Sign In Join 



Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

3688 messages,  Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Car Safety


Messages Page 368 of 370
1
...
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#3667 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [steve_] by lilengineerboy
Sep 01, 2009 (6:27 pm)
Reply

Replying to: steve_ (Aug 31, 2009 9:54 pm)

"The Governors Highway Safety Association on Monday said it has enacted a new policy encouraging every state to ban texting behind the wheel. The action came just ahead of a summit on distracted driving to be held by the U.S. Department of Transportation starting September 30."
 
Good idea...totally unenforceable, but good idea!
 
Perhaps they should ban visual/manual intensive tasks over a certain duration. That's why you can't enter a destination into most factory navigation systems - the "15-second rule" says if a task takes more than 15 seconds of eyes off road time total (not one glance, but a series of glances up to 15 seconds) it should be locked out while driving. There are a few other studies that are more recent and some surrogate measures that all basically say the same thing.
#3668 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [fintail] by vinnyny
Sep 01, 2009 (6:33 pm)
Reply

Replying to: fintail (Sep 01, 2009 9:26 am)

Unfortunately, people don't take the ban seriously. In many states, it's not even a primary offense and it's not as lucrative as giving out speeding tickets. So, enforcement will probably be lax.
 
Governor Cuomo did something interesting in NY to drive home the seriousness of the seat belt law when it first went into effect...The first person stopped and ticketed was one of his daughters. Naturally, it made all the news shows that night and got the buzz going about the new law. Perhaps if every state just summarily executed the first person caught texting while driving the law might get some attention.
#3669 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [fintail] by vinnyny
Sep 01, 2009 (6:33 pm)
Reply

Replying to: fintail (Sep 01, 2009 9:26 am)

Unfortunately, people don't take the ban seriously. In many states, it's not even a primary offense and it's not as lucrative as giving out speeding tickets. So, enforcement will probably be lax.
 
Governor Cuomo did something interesting in NY to drive home the seriousness of the seat belt law when it first went into effect...The first person stopped and ticketed was one of his daughters. Naturally, it made all the news shows that night and got the buzz going about the new law. Perhaps if every state just summarily executed the first person caught texting while driving the law might get some attention.
#3670 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [vinnyny] by srs_49
Sep 02, 2009 (3:04 am)
Reply

Replying to: vinnyny (Sep 01, 2009 6:33 pm)

Perhaps if every state just summarily executed the first person caught texting while driving the law might get some attention
 
+1 .
#3671 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [vinnyny] by fintail
Sep 02, 2009 (6:37 am)
Reply

Replying to: vinnyny (Sep 01, 2009 6:33 pm)

Execution may be harsh - for a first timer anyway...but I could support some kind of scarlet letter system
#3672 of 3688
Re: Cell phones[vinnyny] [lilengineerboy] by xrunner2
Sep 02, 2009 (8:03 am)
Reply

Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 29, 2009 9:07 pm)

How much is tuning the radio? Changing the CD (a two handed operation in most cases)? Programming a portable nav system?
 
The thing about tuning a radio is that the driver can select the instant when he/she will do the task - if they are intelligent and alert drivers. If you are having a conversation on a cell while driving, your main concentration is listening, absorbing content and constructing your next reply and then delivering a reply. This is vastly different from changing a radio station which only requires momentary simple thought process and can be done safely when road is straight, no intersections nearby, no opposing traffic. The distraction of a cell phone call is a continuous thought process rather than a brief instant to change a radio station.
 
I was one who years ago drove and used the cell phone. As I have mentioned in previous posts, when I did this, and upon call termination, I thought and recounted and usually could not remember any traffic details during the call. I would often think, "Oh, I have gone this far?".
 
Today, if I am on a rural 55 posted highway, with semi traffic to boot, that has curves, dips, crests, crossroads, sideroads, I am very careful to change a radio station. Only do it on a straight, with no oncoming traffic, no semi on my rear.
#3673 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [lilengineerboy] by steve_ HOST
Sep 02, 2009 (12:12 pm)
Reply

Replying to: lilengineerboy (Sep 01, 2009 6:27 pm)

totally unenforceable,
 
I've heard a couple more tech types on the radio in the last month say it's feasible to kill cell phone transmissions in moving vehicles. Seems a bit punitive for passengers and the commuter crowd.
#3674 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [steve_] by srs_49
Sep 02, 2009 (1:41 pm)
Reply

Replying to: steve_ (Sep 02, 2009 12:12 pm)

Yes, it's possible, but illegal .
 
I'm not sure I would use the term punitive. After all, we got along fine without phones in the car for, oh, maybe 80 or 90 years .
#3675 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [srs_49] by steve_ HOST
Sep 02, 2009 (4:00 pm)
Reply

Replying to: srs_49 (Sep 02, 2009 1:41 pm)

Yes, it's possible, but illegal
 
Is this per the FCC or ?
 
You can always make stuff illegal one way or another.
#3676 of 3688
Re: "indisputably a distraction" [steve_] by srs_49
Sep 03, 2009 (3:19 am)
Reply

Replying to: steve_ (Sep 02, 2009 4:00 pm)

I'm pretty sure it's the FCC (that bans blocking or jamming of cell phone transmissions), but it may be some other fed agency. Companies in other countries, Israel is one, makes such jamming gear, but they are illegal here in the US except under very special circumstances. There are some exceptions called out for special agencies such as the Secret Service who may use them to protect against IEDs, many of which are set off by cell phones.
 
Here in Maryland, the governor has been trying to get permission to try out cell phone jamming gear in some prisons. This came about because some "hits" were ordered by people incarcerated using smuggled in cell phones. I do not know if the feds approved his request or not.

Messages Page 368 of 370
1
...
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement