Lawrence, Kansas Says To Hell With Any Mobile Phone Use By Drivers
from the none-of-that-now dept
Following a bunch of studies that have suggested a hands-free kit impacts driving just as much as holding a phone to your ear, it looks like Lawrence, Kansas may be the first city to seriously look at banning all driving-while-yakking, whether hands-free or not. Of course, as we've discussed previously, most people seem to ignore such bans anyway, while there are plenty of other driving distractions out there as well. This isn't to say that people should chat on their phones while driving -- but just that we already have laws against reckless driving. Instead of trying to ban every possible distraction, why not focus on simply going after the bad drivers?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
daftness
banning doing 'x' simply requires you to prove 'x' was being done. naturally how the hell to you determine if somes using a hands free kit or muttering to themselves?
the whole idea is daft. yes we *should* simply nail bad drivers, but that requires more coppers and is harder to do with cameras (ala speeding/red lights) or maybe something at the telcos end (e.g. using a phone while moving over 'x'mph leads to a fine, unless you can 'prove' someoen else was driving).
all these laws tend to be wide in scope and look like they are aimed at bringing in a bit of cash while 'being seen to be doing something' etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban Big Macs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban Big Macs
*shudders*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supidness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phone Ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phone Ban
Many people today can not multitask at anything, primarily because they have had everything done for them all thier life.
Just my opinion you understand, but I think a drivers course should be required to obtain a drivers license after the age of 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will continue to use my cell phone in my car, but I'm not crazy enough to try and argue that it would not be safer if I didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phone Ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Phone Ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Phone Ban
You can't outlaw every single driver distraction out there.
Phones
Radios
Passengers
Other drivers
Weather events
etc.
People just need to use commons sense. The problem is common sense isn't common anymore.
Don't outlaw cell phones. Just ticket people for their violation - unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cell Phone Ban
Humans can stare directly at something and not attend to it, just as well as one can shift attention to something in the periphery without moving the eyes. Where your eyes are is not necessarily where your attention is, so by what measure am I "inattentive" when driving?
As a citizen, I want laws to be clear; I find it ridiculous that we need people trained in law to understand the legal system that we, the untrained citizen are expected to abide by. As we know, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Phone Ban
... the list goes on and on. There is no way to ban a mobile phone in a car. It merely sets the basis for outlawing anything that's a distraction. Give it time and people adjust to using the cell phone just like they have using the cd player and radio common in cars today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drivers - ignore the rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difference
Practical tests have proven over and over again (like driving on a simple closed circuit without a cell and then driving on the same while simply counting from 0 to 50 - a task that does not even require you to think while talking) that cell phone use in the car is detremental to your driving behavior.
Now, when it comes to the radio and changing CD's or tapes or the chanel, that is indeed just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than talking on your cell. They should outlaw that as well.
Austria (Europe) has a law that your cell phone cannot be powered on if while you are operating a vehicle. Do they patrol for it? Yes, sting operations just like for breahtalizer tests, etc. Did it reduce the accident rate? Yes, by about 27%.
Most posts on the board today do agree on one thing: lack of common sense. And that is in the end where it all comes down to. That IS the source of the problem... but how can you legislate "thou shalt have common sense whilest thou driveth your car"?
So maybe if we all start driving a little more safely, with or without cell phones, and if we all start using a little more common sense behind the wheel, these laws would not be necessary.
Oh, and Jim (post #5) is right... legal driving age should be upped to at least 18. Kids of 16 these days are barely responsible enough to ride a bike... I cringe when I seen those kids crawl behind the wheel of mommy and daddy's big a$$ SUV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generation Gap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should drunk driving be illegal? It seems to be safer that talking on a cell phone while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I bet cell phone use is commited more often but we don't like addicits in this country and this country makes a fortune on dui's Think about it you have to pay for classes ,you pay a large fine . The insurance ccompanies raise there rates and the lawyers well look in any phone book most of the lawyers are in the phone book for dui's.Then on top of that you can lose your job plus jail time that all tax payers pay for so now what. There is devices to end drunk driving that you may not know about but why end it what would happen to MADD if there was no drunk driving. There is that few that out there that have wrecked going out after work for 2 beers. Now what to do. Nothing, like I said before we in this country hate addicts that's why our jails are overcrowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tuning the radio nor having a conversation with a passenger in the seat next to you did not impair drivers to the extent that talking a cell-phone does. A passenger can alter their conversation and has MANY clues (driver experession, driver response, visual and auditory clues from the environement) to do this; a cell phone user does not. In some circumstances a passenger provides another set of eyes, ears and a brain to warn the driver of something potentially hazardous.
As counterintuitive as it might seem; the evidence supports the difference. If you want to ignore emprical evidence then go back to living on a flat planet in a geocentric universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Driving vs. Drunk Driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell Driving vs. Drunk Driving
The comparison to drunk driving is appropriate because of its salience to people; it is used appropriately as analogy. People don't really get the nuances of what attention really is; many people know what it feels like to be drunk, so they can readily compare the two. It's about explanation; don't hate analogy, because it facilitates understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't need more laws!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rest of the world bans cell phones + driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, people are just idiots.
I wear a headset for the phone, so it's totally hands-free. The CB has me fumbling with a push-to-talk mic every few seconds. Which one's more distracting? And which one is used by more of America's professional drivers, who spend their working hours on the road, and maintain impeccable safety records while doing it?
The problem here is not the technology, it's the drivers who don't take driving seriously. When I'm talking on the phone, I let the other party (or parties) know that I'm driving so my attention is split. If I just go silent, or say "hang on", they understand.
If a driver doesn't appreciate the gravity of the situation enough to explain it to their conversational partner, THAT, then, is the problem. But cops and truckers have no problem with their radios, because the people they're talking to also understand. Simple.
Now, if you want to have some fun, sue a Lawrence, KS cop for driving distracted in violation of the statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, people are just idiots.
I don't believe the cops should be using cell phones while driving, however, we don't ticket police for certain "violations" (see above example) in the course of doing their duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
Two other observations:
1) It's mostly women who are guilty of this. By a big margin. Whenever I see someone driving and holding a cellphone it's invariably a woman.
2) Satnav systems are just as dangerous if not more so. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen some ass weaving about the road while fiddling with the stupid toy on their dashboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sissies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phones and make-up combo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of pedestrians. Lots of cyclists. And lots, lots, lots of the 18-23 year old set from August to May.
Part of this attempt to legislate is likely the direct result of an abundance of younger, inexperienced drivers acting like morons. May even be a "town vs. gown" issue. My guess, having lived there for various stints totaling approx 13 years, is that city authorities are concerned about protecting pedestrians, cyclists, and the high quality of life that one can experience in Lawrence without ever having to get into your car at all, much less gab on your cell while driving (dear god, the average in-town trip only takes 5-7 minutes, why the heck couldn't ya just finish talking before you turn the ignition key or wait till you get out of the vehicle!)
There may even be a class substrata to this issue as most of the younger kids with cars are the rich spawn of the nearby Kansas City suburbs, who show up in Lawrence equipped with high-end cars and SUVS, the latest gadgetry, plenty of free time (because they don't have to work their way through college), access to all the best fraternity/sorority keggers, and a highly developed sense of entitlement. They come from a car-oriented culture of the 'burbs to a not-as-car-oriented culture and attempt to impose their inconsiderate behavior on the locals and their less privileged classmates.
If it's a focused law, applying only to the municipality, and it gives the authorities the leverage they need to stop a bunch of car-crazed nattering brats from overrunning the town and whipping oblivious down Massachusetts street, endangering pedestrians, babies in strollers, or actual intelligent people who are in college to better themselves, hmm, maybe not all bad. Plus, you never know, the dude you hit when you're driving while blabbing might be your weed dealer-- now THERE'S a tragedy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxis, Limos, Busses & Police
What about police? Are they exempt or does every driver need a partner to answer radio calls? Now we double the work-force for police ... I could go on, but I'll spare you all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just pass a law, it always fixes the problem
One thing I learned while earning my Motorcycle license - a distraction is a distraction.
Eating, talking to other people in the car, thinking about your job, talking on the cell phone, staring at a good looking woman (or man if that's your preference), an antique car catches your eye - they're all distractions. Anything that diverts your attention from the road is a distraction and they all have the possibility of dire consequences.
Are they going to legislate against all these other distractions? Soon there will be a law to remove all the cup holders in your car. Since some cars themselves can be a distraction, we might as well make it a law that all cars should look the same and have the same color. Black worked for Henry Ford and his Model T, I'm sure it would work for us. But maybe having all cars look the same would lead to boredom which would be a distraction, too. I'm sure there is empirical evidence from a study about that out there somewhere as well.
Where exactly do you stop? Let's face it. Cell phones are a high profile target and there are huge numbers of inconsiderate (and distracted) cell phone users out there. Everytime you're in a movie theatre and hear a phone ring it makes you think, There ought to be a law...
Actually passing the law and believing it will solve the problem is another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just pass a law, it always fixes the problem
As for the conversation in the car, that has already been addressed by myself and others.
THe slippery slope argument "where do you stop" is a tired old argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just pass a law, it always fixes the probl
Actually you missed the point. Distraction - any distraction - can have dire consequences. You push a button on your stereo just when a kids ball bounces in front of you and (hopefully) you just missed a kid with your car. Sustained distraction or momentary - it really doesn't matter.
I agree that sustained distractions have more of a chance of dire consequences, but does that really matter when someone just caused an accident?
I would also argue that it does not takes sustained concentration to comprehend most messages. Certainly some do require sustained concentration. What about the fact that most information gathered when communicating is through non-verbal communication channels? Wouldn't that mean that a person having a conversation in a car is more of a distraction? I'm being facetious, but then again so is this idea that passing a law of this type will actually work when there is more evidence that eating while driving causes more accidents than cell phones.
As for the slippery slope argument - have you seen some of the asinine laws passed in lieu of common sense? Our system of laws is based on the concept of precedent and one foolish step can lead to another foolish step. Tired or not, it's a legitimate concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice the penalty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About Lawrence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, ban cell phones in cars....
1 - dog / cat on lap while driving
2 - driving while seatback is reclined
3 - ticketing the driver of any vehicle with a stereo playing so loud you can hear or feel it when your cars windows are rolled up
4 - swerving to go over speed bumps at a angle (or dips for that matter)
5 - those really annoying propellors that fit in trailer hitches - nothing like being blinded by a spinning mirror while driving
6 - anyone who pulls to the left and stops before making a right hand turn
7 - staying in the left hand lane on freeways when cars are consistently passing you on the right
8 - driving below the speed limit in car pool lanes
9 - slamming on your brakes because you see a cop that has already pulled someone over on the other side of the road
10 - coming to a dead stop to creep over speed bumps in your SUV
I could keep going here - the list of things that people do that is stupid while they are driving is way longer than this, but it's a start.
And one other thing - on the list of top causes of accidents, using a cell phone is way down the list (below 10th place). Number one is external distractions. So let's make car windows illegal too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
government cell phone idiocy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phone science project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distractions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]