that my attention to the road is much less.

The test (for me) is keeping track of cars and where they came from. When I'm cruising in traffic I'll notice that a car that was in front of me has moved off, or another vehicle has now come into my field of view but I have no idea where it came from. My instinctive driving (aka autopilot) deals with these situations in a perfectly safe manner. However, I'll suddenly snap out of focusing on the phone call and realize I have no idea when vehicles transitioned.

People often ask, what is the difference between having a passenger and talking on the phone? Passengers are aware of what is happening in the car and people tend to shut up when they see something happen out of the ordinary. People on the phone are not aware of your surroundings and half the time don't even know you're in the car. As such, they keep blabbing even though you could be on the verge of an accident.

The point is, when you drive your car you have a single job which is to get to where you are going. Everything else from the radio, phone, passengers, hot chicks walking down the street etc. are all distractions.

makristal

What is the next step? Allowing them to ban radios in cars (which i'm pretty sure has been in discussion for a while), that's a distraction, but some things I think we have in the car and grow accustomed to over the years so it's just hard to remove. We have been using phones in cars for years, and now someone brings it to question so it's an uncomfortable feeling.

TANKERG

I've heard the same argument that some people claim they are perfectly capable of driving safely while drunk.

It has nothing to do about driving at the correct speed. The attention that is lost is the issue.

Anijo

+1

Remember to that this law is NOT banning you from talking on your cellphone while driving. It's banning you holding the phone to your ear while driving and otherwise involving your hands in your phone.

TANKERG

^ which I think demonstrates how stupid the law is


I would like to see the tests on the difference in regular cell phone talking and hands free, I bet it would be close to the same

05TiGr8Lady

Road test done with people who think they can text and drive:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Testi...-Drivers-Video

mscamp02

iTrader: (3)

military bases have had this enforced for a long time now. Just be happy it hasnt gone to the extreme of you cant walk and talk on the cell phone at the same time

pdxhak

iTrader: (2)

mscamp, actually that would not be a bad law for several people I know!

mscamp02

iTrader: (3)

^haha yeah, like my fiance

and1kidd

iTrader: (2)

Check this out...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...onelaw11m.html