Move over traffic laws

[Cobrabill]

Expain how using a hands free device is any different than talking to your passenger.

[Black Mamba]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

Expain how using a hands free device is any different than talking to your passenger.

"Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because they're distracted by the conversation."

I didn't do the study, I'm just passing along the results.

If anyone wants to continue driving around talking on their phones, texting, getting a hummer, or whatever else may take your mind off the road ahead and on either side PLEASE let me know so I can stay off those roads while on my bicycle, Moto Guzzi, or in my car that DOESN'T HAVE AIR BAGS.

Thanks,
Black Mamba

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by Black Mamba

"Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because they're distracted by the conversation."

I didn't do the study, I'm just passing along the results.

If anyone wants to continue driving around talking on their phones, texting, getting a hummer, or whatever else may take your mind off the road ahead and on either side PLEASE let me know so I can stay off those roads while on my bicycle, Moto Guzzi, or in my car that DOESN'T HAVE AIR BAGS.

Thanks,
Black Mamba

Sorry-that was directed at the"royal you".Not meant to be personal.

[TXBLU]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

You're wrong.

I think most would disagree with you.

Eric

[Gunner]

Any number of studies, specific to drivers and cel phones and otherwise (e.g., with people on intercoms) have shown that there's a significant cognitive difference between a conversation with someone present in the room and at least partially within the field of view, and conversations via an electronic link. Some theorize that the lack of personal presence forces the brain to use more effort to visualize the missing cues and interpret things from sound alone. In any case, the link between even hands-free cel phone use and an increased rate of driver distraction and accidents - even OVER anything attributable to passenger distractions - is well established and not trivial.

[TXBLU]

Originally Posted by Gunner

Any number of studies, specific to drivers and cel phones and otherwise (e.g., with people on intercoms) have shown that there's a significant cognitive difference between a conversation with someone present in the room and at least partially within the field of view, and conversations via an electronic link. Some theorize that the lack of personal presence forces the brain to use more effort to visualize the missing cues and interpret things from sound alone. In any case, the link between even hands-free cel phone use and an increased rate of driver distraction and accidents - even OVER anything attributable to passenger distractions - is well established and not trivial.

Well said.

Eric

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by TXBLU

I think most would disagree with you.

Eric

Then "most" would be wrong also.Evidence dictates that if it the cell phone was focal point of the problem,then the number of accidents resulting from cell phone useage would be staggering.The amount of accidents does not "jive" with the number of cells in use.Therefore,the logical conclusion is PEOPLE are the problem.

Corollary:

Guns don't kill people,PEOPLE kill people.

Cell phones don't cause accidents,PEOPLE talking on them do.

[tnollette]

Texas has such a law. A driver needs to move over, but I'm uncertain of all the details regarding to speed and traffic conditions.

[Excaliber]

First I've heard of this, but I've been doing it even since I can remember, it's all but common sense. Which I realize is in short supply.

I'm not all together sold on hands free phones as far as that goes. I found myself still fiddling with something, the microphone or having to look up a number or getting distracted in some way even with hands free. My lastest personel policy is "leave a message", I don't use the phone in the car, period. I realize that's not possible for some folks who need to, but I don't, so, I don't!

[SunDude]

For what it's worth, the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute released a study today which shows that laws banning cellphone use in cars have had no effect in reducing the number of crashes. Seems counter-intuitive given how many studies have shown that cellphone use impairs driving ability.

[Black Mamba]

Since some here need the visual of carnage:

Ccx 3208 R.i.p.

Sorry to go there,

Mamba

[Cobrabill]

[quote=Black Mamba;Sorry to go there,Mamba[/QUOTE]

You should be-it's a complete non-sequitur.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by SunDude

For what it's worth, the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute released a study today which shows that laws banning cellphone use in cars have had no effect in reducing the number of crashes. Seems counter-intuitive given how many studies have shown that cellphone use impairs driving ability.

That's the problem with statistics-they exist solely to further the agenda of the author.

[vspeeds]

Every law will have its proponents and those who disagree. This law was designed to help ensure the safety of emergency workers as well as the general public. I work in the emergency services in the streets of San Francisco and its truly amazing to witness the speed and recklessness of drivers around an accident or other emergency scene especially during rush hour traffic.
This is a very graphic video of what goes on at an emergency scene. Can you imagine someone going 65mph crashing into the original accident making the already bad situation worse than the original? It happens more often than you think.

Anyways, I'm in the process of buying a Superformance Cobra!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E

[Jamo]

The law makes sense. It's not for folks that have half a brain and do slow down and move over a bit for anyone parked on the side of the road due to a breakdown or emergency. It's for the complete dumbasses who don't think (same dumb basturds who sit in the left lane and hold reasonable folks up because they think they're driving fast enough for everyone). Dumbasses like this should lose their entitlement to gravity and get off this planet.

As for cell phones, etc., studies just released by the insurance carriers (the folks who wanted the restrictions passed) indicates that accidents have NOT dropped since laws began being passed regarding the use of cell phones.

It's not the phones...it's whether someone is just too phuking stupid to be allowed out in the light of day amongst us.

I prefer we passed laws prohibiting stupidity anywhere at anytime...capital punishment would be ideal.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Jamo

As for cell phones, etc., studies just released by the insurance carriers (the folks who wanted the restrictions passed) indicates that accidents have NOT dropped since laws began being passed regarding the use of cell phones.

It hasn't been long enough for the general population's behavior to change. We spent 5+ years getting used to yakking away while driving,* it will take some time to get people to pay attention to the law, or be forced into paying attention, and actually start having an effect.

I'd love to be able to pull a Mossad and when I see, say, the stupid b*tch who ended up a carlength past the limit line at three successive lights because she was two-thumbing away, I could point my FM gun, pull the trigger, and have her phone light up, "BYE BYE" and then explode.


* My goodness, how did we ever survive without talking to someone every rolling mile?

[Black Mamba]

Originally Posted by Jamo

As for cell phones, etc., studies just released by the insurance carriers (the folks who wanted the restrictions passed) indicates that accidents have NOT dropped since laws began being passed regarding the use of cell phones.

It's not the phones...it's whether someone is just too phuking stupid to be allowed out in the light of day amongst us.

I prefer we passed laws prohibiting stupidity anywhere at anytime...capital punishment would be ideal.

I'm not sure what it's like in your area but here in Burbank I've seen no affect from the cell phone law. I think the problem there is the miniscule fine, something like $25. If it was raised to maybe $125 we may see some restraint in the usage.

Now as for naysayers about whether a cell phone is a distraction, when you answer your phone do you look to see who it is first? Are you young enough that your eyes instantly focus on the name or number shown or does it take you a few seconds. Do you ever dial the phone while driving? All of those items take up a few seconds and that's all it takes to diminish your reaction time to avoid hitting the nitwit that just turned left in front of you or the lady that jammed on her brakes in front of you because she thought she may hit the squirrel that seemed to be darting into her path.

I'm kind of amazed that people still argue point and I think that what's really at issue here is that people don't like being told what they can and can not do.

[SPF2245]

From the enforcement side, I support the original post 100%. I've had my patrol unit rear ended twice (the last time totalled the car) in ten years. Luckly I wasn't in the car in either event.
In 2009, 6 officers lost their lives by being struck by cars (accidental)...god only knows how many others were injured. The reason we do the "traps" for this law is because when we're working an incident, we can't break away from the scene to give an idiot a ticket. The "traps" let people know the law exsists and it's enforced, so when we are working on the side of the road, people yield.

[Gunner]

Originally Posted by Black Mamba

I think the problem there is the miniscule fine, something like $25. If it was raised to maybe $125 we may see some restraint in the usage.

Confiscation of the phone and a fine to get it loose from the local impound desk. That would straighten most idiots up REAL fast. My daughter's high school implemented that policy (parents HAD to come in and sign the phone back out) and in-class phone violations dropped to *zero*.

...I think that what's really at issue here is that people don't like being told what they can and can not do.

Naw, ya think? This is AMERICA, dude. We gots the right to pay attention to anything we want, like our BFF's latest tweet, even if we are doing 75 in heavy traffic.

[Ron61]

Originally Posted by SPF2245

From the enforcement side, I support the original post 100%. I've had my patrol unit rear ended twice (the last time totalled the car) in ten years. Luckly I wasn't in the car in either event.
In 2009, 6 officers lost their lives by being struck by cars (accidental)...god only knows how many others were injured. The reason we do the "traps" for this law is because when we're working an incident, we can't break away from the scene to give an idiot a ticket. The "traps" let people know the law exsists and it's enforced, so when we are working on the side of the road, people yield.

I agree with you entirely. Even up here in our light traffic compared to the Bay Area and other cities, we have had two CHP vehicles and three city police cruisers hit and badly damaged with two of the LEOs suffering minor injuries. The last one was by a woman driving a SUV and trying to call her friend on a cell phone to tell her about the accident she was going by. She was doing about 65 MPH according to witnesses, hit the patrol car which was well off the road, went across the divider and hit another car and truck. One person in the North bound lane was killed by her stupidity and all she would say was she had a right to use her cell phone any time she wanted. Didn't seem to give a darn about the person she had killed.

Ron