If Even The Police Don't Follow Driving While Phoning Rules...
from the perhaps-there's-something-wrong dept
While we have no doubt that driving while talking on a mobile phone can make the roads less safe in some circumstances, it still seems like the laws against such things are ineffective. They're targeting one aspect of driver distractions, ignoring plenty of others. At the same time, it doesn't always make sense. If you're on an open stretch of road without any traffic, does such a law do any good? Also, evidence has suggested that some people can drive just fine while chatting on a phone, while others cannot. So does an outright ban make sense? Or more effective rules on reckless driving? Even early supporters of the laws have noticed that they haven't been particularly effective in either stopping driving while yakking or in making the roads any safer. To make this even clearer, apparently over in the UK, a local Chief Superintendent of police was spotted chatting on the phone while driving by a member of the public who followed him all the way back to the police station -- only to have the guy brush him off when his infraction was pointed out. This isn't a surprise, but it just highlights the fact that even with these laws, it hasn't appeared to do much to stop people from talking on their phones. It would be a good thing to make our roads much safer, but an if an ineffective ban isn't doing the trick, why aren't we looking at smarter solutions?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
Driving While...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving While...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously...
I know you know the answer to that already, but here it comes:
Because the people making the laws are complete morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving while distracted...
Including the police thing...
/it's a three six-pack drive from here to Vegas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my 2c
Persecute for the offesne, regardless of the circumstances.
i.e. If you're driving wrecklessly, be it talking on the cell phone, eating, or recieving fellatio, you're driving wreckless and should be persecuted thusly. If you can do all three of those things at the same time, yet keep your focus on the road, then more power to ya. Some people quite frankly just shouldn't drive in general, but unfortunately you can't legislate stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my 2c
Sad, but true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: my 2c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my 2c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my 2c
Whether or not this works in some degree is not at issue. How much it works and whether it is way too blunt an instrument for dealing with this problem is the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my 2c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my 2c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon...
And even though I'm not for a ban on cellphones, I would never use this argument. There are all kinds of studies that prove that even drugs or alcohol do not impair everyone's driving ability. Should we not outlaw DUI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The work-around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats not talking on phone and are there even laws against that?
Exploiting stupid loopholes is no way to improve the system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have had complete a nokia car kit for quite some time. I found it much more distracting than talking on a handset, as I kept looking at either the phone (apparent source of the sound) or at the mic instead of the road.
I've stopped using it because I feel safer with one less hand, and my eyes on the road.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws
OK. Some people can also drive pretty well while they're intoxicated. If they're intox on an open stretch with no traffic should they be exempt?
This whole piece is idiotic.
Mike writes; "Because the people making the laws are complete morons." Yeah. And the majority elected them.
Jacob...get the steam out of your pants. If you read the state law that was passed, I live in NY, Cops on duty are exempt from the law. If that bothers you, talk to the person that just got a quicker response time from their police dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject
Maybe I'm the only guy, but there are lots of thigs that determine how..ah.. functional I am after heavy drinking-- how much I've had to eat, if I took allergy medicine earlier for the sniffles (No one wants the sniffles at a bar), what type of alcohol I'm drinking, etc. Much the same way, I think there would be a huge difference on how distracted I'd be while driving depending on the topic of said phonecall. If I were ordering a pizza versus if my ex had found my new number and decided to call for a "friendly" chat.
So, an outright ban would cover all conversations on all phones-- assuming of course that the cops actually did something about it. Hell, I'm not even sure if it's illegal here, in Mass., but it needs to be-- all these soccer moms whipping about in SUVs hopped up on Dunkin Donuts coffee.
Did you know that hanging something on your rear view mirror is illegal? Obstruction of view or something like that-- when was the last time someone told you they'd got pulled over for that? The cellphone law was put in place to make people feel better-- I don't think anyone actually intended on enforcing it.
So, my solution-- put huge, sharp spikes on all steering wheels, pointing at chest level... then we'll see how safe and attentive everyone can drive. :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear lord YES! Why didn't anyone ever think of this before!? Please tell me, what are these amazing "smarter solutions" of which you speak!? /sarcasm
Come on. I agree that an ineffective law is dumb to keep on the books, but if even one life is saved, it's effective. Of course we'll never know if a life is saved, but who wants to take the chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on. I agree that an ineffective law is dumb to keep on the books, but if even one life is saved, it's effective. Of course we'll never know if a life is saved, but who wants to take the chance?I/i>
Yes... and lets ban tag on the playground http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48701. Don't think it will keep our children from getting hurt, but why take a chance. And while we are at it lets ban taking water on an airplane. All you atheists out there, we are working on a law requiring you tol start believing in God too... He probably doesn't exist, we have no proof, but don't wanna take a chance! It's for your own good!
C'mon, this is the lamest arguement for creating bullshit laws. But unfortunately it is how most of them get passed. We are such a litigiuos society, we start passing "don't wanna take a chance laws" to keep from getting sued and in the meantime we are slowly whittling away whatever semblance of freedoms we still have...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on. I agree that an ineffective law is dumb to keep on the books, but if even one life is saved, it's effective. Of course we'll never know if a life is saved, but who wants to take the chance?I/i>
Yes... and lets ban tag on the playground http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48701. Don't think it will keep our children from getting hurt, but why take a chance. And while we are at it lets ban taking water on an airplane. All you atheists out there, we are working on a law requiring you tol start believing in God too... He probably doesn't exist, we have no proof, but don't wanna take a chance! It's for your own good!
C'mon, this is the lamest arguement for creating bullshit laws. But unfortunately it is how most of them get passed. We are such a litigiuos society, we start passing "don't wanna take a chance laws" to keep from getting sued and in the meantime we are slowly whittling away whatever semblance of freedoms we still have...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breakin' the law, ok with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Breakin' the law, ok with you?
The police are nothing but a military that wages war on civilians. They have not reduced murders -- the past 100 years have been more violent, not less than the previous 100 -- rape, or any other crime. They have NO intention of reducing crime. Doing so would be like the big oil companies designing a car that runs on water.
As for the police doing a job other's wouldn't... I wouldn't take any job that involves murdering people or working for a corrupt tyrrantical state. I wouldn't have joined the SS. That doesn't mean I have to respect the SS.
The fact is that most pigs like violence and look for an excuse to use it. Our brain washed society gives them a free pass because idiots like WePlayMegaMans say they protect us. As a result, America is going to hell in a handbasket. We just ranked 57th in freedom of press and even lower in civil and human rights. This is pathetic and disguisting. Another 15 years and we will be worse than China.
America: love it or leave it. Fine I'll leave it as long as I can take my land with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Breakin' the law, ok with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
400 Murders
You live in Oakland, CA? Dude, move to Mexico. It's safer and there's less poverty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 400 Murders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]