# Knee-jerk reaction or smart move?



## firetender (Dec 13, 2011)

This affects us all. It probably makes your work day much more interesting and keeps call-volume up, but you tell me, are these things dangerous?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111213/D9RJOUH82.html



> *but it's clear he was manually, cognitively and visually distracted, she said.*




Something about presence in the moment I think.


----------



## JPINFV (Dec 13, 2011)

It only makes sense if they also ban hands free, which will never happen.


----------



## medicdan (Dec 13, 2011)

It looks like the NTSB is pushing for the ban of hands-free as well, but I also doubt that will go far.

It's truly scary the number of drivers who use phones and how truly distracted they are. I admit I use my phone while driving sometimes-- but never text message or surf the web, and only speak using a hands-free setup, and try to limit that. 

Have other countries or regions found more effective ways of limiting cell phone use and accidents other than legislation and strict enforcement?


----------



## Steam Engine (Dec 13, 2011)

Clearly, we just need to be held to a higher standard of training and ability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE3XsZaL-zo


----------



## Sasha (Dec 13, 2011)

Knee jerk reaction. 

It states in the article that they don't know what the pick up driver was doing at the time of the accident just that in the time leading up to the accident he either sent or received messages to his phone. 

Ban texting? Sure. 

Ban hands free use of phones and electronics? Really?

What's next? Taking out car radios and cup holders?

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 13, 2011)

*Nobody thought they'd mandate shoulder harnesses*

And Air bags? Buck Rogers!!


----------



## Veneficus (Dec 13, 2011)

Do we really need laws to protect us from ourselves?

The United States, the land of the free, seems to like to make laws against just about everything.

So, as always, let's look at this from the slighly unusual working of my mind.

When it comes to driving, there really is only one fundamental rule...

Don't hit anything.

Such a simple concept. Easy to understand. Doesn't take a lawyer or an English major to decipher the meaning. 

Because people don't seem to get this concept we try to spell it out more clearly in the form of more laws.

Then when somebody violates it, rather than just look at the most serious violation, like a homicide, we compund the violations. 

ie: DUI,  wreckless driving, vehicular homicide.

But isn't driving under the influence wreckless? Didn't you hit something? With prior knowledge of the consequences of the original offense and subsequent sequele, did you not willfully plan to commit said crimes or did you accidentally decide to drive home drunk after you went to the bar with the intention to drink?

So isn't the charge rather manslaughter or murder? Does the fact you used a 3000 pound projectile somehow differ from using a 9mm one?

When somebody uses a hand held weapon to inflict harm, we all seem so shocked. But not as much outrage when somebody gets run down, smashed into, etc. 

I have never seen a law against driving a car in the city limits, but you would be hard pressed to find a city where discharging a firearm in them isn't a crime.

BUt all of this does tie in to the OP. Let's face it, whether DUI, texting, talking, reading the paper, eating, putting on your make up, changing cloths, turning around to yell at the kids, picking that thing you just dropped on the floorboard up, slipping through you cd collection or whatever venue of digital media, (now there are even TVs in the car, what a dumb idea) 

Are you not distracted? 

Is your full attention or capability focused on driving?

undoubtably a police crackdown on this would save a lot of lives. There might be some calls of double standard as the cops type your plate number into thier lap top as they pursue you, nothing that can't be fixed with an in car camera. Call it "cop cam" and it will flash a yellow light and send a picture of the infraction and a fine to the officer's residence when it happens.

I don't think we need to codify any more laws on "don't hit anything."

What is the solution? 

Well, when I commute, I like to read, text, eat, talk on the phone, talk to my collegues and friends, day dream, plan my day. sometimes have a drink before or after commuting.

I don't give even the slightest thought I might get into or cause a collision.


...Of course I ride the bus or tram. Sometimes the train.

I don't worry about missing them, they come every 3-5 minutes. My all you can ride bus and tram pass cost $25 for 3 months. 

(don't have a car note, fuel bill, or insurance payment either)

Of course you could always argue that the medical, legal, and incarceration costs might be cheaper than effective and convienient mass transit, but somehow I think your argument might be invalid.

Oh, guess what else? The people who drive those busses, trams, trains, sell tickets, maintain, plan, purchase, administer and all other functions associated. You know what they all have in common?

a job.

The more variables you add to an equation (read cars on the road) the more chances of a miscalculation (read crash)

If we were truly worried about saving lives and money, rather than reactionary laws, that don't undue damage or loss of life, we would put effective mechanisms in place to prevent such losses.

Some will say you will lose the jobs of the people making cars. But really, if you make a car or a bus, or drive it, you still have a job. Just a different one.

Final answer: we don't need laws on paper, we need preventative actions in reality.


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 13, 2011)

*"Do we really need laws to protect us from ourselves?"*

What is the cost of one ICU stay for a skull-crushed biker versus what we spend on kids in an average elementary school?

Have people taking their lives into their own hands for recreation, or willfully ignoring workplace safety procedures, sign a waiver..."No public funds may be spent on my medical care or rehabilitation, no public support for my family, cost of rescue and recovery to be paid by my family".
No insurance in the country will ever insure someone and then pay out what is needed when it goes sideways. 


Yes, Sasha, they are suggesting that all wireless combo in vehicles is not as necessary as driving, and going as far as to characterize that use as social. I use it for coordination or directions. I remember having to hold a microphone in one hand with a cooly cord and trying to drive, learn fast not to drive hand-over-hand.

PS: At least in Calif., truck drivers are exempted so they can use CB radios. I read the law last year.


----------



## bstone (Dec 14, 2011)

Just this evening I almost got smushed by a guy driving a van as he held his phone to his head. He was drifting to the right and nearly pinned me inbetween his car and a parked car. I banged on the window and he straightened up. I have lights flashing on my bike and wear a reflective jacket, but the phone caused him to drive distracted and nearly smush me.

I also got rear-ended on my bike yesterday.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Dec 14, 2011)

> But isn't driving under the influence _wreckless_?



Not usually....that's the problem.


----------



## abckidsmom (Dec 14, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> Not usually....that's the problem.



Snort.  I totally thought the same thing:  it's usually wreckful!

Vene, you're awesome, man, but your spelling keeps the smarts looking attainable for us regular people.


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 15, 2011)

*I counted at an offramp.*

NHTSA says about 20% are on the cell phone? Around here is it easily over 50%, and that's just drivers holding it in their hands, not hands free, not held by a passenger, and not clueless pedestrians.


----------



## johnrsemt (Dec 15, 2011)

Funny thing;

  Up  until about 2-3 years ago the biggest distraction in vehicles causing accidents;  was   EATING/DRINKING:   and it is still in top 3.   But there has never been a push to ban drive throughs and fast food places.


----------



## Veneficus (Dec 15, 2011)

abckidsmom said:


> Snort.  I totally thought the same thing:  it's usually wreckful!
> 
> Vene, you're awesome, man, but your spelling keeps the smarts looking attainable for us regular people.



Always glad to help, my spelling and terrible typing making people feel good.

Maybe one day I will get a mac that has spellcheck and a backlit keyboard.

I also notice the more time I spend around non English speakers, the worse my spelling seems to get.


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 15, 2011)

*Vene, don't true the Mac*

I got a Mini and see what it did to the titel above? ANd didn't do to the error just before this? ANd the one at the beginning got this sentence? I'm a bad typist and I spend as much time finding and fixing stupid corrections as well as my own it misses as I do writing.

NHTSA needs to turn their attention to car sound systems exceeding 50 dB or so. Can't hear emergency sirens, neighbors have to listen to boom cars all night long.
Oh, and "boom cycles" now too!


----------



## alphatrauma (Dec 15, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Knee jerk reaction.
> 
> It states in the article that they don't know what the pick up driver was doing at the time of the accident just that in the time leading up to the accident he either sent or received messages to his phone.
> 
> ...



I see what your are going with here... but there is a big difference between phone use (aside from talking), and other in-vehicle distractions. The NTSB pointed out that it is the "cognitive" aspect of phone use, when it comes to texting and web browsing, that poses the biggest danger. People are frigging updating Facebook for Pete's sake! :sad:

I am all for a complete ban of phone [and other "uninstalled" electronics] use while driving. The commuter world got along just fine before they saturated the market. Give people an inch, and they will take a mile...  "I wasn't texting or checking Facebook officer, I was dialing a number in order to talk hands free". :glare:


----------



## Handsome Robb (Dec 15, 2011)

My question is this:

What is the difference between a cell phone and listening to radio traffic while working/responding? My agency's policy is the driver drives and the rider talks, however it isn't a perfect system and doesn't always work that way. If your partner is mapping and dispatch is hailing you with further info/routing preferences/orders to stage/pt status updates you can't exactly ignore them. Sure we are slow to acknowledge sometimes but you can't leave them hanging. That creates problems for them and could potentially invoke an order response from another unit to your last known. 

Are you going to ban radio communications in emergency vehicles? EMS and Fire generally have multiple people onboard to respond to radio traffic, however this is not always the case with LEOs.

I agree that cellphone use while driving is a bad idea. I do not agree with removing hands free capabilities and making that illegal as well. How many business people use their phones for work? Quite a few.


----------



## alphatrauma (Dec 16, 2011)

NVRob said:


> My question is this:
> 
> *What is the difference between a cell phone and listening to radio traffic while working/responding?*



The driver should not be doing anything but driving... period. Listening to radio traffic does not require the same cognitive focus that typing a response to an ongoing conversation does. I can keep both hands on the wheel while listening to the radio, I can keep my eyes on the road while listening to the radio. Texting or web browsing? Not so much.



> *Are you going to ban radio communications in emergency vehicles?* EMS and Fire generally have multiple people onboard to respond to radio traffic, however this is not always the case with LEOs.



Let's be real here... there will be reasonable exemptions



> I agree that cellphone use while driving is a HORRIBLE _[*fixed*] _idea. I do not agree with removing hands free capabilities and making that illegal as well. *How many business people use their phones for work? *Quite a few.



Conduct mobile business as you wish... just don't do it while driving. Pretty simple concept. The NTSB also alluded to the fact that permanently installed in-car handsfree devices will be exempted

This whole overdependence on mobile/wireless communication is a bit nauseating. In my opinion, for most it is a want... NOT A NEED.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Dec 16, 2011)

Read my whole post. I directly specified allowing handsfree devices and agreed with the national ban of anything other than that. 

Listening to something still diverts your attention although not as much as browsing or texting.

Also I presented a valid situation where the driver of an emergency vehicle may need to use the radio. 

Why are we exempt? It is just as, if not more dangerous for us to be distracted by radio traffic or responding to said traffic...just sayin'...

Idk about you but between multiple friends in marketing and sales as well as my mother and father both in jewelry sales if you restricted them from using a hands free device while driving there wouldn't be enough hours in the day for them to conducted business and make a living. So now we are impinging on people's ability to support themselves and their families.

Edit: How is an installed hands free device any different from an aftermarket one?

I'm not trying to start an argument, I simply asked a very warranted question. My police example still has not been addressed either.


----------



## DrParasite (Dec 16, 2011)

Veneficus said:


> Do we really need laws to protect us from ourselves?
> 
> The United States, the land of the free, seems to like to make laws against just about everything.


I don't laws to protect myself.  I need laws to protect you from me.

if you are driving while talking/texting, and you crash your car, kill yourself, etc, do I really care?  not really.  that's your choice, and I respect your choice.  Plus if i'm working might get the chance to cut you out of your car, which can be fun.

however, if I am driving next to you following the rules, no phone, no text, no web, not speeding, not DUI, etc, and you crash into me, causing my car damage or me personal injury, than yes, that I have a problem with.  That causes me harm, and that is why I need the law to protect me, from you, the distracted driver.


----------



## JPINFV (Dec 16, 2011)

NVRob said:


> My question is this:
> 
> What is the difference between a cell phone and listening to radio traffic while working/responding? My agency's policy is the driver drives and the rider talks, however it isn't a perfect system and doesn't always work that way. If your partner is mapping and dispatch is hailing you with further info/routing preferences/orders to stage/pt status updates you can't exactly ignore them.



To me, the difference is that I'm not really having a conversation with dispatch. Normally the information is pertinent and short, and the responses are normally scripted. I'm not really thinking about what I'm going to say when I get a page, pick up the radio, and say, "Unit 75, copy page." Similarly, with pages if I'm driving there's one of three responses. Either my partner and I instantly recognize the location, think we know it and just want to confirm, or have no clue. If I'm driving, the first takes no cognition. The second takes minimal cognition (unit 75, confirming that this is the one on ____), and the third is done by my partner.


----------



## JPINFV (Dec 16, 2011)

NVRob said:


> Read my whole post. I directly specified allowing handsfree devices and agreed with the national ban of anything other than that.
> 
> Listening to something still diverts your attention although not as much as browsing or texting.




"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."


----------



## alphatrauma (Dec 16, 2011)

NVRob said:


> Listening to something still diverts your attention although not as much as browsing or texting.



Point, set, match.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Dec 16, 2011)

alphatrauma said:


> Point, set, match.



? 

I agreed with you on that point from the beginning. It wasn't a contest, you don't get a prize, sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## Anjel (Dec 16, 2011)

The city where I work has banned everything.

No talking, eating, texting, putting make up on, messing with the radio, messing with a pet in the car, reaching to the back seat to hand something to a child.

Absolutely no distractions, and its enforced. We still have tons of accidets though.


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 16, 2011)

*I still have a manual single-disk CD player.*

Although I can change them without looking down, with my older reflexes and despite my experience, it does make me  less safe if someone does something unusual or the unexpected occurs.

I bet...if you added age into the equation, the middle of the bell curve would be about 19 y/o. Maybe not a bell curve , maybe an inverse bell, with us oldies swinging back up towards but not touching the youngies' stats (we can't figure out the new stuff to use it).
PS: See thread about texting in class.


----------



## Sasha (Dec 16, 2011)

alphatrauma said:


> I see what your are going with here... but there is a big difference between phone use (aside from talking), and other in-vehicle distractions. The NTSB pointed out that it is the "cognitive" aspect of phone use, when it comes to texting and web browsing, that poses the biggest danger. People are frigging updating Facebook for Pete's sake! :sad:
> 
> I am all for a complete ban of phone [and other "uninstalled" electronics] use while driving. The commuter world got along just fine before they saturated the market. Give people an inch, and they will take a mile...  "I wasn't texting or checking Facebook officer, I was dialing a number in order to talk hands free". :glare:



That's really silly. 

Sooo what's next? Ban driving with passengers and kids because they may cause a distraction??

Accidents happen. It's what you accept when you get your license and start to drive. You just can't eliminate all distractions and to eliminate something like handsfree cell phone is stupid when it's no worse than talking to your passenger or transporting screaming kids. Actually I'd say kids are one of the worst distractions while driving.

They scream, throw crap, cry, get bored, ask a billion and one questions and like to unscrew and dump their sippy cups. With a cell phone I am not constantly checking the back to make sure the kid hadn't managed to unbuckle himself again and is running around the back seat (it's happened.) 

Yet we still are allowed to transport kids. 

My phone is my GPS. and I will use it while I drive. Regardless of laws.


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 16, 2011)

*Kids, yeah. Especially at the wheel.*

Actually, I agree. My wife had a fender bender partially due to the DVD player in our rented van being on too loudly, courtesy of our then-16 y/o daughter. It could have been much worse, and the other driver started complaining about chest pain.

I see people driving with dogs in their laps. I have been told (no authority) that it is not legal. I'd hate to have a Pomeranian on my steering wheel airbag when it went off.

I think we see noodniks driving and either texting or chatting because the responsible ones (like all of us) who take a call are on the device just seconds and not gesticulating or other attention grabbing activities.


----------



## Sasha (Dec 16, 2011)

mycrofft said:


> Actually, I agree. My wife had a fender bender partially due to the DVD player in our rented van being on too loudly, courtesy of our then-16 y/o daughter. It could have been much worse, and the other driver started complaining about chest pain.
> 
> I see people driving with dogs in their laps. I have been told (no authority) that it is not legal. I'd hate to have a Pomeranian on my steering wheel airbag when it went off.
> 
> I think we see noodniks driving and either texting or chatting because the responsible ones (like all of us) who take a call are on the device just seconds and not gesticulating or other attention grabbing activities.



I had a dog who HAD to be in a carrier if I took her in the car. She would crawl from my lap to the passenger seat. Then back to my lap. Then back to the passenger seat.

And one of my dogs now will sit, very complacent, in her bed, in the passenger seat.


----------



## mycrofft (Dec 16, 2011)

*Talk about distraction...*

If I don't lock the power windows, my beagle will roll hers down without warning and then lean as far out as she can.....


----------



## Handsome Robb (Dec 16, 2011)

mycrofft said:


> If I don't lock the power windows, my beagle will roll hers down without warning and then lean as far out as she can.....



Gotta love beagles. 

My mom's dog once locked me out of my car. I was getting gas an my keys were on the seat. She jumped up on the seat and landed right on the lock button on my key fob. Doh! She's not a beagle, but still a funny dog story.


----------



## Chimpie (Dec 17, 2011)

Rufus always goes in the back seat.  He'll stay back back there but will walk around.  He's too curious to sit still, but is never a distraction.  When we're stopped at lights he'll sometimes put his head on my shoulder.



mycrofft said:


> If I don't lock the power windows, my beagle will roll hers down without warning and then lean as far out as she can.....



This picture needs to become a motivational poster.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Dec 17, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> This picture needs to become a motivational poster.



I believe I can fly?


----------



## Simusid (Dec 17, 2011)

I personally get distracted by cell phone calls.   Maybe not everyone does but I KNOW I do.   My cell phone audio is complete crap and it's hard to explain but I have to listen harder on the cell than on a regular phone.   This means I don't concentrate on driving as closely.

Last night I took a call that I should not have taken while I was at a light, I pulled away and I was so focused on the call that I was driving about 20 instead of 40 for a bit.    

Can they be distracting?   For me, 100% yes.  Maybe not for everyone though.


----------



## jjesusfreak01 (Dec 17, 2011)

After reading the article its clear that although the first impact may have been caused by the pickup truck (and thus, a possibly distracted driver), both deaths were the result of the bus drivers following too closely. This is honestly a stupid case for the NTSB to use as evidence that phones should be banned.


----------



## alphatrauma (Dec 18, 2011)

jjesusfreak01 said:


> After reading the article *its clear that although the first impact may have been caused by the pickup truck (and thus, a possibly distracted driver), both deaths were the result of the bus drivers following too closely.* This is honestly a stupid case for the NTSB to use as evidence that phones should be banned.



That's an interesting interpretation of the article. I didn't read anywhere that investigators or NTSB officials came to that conclusion. In fact, according to the quoted text below:



> It's not possible to know from cell phone records if
> the driver was typing, reaching for the phone or
> reading a text at the time of the crash, but it's clear
> he was manually, cognitively and visually
> ...



... that it WAS the pickup driver who was ultimately responsible for their own and another's death, due to the accident . There were many variables involved, yes. Yet I think it is hardly "clear" that following too closely was the catalyst/culprit in this tragedy.


----------



## adamjh3 (Dec 24, 2011)

I have an idea... instead of making every little thing illegal, when someone dies, gets hurt,whatever, how about stepping up enforcement of the laws already on the books?

"Inattentive driving" anyone? 

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk


----------



## bw2529 (Dec 24, 2011)

alphatrauma said:


> That's an interesting interpretation of the article. I didn't read anywhere that investigators or NTSB officials came to that conclusion. In fact, according to the quoted text below:
> 
> 
> 
> ... that it WAS the pickup driver who was ultimately responsible for their own and another's death, due to the accident . There were many variables involved, yes. Yet I think it is hardly "clear" that following too closely was the catalyst/culprit in this tragedy.



The article also says the fleet of buses had bad brakes so it isn't much of a stretch to say that poor maintenance on the part of the school (or responsible party) was a major contributor.


----------

