Thread Tools Display Modes
11-02-09, 08:14 AM   #41
Shirik
Blasphemer!
Premium Member
WoWInterface Super Mod
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 818
Where I live, it is actually illegal to drive while using a hands free kit (in most situations). It is perfectly legal to use cell phone while driving otherwise. The reasoning behind this isn't trivial, but I've had it explained to me once and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than any justification for banning the use of cell phones except when using a hands free kit that I have ever heard.
__________________
たしかにひとつのじだいがおわるのお
ぼくはこのめでみたよ
だけどつぎがじぶんおばんだってことわ
しりたくなかったんだ
It's my turn next.

Shakespeare liked regexes too!
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 08:41 AM   #42
forty2j
A Cobalt Mageweaver
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Shirik View Post
Where I live, it is actually illegal to drive while using a hands free kit (in most situations). It is perfectly legal to use cell phone while driving otherwise. The reasoning behind this isn't trivial, but I've had it explained to me once and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than any justification for banning the use of cell phones except when using a hands free kit that I have ever heard.
That's a new one.

I've heard of banning it, period - the theory there is that it's not the act of holding the phone (using either your hand or your head/neck/shoulder) that's the problem, it's that your mind is focused on too many things at once and it's the conversation, not the traffic, that tends to come to the foreground.

I do not see, however, how it therefore follows that it should be allowed only when not using the headset. I'd love to hear that justification.

As for the actual legistlative issue.. I have to agree with Republic on this. If we had a law for every time someone said "They're oughtta be a law", well, we'd have millions of confusing, often contradictory laws, and basic freedoms would be blurred, obscured, removed. There are some clear-cut cases - like putting knives in other people - that should be outlawed except in specific situations. But if it's not obvious, skip the law.

In this case, driving while distracted by cellphones ranks fairly low on causes of accidents - behind things like driving while drunk, driving while changing the radio station (which has been going on since, oh, the 50's?), driving while tending to a child... plainly put, the roads aren't 100% safe, and focusing on one little niche cause of accidents isn't going to make much of a dent. Look at drunk driving - making it illegal didn't exactly make it not occur, now did it? I'll agree the law needs to exist in this case, but all it results in is something extra to charge the person with when the accident did occur.

For technology-related cases, the offending party ends up with a banged-up car, an immediate hole in their pocketbook, and a higher insurance rate. The victimized party ends up with a healthy dose of Life Happens, and eventually a fixed or new car. Modern car technology makes it unlikely this kind of accident will be fatal.. so, let it be.


Full Disclosure:
I will drive while holding the phone near my lap, on speakerphone. (Bluetooth, it turns out, is a pain to keep track of, keep charged, and put in ear only when needed.) I will also send & receive text messages when all I see are brake lights or a red traffic light - i.e. when not moving.
I have also been involved in 3 accidents:
1. Rear ended in Stop & Go traffic by someone from Maine who wasn't accustomed to NJ traffic patterns. He was also tired, and was about 20 hours in to a straight-through drive from Florida, alone. I was not manipulating technology at the time, and neither was the other driver.
2. Front car in a 4-car accident in Stop & Go traffic.. when the driver of the rear car mistook the brake peddle for the gas and slammed in to the car in front of them, pushing that car into another, and the other into me. Fortunately my car held. I was not manipulating technology at the time, and neither was anyone else involed.
3. Lost brake control on a damp, oily exit ramp. Steering remained operational, so I was able to quickly pull off the road and hit the guard rail rather than hit the car in front of me. I was not manipulating technology at the time.

Last edited by forty2j : 11-02-09 at 08:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 10:28 AM   #43
Seerah
Fishing Trainer
 
Seerah's Avatar
WoWInterface Super Mod
Featured
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,860
Some people forget that there are other things on the road besides other cars.

People crossing the street at an intersection.
Kids chasing a ball.
Motorcycles/Scooters (in some states, there is no helmet law)
Bicycles
Pets/Animals/Deer
etc...

I can't find the article now, but recently here in Memphis, a motorcyclist was stopped at a red light (he was wearing a helmet). He was rear-ended by a car going full-speed for the road and died on-scene. The driver of the car was texting. Phone records show that they had hid "send" *just* before crashing into the motorcycle.

There have also been studies showing that when texting, drivers take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.5 seconds. That is a long time.

There are already laws in some states banning texting while driving. A car is a deadly weapon, while your home is not. There's even a term for when you kill someone with your car - "vehicular manslaughter".


I'm not saying that there have to be laws about every little thing, or that people cannot use their best judgment. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be etiher. Hell, I disagree with some laws (as of this summer, people in Tennessee can carry guns into public parks ). But don't be so surprised or appalled when these topics come up and you see other people's opinions on them.


Think of it this way: if you have never had an accident where one or more parties were "using technology" then you have a different view/opinion than someone who has had that experience. If you were the father/mother/whatever of that man killed by the person texting, you're going to have a different take on the situation.

When we talk about (most) laws, we're talking about what's the greater good for everyone. The first amendment does not take precedence over any law about spouting obscenities in public, verbal threats, etc. The fact that alcohol is legal to drink whenever you want, does not override any drunk driving laws.

With freedom comes responsibility. We already know that not everyone is on the same page as far as common sense goes. Laws are for those times that someone's lack of common sense impedes on someone else's basic rights. Your freedom does not override my life. And vice versa. It's a delicate balance, yes, but one that has to be respected.


If you say "I'm an American", then you understand and respect the fact that America was founded with a certain set of laws. If people say "I'm a Christian", then you understand and accept that Christianity holds a certain set of laws/rules. Etc... Rules and the consequences of breaking them are everywhere. If they weren't, the world would be in chaos - human nature and varying levels of "common sense" have proven this to be true on so many occasions and on so many levels. (Lord of the Flies, anyone?)


/tldr... Having rules/laws aren't necessarily a bad thing, and common sense isn't for everyone. Respect other people's rights and the world around you, please.
__________________
"You'd be surprised how many people violate this simple principle every day of their lives and try to fit square pegs into round holes, ignoring the clear reality that Things Are As They Are." -Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh

  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 01:36 PM   #44
MidgetMage55
Grinch!
 
MidgetMage55's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,498
One important note. Driving a car is a privilege (not a right as many people believe) and is subject to as many laws as they choose to throw at it. It may suck, you don't have to like it. It is however a fact of the matter.
__________________

I think Hong Kong Phooey was a ninja AND a pirate. That was just too much awesome. - Yhor
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 02:34 PM   #45
forty2j
A Cobalt Mageweaver
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Seerah View Post
A car is a deadly weapon, while your home is not. There's even a term for when you kill someone with your car - "vehicular manslaughter".
This actually gets to my point.

There is a law on the books that says when you negligently hit someone with your car, you're probably going to jail.

If the threat of jail time if something happens isn't going to stop someone from engaging in risky behavior, such as texting while actively moving on an urban street populated with all its wheeled and non-wheeled denizens, why would 2 pts on their license and a $125 fine suddenly have a deterrent effect?

In the meantime, the laws are generally written to be black-and-white, so that the people who can use stuff responsibly and were never going to hit anyone get punished, with no overall impact to public safety.

If anything, I would support these laws being tack-ons to existing offenses.. e.g. if you were performing one of these behaviors (texting, changing CD, rosy palming) while involved in an accident it's a double penalty or something. But to just blanket ban little niches of activity seems draconian for what it achieves.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 03:02 PM   #46
Vyper
A Rage Talon Dragon Guard
 
Vyper's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Seerah View Post
Hell, I disagree with some laws (as of this summer, people in Tennessee can carry guns into public parks ).
You think that's bad? In Idaho we recently passed legislation that guns could be carried in public buildings. We literally had people packing hunting rifles through the kids section of the Boise Public Library, just because they could.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 03:08 PM   #47
Vyper
A Rage Talon Dragon Guard
 
Vyper's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by forty2j View Post
This actually gets to my point.

There is a law on the books that says when you negligently hit someone with your car, you're probably going to jail.

If the threat of jail time if something happens isn't going to stop someone from engaging in risky behavior, such as texting while actively moving on an urban street populated with all its wheeled and non-wheeled denizens, why would 2 pts on their license and a $125 fine suddenly have a deterrent effect?
Because everyone assumes they are the only ones who do it responsibly, and would never hit anyone because of it. Thus their behavior doesn't change. On the other hand when they wind up writing the $125 check for their first offense, they go "Holy Carp batman! Texting while driving it expensive!" (Yes, they all say Holy Carp... it's a religious thing)

Originally Posted by forty2j View Post
If anything, I would support these laws being tack-ons to existing offenses.. e.g. if you were performing one of these behaviors (texting, changing CD, rosy palming) while involved in an accident it's a double penalty or something. But to just blanket ban little niches of activity seems draconian for what it achieves.
I actually agree with the tack-ons wholeheartedly, but we need laws against the activity even without an accident. Just because you get home drunk safely one night, or manage to text safely on the freeway once, does not mean you weren't putting others lives at risk.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 03:30 PM   #48
wurmfood
A Flamescale Wyrmkin
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
... they go "Holy Carp batman! Texting while driving it expensive!" (Yes, they all say Holy Carp... it's a religious thing)
At least I'm not the only one who uses Holy Carp. I love that phrase.

I actually agree with the tack-ons wholeheartedly, but we need laws against the activity even without an accident. Just because you get home drunk safely one night, or manage to text safely on the freeway once, does not mean you weren't putting others lives at risk.
California has a number of tack-on ones that I really wish were considered full offenses. The one I'm the biggest fan of is it being illegal to drive without your headlights on in rain or fog.

My view on these various laws is quite simple: Yes, it's frustrating that they're legislating something that should be common sense. However, if humanity is good at anything it's showing that common sense isn't that common. They're also sometimes needed because there is the simple argument that if something isn't illegal then it's just fine to do. Do I wish this weren't needed? Absolutely. Do I think it's a little absurd sometimes? Yup. But I, and others, don't see a better option available.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 03:38 PM   #49
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Seerah View Post
If you say "I'm an American", then you understand and respect the fact that America was founded with a certain set of laws
You also understand the need for restrictions and limitations upon that "certain set of laws".
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 04:00 PM   #50
Seerah
Fishing Trainer
 
Seerah's Avatar
WoWInterface Super Mod
Featured
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,860
Originally Posted by Republic View Post
You also understand the need for restrictions and limitations upon that "certain set of laws".
Just reposting, in case you missed it in the wall-o-text.

Originally Posted by Seerah
With freedom comes responsibility. We already know that not everyone is on the same page as far as common sense goes. Laws are for those times that someone's lack of common sense impedes on someone else's basic rights. Your freedom does not override my life. And vice versa. It's a delicate balance, yes, but one that has to be respected.
(bolded for emphasis)
__________________
"You'd be surprised how many people violate this simple principle every day of their lives and try to fit square pegs into round holes, ignoring the clear reality that Things Are As They Are." -Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh

  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 05:17 PM   #51
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Seerah View Post
Just reposting, in case you missed it in the wall-o-text.
Yeah, I was just adding to what you were saying. I just did it in bullet form so the point wasn't overlooked. I wasn't trying to walk over your point. Rather, I was trying to highlight it or something...anyway.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 05:21 PM   #52
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by MidgetMage55 View Post
One important note. Driving a car is a privilege (not a right as many people believe) and is subject to as many laws as they choose to throw at it.
I agree it's a privilege, but that is not how the system works in the United States of America.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 05:24 PM   #53
Republic
Paladin
 
Republic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Vyper View Post
I actually agree with the tack-ons wholeheartedly, but we need laws against the activity even without an accident.
To exactly what extent are you willing to give up your personal liberty?
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 06:17 PM   #54
Shirik
Blasphemer!
Premium Member
WoWInterface Super Mod
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 818
Originally Posted by forty2j View Post
That's a new one.

I've heard of banning it, period - the theory there is that it's not the act of holding the phone (using either your hand or your head/neck/shoulder) that's the problem, it's that your mind is focused on too many things at once and it's the conversation, not the traffic, that tends to come to the foreground.
Precisely. Thus, headsets do not give you any gain. And I agree 100% with that philosophy. The thought that someone is somehow driving "better" because they aren't holding the phone is totally inconceivable to me, given that it's not the phone that's the problem, but rather the distraction. Hell, I think most people drive with just one hand anyway.

Originally Posted by forty2j View Post
I do not see, however, how it therefore follows that it should be allowed only when not using the headset. I'd love to hear that justification.
The law is not actually directed specifically at cell phone usage, but is a general law. Instead, the law targets anything in or around your ears. You are not allowed to have anything in or around your ears (with obvious exceptions like hearing aids) because it impairs your ability to hear external noises, much like those that Seerah has already mentioned. Horns, sirens, and other vehicles are just a few of those noises that you are less likely to hear while your ears are blocked. For that reason, not only cellular headsets, but also earmuffs, generic headphones, and noise cancellers are all forbidden.

There are, of course, systems that do not violate this law -- and that's why I said most, not all. In particular, where I live, a very common thing to buy is a handsfree system which instead uses your radio to hear the call. Again, I do not believe this is useful because it still acts as a distraction to the driver, but it does at least mitigate the loss of hearing.

-- Shirik
__________________
たしかにひとつのじだいがおわるのお
ぼくはこのめでみたよ
だけどつぎがじぶんおばんだってことわ
しりたくなかったんだ
It's my turn next.

Shakespeare liked regexes too!
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 06:32 PM   #55
Torhal
A Pyroguard Emberseer
 
Torhal's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,196
What blows my mind is that a great many people can drive a car while having a conversation with their passenger, but as soon as you swap the passenger for someone on the other end of a phone the driver can't seem to concentrate on the road as fully.
__________________
Whenever someone says "pls" because it's shorter than "please", I say "no" because it's shorter than "yes".

Author of NPCScan and many other AddOns.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 07:11 PM   #56
Bellan
A Defias Bandit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Torhal View Post
What blows my mind is that a great many people can drive a car while having a conversation with their passenger, but as soon as you swap the passenger for someone on the other end of a phone the driver can't seem to concentrate on the road as fully.
I actually heard the reason for this on the radio a while back. When you "multi-task" you don't actually do multiple things in parallel. You actually just switch your attention between them and that switching takes time (the exact amount varies by person and types of activities involved).

The difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the phone is that if something happens on the road that you have to react to, your passenger will likely also see it (or see you see it) and shut up which makes it easier (faster) for you to focus your attention on dealing with the situation on the road. A person on the phone can't know what's going on around your car so when something happens that you need to respond to, he or she just keeps on talking which makes it harder (slower) for you to shut them out and focus on driving.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 08:25 PM   #57
Jesamyn
<This Space for Rent>
 
Jesamyn's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 141
Thanks for that explanation. I was wondering the same thing Torhal posted.

However, it still begs the question of what's the difference between the person on the other end still talking and the ultra-jittery passenger going nuts because of perceived danger. Of course, I guess yelling 'shut up' to said jittery passenger takes care of the issue, but you're still dividing your attention.
__________________
I'm not an idiot. I'm just harmlessly psychotic.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 08:42 PM   #58
Bellan
A Defias Bandit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Jesamyn View Post
Thanks for that explanation. I was wondering the same thing Torhal posted.

However, it still begs the question of what's the difference between the person on the other end still talking and the ultra-jittery passenger going nuts because of perceived danger. Of course, I guess yelling 'shut up' to said jittery passenger takes care of the issue, but you're still dividing your attention.
I guess you could chalk it up to the difference between hearing and listening. If someone's talking to you, you want to listen and have your brain process the sounds you're hearing to decipher the language into meaning. If your passenger's just screaming, you'll hear it but there's not much listening and message decoding involved.
  Reply With Quote
11-02-09, 09:58 PM   #59
Jesamyn
<This Space for Rent>
 
Jesamyn's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 141
I was actually just playing devil's advocate a little bit, but that's a good point too.
__________________
I'm not an idiot. I'm just harmlessly psychotic.
  Reply With Quote
11-03-09, 12:00 AM   #60
Vyper
A Rage Talon Dragon Guard
 
Vyper's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Republic View Post
To exactly what extent are you willing to give up your personal liberty?
To exactly the point that it doesn't infringe on others. If you drive while texting, whether or not you have actually caused an accident this time, you are unnecessarily endangering my life. I seem to remember some quote somewhere about rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I notice life comes first there.

Originally Posted by Bellan View Post
The difference between talking to a passenger and talking on the phone is that if something happens on the road that you have to react to, your passenger will likely also see it (or see you see it) and shut up which makes it easier (faster) for you to focus your attention on dealing with the situation on the road. A person on the phone can't know what's going on around your car so when something happens that you need to respond to, he or she just keeps on talking which makes it harder (slower) for you to shut them out and focus on driving.
That may be some of it, yes but it's not the whole story. I have actually had to do quite a bit of research on this topic (English papers ftw! bcs us prgrmrs use gd eng oftn). People actually assign (as strange as it may be) a much higher priority to the phone conversation, than the passenger sitting next to them, giving it much more of their concentration. This causes the driver to miss significantly more of what is going on around them.

I'm afraid I don't have my original references from that paper (does anyone keep their college carp around after graduation?), but here's a link to a case study that puts some numbers on the passenger vs. cellphone debate:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCog...4-000597-1.pdf

Last edited by Vyper : 11-03-09 at 12:03 AM. Reason: Curses! Another typo! It's amazing I made it through english!
  Reply With Quote

WoWInterface » General Discussion » Chit-Chat » Survey: Distracted Driving

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off