posted
I'm not a driver, but I know how distracted getting on the phone makes me. My ex-boss was a dedicated cellphone user, and it always made me nervous to drive with him. To the point where I would snatch up the phone and answer it myself (as his personal secretary, I had the right and definately the responsibility to do this).
I don't work for him anymore, but now he's got a car that routes the cellphone via the car speakers, so he can have hands-free conversations. It still makes me nervous to drive with him. I try to avoid it. In fact, I refuse rides from anyone who makes me nervous by their driving habits, and take public transit instead, or walk.
As for making it illegal, it's illegal to speed, run red lights, and do rolling stops. Does that stop the numerous drivers I see doing all of the above? No.
It would be nice if people had common sense and didn't do things that are distracting while driving, but I'm sure it's been proven many times that common sense isn't so common.
Judy
-------------------- In an avalanche, no individual snowflake feels responsible. Posts: 402 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure hurling bodies that go through windshields would make a massive "meat missile", but prior to being run into head on by some one on a cellphone, an unbelted driver (simply for being unbelted) isn't going to be a hazard to anybody or anything.
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: I'm sure hurling bodies that go through windshields would make a massive "meat missile", but prior to being run into head on by some one on a cellphone, an unbelted driver (simply for being unbelted) isn't going to be a hazard to anybody or anything.
I'm not sure I see the relevance here. Simply being unbelted is a danger to other drivers on the road if there is an accident. It is creating a potentially dangerous environment in case of an accident regardless who causes it.
posted
if anyone sees 2 messages from me that say the same thing, please disregard one of them. For some reason I can't view new posts. I'm getting messages that they are being added, but nothing new is showing up. Sorry for being redundant. (Spelling doesn't count I hope.)
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: if anyone sees 2 messages from me that say the same thing, please disregard one of them. For some reason I can't view new posts. I'm getting messages that they are being added, but nothing new is showing up. Sorry for being redundant. (Spelling doesn't count I hope.)
It happens to the best of us. Typically, if it's possible, the mods appreciate it if you edit one of them and leave it blank so it can be deleted. Just so you know.
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: if anyone sees 2 messages from me that say the same thing, please disregard one of them. For some reason I can't view new posts. I'm getting messages that they are being added, but nothing new is showing up. Sorry for being redundant. (Spelling doesn't count I hope.)
It happens to the best of us. Typically, if it's possible, the mods appreciate it if you edit one of them and leave it blank so it can be deleted. Just so you know.
Furthermore, while this in fact optional, Snopes board custom indicates replacing the duplicate post with the word "waffles".
Just doing my part
-------------------- "One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings." -- Diogenes
"Vote Republican! We won't burn you at the stake for your religious beliefs or slaughter your family and steal your land." -- Ramblin' Dave Posts: 3555 | From: Florida | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the side conversation on Asian drivers, the only wreck I ever saw happen was in fact an elderly black woman rear-ending a middle-aged Asian woman.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying that certain types of people are inherently bad drivers. It's the sort of stereotype that's easy to perpetuate because of the habit of only noticing when circumstances meet your preconceived notions and not when they are different.
-------------------- "One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings." -- Diogenes
"Vote Republican! We won't burn you at the stake for your religious beliefs or slaughter your family and steal your land." -- Ramblin' Dave Posts: 3555 | From: Florida | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
STF--I agree, IF there were an accident, a flying body could be very hazardous. However, the act of not wearing a belt, would not be the reason the accident occurred in the first place.
PS--Thanks for the board etiquette lesson, I'll keep it in mind.
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: STF--I agree, IF there were an accident, a flying body could be very hazardous. However, the act of not wearing a belt, would not be the reason the accident occurred in the first place.
PS--Thanks for the board etiquette lesson, I'll keep it in mind.
However, earlier in this discussion, it was suggested that wearing a seatbelt could help prevent accidents, by restraining the driver at a critical moment (i.e., violent maneuvering) allowing them to retain control of their vehicle. This, in itself, is enough reason for me to wear a belt, never mind protecting myself from injury.
Posts: 724 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robigus, Mushroom Warning:
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: STF--I agree, IF there were an accident, a flying body could be very hazardous. However, the act of not wearing a belt, would not be the reason the accident occurred in the first place.
PS--Thanks for the board etiquette lesson, I'll keep it in mind.
However, earlier in this discussion, it was suggested that wearing a seatbelt could help prevent accidents, by restraining the driver at a critical moment (i.e., violent maneuvering) allowing them to retain control of their vehicle. This, in itself, is enough reason for me to wear a belt, never mind protecting myself from injury.
I agree with this as well. I do think being belted probably does help in moments like that.
posted
If violent maneuvering is something that can't be avoided, chances are an accident is going to happen anyway and the seat belt would not have caused the violent maneuvering--it was probably the driver who was talking on his cell phone--isn't that what this thread is about anyway.
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: If violent maneuvering is something that can't be avoided, chances are an accident is going to happen anyway and the seat belt would not have caused the violent maneuvering--it was probably the driver who was talking on his cell phone--isn't that what this thread is about anyway.
I disagree.
Violent maneuvering can be necessitated by the appearance of debris or an animal in the road, for instance. If one can avoid the obstacle and maintain control of the vehicle, an accident may be avoided.
Those darn deer/moose/cats/dogs/chickens will insist on crossing the road, even when people are not on cell phones. Retreads come flying off tires whether or not people are talking on cell phones.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: If violent maneuvering is something that can't be avoided, chances are an accident is going to happen anyway and the seat belt would not have caused the violent maneuvering--it was probably the driver who was talking on his cell phone--isn't that what this thread is about anyway.
The VM (I'm not spelling that out every time *lazy*) may not be caused by not having the seatbelt on, but the accident could be avoided if it was. I know that's probably about as clear as mud. Like 4K said, there are lots of legitimate reasons that one might engage in VM that might not necessarily lead to an accident. Once the VM begins though the lack of using a seatbelt can certainly increase the chances of an accident.
posted
OK, so wearing a seatbelt prevents accidents. So if the person on the cell phone is wearing a seat belt and isn't paying attention to the chicken crossing the road and has to maneuver violently, do you think wearing the seat belt is going to prevent that accident?
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: OK, so wearing a seatbelt prevents accidents. So if the person on the cell phone is wearing a seat belt and isn't paying attention to the chicken crossing the road and has to maneuver violently, do you think wearing the seat belt is going to prevent that accident?
quote:Originally posted by Donna T: OK, so wearing a seatbelt prevents accidents. So if the person on the cell phone is wearing a seat belt and isn't paying attention to the chicken crossing the road and has to maneuver violently, do you think wearing the seat belt is going to prevent that accident?
To repeat what was speculated on earlier in this thread, a person who has their seatbelt on is braced in place more than a person who does not. They are not sliding out of their seat, having to panic grip the steering wheel just to stay in place. They also have better control over where their legs are, and so don't accidently press the accelerator instead of the brake.
Posts: 724 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could, but in reality, that chicken is gonna get clipped and/or the driver is going to cause an accident.
So getting back to the original thread, seat belt or no seat belt, the driver on the cell phone is 4 times more likely to cause an accident.
-------------------- Life is like a box of chocolates, you gotta try everything to see what you like!! Posts: 120 | From: Kissimmee, Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snow-Dog: But honestly, if you can pull off one or more of those things, and still drive arrow straight while paying attention to the traffic around you and still drive courtiously, I don't see why you should be punished.
Snow-Dog
Because there are a lot of people out there who think they're driving arrow straight when they are causing hazards. I have a friend who claimed that talking on his cell phone did not affect his driving. One week later I showed him a videotape that absolutely shocked him.
I agree that there are laws against distracted driving that apply. However, laws specifically against cellphones are also needed. This is to make it harder to fight. The court would have to prove that the cellphone was causing a dangerous distraction to prove the first case. The second case would only need to prove that the driver was using the cellphone.
Posts: 64 | From: Irvine, CA | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PhiloPharynx: ]Because there are a lot of people out there who think they're driving arrow straight when they are causing hazards. I have a friend who claimed that talking on his cell phone did not affect his driving. One week later I showed him a videotape that absolutely shocked him.
I agree that there are laws against distracted driving that apply. However, laws specifically against cellphones are also needed. This is to make it harder to fight. The court would have to prove that the cellphone was causing a dangerous distraction to prove the first case. The second case would only need to prove that the driver was using the cellphone.
I'm not sure why they would have to prove that it was the cell-phone. It shouldn't matter why someone is driving dangerously, only that they were. If I think I can drive safely while talking on a cell-phone, but am in reality being a hazard then fine, ticket me. But if someone isn't driving wrecklessly, there should be no reason to stop them, no matter what they're doing behind the wheel.
Posts: 474 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PhiloPharynx: ]Because there are a lot of people out there who think they're driving arrow straight when they are causing hazards. I have a friend who claimed that talking on his cell phone did not affect his driving. One week later I showed him a videotape that absolutely shocked him.
I agree that there are laws against distracted driving that apply. However, laws specifically against cellphones are also needed. This is to make it harder to fight. The court would have to prove that the cellphone was causing a dangerous distraction to prove the first case. The second case would only need to prove that the driver was using the cellphone.
I'm not sure why they would have to prove that it was the cell-phone. It shouldn't matter why someone is driving dangerously, only that they were. If I think I can drive safely while talking on a cell-phone, but am in reality being a hazard then fine, ticket me. But if someone isn't driving wrecklessly, there should be no reason to stop them, no matter what they're doing behind the wheel.
I couldn't agree more. If you are driving wrecklessly than you should be ticketed. It doesn't matter why regardless of whether it's because you are drunk, on a cellular phone or just an idiot.
At the same time, if you are driving fine while eating a sandwich, putitng on makeup and talking on the cellular phone, I don't really have an issue.
posted
The problem is that loads of idiots do these things and don't realize that they are causing problems. There aren't police on every corner, so they aren't going to be ticketed. Some of them will do it less when it's illegal.
We also come back to the alcohol issue. This is a proven hazardous activity and society as a whole has said nobody should drive while impaired. It doesn't matter that you may not cause an accident every time you drink and drive. It's illegal even if you don't cause an accident because it makes it more likely that you will have an accident.
I feel sorry for the miniscule amount of the population that can actually drive and talk on the cell phone without taking any attention at all away from their driving. But I think the safety of the majority is more important than these two people's rights.
As for comparing cell phone use to other activities, I think we need to break these activities down to rate their hazards. I suggest we evaluate risks in three areas - hands, mind and eyes. Some activities are risky in several areas. The following is my opinion. It's partly based on reasearch I have read about and partly based on my own experiences.
The first hazard is physical - something that impairs your ability to physically handle a car. Usually this is because you are holding something in your hand. Examples - eating, smoking, using a handheld phone, changing a CD. In most cases this does not pose a significant hazard in and of itself. If you have one hand on the wheel and your eyes and focus on the road this only becomes a hazard when you must make some significant maneuver.
The second is attention. This is something that absorbs your mental focus. It can be daydreaming, talking on a phone call of any significance, listening to mentally engaging audio material. This is a more serious hazard than the physical aspect as it limits the amount of focus you apply to driving. This is both a passive and an active hazard. It reduces your reaction time to an outside hazard and it reduces your ability to notice when you are causing a problem (like skewing out of a lane).
The most hazardous is perceptual, something that has you not looking at the road. Examples include dialing a phone, looking at the radio as you change stations, watching video, putting on makeup in the mirror and reading. This is an obvious hazard as you have no feedback on any hazards until you refocus on the road.
posted
I agree with Philopharynx, but to me the cellphone issue is about cause and effect. You may be equally distracted by any of the things mentioned here, but how can you legislate against them. Drivers jumping red lights are another issue (cellphones may be an issue here too?)
Posts: 133 | From: Lanarkshire, Scotland | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find my cellphone to be terribly distracting when driving. I've tried it a couple of times, and I don't feel safe doing it. I just let it go to voicemail. Being stick-shifts, both my cars require two hands in traffic anyway. Actually, the Talon really needs 2 hands on the wheel at all times...the steering is a quite responsive (or darty, depending on your views).
Regarding seatbelts and violent maneuvering...I'm a definate believer in seatbelts. I've been in a few cases where violent maneuvering has saved me from an accident, and I wouldn't have had nearly as much control without a seatbelt.
I always try to drive wreckless, but not reckless!
-------------------- "My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
BDevil38
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
It's nice to see that someone knows the difference between reckless and wreckless. ;-)
In Malaysia, they have a law against using cell phones while driving, but every day I see people using their phones while driving. The law was passed some years back and there was a drive to prosecute violators that lasted for about three months. After the first few months, enforcement went out the window. This is typical of Malaysian traffic laws. They go on the books and are enforced vigorously for a few months, then die a slow death. Then it's back to business as usual.
Myself, I will pull off to the side of the road to answer a call, or call back when I have a chance.
All you have to do is watch people talking on the phone whether they are driving or just sitting in an office. Their arms will be moving, fingers pointing, heads shaking, hands waving, etc.
IP: Logged |
posted
We have a law in Japan too. But I don't think its very fair.
There are lots of things besides using a cell phone that are as dangerous or more dangerous. The real culprit is anything that takes your attention away from the road: lighting cigarettes turning around to shout at your children playing with the radio shouting at other drivers looking at a map or navigation system looking at attractive people or cars...
Now, I try not to do any of these things. But I don't think it's really fair to pick on cell phone users just because they are so easy to spot (if they don't have hands-free gear, which doesn't reduce the danger).
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then so should listening to a CD and singing along? Changing a CD, smoking a cigarette, drinking a cup of your beverage of choice? It is impossible to legislate for all (or any) of these why pick on cellphones. Go after speeders and red light jumpers!
Posts: 133 | From: Lanarkshire, Scotland | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really can't believe that in-dash video players are legal. For the most part you see the video screens in the head rest aimed to the back seat but I know people that have a TV/DVD player in their dash board audio system. Have lawmakers not realized that this is a total distraction and it should be outlawed?
If you were driving along with the news on your in-dash TV totally paying attention to the road and really just listening and they were showing video of the 9/11 attacks or the floods in New Orleans wouldn't you take your eyes off the road to see it? I know I would and that is why I don't have one.
-------------------- "I'm looking over your shoulder, but only because I've got your back" -Stephen Colbert Posts: 468 | From: Raleigh, NC | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MapMaker: I really can't believe that in-dash video players are legal. For the most part you see the video screens in the head rest aimed to the back seat but I know people that have a TV/DVD player in their dash board audio system. Have lawmakers not realized that this is a total distraction and it should be outlawed?
In most states, it's illegal to have a TV screen set up so the driver can see it while the car is moving (except navigation and rear-view cameras). The factory ones are all wired so it stops playing the video (but leaves the audio) when the car starts to move. The aftermarket ones should be set up that way. Of course, many people don't.
BTW, this is what happens when you get distracted! (NSFW/NFBSK)
-------------------- "My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
