Distracted driving and calling it in

@roger,

roger wrote:

Well, a partial answer is that drunks at least know they're impared.

And another part of the answer is that they actually are impaired.

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Ceili wrote:
I think you're a selfish fool.

But then again, you don't know me at all, so ...

Quote:
I hope you never kill or maim anyone with your vehicle.

I hope the same for you, Ceili.

Well, I'm glad that Ceili had something interesting to add, and discussed the idea, as a whole.

I'm not sure if I would feel worse being called a selfish fool, or a ******* bitch, both for no intelligent reason.

0 Replies

This is reality and people who abuse 911.

0 Replies

You know, I'm wondering why Candians have gotten this reputation, that they seem to be so proud of, that they are so friendly and polite.

So far the 2 Canadians that have come on this thread have called non-Canadians a ******* bitch, and a selfish fool.

Subject:
Have Canadians become complacent over their "nice" reputation?

Discuss.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Quote:

When I'm talking on my phone in my car, I'm no more distracted than I am when I'm talking to my kids in the back seat.

Discuss.

It was already brought up and pointed out that while children in the vehicle are part of the accident statistic, they don't tie into as many accidents as those by people yapping on the phone while driving.

http://able2know.org/topic/229066-1#post-5521794

Ceili wrote:

The number 1 distraction in a vehicles worldwide.... is children. And even children don't cause as many accidents as cell phones. Why? Because as advanced as our minds are... they can't compartmentalize conversations in thin air and driving. Our minds fill in the missing links, as it were. We imagine the other person, or the task, or something, but we aren't fully aware of our driving, we can't help it. We're not as removed from the hunter gatherer as we'd like to believe.
Very few accidents are preventable. Very, very few.
So while we arrogantly believe we can do both, that a conversation, a sale, a whatever is more important than the task at hand, we truly cant. Biologically.
It takes more than a decade or so to evolve, to reprogram our brains.
We should also be willing to accept that any slip of the wrist not only puts you and potentially your own at risk, but innocents who have the misfortune of being within your vicinity.

Or are you Ticomaya saying that you are somehow better than all the rest of the people of the world?

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

I guess you don't know my children!

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Or are you Ticomaya saying that you are somehow better than all the rest of the people of the world?

No, I'm better than many, and not as good as several.

In terms of driving, I'm waaaay better than a whole bunch of people I've seen driving. For instance, I frequently see people not signalling lane changes, making frequent and excessive lane changes as they aggressively maneuver through the city streets (often not signalling the lane changes), not signalling turns, running red lights, tailgating other drivers, speeding excessively, and performing what is affectionately known in these parts as the "Scottsdale Slide" - where you start in the far right lane then fly over 3-4 lanes of traffic in one smooth and very quick maneuver (it can also start in the far left lane and travel to the right).

I tend to do none of those things.

So, yes, when I'm talking on the phone using my bluetooth headset, while driving safely and doing NONE of those things I just described, I'm better than all of those other drivers.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

You make excellent points Tico.

I too will come right out and say it. I'm a much better driver than many many people, and there are few that are better than me. If everyone drove the way I do, there would be very few accidents. I'm very aware of what's going on around me, whether I'm on the phone or not.

I propose (for discussion Rolling Eyes

) that drivers should be tested to ascertain if they have the skills or not to drive and talk on a cell at the same time, and if they pass the test, it be so noted on their license.

The testing can occur on a 2 or 3 year basis to make sure their skills haven't changed.

If someone gets in an accident while using a cell phone, and they aren't a licensed cell phone using driver, the fines/penalty will be appropriately higher.
In addition, teens when they get their license should not be allowed to even test for a period of let's say 5 years. That way you get a lot of experience in, before even testing to see if you are qualified.

Texting involves looking down and away from the road, talking does not. For me personally talking on a phone is no different than talking to a passenger. In both cases, I have at times said to the passenger, or if it's an occassion I'm talking on the phone "Stop talking, I have to concentrate on this." If there is a passenger with me, we can both see if we are driving into a high traffic area or tricky situation. On the phone I have said "I'm hanging up, driving into traffic" and without saying anything toss the phone down.

There are people driving around that are unsafe regardless of what's going on around them.

Why aren't we addressing those issues?

1 Reply

@chai2,

You make excellent points as well, chai.

0 Replies

You are going to call 911 to report another driver talking on the phone while driving (distracted) ? Are you going to pull over and stop first?

If I did that here in SC I would be on the phone the whole trip. Almost half of the drivers are on the phone. And yes, we have a terrible accident rate.

0 Replies

@chai2,

Chai, sometimes you doth protest too much.

Fool:
n
1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion:

Selfish:
adj
1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc., esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others

If that doesn't explain drivers who use cell phones, I'm not sure what does.
Remember back in the day, all the arguments for drinking and driving... Ya know, I drive better after I've had a few.. or hey, have one for the road. You don't hear that shite anymore, why should we let your selfish behaviour slide?

Again, Statistically, the US is in far worse state than most countries when it comes to fatalities and injuries. In Canada, we are politer, as witnessed by our streets, by one third, if nothing else. OK, maybe guns too..
Cell phones can be attributed to 1/3 of all accidents in N. America, far more than impaired drivers. Even highly trained drivers wont take the risk, but you think you're better than them and do.
Inattentive blindness is a human foible, willful blindness is inexcusable.
And again, I'm in the safety field. I don't take the risks. I see the stats, I go to the forums, I see the reports, I've seen the carnage. I work with multinational companies that see the risks too. Most of them have banned the use of cell phones on company sites and roads, and in company vehicles. If caught, employees will be fired and contractors will receive a lifetime ban from all sites.
I work with the multinational insurance companies that DO NOT insure in many areas of the US. Strictly because of your laws, habits and litigation rates. The risk is too great. We work on committees that try to lessen the accident rates.
And yes, there are a lot of really bad drivers out there. Again, if tested, most people that have had their license for 10 years would fail a driving test.
Why? Again, because we don't train drivers to drive, we train them to pass a test. I see it time and time again. New drivers or people who have forgotten how to drive on snow and ice, and once they figure it out... and it melts, then they drive with abandon.
Is getting cell phone out of the hands of drivers the only thing we can do to make our streets safer? No, but it's a big chunk...
So, even if you think you're a great driver and your government hasn't tightened the laws; if you get into an accident, be prepared to have your contract be null and void if caught, 'cause that it the way the industry is heading, regardless of blame, nation or cowboy attitude.
If you want to keep driving and talking/texting/checking facebook statuses, be prepared to pay.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Some obviously think they are more privileged by willingly risking other peoples lives, if we could change people's attitude it would be a start.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Quote:

Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Some obviously think they are more privileged by willingly risking other peoples lives, if we could change people's attitude it would be a start.

In the cases of some/most of these idiots they somehow think they are better drivers than all others. Wonder how many of these excellent drivers are in graves around the country or in hospitals hooked up to machines for life because they foolishly believed that they were somehow better at driving with a cellphone operating than all others.
As you indicated in your earlier post Ceili, the brain operates different with the phone than with the screaming or talking children/others in the vehicle.

Will Tico, Chai and others believe it? Even in a hospital bed they'd blame another driver or some falling rain for their near death experience. You can tell them Ceili; but, you can't force them to grasp the factuals.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

So, are you saying Sturgis, that all drivers on the road are equal in their skills?

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

When I'm talking on my phone in my car, I'm no more distracted than I am when I'm talking to my kids in the back seat.

Discuss.

and if you're in an accident because you're distracted by your children - you can be charged with distracted driving/found at fault for the loss/find your premium increased or your coverage cancelled - it depends on the jurisdiction but distracted driving does not apply to cell phone use alone (though, again depending on the jurisdiction cell phone use can increase the degree of the charges)

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

roger wrote:
Well, a partial answer is that drunks at least know they're impared.

And another part of the answer is that they actually are impaired.

and distracted drivers are impaired in their ability to drive

___

it's pretty simple

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

roger wrote:
Well, a partial answer is that drunks at least know they're impared.

And another part of the answer is that they actually are impaired.

and distracted drivers are impaired in their ability to drive

___

it's pretty simple

However, why is it assumed that a person is distracted by a particular event, i.e. cell phone, children, radio playing, dog barking?

Why would it be assumed everyone is equally distracted?

I don't agree that everyone should be lumped in one pile as if we all have equal driving skills, and are all equally distracted by the same things.

For instance, I get enormously distracted by radio music, but not by radio talk, although there are times when I have to turn talk off as well when I have to concentrate on a situation.

Ceili, after again tossing insults out there, said in her post that most people would fail their initial driving test if given again after 10 years (although she doesn't say where she got that statistic). I said in my prior post....

I propose that drivers should be tested to ascertain if they have the skills or not to drive and talk on a cell at the same time, and if they pass the test, it be so noted on their license.

The testing can occur on a 2 or 3 year basis to make sure their skills haven't changed.

If someone gets in an accident while using a cell phone, and they aren't a licensed cell phone using driver, the fines/penalty will be appropriately higher.
In addition, teens when they get their license should not be allowed to even test for a period of let's say 5 years. That way you get a lot of experience in, before even testing to see if you are qualified.

It's a put your money where your mouth is thing. If you can prove you are capable of driving under various circumstances, you should be allowed to do so. If you can pass a test that is given every 2 or 3 years, you lose that privilege.

I think testing should include driving while listening to radio, having passengers talking present, etc.

When cars were first equiped with radios, did people have conversations like this, that people can't drive and listen to the radio at the same time?

What about GPS? I've never used one, but I would think looking away from the road to look at a map would be really dangerous. Why is that, without any argument, ok?

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

and distracted drivers are impaired in their ability to drive

___

it's pretty simple

I don't think it's as simple as you say.

I can agree that distracted drivers are "impaired in their ability to drive," but the salient question is to what degree are they impaired. Are then nominally impaired? Or are they impaired to the degree that they cannot safely operate their vehicle? And how do you determine that? Should the law be that if you are speaking on a cell phone, you are per se distracted? If not, how do you prove "distracted"? I understand you prosecute such violations in those jurisdictions, but it seems like an enforcement nightmare to me.

In most jurisdictions it is illegal to operate a vehicle when you are impaired by alcohol to the point you cannot safely operate a vehicle. But when is that point reached? One drop of alcohol? One beer? Two? Jurisdictions have established objective measurements of alcohol levels to deal with this issue. So we can test the blood alcohol content of a driver, or conduct field sobriety tests, but how to you gauge the level of distractedness of a driver on a cell phone? And how do you compare that level to that of a driver dealing with kids in the back seat?

1 Reply

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

However, why is it assumed that a person is distracted by a particular event, i.e. cell phone, children, radio playing, dog barking?

no need to assume - plenty of studies on the subject of distracted driving

I get emails about the studies on a regular basis.

Got one this morning.

In many jurisdictions where there are distracted driving laws, it is up to the officer/s on the scene to make the determination and lay the charge/s. In other jurisdictions, the determination can be made later on a review of facts.
Those reviews can be requested by interested parties.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

There are two different laws in play in some jurisdictions. Some lay charges if mobile phones can be determined to be in use. Some have distracted driving laws. Some have both.

In most cases of distracted driving charges, they stem from accidents although I've seen a few cases where the charges were laid on the basis of an officer observing a car/driver.

The phone laws are easier in some ways. Use the phone. Get caught. Get charged. They are like seatbelt laws in that way - don't use a seatbelt? caught? it's an automatic charge.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

chai2 wrote:
However, why is it assumed that a person is distracted by a particular event, i.e. cell phone, children, radio playing, dog barking?

no need to assume - plenty of studies on the subject of distracted driving

I get emails about the studies on a regular basis.

Got one this morning.

In many jurisdictions where there are distracted driving laws, it is up to the officer/s on the scene to make the determination and lay the charge/s. In other jurisdictions, the determination can be made later on a review of facts.
Those reviews can be requested by interested parties.

So, you're saying people can be equally distracted by radios, kids, dogs etc?

I'm not saying cell phones can't be distracting, but distracting to the exclusion of other things?

When police do reports at the scene of the accident, why aren't they required to state the driver was listening to the radio, or CD, mp3, etc?

Why would a song being played at top volume, or even a lower volume, be less distracting than a cell phone?

I don't get that.

3 Replies

Distracted driving and calling it in

Quick Links

My Account

able2know