Then hopefully you'll never witness an impaired driver, or be following a car after a hit and run, etc.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/distracteddriving.htm
Thoughts?
BC already passed something similar, and on top of that new impaired driving laws.
Basically, you are only allowed to use your phone if it is via a one touch hands free system (headset / speaker phone).. You can not dial unless it is via voice. You are permitted a GPS but not allows to touch it or make changes to it while in motion.
The impaired driving limit is so low now that 1 full glass of wine could result in you getting charged , licence suspended and your car impounded it is essentially zero tolerance now.
My issue is that the 90% of people who rarely talk on the phone WHILE driving are now gonna be unable (or likely to be unwilling) to help out "emergency services" in the rare case that they are a witness to a crime or emergency, since they can't even pull over to the side and phone 911 and give details, nope now they've got to go to a "rest stop" or whatever.
The reason for the legislation makes sense, the execution of it is gonna be a freakin' nightmare... will be interesting to see how much of a "stink" the general public makes, considering this is redneck Alberta, the land of the free, the home of the never-gonna-accept-provincial-sales-tax, etc.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on May 10, 2010, 09:40:49 AM
since they can't even pull over to the side and phone 911 and give details, nope now they've got to go to a "rest stop" or whatever.
Where does it state that? It states you must be off the road way in the FAQ.
At any rate, Bluetooth headsets became DIRT CHEAP rather quickly this year... nearly every cellphone made in the last 3+ years supports them.. There isn't really an excuse. Not to mention the % of new cars that have built in bluetooth hands free due to laws like this. My Dad even has a bluetooth headset now, they really are not that hard to use..
Quote from: Lazybones on May 10, 2010, 09:53:20 AM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on May 10, 2010, 09:40:49 AM
since they can't even pull over to the side and phone 911 and give details, nope now they've got to go to a "rest stop" or whatever.
Where does it state that? It states you must be off the road way in the FAQ.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4213.htm#jm_sideofroad
or maybe it's just the Grumpy Old Man in me, I guess I miss simpler times (http://www.crispygamer.com/comics/hijinks/hijinks-2008-03-06.aspx)...
As it is a fine only and no demerits, expect NHL players and the like to completely ignore the law. $172 to someone making $1,500/hr is like a drop in a bucket. Or maybe a drop in a giant rain barrel.
This is going to be so hard to enforce, and cost so little to people who get caught, it's not going to change attitudes.
Oh, and a bunch of studies have shown that hands-free is just as dangerous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device)
Quote from: Darren Dirt on May 10, 2010, 09:55:59 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on May 10, 2010, 09:53:20 AM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on May 10, 2010, 09:40:49 AM
since they can't even pull over to the side and phone 911 and give details, nope now they've got to go to a "rest stop" or whatever.
Where does it state that? It states you must be off the road way in the FAQ.
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4213.htm#jm_sideofroad
Calling 911 would constitute "emergency" in regards to that FAQ, methinks.
I think the main reason that hands free is mandatory for voice is not safety but so they and enforce on dip Sh$@ drivers LOOKING AND TYPING on their phone while driving.. makes enforcement easier when all cases of holding / dialing a phone are forbidden.
Laws like this are needed when I am passed on the freeway by a guy driving with this knee and typing on this blackberry.
Driving is not a right.
Talking on your cell phone is not a right (although the speak over it might be).
These are all conveniences people feel entitled to.
Quote from: Thorin on May 10, 2010, 10:58:04 AM
This is going to be so hard to enforce, and cost so little to people who get caught, it's not going to change attitudes.
Exactly.
It's like Red Light Cameras. In practice,
obvious cash grab. But they claim in theory it's to reduce people running red lights, instead it causes more people to run amber (orange/yellow/whatever) lights ... when if they wanted the claimed result, they could just improve the colour cycles (i.e. add 2 more seconds before it switches to red, add 1 or 2 seconds before the opposing green kicks in).
If they really want to reduce distracted driving, just have thousands of cameras all over the place like England, then put up a Youtube channel of all the IDIOTS doing IDIOT THINGS behind the wheel. Would be free, and the humiliation factor would change attitudes, very very quickly. MEMES spread so fast, and YT so popular, could be an obernight way of getting their claimed result to happen... IF that is indeed what they want to happen. And not something
else.
If someone is driving all over the road you'd think the cops would have a reason for pulling them over already. I don't see the point to this bill. Dangerous driving == dangerous driving, doesn't it?
Quote from: Mr. Analog on May 10, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
If someone is driving all over the road you'd think the cops would have a reason for pulling them over already. I don't see the point to this bill. Dangerous driving == dangerous driving, doesn't it?
Now they get to pull you over if you aren't even driving dangerously. If you have a phone in your hand, and they see it, cue cops.
Quote from: Tom on May 10, 2010, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on May 10, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
If someone is driving all over the road you'd think the cops would have a reason for pulling them over already. I don't see the point to this bill. Dangerous driving == dangerous driving, doesn't it?
Now they get to pull you over if you aren't even driving dangerously. If you have a phone in your hand, and they see it, cue cops.
If you are driving and have a cellphone in your hand, you have one less hand ready to grab the wheel and react.. It is a bill to save people from their own stupidity.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on May 10, 2010, 08:08:53 PM
If someone is driving all over the road you'd think the cops would have a reason for pulling them over already. I don't see the point to this bill. Dangerous driving == dangerous driving, doesn't it?
Problem with those transfixed on their phone is that they might be driving in a perfectly normal, right until they fail to stop for a read light, rear end another car that suddenly slowed down or slam into a pedestrian crossing a cross walk.
The VAST majority of the population are VERY poor at multitasking!
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Human-Multitasking-Hype-Proved-Wrong-94874.shtml
Ooh, well I think that's cool. I've only not felt safe in a vehicle twice in my life, once when I was offroading through a field and the other time was when this jerkass kept checking his phone for texts we were swerving all over the @%&#in' place (I'm just glad it was late and there was no traffic on the Yellowhead!!)
Quote from: Lazybones on May 10, 2010, 08:34:08 PM
If you are driving and have a cellphone in your hand, you have one less hand ready to grab the wheel and react.. It is a bill to save people from their own stupidity.
Supposedly, this bill is meant to save the rest of us from someone being distracted and hurting, maiming, or killing us. Although if they hurt, maim, or kill us, this bill should not be applied - heavier charges should be laid.
If the reason is to make sure you have two hands on the wheel, how come cops get to keep working their radios and in-car computers while driving?
How come having two hands on the wheel while being distracted by the conversation in your ear is not considered dangerous?
-----
For me, there are three problems with the bill:
1. The bill doesn't cover hands-free conversations, even though studies are showing hands-free conversations to be a similar level of distraction to hand-held conversations
2. The bill imposes only monetary penalties; well-off people will care a whole lot less than poor people, so expect to be rear-ended or t-boned by the millionaires on cells
3. The bill covers being distracted when not causing an accident while Careless Driving is supposed to cover being distracted when driving dangerously, but it's easy to see that cops will find the suggested law much easier to apply (phone in hand? no need to prove they were careless!) so there will be less Careless Driving charges
This bill will have a positive effect, though - the government will advertise the hell out of it as the start date nears, so lots of people will hear the message that texting while driving
is not okay.
When the government started their don't-drink-and-drive ads way long ago, the incidence of drunk driving went down. More recently, funding to said advertisements has been cut, and the incidence of drunk driving has gone up again. This suggests to me that telling people not to do something because it's dangerous
actually makes them less likely to do it, and all the ads that we'll get about texting while driving being dangerous will reduce the number of people that text and drive.
-----
To be clear, I'm happy that it will become illegal to be distracted while driving, with a definition of "distracted" (roughly equal to texting, eating a bowl of cereal, curling your hair, or shaving). Although actually it was already illegal (see Driving Without Due Care and Attention) but cops weren't bothering to charge people unless they caused an accident.
So I guess I'm happy that "distracted" is being better defined. I'm unhappy, though, that the theoretical punishment for being distracted has actually gone down (now you get a $172 fine instead of a Driving Without Due Care and Attention charge that carries a larger fine and demerits).
QuoteHow come having two hands on the wheel while being distracted by the conversation in your ear is not considered dangerous?
Our lawmakers are pussies. They were afraid of the reaction that might cause.
Quote from: Tom on May 11, 2010, 01:56:30 PM
QuoteHow come having two hands on the wheel while being distracted by the conversation in your ear is not considered dangerous?
Our lawmakers are pussies. They were afraid of the reaction that might cause.
Pulling over people for holding a phone is enforceable as there is a clear visible problem.
How do you spot a driver talking on hands free vs singing along in the car or talking to a passenger? Only after the fact when you check the call records.. thats how.
You really have NO EXCUSE to be handling your phone while driving...
As for cop radios vs cell phones.. You have to hold a cellphone to your head with one hand, a CB may be push to talk but it generally leaves you close to hands free. You also don't have to READ your CB to answer it, as many cellphone users feel they MUST read the caller ID info before answering... and there is no DIALING on a CB you are just one one channel.
Celphone conversations are bad, headset or not, but DIALING AND READING = 0 attention to the road for most people, at best some people can blind dial on a keypad but I bet they can't on a touch screen phone.. THIS is why voice activation and headsets are better.
Quote from: Lazybones on May 10, 2010, 08:41:07 PM
Problem with those transfixed on their phone is that they might be driving in a perfectly normal, right until they fail to stop for a read light, rear end another car that suddenly slowed down or slam into a pedestrian crossing a cross walk.
The VAST majority of the population are VERY poor at multitasking!
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Human-Multitasking-Hype-Proved-Wrong-94874.shtml
might as well link to the the Mythbusters ep (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode33) where Kari (http://www.google.com/images?q=kari+bryon) is tested while driving and doing various non-driving tasks... hilarity ensues* of course.
*mostly cones getting knocked over, and her laughing, IIRC.
edit: direct link found (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-cell-phone-vs-drunk-driving-minimyth.html). (bonus alkeehawl-related clip hear (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-beer-googles-minimyth.html).)
Quote from: Thorin on May 11, 2010, 11:50:19 AM
For me, there are three problems with the bill:
1. The bill doesn't cover hands-free conversations, even though studies are showing hands-free conversations to be a similar level of distraction to hand-held conversations
watch the MB clip.
Also, there's an interesting comment (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode33#comments) by "George":
Quote
Driving while talking on a cell phone is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated? would be BUSTED if the tests were done correctly.
There are three (3) missing tests. 1. Driving the course while having a normal relaxed conversation on the cell phone. 2. Driving the course while having a normal relaxed conversation with a passenger (not on a cell phone). 3. Driving the course while being asked the same complicated questions by a passenger (not on a cell phone). 4. One more test that should be run is driving the course while holding a cell phone to your ear with no conversation just to confirm that holding the phone is not the problem.
You?ll find that driving with a normal conversation on a phone or with a passenger is similar to the first control test. And driving with the intense questions from a passenger will be similar to driving with the intense questions over the phone. The conversation, not the device causes the distraction.
Also, one major difference is that a phone can be put down if a challenging driving situation arises, the intoxication can?t be turned off at will. If the tests are all run letting the driver decide when to talk and when to concentrate on driving (like in real life) there will be even more contrast between the test drives and driving intoxicated.
The ?incomplete? driving with cell phone test is what is BUSTED!
May 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM
All I know is this, I see some people having trouble while walking and talking on cell phones on the sidewalk, there just seems to be something about having a handset in their hand, next to their ear that turns their brains off.
Funny thing about the responses in this thread are that I think only one of the those that responded both has a licences and owns a vehicle / drives regularly.
Really? Out of five of us discussing it, three have licenses. Lazy, you still drive, right? I _definitely_ still drive (to a crap-load of arenas in the winter), and I thought Darren was puttering to work these days, too.
Quote from: Thorin on May 12, 2010, 01:38:17 PM
Really? Out of five of us discussing it, three have licenses. Lazy, you still drive, right? I _definitely_ still drive (to a crap-load of arenas in the winter), and I thought Darren was puttering to work these days, too.
Well I wasn't counting my self and only those that responded to this thread.
Thorin - Both
Darren - licensed but I was not sure of his vehicle status my knowledge is a little out of date...
Tom - Neither
Mr.A - Neither
So based on my assumption on DD you where the only other licensed frequent driver in this thread.
I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything though. People like to throw that argument out when they want to ignore inconvenient arguments.
Sure I don't have a license, but I have been in a vehicle when people were on the phone, and otherwise occupied. As well as been around vehicles with drivers otherwise disposed. Been frightened for my life a few times because of drivers who think a call or the radio is more important than /driving/.
I haven't had much time to read through this thread of late, but did happen to get a free moment today. That being said, it could also be because you guys pointed out you need more responses from regular drivers.
I commute at least 30mins one way to work. I am in heavy traffic as it is during rush hour when I go to and from work. I then typically am on the roads 3 or 4 nights during the evenings and at least twice on the weekends. So that is my experience in a Week on the roads.
Both my vehicle and my GFs have Blue Tooth enabled audio decks for Device handshaking and operations. Both were installed by me because one simple action in regards to cell phones. When you hold a phone:
- You can't shift a stick easily with the phone - have to let go of either the steering wheel with a hand or the phone, and it is typically easier to let go of the wheel than interrupt a conversation on a phone
- It is a pain to shoulder check with a chicken wing bent arm
- Your arm gets tired, your neck gets sore
- Cell Phone speaker phone is crap in a car, worse in a truck - the mic just picks up all noises, so typically you have to lift it near your mouth
- Dialing a number is a pain
- Getting the phone out of my holster on my belt, or out of the GF's purse - hard
What does most of this above do to me as a driver? Frustrates me, causes me to pay just a little more to what I am doing with the Phone than my driving, and therefore increases my chances of causing myself or others harm.
Although conversations can be engaging, frustrating and just as displacing/distracting, it doesn't matter whether it is over the Phone or In Person. The Phone device just adds to the problem, but isn't the source in this case.
So with all that... what do I think about the legislation? I think it is a good thing as a deterrent, but I know it is just a cash cow. As you all have said in one form or another, it will be hard to enforce, and when it is enforced for the reasons of safety, it is already blatantly obvious with the driver being all over the road.
So IMO, Hands Free devices with Voice Activation (and this is key), whether in your ear, or through your car's audio system, is the best. Hands free dialing, answering, and automation of the process without the use of the Hands or your Eyes is on par with someone sitting beside you with the same conversation. In fact, in some cases better, because people have a tendency to look at someone when talking to them.
This is my take on the whole conversation.
Quote from: Tom on May 12, 2010, 04:14:02 PM
I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything though. People like to throw that argument out when they want to ignore inconvenient arguments.
Sure I don't have a license, but I have been in a vehicle when people were on the phone, and otherwise occupied. As well as been around vehicles with drivers otherwise disposed. Been frightened for my life a few times because of drivers who think a call or the radio is more important than /driving/.
Quote from: Lazybones on May 12, 2010, 03:38:55 PM
Darren - licensed but I was not sure of his vehicle status my knowledge is a little out of date...
To quote (http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/three/subofme.html) a certain Kid in a certain Hall: On The Subject Of Me...
I:
- am "licensed"
- drive daily
- have no problem with receiving/making quick calls while driving (because I'm not weaving thru an Obstacle Course!) perhaps because I am fully aware that I need to be paying extra-attention to the road and other cars around me (which often -- apparently -- have turn signal lights not working, at least when changing lanes! ::) )
- DO often have problems with kids fighting in the car distracting me from focused attention to road/cars
- therefore hold to the opinion that Bad Drivers don't need a cell phone to be dangerous and complete idiots on the road, but obviously if they are ENGAGED in a deep/lengthy/emotional conversation it certainly doesn't help -- but having a phone to your ear doesn't immediately make you STUPID/DANGEROUS.
(http://www.voanews.com/voanews_shared/images/pod/english-1594.jpg)
From my perspective as a handicapped pedestrian paying attention is both the job of the pedestrian and the driver, however that said I can only do so well.
I have been in a lot of near misses in my life and more than a few in just the last couple of years (the intersection at 104 and 102 seems to be a distracted driver magnet). In one case (about three weeks ago) this guy driving a jacked up pickup nearly hit the old lady walking ahead of me and actually dropped his phone out the window as he stamped on the brakes, it was unbelievable.
Here's another definition that could fit for "distracted": breastfeeding while driving.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2010/06/15/14397631.html (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2010/06/15/14397631.html). Seriously. Stupid Germans!
Quote from: Thorin on June 22, 2010, 03:07:03 PM
Here's another definition that could fit for "distracted": breastfeeding while driving.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2010/06/15/14397631.html (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2010/06/15/14397631.html). Seriously. Stupid Germans!
That one is already covered with a similar law hear.
"She was fined with failing to provide proper security for her child and herself. She wasn't wearing a seatbelt when she was pulled over, police said."
PS, it is very hard to travel by car with an infant that is breast feeding as you need to stop every time they wake up hungry..
Unless you pump and use a bottle to feed the breastmilk to the baby while someone else is driving. Still, with kids there are definitely more stops.
That is nuts!!
For Pete's sake, can't people get this into their heads?
Nope.
Now, if we really cared we'd pay higher taxes so that we can have more traffic cops driving around enforcing all these laws, catching and charging the actual drivers, instead of using cameras and issuing tickets to the registered owners. Cuz guess what? If I'm rich and I get a two hundred dollar ticket, I don't care, but if I'm rich and my license gets suspended for a month due to demerits, I will care!
Yup, in Ontario they're not bothering to enforce this law, so people are going right ahead and texting while driving again:
http://www.wheels.ca/article/792399
This is just one of those things they will never enforce given their current methodology.
Set up checkstops like you would for seatbelts/drunk driving.
They made a point here to enforce it heavily once it went in... there where even recent reminders...
Nothing like flying down the highway, bumper to bumper and sing some moron with his head down typing away on his blackberry.