507 cellphone crashes out of 3.8 million vehicles

Forums › Off topic › 507 cellphone crashes out of 3.8 million vehicles

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

1030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 100

Trusted

#246561 14-Aug-2009 13:41

freitasm: I think this is a great move. I've seen people completely disregard traffic regulations while on the phone - they can't change gears correctly, indicate, stop on the lights, etc.

Agreed.

I was nearly bowled over recently by some ignoramus who thought gas-bagging on the phone was more important than keeping their eyes on the road (and indicating!).

And I'm not into this "In need to be contactable 24/7" culture we live in.

My very metal Doctor Who theme

Four_seven

38 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#246567 14-Aug-2009 13:53

The more I think about this, the more I'm at two minds about it. It makes sense, because there is a great correlation of talking on the cellphone making you a bad driver, but as has been said, why not just use the careless driving charge? We are slowly getting more and more regulated, and I don't agree with that.

I'm also concerned about situations like rush hour traffic. If I'm on the motorway but it's going slow enough for me to be needing a handbrake, I don't think a quick phone call to inform my destination that I'm going to be running late is a dangerous act, but it's worth 1/5 my demerit points if I'm caught??

Time to close down the *555 call center, cause no one will be able to dial it now!

batmann

29 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#246585 14-Aug-2009 14:42

wazzageek:
batmann: i guess the point i'm trying to make is that 3.8 million vehicles and less than 1 percent of them are involved in cellphone related accidents.

Do you feel the same about the statistics for drink driving booze stops? (I don't have figures on hand, but given the number of cars stopped vs those that were infringing when I last worked it out made quote a small number).

difference between booze and cellphones is that booze directly affects the brain by reducing reaction times. there is no proof cellphones directly affect the brains reaction times by the radio waves from cellphones.

it is really about the drivers ability to multitask. we already multitask in vehicles by using the foot pedals, changing gears, steering, and looking at the road, so why can't we multi-task by using a handheld cellphone? because there are automatic transmission vehicles so why not ban manual transmission vehicles which will reduce distraction of having to change gears so often.

why not have a law that makes it an offence to crash because of a distraction that has nothing to do with driving a car. this way those who can multitask and use a handheld cellphone whilst driving and do not crash will be able to keep doing this, whilst only the people who crash because of a distraction like using a handheld cellphone will be fined and get demerit points.

it will be interesting to see what 'driving' actually is. if i stop at the traffic lights and my vehicle is not moving, is that 'driving'?

how are cops going to prove a person used a cellphone whilst driving? speed cameras and laser guns to have proof of speed but how can you prove a person is using a cellphone? if a cop takes a photo it would be a still photo so a person could say their car was stationary.

text messaging will be harder to prove as the phone may be down by someones lap so a camera outside the car may not have the angle to pick it up. cellphone towers will only tell if a person is in an area, not if the car was moving.

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#246587 14-Aug-2009 14:47

why not have a law that makes it an offence to crash because of a distraction that has nothing to do with driving a car.

You mean like the current careless driving law?

For billions of years since the outset of time, every single one of your ancestors survived, every single person on your Mum and Dads side, successfully looked after and passed onto you life. What are the chances of that like?

batmann

29 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#246594 14-Aug-2009 14:55

Balchy:

why not have a law that makes it an offence to crash because of a distraction that has nothing to do with driving a car.

You mean like the current careless driving law?

so we already have a law that can punish people for being distracted whilst driving and causing a crash? wow i never knew that, so why do we need this handheld cellphone law that is going to ban handheld cellphone use whilst driving even though a driver hasn't crashed?

i get it, previous governments haven't banned cellphones whilst just driving because then people will be asking why don't we ban people tuning the radio or eating.

bring back the labour government, they get it. i hope someone starts up a campaign like section 92a but for unbanning cellphone use whilst just driving.

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#246595 14-Aug-2009 14:57

Umm you will find that labour was planning exactly the same thing only with higher demerits (25 if i remember correctly)

And they are going this way because careless driving is an offence you need to go to court for, rather than infringement based, so the effort in enforcing is too great

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Taminar

6 posts

Wannabe Geek

#246646 14-Aug-2009 15:59

I live in Florida and most of the time that someone is driving very slow, weaving, not going when the light turns green - they're usually on the phone or texting. I also wonder if the statistics are accurate, because if a witness doesn't mention that the at-fault driver was on the phone or texting, the driver certainly isn't.

One of my husband's co-workers was rammed by a guy who not only was on the phone when he crashed, he stayed on the phone afterwards. He wasn't concerned if he'd hurt anyone or the damage to his car. Totally his fault, but the cop ruled "no fault."

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#246826 15-Aug-2009 01:23

batmann:
difference between booze and cellphones is that booze directly affects the brain by reducing reaction times. there is no proof cellphones directly affect the brains reaction times by the radio waves from cellphones.

it is really about the drivers ability to multitask. we already multitask in vehicles by using the foot pedals, changing gears, steering, and looking at the road, so why can't we multi-task by using a handheld cellphone? because there are automatic transmission vehicles so why not ban manual transmission vehicles which will reduce distraction of having to change gears so often.

why not have a law that makes it an offence to crash because of a distraction that has nothing to do with driving a car. this way those who can multitask and use a handheld cellphone whilst driving and do not crash will be able to keep doing this, whilst only the people who crash because of a distraction like using a handheld cellphone will be fined and get demerit points.

it will be interesting to see what 'driving' actually is. if i stop at the traffic lights and my vehicle is not moving, is that 'driving'?

how are cops going to prove a person used a cellphone whilst driving? speed cameras and laser guns to have proof of speed but how can you prove a person is using a cellphone? if a cop takes a photo it would be a still photo so a person could say their car was stationary.

text messaging will be harder to prove as the phone may be down by someones lap so a camera outside the car may not have the angle to pick it up. cellphone towers will only tell if a person is in an area, not if the car was moving.

so we already have a law that can punish people for being distracted whilst driving and causing a crash? wow i never knew that, so why do we need this handheld cellphone law that is going to ban handheld cellphone use whilst driving even though a driver hasn't crashed?

i get it, previous governments haven't banned cellphones whilst just driving because then people will be asking why don't we ban people tuning the radio or eating.

bring back the labour government, they get it. i hope someone starts up a campaign like section 92a but for unbanning cellphone use whilst just driving.

1) there is no need to prove cellphones decrease your reaction time. it doesnt. they never react because they never see the cyclist in front of them.

2) one cannot multitask. computers can. humans can do a few very well practised rituals at once. but you cannot solve 2 problems at once. tried playing playstation while kicking a ball? while talking to your partner? while cooking?
*okay so some might think there's no problem solving involved- that's true most of the time. but sometimes one inadvertantly directs all the thought into some sentence which may be like shall we go to pizza hut or mcD's ... umm err ... and at the same time something out of the ordinary happens on the road like a bicycle pulls a little out which requires the brain to do something.

3) i agree with the traffic lights dilemma. you cant kill anyone if you're not moving.

4) i agree with the radio and eating. that's just as bad as cellphones.

5) those who had a loved one killed by someone texting will support the law. the rest will have different opinions i guess. but i think it's good to protect us from accidentally doing something bad.

Tsk just out of curiosity batmann are you under 18, 18 - 25, 25 - 40? (just wondering! :)

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#246827 15-Aug-2009 01:23

edit: shoot. posted the same thing twice!

davide

214 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#246867 15-Aug-2009 09:44

joker97: 3) i agree with the traffic lights dilemma. you cant kill anyone if you're not moving.

However it *is* possible if driving an automatic car, to remove one's foot from the brake pedal enough that (if you haven't put the car in park of course) you move forward into either the car in front or the interection... and if your mind isn't focussed on the road you may not notice until it's too late that there's another car/truck/pedestrian bearing down on you...

------------------------------------------------------
David Elsbury
Freelance Lighting, Sound and AV Technician
"Technician like ninja... live in shadow, move in silence"

wmoore

510 posts

Ultimate Geek

#246886 15-Aug-2009 10:43

batmann:
wazzageek:
batmann: i guess the point i'm trying to make is that 3.8 million vehicles and less than 1 percent of them are involved in cellphone related accidents.

Do you feel the same about the statistics for drink driving booze stops? (I don't have figures on hand, but given the number of cars stopped vs those that were infringing when I last worked it out made quote a small number).

difference between booze and cellphones is that booze directly affects the brain by reducing reaction times. there is no proof cellphones directly affect the brains reaction times by the radio waves from cellphones.

it is really about the drivers ability to multitask. we already multitask in vehicles by using the foot pedals, changing gears, steering, and looking at the road, so why can't we multi-task by using a handheld cellphone? because there are automatic transmission vehicles so why not ban manual transmission vehicles which will reduce distraction of having to change gears so often.

why not have a law that makes it an offence to crash because of a distraction that has nothing to do with driving a car. this way those who can multitask and use a handheld cellphone whilst driving and do not crash will be able to keep doing this, whilst only the people who crash because of a distraction like using a handheld cellphone will be fined and get demerit points.

it will be interesting to see what 'driving' actually is. if i stop at the traffic lights and my vehicle is not moving, is that 'driving'?

how are cops going to prove a person used a cellphone whilst driving? speed cameras and laser guns to have proof of speed but how can you prove a person is using a cellphone? if a cop takes a photo it would be a still photo so a person could say their car was stationary.

text messaging will be harder to prove as the phone may be down by someones lap so a camera outside the car may not have the angle to pick it up. cellphone towers will only tell if a person is in an area, not if the car was moving.

1) There are a number of studies that do say your reaction times are slowed when talking on a cellphone.

2) You say we already multitask by using the foot pedals, changing gears etc...But those are processes
     we use to control the car. A cellphone doesn't help us drive the car.

3) Has already been answered by others

4) If you were stop at traffic lights and not moving, I would say you would be still 'driving' because you
    are in control of the car.

5) The cops can easily find out if you had been using your phone, by the times calls and texts were placed etc....There are a number of cases in the UK, were it was proven by the cops.

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." -
-- Abraham lincoln

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#246915 15-Aug-2009 11:48

no the cops can't i dont think. you are OKAY if you pull over to talk or txt. but if you get an urgent call on the lights, then i'd say it's grey - you could talk and say hang on i'll pull over once i'm across. safest would be to say i'll call you back or put it on handsfree and say hang on i'm at the lights i'll make more sense once i pull over when lights go green.

but if i was securing a million dollar deal i'd have enough to purchase handsfree. but people say it's nearly just as bad. like eating, radio tweaking, having a slipsliding object on the dashboard ...

davide

214 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#246933 15-Aug-2009 12:52

Does speakerphone mode on a handset count as a "handsfree" or do you have to have something like a bluetooth/ wired handsfree system?

------------------------------------------------------
David Elsbury
Freelance Lighting, Sound and AV Technician
"Technician like ninja... live in shadow, move in silence"

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#246980 15-Aug-2009 16:30

Four_seven: ...but as has been said, why not just use the careless driving charge?

Because, as marmel has already pointed out, it's a very high level charge for what will, most often, be a minor offence. If the driving is bad enough to warrant careless, dangerous or reckless then usage of a cellphone could be cited as a factor. Most of the time though, receiving a ticket and being allowed to carry on your merry way will be sufficient - especially with demerit points attached.

Four_seven: Time to close down the *555 call center, cause no one will be able to dial it now!

Actually, calling *555 is one of the exemptions. Go here and click on the Draft Rules link - pages 4, 10 and 11 are what you want to read.

Balchy's thread is related.

batmann: it will be interesting to see what 'driving' actually is. if i stop at the traffic lights and my vehicle is not moving, is that 'driving'?

Yes it is. As soon as you insert a key into the ignition, you are driving. And no you can't manually use your phone at this particular juncture. Refer to section 7.3A(2)(e) in the Draft Rules link.

davide: Does speakerphone mode on a handset count as a "handsfree" or do you have to have something like a bluetooth/ wired handsfree system?

Refer to my post in Balchy's thread.

DataCraft

173 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 9

#246982 15-Aug-2009 16:38

davide: Does speakerphone mode on a handset count as a "handsfree" or do you have to have something like a bluetooth/ wired handsfree system?

If you are not touching it with your hands then its handsfee I guess.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6