new & interesting places for your GPS

Troy Michigan bans distracted driving.

 

Well it seems someone has figured out that they are in danger out on the open road in this country that thinks of driving as a time to multitask as many things as possible into the wasted time traveling from point A to point B.

Troy cracks down on texting, grooming and eating while driving
Thursday, July 15, 2010
By BONNIE CAPRARA
Special to The Oakland Press
People driving through Troy may want to put away their cell phones — and MP3 players, mascara, hair brushes and submarine sandwiches.

The Troy City Council approved a revised driving while distracted ordinance, which it considers a clarification of the state law that went into effect July 1 designed to crack down on texting while driving.

Troy’s ordinance, which goes into effect July 29, prohibits drivers from “eating, writing, performing personal hygiene/grooming, physical interaction with pets, passengers or unsecured cargo, any of which is done in a manner than prohibits the driver from maintaining direct physical control of the motor vehicle steering mechanism with at least one hand that is free of all other objects and used entirely to form a controlled grip on the steering mechanism.” Furthermore, the ordinance restricts holding a phone while speaking into or listening to a phone.

Troy’s ordinance, which applies to drivers in motion, also considers dialing a phone number to be the same as texting.

“I write tickets every day, and almost on a daily basis there’s an incident involving a distracted driver where someone gets hurt,” Troy Police Department Lt. David Livingston said.

Troy City Attorney Lori Grigg Bluhm said the ordinance was proposed because, “It’s not completely clear under state law, but our interpretation is that is these things are prohibited conduct.”

Livingston clarified that a driver wouldn’t be pulled over for eating a french fry, but added: “I’ve seen people trying to eat a sandwich with both hands and trying to steer with their elbows. I’ve even seen a doctor trying to eat a bowl of cereal. Distracted driving is more dangerous than dangerous driving. You have to have control of the steering wheel.”

The City of Troy plans to erect 40 signs throughout the city to inform motorists of the local ordinance.

But Councilman Martin Howrylak, the only council member to vote against the ordinance, felt the city wouldn’t be able to fully inform motorists about the enhanced local ordinance.

“I think putting up signs around the city will help, but we have a lot of people using the Interstate,” Howrylak said.

“The idea of having a more stringent ordinance is to help and protect drivers,” Mayor Louise Schilling said. “I’d rather see us be proactive than reactive.”

Troy resident Audre Zembrzuski nearly got hit by a driver talking on a cell phone 10 years ago. She felt Troy’s ordinance wasn’t enough.

“You can’t have an ordinance like this unless you have it for the whole state,” Zembrzuski said.

--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

Wow, Excellent.

Even as a flaming Libertarian .. I applaud a law like this.

(Sounds like it's) Well written, well defined, and targeted to the common sense root problem. Only thing they might have added was something about looking in the direction of travel. shock

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

Hope it spreads nationwide real fast

I have been driving many times on the interstate, when I happen upon a driver doing 40 mph. Low and behold they have a cell phone stuck in their ear. I have also seen texting going on with no hands on the wheel or eyes on the road, scary huh! Since I don't want to die, I usually leave these folks in my rear view mirror and move back to the right lane.

Get these idiots off the road!

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

all in favor...

Ordinarily I don't like new traffic laws, but I'm all for this one. Can anyone really justify actions like texting while driving?

Interesting

Just curious... Since this applies to drivers in motion; can people do all these prohibited things while stopped at a stop sign, traffic light or when the highway is at a standstill?

I think we need more driving

I think we need more driving education. More educated drivers may lead to safer driving.

It's too easy to get a driver's license.

Distract driving law

If the citizens are smart they will start to vote the board members off the board. City Official's are starting to become big shot's like the GOVERNMENT, starting to think like their God the Almighty. Wanting to ticket you for every thing they can. People its time to vote down all millage, stop donating to the police departments, fire departments Any thing that would help the city officials. Stop them from destroying your rights. Their ruining our CONSTITUTION, Tax payers of Troy your about to see your taxes increase like never before with all the law suites that are going to be filed against Troy. Let me ask you this Citizens of Troy are you going to let city officicials run you over. TEA PARTY TIME!

Any Exemptions for Emergencies..?

What about emergencies? And then the question is.. "who defines what as a emergency"? What could be a emergency for one, might not be a emergency for another.

A non life or death 911 emergency may still be a emergency per say.. but how do you prove what is or isn't a emergency?

This could lead one to slide down a very slippery slope.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

it is i your safty

And this is the way we loose our right one by one. In case you have forgotten this is my car my personal car, the one i bought, the one i have to maintain, the one that i had to pay taxes on and now you are imposing more laws on my car. First the seat belt law remember they couldnt pull you over if you were not wearing one but now they can. And now this new law. For our safty. Well let me tell you what you have forgotten. Distracted driving is just that.
1. no children in the car because they are never still or quiet.
2. music on the radio because it can distract you.
3. no singing because then you are singing not paying attation to the road.
4. both hands on the stearing wheel at all times.
5. matters of fact why dont we just remove any contact with the driver at all times this way the driver could never be ddistracted.
6. when you drive you can only think about driving not any thing else (your day, your family, work) after all then yo would not be paying attation to your driving.
7. no crying while you are driving because you are emotionally distracted and we cant have that.

I could go on and on dont you understand that you have rights and you are just giving them away in the words of it is in your safty.

So....

So the Troy cops can't use their radios or their data terminals while driving ? I've seen them distracted while doing that as well, while in motion.

Ban All Talking

Since talking on the phone uses the same brain centers as talking to the person sitting next to you in the car, perhaps they should pass a law banning all talking in cars. Isn't that the next assault on our personal liberties?

Ridiculous!

It's all about the money and control.

Spot on

JD4x4 wrote:

...and targeted to the common sense root problem.

Bingo! Stupid drivers cause laws like this to be written. If you don't self-regulate, the government will do it for you.

Good for Troy.

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

.

melissahall62 wrote:

In case you have forgotten this is my car my personal car, the one i bought, the one i have to maintain, the one that i had to pay taxes on and now you are imposing more laws on my car.

Yes, but you're sharing the road with thousands of other drivers. You can't just do whatever you want. If everyone drove safely, there wouldn't be an issue. As was mentioned already, there are too many stupid drivers out there so the cities and states have to create these kinds of laws.

Exactly

DamonZ28 wrote:
melissahall62 wrote:

In case you have forgotten this is my car my personal car, the one i bought, the one i have to maintain, the one that i had to pay taxes on and now you are imposing more laws on my car.

Yes, but you're sharing the road with thousands of other drivers. You can't just do whatever you want. If everyone drove safely, there wouldn't be an issue. As was mentioned already, there are too many stupid drivers out there so the cities and states have to create these kinds of laws.

People seem to forget that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right! Too many talking as if it is their God given right to be behind a steering wheel.

I don't like the idea of new traffic laws, as some are unnecessary and redundant like this one, but stupid people cause laws like this one to be written. A cop friend of mine once told me that all of these distractions fall under the "reckless driving" law that already exists, but most cops seem to forget that. No need to be this "specific", but I guess some won't pay attention (or are too dumb to figure it on their own) until they are told EXACTLY that they can't talk on the phone, text, fix their hair, put make up on, take care of the kids, etc. while driving. PULL OVER if you need to do something that requires your attention. The main problem here is the lack of COMMON SENSE http://blog.dk.sg/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/common-sense.jp... razz

I once saw a doctor with a phone on his shoulder and both hands and head turned to the passenger seat, checking on papers, while the car was swerving all over the place. What was he steering with... his knee? I passed him when he almost run into a parked car (miraculously stopped a few inches from the other car) .

I hope that new law becomes federal and there are points and suspensions involved, with jail time if they cause an accident (friend of mine got rear ended by a moron texting, serious accident). Lots of people who think it is their "right" to drive that need to be taken off the road... permanently. Let them learn the hard way there are no "kings of the road" and treat them as DWI drivers.

--
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.

I agree!

Thanos_of_MW wrote:

People seem to forget that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right! Too many talking as if it is their God given right to be behind a steering wheel.

I agree 100%! Thanks for putting my thoughts into words! smile

Interesting...so when the cop car pulls in behind you and pops>>

on the lights can the cop be cited for conspiracy to drive while distracted for creating the distraction in the first place? Inquiring minds want to know...you can be sure that would be my defense smile

It's not that I disagree with getting eaters, texters and makeupers off the road...I just think it's a waste of time giving them tickets...should just shoot 'em wink

--
"You can't get there from here"

LOL

TMK wrote:

on the lights can the cop be cited for conspiracy to drive while distracted for creating the distraction in the first place? Inquiring minds want to know...you can be sure that would be my defense smile

It's not that I disagree with getting eaters, texters and makeupers off the road...I just think it's a waste of time giving them tickets...should just shoot 'em wink

Good one! LOL.

Hey, it is sad to see careless people killing themselves in an accident, but I do not like it at all when they involve other people.

Personally, I don't even want my car _scratched_ because some moron "needed" to answer that text message (no, the stupid message isn't worth a scratch in MY car)

Ticketing can be a way to make them pay attention. Towns complain about lack of funds, this is a great way to get them and to get rid of idiots. Throw 3 points in per offense so they have their insurances skyrocket also. This should be treated the same way as an intoxicated driver in DWI, since they are effectively "impaired".

--
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.

I'll Second That!

I agree 110%. I have not witnessed anyone driving here while eating their foot long sandwiches but I have seen many times ppl driving really slow or side to side while talking on cel phones. Today there are options ie. bluetooth or speakerphone. In 1993 I was hit by someone talking on a cel. The person claimed "I" went thru the red light from a stop. He was still talking after the collison. mad The insurance companys didn't cover either side. I sure hope the responsible parties today are charged.

Another way

This just gives another way for a cop to stop someone. With police as thinly stretched as they are if they are out enforcing this it's only to meet a quota. Oh wait, they don't have quota's...

I'm not buying it

Every time the government sees something wrong they use the possibility of harm as a basis to regulate everyone.

There is no need for this ordinance. Unless someone is going to say that there are not reckless driving and negligent driving crimes, and inattentive or careless driving infractions in Michigan, there is no need for this.

We are over-regulated. They simply need to enforce what is already on the books rather than to create new and unimaginative ways to justify police contact and government involvement in our everyday lives.

I'm not buying it.

Every time the government sees something wrong they use the possibility of harm as a basis to regulate everyone.

There is no need for this ordinance. Unless someone is going to say that there are not reckless driving and negligent driving crimes, and inattentive or careless driving infractions in Michigan, there is no need for this.

We are over-regulated. They simply need to enforce what is already on the books rather than to create new and unimaginative ways to justify police contact and government involvement in our everyday lives.

By the way, if you treat every reckless, negligent, inattentive or careless driving offense like a DUI/DWI, what would be significant about the DUI/DWI penalties?

(Sorry, I meant to respond/reply to the Thanos post at 10.46 a.m.).

Since it is directed to me...

GN2 wrote:

Every time the government sees something wrong they use the possibility of harm as a basis to regulate everyone.

There is no need for this ordinance. Unless someone is going to say that there are not reckless driving and negligent driving crimes, and inattentive or careless driving infractions in Michigan, there is no need for this.

We are over-regulated. They simply need to enforce what is already on the books rather than to create new and unimaginative ways to justify police contact and government involvement in our everyday lives.

By the way, if you treat every reckless, negligent, inattentive or careless driving offense like a DUI/DWI, what would be significant about the DUI/DWI penalties?

(Sorry, I meant to respond/reply to the Thanos post at 10.46 a.m.).

I agree with you that a "new" law is not needed. As I said, a cop friend of mine told me that reckless driving laws apply very well to all those careless drivers.

But I do stand by treating any of these offenses as a DWI if it causes an accident. A while back I posted that a friend of mine got rear ended by an idiot woman texting. He was stopping at the red light and her impact was so strong that my friend's car got totaled, pushed into the vehicle in front of him and that other one got onto incoming traffic from the side. A multi-vehicle accident, my friend got a spinal fracture and they had to cut him out of the ball of metal that was his car, while he was unconscious. I say she was "impaired" and should be treated as a DWI.

My friend got a lawyer and sued her, along with the other people involved in the accident. He was only 6 months from retiring and she caused him pain, suffering and a smaller retirement check (and a car loss). Guess who is paying for that pain, suffering, a new car and the difference in retirement money... yup, the idiot in the Mercedes that rear-ended him (she didn't even hit the brakes, btw). Expensive text message, right?

Edit: I forgot to add, yes, they settled out of court for a LOT of money.

--
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.

A driver's license is not a "right"

melissahall62 wrote:

And this is the way we loose our right one by one. In case you have forgotten this is my car my personal car, the one i bought, the one i have to maintain, the one that i had to pay taxes on and now you are imposing more laws on my car.

A driver's license is not a "right" it is a privilege that allows you to drive and can be revoked at any time for violating the traffic laws.

A driver's license is not an entitlement for anyone!

--
nüvi® 3790LMT - Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 with Garmin Viago Maps - GM Built-in Navigation system

Legal authority reserved for the state?

Aren't traffic regulations an authority reserved for the state, or possibly the Feds under uniform regulations? Where does a municipality get the authority to pass regulations related to rules of the road? What's to prohibit one municipality from passing a law prohibiting red cars or driving while wearing gloves? This is out of control.

--
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.

.

dave817 wrote:

This is out of control.

It may well be out of control. But then again, so is people's stupidity.

Why do you think they have traffic calmed areas? You know, the big speed bumps? Because people think residential areas are racetracks, and can drive however they want.

What do people expect? Drivers have created this themselves.

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

There are laws that address some of these issues

A municipality typically gets its authority from that state's constitition.

The federal government generally does not get into the speed on a specific road etc., because these are the things left to the states and the municipalities that the states delegate authority to.

While I agree that the degree and amount of regulation appears to be excessive at times, the prohibition on anything that crosses (or potentially could cross) state lines falls under the federal commerce clause. As a result, it is very unlikely that a law prohibiting vehicles of particular colors, passing vehicles of particular colors, or other random things would pass constitutional analysis.

We can agree to disagree

Thanos_of_MW wrote:
GN2 wrote:

Every time the government sees something wrong they use the possibility of harm as a basis to regulate everyone.

There is no need for this ordinance. Unless someone is going to say that there are not reckless driving and negligent driving crimes, and inattentive or careless driving infractions in Michigan, there is no need for this.

We are over-regulated. They simply need to enforce what is already on the books rather than to create new and unimaginative ways to justify police contact and government involvement in our everyday lives.

By the way, if you treat every reckless, negligent, inattentive or careless driving offense like a DUI/DWI, what would be significant about the DUI/DWI penalties?

(Sorry, I meant to respond/reply to the Thanos post at 10.46 a.m.).

I agree with you that a "new" law is not needed. As I said, a cop friend of mine told me that reckless driving laws apply very well to all those careless drivers.

But I do stand by treating any of these offenses as a DWI if it causes an accident. A while back I posted that a friend of mine got rear ended by an idiot woman texting. He was stopping at the red light and her impact was so strong that my friend's car got totaled, pushed into the vehicle in front of him and that other one got onto incoming traffic from the side. A multi-vehicle accident, my friend got a spinal fracture and they had to cut him out of the ball of metal that was his car, while he was unconscious. I say she was "impaired" and should be treated as a DWI.

My friend got a lawyer and sued her, along with the other people involved in the accident. He was only 6 months from retiring and she caused him pain, suffering and a smaller retirement check (and a car loss). Guess who is paying for that pain, suffering, a new car and the difference in retirement money... yup, the idiot in the Mercedes that rear-ended him (she didn't even hit the brakes, btw). Expensive text message, right?

Edit: I forgot to add, yes, they settled out of court for a LOT of money.

___

No matter how or why an accident happened, the fact is that there are both criminal and civil remedies available. Those remedies, if utilized, are effective in most instances to address improper behavior. While the accident was terrible, the system provided a means to punish the driver and a separate means to punish and "compensate" your friend for his pain and suffering.

Using a cell phone, eating, talking, or changing a radio station really is not an impairment equivalent to consuming too much alcohol (typically over .08 or .10 BAC) and then driving. The DUI/DWI impairment actually results in a measurable reduction in perception-reaction time and judgment. People can and do safely drive while holding a phone just as many people can and do safely drive with only one hand on the steering wheel.

Accidents typically happen when something unexpected happens while people are distracted such as when they talk to and/or look at others who are seated in their car, look at something too long or intently inside or outside of their car, change the radio station, have a seizure and for a multitude of other reasons. None of those things, other than the seizure, constitutes an impairment, just a distration or lapse of attention. A cellphone, while a real concern, is an easy and lazy way that some officers and people explain accidents.

Agree to disagree.

GN2 wrote:

No matter how or why an accident happened, the fact is that there are both criminal and civil remedies available. Those remedies, if utilized, are effective in most instances to address improper behavior. While the accident was terrible, the system provided a means to punish the driver and a separate means to punish and "compensate" your friend for his pain and suffering.

Agreed. That's why I said new laws are "redundant". Reckless driving laws already punish all of these behaviors. My friend is still a bit sore, but happily retired with a fat bank account and a new car (courtesy of texting moron)

GN2 wrote:

Using a cell phone, eating, talking, or changing a radio station really is not an impairment equivalent to consuming too much alcohol (typically over .08 or .10 BAC) and then driving. The DUI/DWI impairment actually results in a measurable reduction in perception-reaction time and judgment. People can and do safely drive while holding a phone just as many people can and do safely drive with only one hand on the steering wheel.

While I could agree with you about the eating/talking/radio control part of it, I don't agree with the cell phone component. According to several studies (not sponsored by cell phone carriers)like this one http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1 talking on a cell phone while driving is the same as being drunk.

GN2 wrote:

Accidents typically happen when something unexpected happens while people are distracted such as when they talk to and/or look at others who are seated in their car, look at something too long or intently inside or outside of their car, change the radio station, have a seizure and for a multitude of other reasons. None of those things, other than the seizure, constitutes an impairment, just a distration or lapse of attention. A cellphone, while a real concern, is an easy and lazy way that some officers and people explain accidents.

Any distraction can cause an accident. It just happens that cell phone use while driving pretty much guarantees one. Most of these people don't get into an accident because other drivers are being careful and aware of the idiot not paying attention. In my friend's case, he had no choice or warning since he was sitting at an intersection's red light and got rammed at over 50mph according to the police report. He was very lucky.

--
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.

Negligent driving

Policemen in Troy and everywhere else can write a summons for negligent driving. Anything distracting can be ticketed, even turning to check on the child in the back seat. I was keeping pace with a young woman as we drove on a boulevard in a nearby city. She was weaving and not paying attention while she talked on the cell phone. She hung up, but continued to drive in the same negligent manner as before. Go figure

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Idiotic law

Idiotic law written by idiotic politicians trying to make a name for themselves. They want to show THEY are doing something. It's virtually unenforceable. A lost person can't call for directions? Can't grab a kid whose wiggled lose from a seat belt or seat? Can't smack the wife next to you(I'm kidding. She rides in back).

Bad drivers are bad drivers. How about this. It's called lane straddling. WRITE THE VIOLATION. If the "distraction" caused a violation to occur - lane weaving, sudden turn or stop, speeding, whatever. WRITE THE VIOLATION. If they want a check box for aggravating factors, go ahead. There will be a thousand laws to cover all the possible distractions.

Used to be radios were the "distraction", then 8-tracks, cassettes, then those deadly CD's, cell phones, now texting. Meantime, we continue to turn a blind eye to drunks and dispense marijuana in vending machines.

It will never end.

Let's actually consider what the study shows

Thanos_of_MW wrote:
GN2 wrote:

No matter how or why an accident happened, the fact is that there are both criminal and civil remedies available. Those remedies, if utilized, are effective in most instances to address improper behavior. While the accident was terrible, the system provided a means to punish the driver and a separate means to punish and "compensate" your friend for his pain and suffering.

Agreed. That's why I said new laws are "redundant". Reckless driving laws already punish all of these behaviors. My friend is still a bit sore, but happily retired with a fat bank account and a new car (courtesy of texting moron)

GN2 wrote:

Using a cell phone, eating, talking, or changing a radio station really is not an impairment equivalent to consuming too much alcohol (typically over .08 or .10 BAC) and then driving. The DUI/DWI impairment actually results in a measurable reduction in perception-reaction time and judgment. People can and do safely drive while holding a phone just as many people can and do safely drive with only one hand on the steering wheel.

While I could agree with you about the eating/talking/radio control part of it, I don't agree with the cell phone component. According to several studies (not sponsored by cell phone carriers)like this one http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1 talking on a cell phone while driving is the same as being drunk.

GN2 wrote:

Accidents typically happen when something unexpected happens while people are distracted such as when they talk to and/or look at others who are seated in their car, look at something too long or intently inside or outside of their car, change the radio station, have a seizure and for a multitude of other reasons. None of those things, other than the seizure, constitutes an impairment, just a distration or lapse of attention. A cellphone, while a real concern, is an easy and lazy way that some officers and people explain accidents.

Any distraction can cause an accident. It just happens that cell phone use while driving pretty much guarantees one. Most of these people don't get into an accident because other drivers are being careful and aware of the idiot not paying attention. In my friend's case, he had no choice or warning since he was sitting at an intersection's red light and got rammed at over 50mph according to the police report. He was very lucky.

------------
The study that you are relying on does not say that cell phone use guarantees an accident, it says what we all generally know which is that it increases the likelihood of an accident (5.36 times more than a person who is undistracted).

The study does not actualy show that cell phone use while driving is the equivalent of DUI/DWI driving either. Interestingly, the study DUI/DWI drivers did not get into any accidents. The cell phone drivers did. Even the "scientists" were surprised by the results.

Quoting them, "Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet MORE aggressively. They followed the pace car MORE closely, were TWICE as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. 'Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly' from undistracted drivers, the researchers write." The more aggressive, more close and twice as late braking show impairment and not merely a distraction.

Based on this study one would think that cell phone drivers are more lethal than DUI/DWI drivers despite the findings noted in the paragraph above.

Additionally, "In reality, 80 percent of all fatal alcohol-related accidents occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. when drunken drivers tend to be fatigued. Average blood-alcohol levels in those accidents are twice 0.08 percent. Forty percent of the roughly 42,000 annual U.S. traffic fatalities involve alcohol."

How can anyone conclude that this study was intented to do anything other than to challenge to lawful use of cell phones while driving. The "simulated drives were conducted during mornings." As the "scientists" acknowledged that there was little to no fatigue during the testing which is a component of "fatal alcohol-related accidents."

Relying on the article and study that you rely on, it does not make sense to claim that the impacts are equivalent when there are 10,000 alcohol-related fatalities each year but only (in a relative sense) 700 cell phone-related accidents in 14 years. That is about 50 cell phone-related accidents annually. Fatalities vs. accidents and 10k deaths vs. 50 nonfatalities. Keep in mind, your article also suggests that more people use their cell phones while driving than driving impaired by alcohol or drugs. Under your theory and theirs, shouldn't their be far more cell phone-related accidents if not more cell phone-related fatalities?

Despite the anomolous study results, and based on real-world statistics, alcohol is far more lethal to impaired drivers and other unimpaired drivers and passengers than cell phone use. It seems as though legislatures have corectly found that DUI/DWI driving should result in more severe penalties than cell phone driving.

Finally, impaired is a legal term of art. Being distracted and being impaired are not the same under the law.

Not black and white...

GN2 wrote:

The study that you are relying on does not say that cell phone use guarantees an accident, it says what we all generally know which is that it increases the likelihood of an accident (5.36 times more than a person who is undistracted).

The study does not actualy show that cell phone use while driving is the equivalent of DUI/DWI driving either. Interestingly, the study DUI/DWI drivers did not get into any accidents. The cell phone drivers did. Even the "scientists" were surprised by the results.

Quoting them, "Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet MORE aggressively. They followed the pace car MORE closely, were TWICE as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. 'Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly' from undistracted drivers, the researchers write." The more aggressive, more close and twice as late braking show impairment and not merely a distraction.

Based on this study one would think that cell phone drivers are more lethal than DUI/DWI drivers despite the findings noted in the paragraph above.

Additionally, "In reality, 80 percent of all fatal alcohol-related accidents occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. when drunken drivers tend to be fatigued. Average blood-alcohol levels in those accidents are twice 0.08 percent. Forty percent of the roughly 42,000 annual U.S. traffic fatalities involve alcohol."

How can anyone conclude that this study was intented to do anything other than to challenge to lawful use of cell phones while driving. The "simulated drives were conducted during mornings." As the "scientists" acknowledged that there was little to no fatigue during the testing which is a component of "fatal alcohol-related accidents."

Relying on the article and study that you rely on, it does not make sense to claim that the impacts are equivalent when there are 10,000 alcohol-related fatalities each year but only (in a relative sense) 700 cell phone-related accidents in 14 years. That is about 50 cell phone-related accidents annually. Fatalities vs. accidents and 10k deaths vs. 50 nonfatalities. Keep in mind, your article also suggests that more people use their cell phones while driving than driving impaired by alcohol or drugs. Under your theory and theirs, shouldn't their be far more cell phone-related accidents if not more cell phone-related fatalities?

Despite the anomolous study results, and based on real-world statistics, alcohol is far more lethal to impaired drivers and other unimpaired drivers and passengers than cell phone use. It seems as though legislatures have corectly found that DUI/DWI driving should result in more severe penalties than cell phone driving.

Finally, impaired is a legal term of art. Being distracted and being impaired are not the same under the law.

There are many studies (not "relying" on any of them, just quoting), and I'll admit that the "guarantee" was exaggeration on my part. The truth is that the causes for accidents are many and not in black and white. It is a gray area with many factors, it just happens that cell phones are a big one. The law in my state mandates "hands free devices" and people don't want to comply. I say just give them a ticket if they have a phone in their hands. I bet people who think they have a "right" to use a phone while driving would think twice if the offense was put in the same category as DWI.

I've been the victim of many "near misses" caused by distracted drivers, most of them on cell phones. There is also the soccer mom that turns around while driving, to take care of a misbehaved child, while the car is going into the opposing lane of traffic; also the stupid boy kissing the girlfriend while the car is also going into opposing traffic. Why not pull over, stop and then smack the brat? Go park somewhere nice to kiss the girlfriend? My main point is that cops should enforce the law on ANY distracted driver. As someone put it above, you swerve in traffic: get a ticket. Period. If a cell phone user is the same as a drunk driver, I'll leave that to the "experts" to discuss. I'll accept it as fact based on my personal experiences with those morons.

--
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.

Crazy

onestep wrote:

Livingston clarified that a driver wouldn’t be pulled over for eating a french fry, but added: “I’ve seen people trying to eat a sandwich with both hands and trying to steer with their elbows. I’ve even seen a doctor trying to eat a bowl of cereal. Distracted driving is more dangerous than dangerous driving. You have to have control of the steering wheel.”

Everyone knows you steer with your knee while eating a sandwich with both hands. If you're trying to steer with your elbows, you have to lean forward too much.

overly broad law that could mean anything

and is completely unneeded. If a person is driving recklessly, there is already a law for that. I hate people using cell phones and driving poorly, eating and driving poorly, etc. But, it seems if a person is not in control of their vehicle there is already a law about that. Seems this is just another excuse to stop someone just because the police want to write another ticket.

This is just another silly law like "hate crime" laws. OK - so someone murders another person - there is already a law about that, what's true purpose of layering another law? Aren't all crimes done for "hate" of some kind or another?

This law is just about specific examples of reckless driving, IMHO.

--
___________________ Garmin 2455, 855, Oregon 550t

onestep wrote: Furthermore,

onestep wrote:

Furthermore, the ordinance restricts holding a phone while speaking into or listening to a phone

I'm surprised so many people are on board for not using the phone at all. Being responsible is one thing but banning the device altogether seems a little unreasonable to me.

...I'm all for banning texting, but calls?

"protection" can become tyranny

This seems to be an appropriate thread to post the idea I read this morning:

Quotation of the Day…Don Boudreaux (Economist at George Mason University)...04/02/2012

… is from page 230 of the 2003 edition of Benjamin Constant ‘s 1815 work, Principles of Politics Applicable to All Government (Dennis O’Keefe, trans., Etienne Hoffman, ed.):

If the State wished to oversee individuals in all the operations through which they might potentially harm each other, this would amount to restricting almost all freedom of action. Once having set itself up as the citizens’ guardian, it would soon become their tyrant.

--
Garmin nüvi 255LMT & 3760LMT - "Those who wish for fairness without first protecting freedom will end up with neither freedom nor fairness." - Milton Friedman

Uncontrollable &/or reflex actions

Just don't: sneeze (you may impair your visibility by spraying your windshield), blow your nose, or scratch an itch (no matter how unbearable), while driving. I'm not sure what category cleaning your glasses falls under?

What if..

What if you fart while driving, or try to change the radio station?

--
Nuvi 765T

Somethings are good for all

Somethings are good for all.

Seatbelts do reduce fatalities (granted, not always) by keeping occupants in the vehicle. I have read too many accounts of people being "ejected" from the vehicle and dying on impact with a stationary object or having the vehicle they were in crush them while it's rolling. Ask any NASCAR driver if they wear their Seatbelts off the track. Bet it's 100% YES.

MC helmets save lives also.

I first drove a MC in 1963. What a thrill! No glasses or goggles and no helmet. Just you and the wind and the MC.

First lesson: Riding behind buddy and he hit a wasp @ 45mph and it stung him - in corner of right eye. Duh! Wear eye protection. Also hard to drive in the rain w/out glasses or goggles.

Second lesson: You can die @ 25mph. Good friend was at company picnic and had argument w/girlfriend. Got mad and left. Paved access road had 90° bend where it met the RR tracks. He was doing 25mph, w/helmut hanging on the handlebars, when bike skidded out, threw him into the air and his head came down on the RR rail. Now it's possible that he could have also been wearing his helmet and instead broken his neck and died - but that's only one of many possibilities.

If it does cut injuries and deaths, then I'm all for it.

Also, someone else's bravado (or stupidity) will cause my insurance rates to go up when they get injured or die.

--
Metricman Nuvi 660, GTM-20 Traffic Receiver Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

sponsored links



Navigation



User login

Leave this blank! This field helps block spambots.

poi factory



Who's online

There are currently 9 users and 55 guests online.

Online users

  • towguy123
  • ndrider
  • CraigW
  • Ed Y
  • donkeydewdew
  • crathbun
  • spurrierfan
  • Jim1348
  • Nibdog