Casper Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 txting and phone calls are being rolled into the same category with this law - what about my example about the phone call? if you get a phone call from your kid or your wife, wouldnt you answer it? i would. you never know when it will be an emergency. and if its not that time, should you still receive impound, 6pts, 1yr license suspension, two nights at a txting rehab program, and a "small (pay for court costs, 2 day program, attorney to not get fucked, license reinstatement, ticket, and the fine itself...well over a grand total)" fine?If you answer the call without the use of a handsfree device and it wasn't an emergency call (which is cited in the article as being an exception), fuck yeah. The wife needing you to get eggs, or the kid needing help with homework does not constitute an emergency and you don't need to answer the phone for it. If they're really in an emergency, they should be calling 911 or pulling a gun anyways, not calling your ass while you're driving and helpless. How many times has your fiance called you for an emergency? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 If you answer the call without the use of a handsfree device and it wasn't an emergency call (which is cited in the article as being an exception), fuck yeah. The wife needing you to get eggs, or the kid needing help with homework do not constitute emergencies and you don't need to answer the phone for it. If they're really in an emergency, they should be calling 911 anyways, not your ass while you're driving.but the point is how do you know what they are calling for without answering?Furthermore, how do THEY know you are in the car and not to call? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat0403 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/13/studies-may-have-overestimated-cellphone-crash-risk/?test=latestnewsFunny this just came out today... Increased risk of having a car crash attributed to cellphone use may have been overestimated in some past studies, a new analysis suggests. So-called "distracted driving" has become a big public health issue in recent years. The majority of U.S. states now ban texting behind the wheel, while a handful prohibit drivers from using handheld cellphones at all (though many more ban "novice" drivers from doing so). But studies have reached different conclusions about how much of an added crash risk there is with cellphone use. In the new report, Richard A. Young of Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit finds that two influential studies on the subject might have overestimated the risk. The problem has to do with the studies' methods, according to Young. Both studies a 1997 study from Canada, and one done in Australia in 2005 were "case-crossover" studies. The researchers recruited people who had been in a crash, and then used their billing records to compare their cellphone use around the time of the crash with their cell use during the same time period the week before (called a "control window"). But the issue with that, Young writes in the journal Epidemiology, is that people may not have been driving during that entire control window. Such "part-time" driving, he says, would necessarily cut the odds of having a crash (and possibly reduce people's cell use) during the control window and make it seem like cellphone use is a bigger crash risk than it is. The two studies in question asked people whether they had been driving during the control windows, but they did not account for part-time driving, Young says. So for his study, Young used GPS data to track day-to-day driving consistency for 439 drivers over 100 days. He grouped the days into pairs: day one was akin to the "control" days used in the earlier studies, and day two was akin to the "crash" day. Overall, Young found, there was little consistency between the two days when it came to driving time. When he looked at all control windows where a person did some driving, the total amount of time on the road was about one-fourth of what it was during the person's "crash" day. If that information were applied to the two earlier studies, Young estimates, the crash risk tied to cellphone use would have been statistically insignificant. That's far lower than the studies' original conclusions: that cellphone use while driving raises the risk of crashing four-fold. And, Young says, the results might help explain why some other studies have not linked cell use to an increased crash risk. A researcher not involved in the work said that the two earlier studies may well have overstated the crash risk from using a cellphone. But that doesn't mean you should feel free to chat and text away at the wheel, according to Fernando Wilson, an assistant professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth. A number of other studies, using designs other than case-crossover, have suggested that cellphone use, and particularly texting, is hazardous on the road, Wilson told Reuters Health. "In wider policy, I don't think this study is going to change the conversation about distracted driving," Wilson said. "Most of the conventional thinking is that we need to do something to reduce it." In his own study published last year, Wilson looked at information from a government database that tracks deaths on U.S. public roads. He found that after declining between 1999 and 2005, deaths blamed on distracted driving rose 28 percent between 2005 and 2008. And the increase seemed to be related to a sharp rise in texting. ("Distracted driving" refers to anything that takes the driver's attention off the road, from fiddling with the radio to talking to other people in the car.) Other studies, Wilson noted, have used mounted cameras to show that drivers' behavior becomes more risky when they are using cellphones. All of those studies have limitations, and cannot pinpoint just how big a risk driving-while-texting (or talking) might be. Wilson said the current study highlights a limitation in case-crossover studies. But the new study, itself, has shortcomings. Applying the GPS findings from this study to the two earlier ones, done with different drivers, in different countries, is tricky, both Young and Wilson point out. "It's possible that the (earlier) study findings were overstated," Wilson said, "but it's difficult to know by how much." According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about 450,000 Americans were injured in crashes linked to distracted driving in 2009. Another 5,500 were killed.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/13/studies-may-have-overestimated-cellphone-crash-risk/?test=latestnews#ixzz1gRZj20X1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 it can though. Should drinking water bottles in your car be an offense? My stepdad was rear ended by a guy a month ago who dropped his bottle cap on the floor. Reached down to get it and didnt see the light turn red and ran directly into my step dadDid the guy get cited? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanDy Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 If you answer the call without the use of a handsfree device and it wasn't an emergency call (which is cited in the article as being an exception), fuck yeah. The wife needing you to get eggs, or the kid needing help with homework do not constitute emergencies and you don't need to answer the phone for it. If they're really in an emergency, they should be calling 911 anyways, not your ass while you're driving.Who dictates an emergency or not? My little girl being out of diapers (yes bad planning, but happens none the less) isn't worthy of a call to 911, but I sure want to know about it, and pick some up.Too much left to interpretation (sp)Sent from my iPhone using SIRI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 So guilty until proven innocent? WTF? And the sent text thing goes right out window too, I can reply to a text with-out ever touching my phone or taking my eyes off the road.....I am not condoning texting while driving, however, I think the govt is too involved anyway...Sent from my iPhone using SIRIexactly - im not against a ban - but theres just so much gray area on proving that an offense has taken place, that enforcing such life altering penalties doesnt seem right.people who drive for a living would automatically be out of work. 6pts on your record and a company will drop your ass because their insurance wont have you. some people dont understand how much a DUI can ruin a persons life and livelyhood (as i believe it should in the case of a DUI), but to enforce those type of penalties on an "assumption" or on "probably cause to suspect" is bullshit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 6pt ticket, license suspension, huge fines, jail time.....for answering a phone call? really? whats next, felony charges for changing a radio station while driving? (for people without steering wheel controls)....there are plenty of things more distracting than answering a phone call, a DUI is from the second you get in the car to when you exit the car, very different than taking 30 seconds to answer a phone call.....and who is to judge if its an emergency? what if your wife calls you - you wont answer because its illegal, what if she needs help? or got injured or something? wouldnt you want to know right away....then if you answer to check, what if she is calling to ask what you want for dinner? you answered thinking it could be an emergency, when actually it isnt...now you deserve DUI type fines?theres way too much gray area in this law to enforce such strict penaltiesIf you want to answer the phone then pull over. If it's an emergency, that person will call back 2 or 3 times and you'll know you have to pull over.There is no reason, excuse or need to talk WHILE driving that trumps the need for the rest of us to be safe from someone who is distracted. Just pull over. When someone calls me I look at the screen to see who it is. I'll either take the call on my handsfree or pull over and take the call if needed. I realize that you are only dangerous WHILE texting (or talking on the phone) versus a DUI who is always dangerous (or in some cases can be legally sober leaving the bar and become legally drunk as his body processes the alcohol while he's driving). But that excuse doesn't do it for me... "I only stabbed him for a few seconds, not all night..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 but the point is how do you know what they are calling for without answering?Furthermore, how do THEY know you are in the car and not to call?They aren't calling you in an emergency. That's my point. They're calling 911. Anything they're calling you for can wait until you pull over to call them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Did the guy get cited? sure did, $100 ticket which he deserved. He certainly did not deserve to get DUI like penalties. His eyes were off the road just the same amount of time to text and longer than it would take to look down at who is calling to answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 How many times has your fiance called you for an emergency?also like stated above - who is to dictate "emergency"? my fiances car busted a ball joint in the fucking ghetto of columbus....she was sitting there in a car that doesnt lock, with no means to defend herself, in a very bad area of town, at 11pm (driving home from her job)....is that an emergency in itself? no, its a broke down car. does it have potential to get very ugly, very fast? fuck yes it does. and that is an emergency to me.but the point is how do you know what they are calling for without answering?Furthermore, how do THEY know you are in the car and not to call?^^ THIS is my point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 They aren't calling you in an emergency. That's my point. They're calling 911. Anything they're calling you for can wait until you pull over to call them back.there are plenty of emergencies that do not warrant a 911 call IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 This one protects me from stupid people though. I'm for it. Why not?For the sake of argument and I haven't read much in this thread....Just like no guns signs keep you from getting shot and OVI laws keep you from getting hit by a drunk driver? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Just like no guns signs keep you from getting shot and OVI laws keep you from getting hit by a drunk driver?I heart you. This is an extremely accurate and relevant point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 exactly - im not against a ban - but theres just so much gray area on proving that an offense has taken place, that enforcing such life altering penalties doesnt seem right.people who drive for a living would automatically be out of work. 6pts on your record and a company will drop your ass because their insurance wont have you. some people dont understand how much a DUI can ruin a persons life and livelyhood (as i believe it should in the case of a DUI), but to enforce those type of penalties on an "assumption" or on "probably cause to suspect" is bullshitOkay, fine. I'll change my stance. Attempting to hit me while you're on the phone (accidentally or intentionally) should be considered attempted assault with a deadly weapon, and I should be legally allowed to shoot you for it in self defense. Is that better? I really don't have any sympathy for anyone who would get busted under this law. It isn't like they won't know it's illegal. They're choosing to willfully break the law knowing what the consequences are. Same with DUIs. Sure it ruins your life. But you knew it could before you took the first drink. If your phone rings, don't answer it without a handsfree device. Find a safe place to pull over, and call them back. I can't tell you how many times I've almost been taken out by jackasses texting or talking on their phones, especially on the bike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 There is no reason, excuse or need to talk WHILE driving that trumps the need for the rest of us to be safe from someone who is distracted. Just pull over. When someone calls me I look at the screen to see who it is. I'll either take the call on my handsfree or pull over and take the call if needed. im not arguing that the ban shouldnt be in place...im arguing about the penalties you and ben are suggesting for something that has a HUGE gray area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue03636 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 They aren't calling you in an emergency. That's my point. They're calling 911. Anything they're calling you for can wait until you pull over to call them back.I sure as hell would want to know if my wife or little one are having to go to the hospital. It may not be a 911 emergency but I'm answering the phone. A call distracts you about as much as looking to see who it is, it's not like people drive with both hands anyway. You hit answer and it's at your head with your eyes forward, not seeing the issue. As for it being the same as a DUI, no way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 So guilty until proven innocent? WTF? If you got that from my response then I would question your powers of comprehension...What part of my post made you think "guilty until proven innocent"? This requires the misconception that an arrest is predicated on guilt. It is not - it is on probable cause or a warrant. I said the police officer should be able to arrest based upon probable cause. This is how it always is.There are many questions to answer - like GPS features, as phone become more multifunctional devices. In the UK you simply cannot touch your phone while driving for any reason. But if you mount it to your dash and use a handfree and dial by voice (or dial by hand when not in traffic) then you are good to go. You can answer the phhone too - you just have to use a handsfree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 I can't tell you how many times I've almost been taken out by jackasses texting or talking on their phones, especially on the bike.You're not alone.Neither Tbut or I are saying its not a good law, we're saying DUI like penalties are excessive with a law that would have a SHIT TON of gray area. A DUI has no gray area, you are either over the limit or under the limit. End of story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Honestly, I think most people drive better drunk than while texting.yep. studies show that someone texting and driving is MORE imparied than someone at the legal limit...so either the penalty for texting and driving should be 6 months, 1000 dollars and loss of license etc everything else you get with a DUIor a DUI should be 150 bucks, heres your ticket and you're on your way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanDy Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 What about eating? Putting on make-up? Or reaching in the back seat to smack your kids? or lighting a smoke?These have been around longer then cell phones are possibly as dangerous as answering a call and aren't illegal (yet) should we add them to the list?Sent from my iPhone using SIRI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 For the sake of argument and I haven't read much in this thread....Just like no guns signs keep you from getting shot and OVI laws keep you from getting hit by a drunk driver?I don't see no gun signs and DUI laws anywhere near resembling each other. DUI laws aren't necessarily to protect me from drunk drivers. They're to punish those who decide to drive drunk. Police arresting drunk drivers are supposed to be protecting me from them. That's an entirely different argument. No gun signs were a legal necessity to get the concealed carry law passed. Now that it's been around and folks are realizing it hasn't caused anymore crime, they're slowly removing the restrictions (IE: public lands, parks, etc). It was a compromise to get bipartisan support for the bill. I can't knock them for that. It got the law passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 His eyes were off the road just the same amount of time to textIf you can rattle out a whole text medssage in the time it takes someone to pick up a bottle cap then you are some kind of teenager's texting hero. Takes me longer than that. I've watched people texting and they use a bottle-cap's amount of time for each letter.Aso, if that guy killed someone in that accident then would $100 be appropriate?Heck, for most people $100 is just gonna be considered texting tax. Won't stop them. DUI-level penaties would do a much better job of deterring it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 sure did, $100 ticket which he deserved. He certainly did not deserve to get DUI like penalties. His eyes were off the road just the same amount of time to text and longer than it would take to look down at who is calling to answerHad your dad died would you feel differently about that $100 fine being all he deserved? Do you think that bottle cap was really worth him wrecking into your dad for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 im not arguing that the ban shouldnt be in place...im arguing about the penalties you and ben are suggesting for something that has a HUGE gray areaPull over. Answer phone or call them back. There is no grey area here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrown57 Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Y not just have stiffer fines and penalties for distracted driving? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.