Distracted driving and calling it in

Multitasking isn't what it sounds like.

I think you like to paint with a broad brush.

not while driving (though that happens) - walking with a hoodie on was the one that puzzled me at first

people walk into cars/in front of cars/into trucks/in front of trucks

I had a case a while back where a guy, running in a snowstorm with a hoodie on, ran into the side of a tractor, knocked himself out and then was run over by the trailer. I thought that was just crazy and then I heard about another similar one and another ...and then recently got one where someone with a hoodie on walked into the mirror of a car, got caught up on it and was badly injured.

why would one individual be tested for cell phone use?

it's not like we test individuals to see if they're fine driving drunk or driving without seatbelts or if they can drive safely at race car speeds on side streets.

actuaries are about practicality and large groups. if it's a problem for a significant number of people in a large enough test group they're going to recommend changes. enough evidence of a problem and "noise" about that problem - lawmakers are going to make changes.

It's not about you or tico and your fabulous skills. It's about an entire population. People get distracted while driving. Many people get distracted while using mobiles/texting/speaking on the phone and driving. As a result, there are accidents caused by distracted driving. As a result of that there are laws related to distracted driving and/or phone use while driving. As a result of that you may feel inconvenienced.

I mean why not test for how distracted the person is while using cell phones, radios, hoodies, smoking, eating and other distracting things?

Why do you, Ceili and Sturgis keep trying to make this about 2 drivers who are stating that, while not perfect, are confident in their driving skills, and at the same time keep throwing the one distracting act of cell phone use into the catagory of Utmost Evil?

I (I can't speak for Tico) believe in placing cell phones in the catagory of other common everyday potentially distracting events, one's that happen all the time.

Obviously you don't test for drunk driving, or driving while under the influence of other drugs being ingested. Why would you even consider cell phones be put in the catagory of mind altering drugs?

You're allowed to eat while driving. Taking one hand off the wheel, and perhaps eating a dry pretzel from a bag, or holding a dripping hamburger or sub or hot pizza with the molten cheese getting ready to burn your mouth or slide off and land in your lap. Or it might be that hot cup of coffee or blue slurpee you're raising to your lips and sloshing onto your clothes.

That's ok.

While you're doing this, you can have any type of music playing, from Brahms to heavy metal, rap, punk, etc. You can fiddle with dials, look for CD's, get lost in the music.

That's ok.

While you're doing this, you can smoke cigarettes, a pipe, cigar, continually talking one hand off the wheel, blowing smoke around, and altering your body chemistry.

You can talk all you want to the other people in the car, talk to the animals in the car, listen intently to whatever they are saying, no matter how complicated.

That's ok.

When you were tested for driving, you weren't allowed to do any of these things. I'm saying maybe we should be tested on our ability to function under these real life situations.

So, all these things are legal, but not crooking your left arm to your ear, and talking to one person, as opposed to not crooking your arm to your ear, and talking to 1, 2, 3 or more people in the car with you.

You know, I (personally) would be perfectly fine with a law that prohibited talking on the telephone while driving unless you are using a hands-free device.

But if you are trying to tell me that talking to someone on the phone in my bluetooth device is significantly (or even slightly) more distracting to ME than talking to someone sitting in the backseat, you are foolish.

And so, if we are going to proscribe talking on the phone while driving, we should proscribe talking at all! Or listening to any extraneous sound! And thus, like chai said, eliminate radios from cars. And listening to ipods. And audio books. Etc., etc., etc. ...

You know your proposals make sense, however, I would imagine it would be an administrative nightmare - the government messes up enough things, I'd just see this as being another mess with increased costs and little benefit. Just so much judgement for those testing individuals and you know many of our government workers are not the brightest bulbs as it is.

No, I do believe it is illegal to take your hand off the wheel - at least I know one person who was given a ticket for this offense. This particular man had been pulled over by an officer who gave him a ticket. As this guy started to drive off after getting this ticket, this smart a$$ flicked the officer with the bird. The officer (instead of getting angry) simply pulled him over again and gave him a ticket for taking his hand off the wheel.

Yes, of course it would be an administrative nightmare.

So instead, let's just take one arbitrary distracting thing, and make it illegal, and leave all the other, perhaps equally or more distracting things, alone.

Little benefit? Like apparantly saving a life because using a cell phone basically equals causing a fatal accident, according to some?

You know Linkat, I have commend you

But, it's legal to drink, smoke and eat in your car, so how is this to be accomplished?

Is it also illegal to not signal your turns?

That is why many states make cell phone use while driving illegal including the use of speaker/blue tooth.

I agree that it is dangerous, however, logically, to monitor it and test it as you say is nearly impossible. You would have to certain people judge in their opinion whether a driver is safe to use a cell phone and drive. How would you be able to really determine that? That alone is difficult and so open to judgement (not to mention abuse). Then a test for whether you can eat, have children in the car, and think of any distraction possible -simply not able to do.

What instead is to determine what is the highest distractions and those that you can actually determine and make them illegal to use or do while driving.

Well I've hand fed my husband in the car while he was driving....well wait that could be considered distracting too.

To be honest I cannot say - all I can say is this guy did receive a ticket for taking his hand off the wheel.

Applying lipstick.
Smoking a cigarette/cigar.
Reading the paper.
Shaving.

I've seen all of those during my morning commute.

Here is a Q&A regarding some of MA's laws around cell phone use (the Safe Driving Law itself addresses electronic devices) and what you state above:

Q. If this Safe Driving law is meant to address distracted driving, does it say anything about nonphone distractions like applying makeup?

A. No. But such distractions are technically covered already under the “unsafe operation’’ law. They could also be charged under the more serious “negligent operation’’ law in the event of an accident.

I would agree with you about audio books. They are very distracting.

Which activity is more "unsafe": applying makeup, or talking on a hands-free cell phone ... in your opinion?

Sunlight in my eyes is more distracting than an audio book.

Next thing you know, some nut is going to want to move the television back to the rear seating area.

My opinion -- applying make up - I've seen it too and all that you mention. I think that is why there is also such a general law as mentioned. People can be a bit crazy so I guess the law cannot come up with so many potential distractions when driving - like who would have thought that you would need to tell someone not to read a newspaper while driving?

There is also something I read that if you have a TV in the car, then it has to be where the driver cannot view it.