when are the cell phone fines going to be on a par with DUI?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

DUI = too drunk to know you are a hazzard
texting = too stupid to know you are a hazzard

Texting and chatting are even worse. Probably 90% of DUI drivers think they're ok to drive or just to make it home. But 100% of texters and chatters know they're doing that instead of paying attention to the road. Until it's really treated the same as a DUI, it will continue to be ignored.

I'd make a the penalty one year of only being allowed to walk or ride a motorcycle. That would thin the herd a little and teach them to appreciate attentive driving if they survived it.

[GH85Carrera]

I have long said that the driver of the car should be in a glass bubble on the front bumper with steel spikes pointed at their bodies. No one would ever run red lights or blow through stop signs. It would suck if you hit a deer or a any road debris however.

[lane912]

i think that this whole cell phone thing is about to jump the shark soon.
yes it is a handy tool that can lead to increased productivity
yes it is nice to have one device that can communicate with the rest of mankind in multiple ways all at once-
yes the thing is a distraction-
yes if used improperly it can kill you or others

if i am off the clock i turn off the work mail server push to the phone-
don't use it when driving, hard habit to break but I make a conscience effort to stick with it-

I would like to see traffic accidents using the cell phone records to aide court cases-
insurance company's slip in a clause stating they are not liable if able to prove cell phone use during accident-

[Rick Lee]

I'm trying to remember the last time I talked on a cell phone behind the wheel. I know it was sometime last summer and I pulled over into a residential area, parked on the side of the road and talked because it was a tenant emergency. Before that it was probably several years ago. I work in sales, live by my Blackberry and I still have no problem getting by without talking while driving. I've never texted while driving. I don't get the mentality of people who have to be on the phone all the time while driving. Are they all that much busier than I am? I'm pretty much available to my clients whenever I'm not sleeping. And what's with the people who only start to dial once they've turned their ignition on? Why not have the conversation before leaving the parking space?

[crustychief]

We have a hands free law, it is disheartening to see how many people think that if the phone is not pressed against their ear they aren't breaking the law. Maybe they thought the law said "ears free"?

[Bob Kontak]

I am in favor of strict laws against. The convenience is too tempting and I have effed up while driving because I was using the phone and the other guy - not on a phone - saved my ass.

The two don't mix.

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I'm trying to remember the last time I talked on a cell phone behind the wheel. I know it was sometime last summer and I pulled over into a residential area, parked on the side of the road and talked because it was a tenant emergency. Before that it was probably several years ago. I work in sales, live by my Blackberry and I still have no problem getting by without talking while driving. I've never texted while driving. I don't get the mentality of people who have to be on the phone all the time while driving. Are they all that much busier than I am? I'm pretty much available to my clients whenever I'm not sleeping. And what's with the people who only start to dial once they've turned their ignition on? Why not have the conversation before leaving the parking space?

No they aren't busier just much more selfish. I compare it to the plane landing and everyone who thinks they are someone must get on the phone to say, "Just landed, will see you in a few minutes".

There is just no freakin logical explanation.

[Rick Lee]

Oh, I'll always text my wife when I land. But it's only because I know I'm not moving out of that seat for at least 10 more min. and my doing so affects no one else.

Riding a motorcycle every day, I can see a lot more into other cars than cagers can. It's just amazing how everyone seems to have a phone to their ear. I can't imagine doing that. I don't even hold a phone to my ear at home. I use an earpiece. And I don't even think of calling someone while driving. The concept is just alien to me. Arriving alive is just too important.

[Christien]

Here in Ontario, we have laws against any use of a handheld device while driving. This includes talking/texting/emailing on a phone, but also using a GPS device, probably includes changing songs on your ipod too.

Here's the problem: after they enacted this law, cell-phone use accidents went UP. People were now texting under the steering wheel, in their lap, under the dash, etc. so the cops won't see them. So by putting a new law in place, they made the problem WORSE. But has there been any talk of repealing it? Not while they're raking in $155 each time they ticket someone.

I'm all for not using the phone while driving - I rarely if ever do, and always hands-free. But like pretty much every other moving violation, we're not going to actually make the roads safer without better driver education. That involves teaching kids better, right from the time they turn 16, to retesting every few years.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I don't get the mentality of people who have to be on the phone all the time while driving. Are they all that much busier than I am?

I'm an opponent of talking/texting while driving, but I have to admit I've been saved a lot of time and gas money in the past few years by being called while driving. I was off to do a shoot last week, looking for the guy's place and I got a call. "You in a tan pickup? You just passed my house." I could have looked for a long time before I found the place. Phones are a mixed blessing. To tell the truth, when their use becomes illegal I'll probably still take certain calls if I think I can do it without getting caught.

[GH85Carrera]

Many people believe their car will not run if they don't make a phone call. Much like cigarettes, I know a couple of smokers that will admit the second they get in a car they HAVE to light up.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Christien

Not while they're raking in $155 each time they ticket someone.

If DUI only cost $155, it'd be an epidemic too. I'd spend that much on a taxi before risking a DUI. And unlike deciding to wait for sobriety or grab a taxi or arrange for a designated driver, you can just turn your cell phone off, choose to not answer it or pull over to make a call. Totally legal, just about everywhere. Make using a cell phone or any kind of distracted driving cost you your license for 6-12 mos. and $15k in fines and insurance hikes and people will start taking it seriously. Where else can you be in charge of a 3000 lbs missile and not be in trouble for not being totally in control of it?

[cashflyer]

The fines will be on-par with DUI and and reckless driving just as soon as the municipalities realize how much revenue they can rake it.

Government cares about Revenue.
Not safety.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

The fines will be on-par with DUI and and reckless driving just as soon as the municipalities realize how much revenue they can rake it.

Government cares about Revenue.
Not safety.

I agree. So why not go after the low-hanging fruit, which would be a waterfall of revenue for the state AND make the roads safer? I don't get it.

[VINMAN]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

If DUI only cost $155, it'd be an epidemic too. I'd spend that much on a taxi before risking a DUI. And unlike deciding to wait for sobriety or grab a taxi or arrange for a designated driver, you can just turn your cell phone off, choose to not answer it or pull over to make a call. Totally legal, just about everywhere. Make using a cell phone or any kind of distracted driving cost you your license for 6-12 mos. and $15k in fines and insurance hikes and people will start taking it seriously. Where else can you be in charge of a 3000 lbs missile and not be in trouble for not being totally in control of it?

Exactly. Until they start enacting serious penalties, people wont care. Loss of driving privaleges has to be the main peanlty.

[ossiblue]

I agree with all above about the need for elimination of cell use while driving. I think the most effective way is to go about it the same way as with DUI--data based science, stricter punishments, stricter enforcement, and public education.

I'm old enough to remember how the public viewed DUI when, even in movies and on television, it was viewed with humor and relatively "harmless." I also remember the death counts that would be regularly broadcast over the news recapping the number of traffic fatalities recorded over a particular holiday such as Memorial Day or the Fourth of July, most due to drunk driving.

Fast forward. I now see public outrage at drunk drivers and their irresponsibility. I now see many more young people taking cabs and using designated drivers. I now see the public actively reporting suspected DUI to police. It's been a long road but the attitude of the majority of drivers has shifted away from tolerance to driving while intoxicated.

How was this done? By a combination of statical analysis, scientific testing on the relationship of blood alcohol and driving impairment, increased penalties for drunk driving, stepped up enforcement, and education. The same could be done with cell phone usage while driving. There needs to be a coordinated effort to eliminate the problem and that requires a change in public perception--away from it being "cool" or "necessary" to being irresponsible.

More published studies and more public service ads establishing the direct correlation between cell use and driving impairment is a start. People need to really believe they are impaired (as drivers) when using a cell (unlike DUI, there is no physical symptom associated with cell impairment after the call ends.) Harsher penalties and stricter enforcement need to be implemented. A focus on accidents in which cell use was a factor needs to be established--it needs to be a routine part of every investigation, just as toxicology tests are--as both a support for statistical arguments and public perception. Clear and objective education about the dangers of driving while using a cell needs to be as common as that regarding alcohol and drugs.

Eliminating cell use by all drivers all the time will never happen, just as eliminating all DUI drivers will not happen, but cell use can be made into a "persona non-grata" by the public at large (as has been driving drunk) and that will, eventually, reduce dramatically the problem we all face on the roads.

[Christien]

What about police who don't have the common sense to apply the law properly? I got a $155 ticket a few weeks ago for reading an email at a red light. Not texting, not talking, simply reading. At a complete stop. The light wasn't freshly red, nor was it almost green. I was 2 or 3 cars back, stopped cars all around me. That's not promoting public safety, that's tax collection. What if there was a mandatory roadside license suspension? Should I have had my car impounded for reading an email at red light? If so, then we ought to also ban eating or drinking in the car, changing the radio station, opening or closing the windows, changing the temperature on the a/c or heat controls, etc etc.

This is another case where legislation and tax revenues are trumping common sense. Like Rick said, drivers have to understand they're operating 3000 lbs of steel, with damage potential on par with a gun, maybe worse. You need to operate it safely when you're driving. Until people get that through their heads, no amount of ticketing, license suspensions, car impounds, etc. will improve safety on our roads.

[Rick Lee]

It is BS to get nailed for reading an email like that. But if you had been first at the light, it turned green and you didn't go (like happened to me earlier this week - dumb b!tch in front of me didn't know how to make a left turn even once she put her phone down), well, that'd be a problem. I've gotten plenty of emails while driving and usually ask my passenger to read them to me, if it's on the work BB. Otherwise, I wait until I'm parked. Reading it immediately doesn't really matter, since I can't reply or take any other action while driving.

[rcooled]

Originally Posted by Christien

I got a $155 ticket a few weeks ago for reading an email at a red light. Not texting, not talking, simply reading. At a complete stop. The light wasn't freshly red, nor was it almost green. I was 2 or 3 cars back, stopped cars all around me.

It's attitudes like this that will make changing the public's attitude about cell phone use while driving very difficult. Everybody's got a reason as to why their situation is special. "Well, I was stopped at a light", or "I just HAD to take that call", or "I just got a Tweet from Lady Gaga", etc.
What was so damn important that you had to be reading e-mails while stopped at a traffic light? Couldn't it wait 'till you reached your destination?

What's with this voluntary enslavement to mobile devices anyway?

[Tervuren]

Its a complicated issue. I do not think we need laws about it - we need more common sense.

Nearly 2X the amount of people in NC are killed by sober drivers, than killed in accidents involving illegal BAC.

Respect for basic real world physics, is something people in the digital age don't grow up with. I know that 35MPH-0MPH in a short space hurts, 35MPH is barely moving in most video games.