Enjoy driving; you've got until Spring 2011!

[Darren Dirt]

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?

[Lazybones]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Lazybones]

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..

[Darren Dirt]

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...

[Thorin]

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

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.

[Lazybones]

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.

[Darren Dirt]

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.

[Mr. Analog]

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?

[Tom]

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.

[Lazybones]

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.

[Lazybones]

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

[Mr. Analog]

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!!)

[Thorin]

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).

[Tom]

How 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.