# Love to see this new state law in Ontario



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The new law, (Connecticut) one of the toughest in the nation, goes beyond just prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cellphones while behind the wheel. Those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can be fined $100 for any behavior that distracts them from driving - glancing at a newspaper, typing on a BlackBerry, applying lipstick while looking in the rearview mirror or turning to yell at the kids in the back seat.
...
Drivers nonetheless will have to get used to it. Four years after New York passed the nation's first cellphone ban, 22 states and Washington have limited cellphone use while driving. And in the last year, many of those states have gone beyond merely regulating cellphone use among drivers, cracking down on distractions inside cars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/nyregion/01cell.html?th&emc=th


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep good idea - using a phone in a car while driving without a headset or handsfree is seriously stupid.

THe article is slightly misleading as it says NY Cell phone ban and that's incorrect - it's HANDHELD banned.

Travelling the NY Thruway I feel positively normal - you go into a rest stop and headsets are the norm not the exception :clap:

Adding the other distractions is a good idea but I suspect police could do that here if they wished but I'd quite rather they concentrated on tailgaters and shoulder runners.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

from the article;


> Even the use of a headset or other hands-free cellphone device can reduce a driver's concentration enough to pose a hazard, the agency found.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

$100 bux? Hahahahahahahahaahahahahha where do I pay?

What a joke!

Seriously, when the police in my city put the cell phone down while driving, or the ambulance drivers put their cell phone down while driving and not responding to an emergency, then perhaps most other drivers will do the same. 

If they ever want to be serious about fining people they need to increase the fine to $1000.00 and not $100.00. For $100.00 I will even start talking on my cell phone while I drive, read the newspaper etc... Don't waste my tax paying dollars on such a ridiculous system if you can't make it worth my time and money.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Everything is a "hazard" Michael...... it's managed risk - is the guy trying to read directions from a piece of paper less or more hazard than someone being guided to a destination by cellphone.

Why not just ban radios, food, and require the driver to have an observer seated backwards ala waterskiiing when ever there are "passengers".

Chatting with a passenger or on the cell on long trips keeps me far more alert than nodding off to silence or music.
Pilots use head sets and radios and so do other emergency staff on the go - it's a matter of training and common sense and you cannot legislate common sense.

If a Flight Safety Officer ( read cop) feels a pilot ( read driver ) needs a "chat" then that's their role. Beyond that it's "driver in command" as much as it's pilot in command....you are in command of your vehicle and are expected to abide by the "rules" and accept the consequences if you don't.

I think the "unsafe vehicle" blitz a far more effective use of effort for safety.

I support a 'hand held" restriction but nothing beyond that nor would I expect it to be widely adhered to but it may make a few think twice about playing chatty cathy on a hand held while trying to round a corner with the other hand.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

seems that david only agrees up to a point where 'his decisions' are impacted
I use a cell in my car and routinely pull over to have discussions and write things down, like directions

just because "you" do it, doesn't make it ok

you're starting to sound very much like a creationist


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I can't tell you how many people I see in my review putting on makeup, talking on cell phones even shaving. I want to get out and just smack these people, and will if any of them hit me while doing so. If you can afford a cell phone then you can afford a $20 hands free device, and if you have to shave or put on makeup, get up 15 minutes earlier and do it at home.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I don't see where a hands-free cellphone conversation makes one iota of difference from a hand-held one.
Driving with one hand is not the issue, many people do that anyway even with no cellphone. The problem is the distraction when you're using a cellphone.
What I found from experience is that a light casual conversation in light traffic is not much of a problem, but if the conversation requires a lot of concentration - business issues for instance - the situation changes and if the traffic is heavy, ie rush hour, at the same time, people cause accidents or near misses because they are distracted enough not to be able to react in the split second they have.
I have never seen any evidence or even rationale why a hands-free cellphone call is any 'safer' than a hand held one.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Well here is a thought, if they ban cell phone in a car, then I want cell phone ban just about everywhere.

I want cell phones banned in the following:

1. Elevators
2. Restaurants
3. Movie Theatres
4. Gas Stations
5. Airports
6. Airplanes
7. Grocery stores
8. Fast food joints
9. In parks
10. While riding a bicycle 
11. Schools
12. Any work related building where you have to stand in line and listen to someone else's cell phone conversation.

All the above are distractions to me, so please lets work on banning cell phones from those locations as well as in vehicles.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

With the exception of speeding, law enforcement does little or nothing to catch traffic offences. I witness half-a-dozen glaring violations a day on my 20 min walk to work every day. I have simply stopped crossing Lakeshore at the Bathurst intersection because it's so damn dangerous.

Sure, pass another law. But since no one is enforcing the current laws I don't expect much impact.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> Well here is a thought, if they ban cell phone in a car, then I want cell phone ban just about everywhere.
> 
> I want cell phones banned in the following:
> 
> ...


Hey Mr. Canadian Airlines - 

I thought cellphones are banned in airplanes already because they might interfere with navigational instruments............although I see that two European airlines are testing out some new system that would allow cellphones in airplanes.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Cell phones are not banned on an aircraft to the point where the airline takes the cell phone prior to boarding and keeps it from you. Yes, you're not supposed to use it once you get on the aircraft, but what is the first thing most people do as soon as the aircraft touches down on the runway? They whip out their cell phone and make that call letting everyone possible that they know, that they just have landed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MichaeI guess those states discerning a difference between hands free and handheld are entirely out to lunch as well. OnStar - totally ridiculous, out of gas light, oh my should not have distractions, no GPS - too distracting but reading directions is okay....

You write your directions down stopped then read them while driving.......I see.
I suppose you stop, read them, drive a little further, stop again, read them again.......etc.

But you don't use a headset. But you DO drive and chat.
Landing a plane requires a lot of concentration yet pilots do it every day while also being aware and responding on hand free headsets. 

It becomes part of the activity - police have on shoulder radios to keep both hands free.

Dealing with ANY as aspect of communication, listening to a traffic report is distracting - you learn as a safe driver to deal with everything from light traffic and sunny weather to rain/snow fog that requires a lot of concentration.

It's called judgement .......


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i bet i read directions a lot less than you chat w/ your headset
pilots are pros, have intruments and a hell of a lot less taffic than a roadway

c'mon david, just admit you mistepped on this one
all that is macdoc is not gold

"judgement day"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Landing a plane requires a lot of concentration yet pilots do it every day while also being aware and responding on hand free headsets.


Although I agree with some of what you've said, the above seems disconnected. Pilots do not deal with the type of random and constant unrelated movements, as caused by other people, that drivers do; they work in highly controlled environments relative to driving. Their expertise is managing extremely complex equipment with large responsibilities and their communications are largely related to operating that equipment. Automobiles, while far simpler to operate than jets and moving in, realistically, 2 dimensions, operate within more 'unnatural conditions' (wind versus pedestrians, bicycles, other cars, etc..). This one part of your argument does not, to me, carry weight, although other parts of your argument do.

That'll be 2 cents please...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yep good idea - using a phone in a car while driving without a headset or handsfree is seriously stupid.


MacDoc - I realize people have totally different, and very strong, opinions on this subject.
But going back to your first post.......how is a cellphone conversation using a handset any more or less distracting than using handsfree. In my mind tha's a myth.
The conversation is the same...the distraction factor should be the same and either you can manage it or not.
And don't tell me with two hands on the wheel you can swerve quicker to avoid an accident 

PS: I came across these two articles on the internet - I'm sure there are more



> Study: Hands-Free Cell Phones No Safer Than Hand-Helds July 12, 2005
> E-Mail This Article
> 
> Print This Article
> ...





> Hands-Free Cellphones May Be No Safer Than Hand-Held
> 
> Headsets were supposed to address concerns about the safety of talking on the phone while driving, but new research suggests that hands-free devices may actually add to the overall risk, according to the WSJ.
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

what macdoc doesn't want to admit is that his mind is not totally on his driving when talking on the phone
hands free is only mildly less distracting than holding a phone in one hand

David,
I've spoken to you on several occassion when you have been on your phone and been "distracted."

C'mon now. Let's be adult about this and admit that hands free is not the panacea you would want us to believe.

After a couple of "close calls" I tend to either not use my phone in the car or pull over. There still are times when I talk while driving, but I have cut them down a lot.

Just on Wednesday a client called while I was in the car up here in Shangri-La and I pulled over to talk and make notes. I told my client I wanted to pull over and he gladly waited.

Voice mail is a great thing.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

There are several research studies showing that people on cellphones, handsfree or not, are involved in a higher rate of car accidents.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Of course I put my concentration on the traffic when it's required - that's what judgement is about.
You don't use a headset you've had close calls that you relate to your hand held cell.
I've used a head set for years never a close call that was related to my being on the phone. 

I've likely saved a life by being able to react immediately to an accident in front of me and reported any number of stranded motorists and objects on the highway to 680 News and the OPP. Perhaps 2-3 times a month or more if I'm driving a lot.

They are preprogammed and take no more effort than changing from CBC to 680 news on the radio.
I have to do nothing to answer the phone and one button to voice dial out.

ANY distraction, bright sunlight requires increased attention to conditions. One of the more annoying ones is flipping the sun visor over to the left window - THAT is distracting.

States made a distinction for good reason. It's a matter of training and good judgement and using the technology properly.
If you use a phone Michael why aren't you wearing a headset - you've already had "close calls" - should tell you something.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> States made a distinction for good reason.


Maybe. More likely they have not banned phones outright, based on the evidence, because it would be politically unpopular.

Really, though, if there is a good reason for all American laws, why [feel free to complete]?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's ban white cars.



> Silver cars were about 50% less likely to be involved in a crash resulting in serious injury than white cars. The design and methods are a reasonable approach to study the association between modifiable risk factors and injury from car crashes. The association between silver car colour and reduced risk of serious injury persisted after we had adjusted for major confounding factors, but the possibility of residual confounding remains. The extent to which these results are generalisable to other settings is open to question. Increasing the proportion of silver cars could be an effective passive strategy to reduce the burden of injury from car crashes.


http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1455

or perhaps passengers......interesting that there are benefits in certain conditions and negatives in others......



> Our epidemiological study revealed that passengers modify accident risks in a rather straightforward way: *Accident risk with passengers is reduced as compared to driving alone. But characteristics of the driver and the driving situation modify the general passenger effect strongly.* Both, in difficult situations or for unexperienced drivers, accident risk increases with passengers present. The social facilitation approach offers a possible explanation for these findings: Accident risk depends on an interaction between driving difficulty and passengers, with detrimental effects of passengers in difficult situations.
> 
> Our reconstruction of the passenger effect in the laboratory showed that speaking is a promising factor towards a further understanding of the passenger effect. Speaking is resource demanding and thus interacts with numerous simultaneous tasks. Hence, drivers try to compensate for this extra strain by reducing difficulty in the driving task: They slow down whenever possible. This reduced speed diminishes accident risk and causes the "beneficial" effect of passengers. However, this "beneficial" effect is only a reaction to increased task demands.
> 
> In difficult traffic situations linked with low speed a compensation by a further reduced speed is not possible. Hence, increased task demands by passengers lead to increased accident risk in such situations.


You simply need to know when to tell passenger or the person on the other end of the cell to "let me concentrate" - I do it all the time with both.

It's also well down on the "distraction" list



> The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research office analyzed five years of highway accident data and found that the most frequently reported sources of distraction for drivers involved in tow-away accidents were outside persons, objects or events (29.4%), followed by adjusting the radio, CD or cassette (11.4%), and then by other occupants in the vehicle (10.9%). Using a cell phone ranked far down their list with a frequency of 1.5%.
> 
> Other highway surveys have come up with similar rankings. In 2003, Delaware police reviewed about 1,300 accidents in their state and found only four in which they were distracted by a cell phone. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has also ranked cell phones low on their list of distractions that cause accidents


Once more, it's called judgement.

Then perhaps Michael should be more cautious 



> Luxury cars 'in more accidents'
> 
> DRIVERS of luxury European cars were most likely to have been involved in a car crash in the past year, while those who drove cheaper cars managed to avoid regular prangs, a study has found.
> 
> ...


and of course there is tire pressure



> The survey estimates low tire pressure kills as many as 79 people a year with as many as 10,635 people a year injured


Bottom line....you cannot legislate good judgement and common sense.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, we have harsher penalties than that in NL -- $100 plus one point for the first offense, $500 plus 4 points for the second, and a suspended license for one years for the third.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacDoc - 

None of the 'studies' you published are actually surprising and they also make logical sense if you think about it, for instance certain car colours are much more visible than others.

My point was simply that the distraction factor of talking on a cellphone does not change between handheld and handsfree.

As to the pecking order of distraction factors as quoted here:


> The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research office analyzed five years of highway accident data and found that the most frequently reported sources of distraction for drivers involved in tow-away accidents were outside persons, objects or events (29.4%), followed by adjusting the radio, CD or cassette (11.4%), and then by other occupants in the vehicle (10.9%). Using a cell phone ranked far down their list with a frequency of 1.5%.


It doesn't look as if the data was normalized which makes the results of that study useless.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'd like to believe those studies too, but they're from insurance companys. Of course they would like people to believe that more expensive cars get into more accidents, so they in turn can fleece people on insurance rates. They figure if you can afford that BMW then you can afford to pay more for insurance.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

I have one for you all, if they are to ban cell phones, then they should ban smoking while driving, what do you think?

What is more distracting? Smoking while driving? Or talking while driving? How about trying to light that cigarette while driving? I have seen enough people struggle to light a cigarette while driving and end up over the yellow line etc.. so perhaps we need to look into this as well.

The next thing that needs to go, is all GPS units and all in one GPS/computer consoles on these high end vehicles. Have you driven a new Lexus 4X4 lately? All your controls for the vehicle is driven by the centre computerized screen with buttons on it. You have to look down at the screen when you want to do something, I guess that isn't considered being distracted?

Oh and don't forget those iPods, those will have to go as well, we don't want any of you to be looking down at your iPod while driving to change the music. 

Personally, I think people need to train themselves to be able to multi task while driving. It can be done folks. You can talk, drive and still be on high alert if you train yourself for it. But like most people, even if they don't own a cell phone, they get in their vehicle and lose all self awareness of everyone around them on the road. It doesn't take a cell phone to cause an accident when people are not aware of what is around them to begin with, without using a cell phone. 

Here is a question I have for everyone:

When you drive and have a passenger beside you in the front seat, or in the back, how many of you can actually keep your eyes on the road and talk to the passenger at the same time?

How many of you have to look at the person beside you or the person behind you while you carry on a conversation?

How many of you have to occasionally look over or behind to the person?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

When I drive, my eyes never leave the road ahead. I am watching far ahead of where I am, anticipating what might happen. I NEVER look at my passenger while driving, nor do I look backward other than a quick shoulder check before changing lanes.

My cell is tied to my radio and I converse totally hands free. I advise anyone who calls me I am on the road and unless it can't wait, I will call them back when I get the opportunity.

Too many inexperienced drivers fall prey to the cell phone use is OK thing. No amount or training will enable a driver to multi-task to they point that they are safe.

Hell, half of the idiots on today's roads don't even know where the signal light arm is, never mind looking for it while on the phone.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

I disagree SINC on "No amount or training will enable a driver to multi-task to the point that they are safe." 

Explain to me how Paramedics multi task while driving to an accident scene? How do Police Officers multi task while driving to an emergency scene, I mean they are talking to dispatch, checking the computer and controlling the siren sometimes all at once, plus driving on the road? How do Fire fighters make it to an emergency scene while multi tasking and getting around everyone on the road? How do pilots in a Cessna 150 or 172 fly out of a small airport, talk to the ATC, check for traffic on their own, plus look at their map at the same time? You could easily be out of ATC range, have to check the map and scan the sky for other aircraft all at the same time. 

Every example above involves heavy multi tasking that no other normal person has to deal with while on the road driving or flying. But, the above people do it, each day, and for long periods. 

Let me give you an example of what happened to me while flying a Cessna 172 from Ontario to Buffalo airport. I had already spent a few hours flying towards Toronto, just got off the radio with ATC in Toronto and was passed onto ATC in Buffalo once I crossed the border. Everything was going fine, until I called into ATC Buffalo. For some unknown reason they told me that my transponder wasn't working and they didn't have me on their radar screens. You don't want to hear that while flying a 4 seater Cessna 172 heading towards an International Airport like Buffalo with the big guys around you. I tried different squak codes etc... nothing worked for the ATC in Buffalo. This is when the multi tasking started to happen. Had to check the instruments, relay the information to ATC in Buffalo, at the same time looking in an almost 360 degree view to see if any aircraft were in the area, heading towards me, same altitude etc... had to check the map to make sure I was heading in the same direction and listen and respond the ATC tower in Buffalo. Everything was happening so quickly, but because I learned how to multi task while flying, I mean which pilot doesn't right? I was able to talk, look, write, fly and stay out of anyone's way such as a 747 or 767 in the area. Constantly scanning the instruments, looking outside for air traffic, making notes, talking with ATC in Buffalo, all this and in the end I made it safely to Buffalo. In the end it wasn't my aircraft that was faulty, it was ATC in Buffalo that had some problems. Now put a person who never has flown a plane before in the same seat, they might be able to keep the plane up in the air, but wouldn't be used to all the multi tasking that needed to be done in order to land the plane safely. 

Here is another question:

How many people just grab the directions and run out the door and into their vehicle? Then proceed to struggle with them while driving?

How many people actually prepare themselves ahead of time, by writing certain street names down to look for, so that they know when to turn? 

We teach people to drive a vehicle, but do we really do that? What we do is actually put that person inside a vehicle and hand them the keys. When they can go from A to B safely we hand them their licence. 

Now imagine someone going for their pilot licence, imagine if we just let them hold the controls and test them on how well they do with the controls and nothing else and then handed them their licence? Wouldn't you get on that plane and fly across the world with them?

There is more to driving a vehicle then just getting behind the wheel and driving from A to B. That is what needs to be taught, unfortunately there is no school for this type of learning, for flying yes, but for driving no.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGYVER said:


> I disagree SINC on "No amount or training will enable a driver to multi-task to the point that they are safe."
> There is more to driving a vehicle then just getting behind the wheel and driving from A to B. That is what needs to be taught, unfortunately there is no school for this type of learning, for flying yes, but for driving no.


Right you are MacGYVER. I should have stated: "No amount or training will enable an average driver to multi-task to the point that they are safe."

Exceptional drivers who demonstrate skill levels like of those of a pilot are rare indeed, especially in the Edmonton area. It may be different in your area. But the number of Dodos I see every day on our streets who do not signal, apply make up and shave on the way to work absolutely astounds me. And all this while on the phone or looking back at the kids in the car seats in back.

The licensing program is a farce and should be tightened up to keep many of these types of drivers off our roads. Some people simply can't do two things at once and it shows badly.

I can't even begin to count how many people who have no idea as to how to drive in traffic and take into account other vehicles around them. I see them from my seat high above them in my 30 foot motor home all summer long.

Most driver have no consideration for a big vehicle or how long it takes larger vehicles to stop. Their favourite trick is to pass a motor home or a truck shortly before a red light, then cut into the lane in front of us. They have no idea how hard we have to apply the brakes to avoid running our bumpers through their a$$ end.

90% of today's drivers would fail a driving exam if an invisible license examiner rode to work with them on any given day.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I agree with banning the things while driving. I was once again almost run over while cycling last week, by an idiot cell phone wielding driver who made an incredibly stupid blind turn into the direct morning sun, onto a very crowded bike route. This dolt mouthed "F-U" directly at me, after being yelled at by myself and a few other cyclists on the busy bike route.

I'm sick of it, having had 3 close calls this year all involving cell phone yapping drivers. I don't want to end up as a hood ornament on an SUV, because some damn fool is busy lying to his boss about why he will be late, while he franticly manoeuvres through traffic with the phone on his ear. Yes, there are many other distractions and yes, some zen master driver might possibly be able to manage all the distractions and drive all right, but the vast majority cannot. There are probably a few drivers who could juggle flaming torches while driving, but I doubt most would agree that it's a good idea. And studies have shown that drivers in traffic have to process more information and do more things simultaneously than jet pilots who have had intensive training. Auto drivers don't need more distractions.

I think that if there is any evidence that a driver was doing something distracting after an accident has occurred they should throw the book at him/her. Get the cell phone records after the accident occurs and nail the buggers for dangerous driving.

Drivers need to learn to just get in their cars and focus on driving properly, not distracting themselves and fracturing their concentration with their gadgets because they're like easily bored children. Put down your shiny toys kiddies and act like adults.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Drivers need to learn to just get in their cars and focus on driving properly, not distracting themselves and fracturing their concentration with their gadgets because they're like easily bored children. Put down your shiny toys kiddies and act like adults.


can I still have the radio on?


I do agree that cell phones (hands free or otherwise) should not be allowed while the car is in motion
and getting rid of cigrette smoking in vehicles would be a great thing on several levels

as for passengers in cars and facing them;
no, no and no


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> can I still have the radio on?


We'll allow the radio........but the portable TV in the passenger seat is a no no.  

and btw - I think the argument re pilots and some of the others are red herrings.
Not only is a pilot trained for this 'multitask' activity of being on the radio, it's part of his flying activity in general to improve safety. In fact, I don't think they do use their radio at all during the critical landing or takeoff process.
I don't think the avation authorities would look at it too kindly if a pilot was chatting with his wife/girlfriend on a cell phone while landing a plane.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, no singing with the song on the radio, howeve. In all seriousness, my Young Drivers of Canada training has saved my life twice, driving defensively out of harms way of stupid drivers.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

SINC said:


> The licensing program is a farce and should be tightened up to keep many of these types of drivers off our roads. Some people simply can't do two things at once and it shows badly.
> 
> I can't even begin to count how many people who have no idea as to how to drive in traffic and take into account other vehicles around them. I see them from my seat high above them in my 30 foot motor home all summer long.
> 
> ...


Whole heartedly agreed!

I would support legislation that called for a periodic driving exam, written and driven, every three to five years (say, when your license comes up for renewal). Make it thorough, not just a 15 minute jaunt around the block. 

If you pass, the exam would be no cost. If you fail, your license would be revoked, you would have to attend a driver's education course with a significant fee attached ($500-$1000?) and you would have to wait at least a month for your license. If you have any poor driving habits in real life, they'll show up in an extended test drive-old habits die hard.

Some may consider this draconian. What would you consider the loss of life due to poor driving skills or habits-acceptable? 

Far too many people do not recognize the responsibilities that come along with that little rectangle of plastic with their picture on it.

I'm tired of dodging idiots as a pedestrian, a bicyclist, a motorcyclist and a driver who are otherwise preoccupied by a cell phone stuck in their ear, Fifi in their lap and a half dozen screaming kids in the back seat. That, and they can't be bothered with mirror check/shoulder check/*signal!* If I can see the red in your bloodshot eyes in my rearview mirror at 100 km/h, maybe, just maybe, you're following too close.

[/rant]


----------



## Ingenu (Jun 4, 2003)

From an article in the last Scientific American Minds



> Independent studies confirm the risk and suggest that is _engaging in conversation, not manipulating a phone, that is most distracting_. That argument you are having with your girlfriend over your hands-free phone is tying up neurons that could be better used to keep your Subaru between the lane lines. Experiments by Johns Hopkins University psychologists Sarah Shomstein and Steven Yantis on 11 volunteers show that the brain can be intensely aware of what is coming through either the eyes or the ears _but not both at the same time_. The subjects watched a stream of characters on a computer screen while listening to a voice chant a series of letters and numbers. Cues instructed the subjects to switch their attention between vision and hearing. Using magnetic resonance imaging, Shomstein and Yantis found that certain brain regions were activated when the subjects consciously chose to see; these were muted when they chose to hear.
> 
> Although music from the car radio or a conversation with a passenger may also compete for a driver's attention, listening is far more passive. "You don't have to put resources into it", Shomstein explains. "And a person sitting with you is aware of the situation as well as you are". The individual in your earphone cannot see the toll plaza ahead.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

wait till macdoc sees this
he believes his "hands free" unit is far superior to a hand held cell phone

I can't wait to see how macdoc "spins" this study from Johns Hopkins


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

No problem -
Sample size is too small; were the volunteers male or female (apparently one sex can multitask better than the other); what were their ages; has the study been repeated elsewhere and results confirmed?....and on and on.  

Having said that, I nearly plowed into a car in front of me on the 401 a few years ago while I was talking on the cellphone. All it takes is a distraction of a fraction of a second. No more talking on the cellphone while driving for me.........in fact, I gave up cellphones altogether, I relish the peace and quiet when nobody can reach me...calls go to voicemail and I call them back when I feel like it. Probably not doable if you run your own business.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macdoc might just say that he never talks, only listens
[rolls eyes]


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

FeXL said:


> Whole heartedly agreed!
> 
> I would support legislation that called for a periodic driving exam, written and driven, every three to five years (say, when your license comes up for renewal). Make it thorough, not just a 15 minute jaunt around the block.
> 
> ...


I agree Fex! People develop bad habits 5, 10, or 15 years on from getting their licences and start to believe that those habits are acceptable or actually legal. I've been saying for years, after I did a stint as a delivery driver, that a lot of people who hold driver licences have either forgotten or never knew the rules of the road. I've thought for a long time that licence renewals should not be automatic.

I think that driver distraction is starting to emerge as major issue and hopefully will start to be dealt with seriously in the future, as driving drunk was in the past. This week, in Toronto, the CAA is hosting a conference on the subject.

http://www.distracteddriving.ca/english/index.cfm


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I'm tired of dodging idiots as a pedestrian, a bicyclist, a motorcyclist and a driver who are otherwise preoccupied by a cell phone stuck in their ear...." It is called "the quick or the dead" in New York City.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One thing that never fails to amaze me is dummies who read while driving. I passed a woman in a Sunfire on my way to Fort McMurray who had a novel propped up on the wheel, reading as she drove.

I sounded my horn and she actually jumped. That is how hard she was concentrating on the book and not the road.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, that is amazing!!!!!!! Some of can hardly read while we are sitting in the back seat, let alone trying to drive.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Remember the good old days with horse and wagon...somewhat before my time, but apparently they found their way home by themselves without any help from us humans.
Maybe the lady in the Sunfire thought her car could do that as well.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Well, 
the cellphone ban in Newfoundland was overturned by an interesting twist. How to prove "use of a cellphone" while driving.
The edited judgement:

Judgment

I have seen many people lately, driving while using their cellphones on their shoulder. It's not right!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ErnstNL, I heard about this ruling from a friend, but I thought he was kidding because the rationale underlying this ruling sounded absurd.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ErnstNL, it seems as if the section of the penal law is still in use, but the crucial aspect is use of the phone. " I do say, however, that the section, in my view, is certainly a valid section, and it only requires that evidence of sending or receiving a communication be presented."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Someone is not thinking about this properly.

All the police have to do is summon a copy of the cell phone bill from the provider and voila, there in black and white would be the time of the call to compare to the time of stopping the vehicle which should be within a minute or so of each other.

Sounds like they had to have another reason not to proceed with it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, at the time, there was no record of an incoming or outgoing call, which is why this case was dropped.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's odd. My cell phone bills for the last 16 years have recorded every call, date and time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, the point is that he was not receiving or making a call, as the records show. The law forbids a person from using a cell phone while driving. Thus, with the phone on his shoulder, and no talking, he was technically free of the restraints of the law. Common sense would dictate otherwise, but it was the semantics of the word "use" that got his sentence overturned.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I would think that the fact that he had a cell phone perched on his shoulder, whether he was talking on it or not, should be evidence of driving without due care and attention. Rather than bringing in laws to specifically ban the use of cell phone maybe legislators should just tighten up the law, so that evidence of doing anything else at all, besides just operating the controls of the vehicle would constitute driving without due care and attention.

I don't drive much these days, but yesterday I was driving in Vancouver's rush hour. I came up behind a van that had it's left turn signal on. Thinking that the person was thoughtfully giving the driver's behind them notice that they were turning left at the next intersection, I changed into the mostly empty parking lane to my right, as did a few drivers behind me. The van sailed through the intersection without turning and myself and the other drivers then got caught behind the parked cars further down the next block, and had to wait to merge back into the traffic. 

A half dozen blocks later I ended up behind the van again, and the driver finally turned the signal off. Then without signalling, the driver turned into a left turn bay turning onto a major street. I followed the van, as I was going that way. It was then I could see the guy in the van's side mirror talking and laughing on a cell phone. He got behind two other cars moving into the intersection on the yellow and then made a dangerous screeching turn through the busy intersection on the red light, still with no signal. 

This ass inconvenienced a few and endangered the lives of a few others in the short time I saw him. If I had been a cop I would have wanted the power to pull him over and give him a ticket, for more than not signalling a turn. I know this is a fairly minor incident in the scheme of things, but in yesterday's rush hour you could probably multiply that by the hundreds of thousands.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

MacGYVER said:


> ...or the ambulance drivers...


Most paramedics would have an issue with you calling them just drivers - after all, they're first responders.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sigh.......

Much of driving is like riding a bicycle or flying a plane and is NOT under direct conscious control.

It's one reason young people have accidents as they have not the trained reflexive skills of a more experienced driver even tho their "reflexes" may be faster, their subconscious driving ( or flying ) skills are not there.

Holding a cell phone while driving disrupts dramatically the "norm" driving position - just holding the phone itself as with food, a map whatever is a major distraction. Want proof - take a cup and stick it to your ear withone hand and try and drive normally. No chatter needed - it's horrible.
Take your cup away, resume your normal driving position and you relax immediately - good demonstrater for non cell phone users.

Being in your normal driving position with free head movement, both hands available and "relaxed" for all the subconscious movements you undertake while driving is a key step.

One major part of learning to land a plane is getting relaxed so your training kicks in and the "embedded skill" is put to use.

In addition, "focusing" on a task changes things dramatically - trying to find a station on the radio versus listening to it.

If cell phones were such a danger why haven't we seen an enormous jump in accidents since the numbers of cells in use have soared by hundreds of percentage points while vehicle accidents are little changed if not down due to a variety of factors. We haven't because it's "low on the radar" against other aspects of driving issues.

Almost any long distance driver knows how easy it is for miles, even hundreds of miles to slip by without being aware of it consciously, how is that possible if it's a completely "conscious" skill set.

It's not.

As to your "brain imaging" answer Michael.













> The development of automaticity involves a qualitative shift in processing mechanisms and dramatic changes in brain activity. Initial processing is generally a rule-based processing that involves interpretive execution of sequential rules that make heavy use of working memory and produces serial processing. Executive control areas alter attentional gain of cortical modules and examine activity to compare information to traces in working memory.
> 
> *We see dramatic changes in cortical activation as automaticity develops. There are routinely over 90% reductions in the amount of cortical activity as skill is acquired. *The accompanying figure shows the reductions in visual motor tracking between the first twenty minutes and fifth twenty minutes in performing a tracking task. This is a maximum projection image showing all the areas of activation. Note early in practice, on the left, there is high involvement of working memory (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, DLPFC), comparison (cingulate), and attentional control (parietal) areas. *After training, much of this control-related activity is greatly reduced, and the remaining activity occurs in only a small number of specific sites related primarily to sensory and motor processing.* With contemporary imaging methods, we can follow such changes in complex tasks to interpret the biological mechanisms underlying the development and performance of automatic processing.


http://coglab.psy.cmu.edu/project_01automaticity.htm

No substitute for judgement and experience and events like falling asleep at the wheel - something cell chat tends to reduce - cause an incredible number of very serious accidents.
It's one reason there are odd results in accidents for vehicles with one passenger versus two or more.

Bottom line it's one very minor aspect of driving safety and a properly set up hands free system that you are used to using takes it one step further - just as on the wheel cruise controls and one button radio tuning do. I don;t set up my radio while driving and I don't do my banking by phone while driving for similar reasons.

I WILL listen to CBC or 680News or I will chat if conditions permit and I will stop either if I need.

Ergonomics, good equipment, learned skills...and oh yeah....judgement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The CAA is concerned:

NEWS RELEASE TRANSMITTED BY CCNMatthews


FOR: CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
AND: TRAFFIC RESEARCH INJURY FOUNDATION
Tackling the issue of distracted driving: Government, Traffic Safety Researchers, Industry Gather in Toronto at the International Conference on Distracted Driving

OCT 3, 2005 - 09:14 ET 

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Oct. 3, 2005) - More than 100 researchers, industry experts, government officials and delegates from around the world are gathering in Toronto this week to examine the issue of driver distraction. Co-hosted by the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) and the Traffic Research Injury Foundation (TIRF), the International Conference on Distracted Driving will help raise awareness of distracted driving and identify fact-based policies and programs for dealing with the issue.

In a series of panel discussions and workshops, the conference will examine the root causes of driver distraction and the extent to which these factors contribute to road crashes. It will also address awareness and educational programs, legislation, regulation and enforcement strategies, and critical next steps. The conference will wrap up October 5, 2005, with a statement of priority needs for action from the participants.

"We know that driver distraction occurs when a motorist's attention shifts away from the task at hand - driving - and to another event, activity, object or person," said David Flewelling, President of the CAA. "Such activities divert driver attention, and place the driver, passengers, and others on the road at greater risk. Driver education and awareness are important tools we have to reduce crashes due to distracted driving."

The conference will also study the efforts that have been made (or are needed) to assess and reduce the negative impact of distractions caused by current and planned technologies. It will also consider technology, education and awareness campaigns that can prevent the consequences of distraction.

"By bringing together world-renowned experts on the issue of distracted driving, TIRF is seeking to improve its understanding of the causes of distraction and the extent to which they contribute to road crashes," said Herb Simpson, President and CEO of TIRF. "We also want to identify research and data needs to fill information gaps, and promote evidence-based solutions, based on a solid understanding of the problem."

For more information about the International Conference on Distracted Driving, visit www.distracteddriving.ca

About the CAA

CAA is a federation of 9 automobile clubs serving 4.7 million members through 130 offices across Canada. CAA provides a wide range of member services and works to improve travelling and motoring conditions at home and around the world.

About TIRF

Established in 1964, TIRF's mission is to reduce traffic-related deaths and injuries. TIRF designs, promotes and implements effective programs and policies, based on research. More information about TIRF is available at www.trafficinjuryresearch.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Canadian Automobile Association (CAA)
Julia Ukrintz
Manager, Communications
(613) 796-1525 (cell)
[email protected]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "We know that driver distraction occurs when a motorist's attention shifts away from the task at hand - driving - and to another event, activity, object or person,


That's such an all-inclusive statement it becomes meaningless. 

Driving IS dealing with all of the above activities, objects or persons or events.
Doing so safely requires a combination of training and experience in dealing with, mental state ( technology ( sun glasses traffic reports), experience, car maintenance etc. time of day, your diurnal cycle and even if the time changed recently to Daylight Savings or off, your working hours, the weather..........

What I'm hoping is a conference like this focuses on crucial aspects like better positioned signage 403/407/QEW , street numbers on street signs....mandatory visible street numbering for ALL buildings.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> Most paramedics would have an issue with you calling them just drivers - after all, they're first responders.


I have high respect for paramedic drivers, but due to all the drivers on the road who have no respect for them, they are not always first responders .


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That's such an all-inclusive statement it becomes meaningless.
> 
> Driving IS dealing with all of the above activities, objects or persons or events.
> Doing so safely requires a combination of training and experience in dealing with, mental state ( technology ( sun glasses traffic reports), experience, car maintenance etc. time of day, your diurnal cycle and even if the time changed recently to Daylight Savings or off, your working hours, the weather..........
> ...


MacDoc,

You hit on an important issue that needs to be looked at on all levels, city, municipalities, government etc..

Majority of road signs in most big cities and smaller cities are useless at all major intersections. Depending on where you are or drive, the road signs are usually placed right at the traffic lights. No good if you need to turn left or right on that street as it is too late for you to make a lane change. Some of the road signs are even placed across the intersection on the traffic pole or hanging across between the lights. Totally useless, how on earth do they expect me to do a lane change when the sign is at the actual intersection and not prior? 

Cities need to start thinking logically and more on how they can prevent people from making last minute lane changes at intersections, because of improper sign placement. Place the signs at least 200-300m prior to a major intersection, or whatever is a safe distance to actually make the lane change for the individual. And don't skimp out on the size of lettering of the signs, my god, I don't want to be taking out a digital camera and zooming ahead to read the signs .

On rural roads or school zone areas, the city needs to start cutting away branches that block the road signs from being read while driving down the road. I can't tell you how many times I see this in any city across Ontario. 

Another good idea that only some cities do? Is putting street numbers on street signs. That is a life saver and makes my driving experience a lot easier and safer let me tell you. It truly sucks to come to a major intersection and street, not knowing which way the numbers go. 

I think highway signs (401 etc.) for the most part are ok, I think people are just, I don't know dumb and can't read? If you really want to see what I mean, just head up the 427 north towards the airport. You see that HUGE sign that shows an airplane and shows which lanes to exit for the airport? That still doesn't work, and hundreds of people still to this day STOP passed the exit, back up, and then wait until it is clear to exit the 427??? I'm not sure what more they can do? I mean there is even a sign further back before the actual exit, actually a few that tell you what lanes to be in to exit for the airport and people still can't read or fail to understand? So I'm not sure how you could improve that except maybe put one of those electronic signs with words? Flashing neon lights? 

Then there are the Terminal signs that are actually numbered i.e. 1, 2 or 3. Yup, it is that simple, and yet hundreds of people get lost trying to figure out how to get to the terminal they want. How the hell does that happen? All you have to do is follow the damn numbered signs that are clearly labelled 1, 2, or 3! They even have them numbered and arrows pointing which way to turn etc... and yet so many people get lost or have no clue how to drive?

I agree with you on the numbers on buildings. Take a drive downtown Toronto and try to find the building you're looking for with just the building number, good luck! That goes for just about any city that I have ever been to including my home town. Is it that hard to actually put a number on your building? Is it that hard to place a number somewhere visible from the street? Or are we all supposed to drive 20-40 km/hr causing traffic jams to check every single freaking building for a number? Or worse drive along at traffic speed and SLAM on the brakes when you find the building, or quickly turn right or left without signalling because you have no time as that is the building right there? What a pain in the ass I tell you.

Then there are the people who live in houses who are so damn cheap, to not even buy house numbers. Who are you hiding from? Do you get your lawn serviced? How does the company know which house it is supposed to be? What if you had to call 911 and had to wait while emergency response tries to find your house as the entire street has no house numbers on it? I have come across this and it is freaking frustrating to try and find houses without any numbers on them, that my friends delays the emergency response time. Go out and buy some nice big numbers and not those tiny ones and make sure they are visible and not hiding behind something. Those numbers could save your life one day.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

One can go on and on here.
Signs are definitely a problem, but the other thing that causes a lot of problems for people that drive the 401 occasionally is that the exit ramps are not always to the right as they should be. And the right riving lane should never end or exit, but it does.
People who design the roads don't follow some very basic rules.
As to the airport signage. I remember before they did all this reconstruction they had signs to terminals 1. 2 and 3 but it was only *after* you exited to one of these terminals that they had a sign telling you which airlines used which terminal.
Now it's a bit better, at least they have one sign before the road splits to the various terminals, but that sign is easy to miss if you're not looking for it; they need to have a second duplicate sign before the road splits.
However, I don't think any of these would be classified as _driving distractions_ as far as the conference is concerned.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

David,
I guess you choose to ignore this;

_
Independent studies confirm the risk and suggest that is engaging in conversation, not manipulating a phone, that is most distracting. That argument you are having with your girlfriend over your hands-free phone is tying up neurons that could be better used to keep your Subaru between the lane lines. Experiments by Johns Hopkins University psychologists Sarah Shomstein and Steven Yantis on 11 volunteers show that the brain can be intensely aware of what is coming through either the eyes or the ears but not both at the same time. The subjects watched a stream of characters on a computer screen while listening to a voice chant a series of letters and numbers. Cues instructed the subjects to switch their attention between vision and hearing. Using magnetic resonance imaging, Shomstein and Yantis found that certain brain regions were activated when the subjects consciously chose to see; these were muted when they chose to hear.

Although music from the car radio or a conversation with a passenger may also compete for a driver's attention, listening is far more passive. "You don't have to put resources into it", Shomstein explains. "And a person sitting with you is aware of the situation as well as you are". The individual in your earphone cannot see the toll plaza ahead.
_

"The world according to macdoc" is going to become a popular phrase.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The World According to MacNutt"..........."The World According to MacDoc".........."When Worlds Collide".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No I'm not ignoring it at - all - look at the change in the brain activity when it's an acquired skill. It drops to almost nothing.
Not a chance on earth you could duplicate that in small study where split attention is being forced.

You don't consciously THINK about riding a bicycle and a large amount of drivng is subconscious acquired embedded skills of a similar nature.

You can drift off and be inattentive - in fact may more likely be - in a dead quiet car with little change in the traffic speeds around you. There was one study that showed there were spikes of accident occurences under some "steady state" traffic conditions.

It's far more complex than you would try and make out and if you can't drive and talk handsfree then don't. I would never advise anyone to handhold a cell or other device and try and talk and drive - they are NOT equivalent to handsfree.

A big part of safer driving, or flying - is knowing your skills and limits......it's called judgement.
Just don't try and make a cell phone ban some kind of panacea. It's not.

If you read the article and some links you'll see "attention" is NOT something we have conscious control over and things in our visual field are often mapped out - one reason I hate cars that sit in one spot nearby - there is no "change of speed" reference to go by and you have to force yourself to keep track of them.

Rumble strips are a terrific idea for working with the nature of driving - the slow down strips at the end of the 407 with decreasing spacing works with the subconscious to slow drivers down.

You want a simple solution, get more sleep, don't drive at night. They'll make a far greater impact on safe driving than a ban on handsfree cell use ever will.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Just don't try and make a cell phone ban some kind of panacea. It's not.


The law in question is not merely a cell phone ban and I completely agree with it.


> The new law, (Connecticut) one of the toughest in the nation, goes beyond just prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cellphones while behind the wheel. Those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can be fined $100 for any behavior that distracts them from driving - glancing at a newspaper, typing on a BlackBerry, applying lipstick while looking in the rearview mirror or turning to yell at the kids in the back seat.


If you are doing something other than operating the controls of your vehicle, and paying full and complete attention to the situation on the road, you are potentially distracting yourself and are creating a dangerous situation. You should receive a fine if caught doing it and if it can be proven that you were engaging in a distraction when driving and cause an accident, you should have to pay the price.

If someone has a short attention span and tends to drift off and be inattentive when driving in a quiet car with few changes in speed, I would say they are also creating a dangerous situation and should probably learn to focus their mind on the task at hand rather than attempting to multitask because they are bored. I would say that there are very few situations in driving where there are not moment to moment things that a driver needs to focus on, especially anywhere within range of a city.

Unlike MacDoc, I believe that attention is something we have conscious control over and if we have to force ourselves to keep track of other drivers, it is a good thing. We should do more of that when driving, not less. Force ourselves to constantly monitor the ever changing set of circumstances around us, or if they don't appear to be changing, to monitor that, because they can and will change, possibly in milliseconds.

Most of us have busy minds that constantly seek out distraction, especially when we believe something is boring us. We all need to learn that driving is something that always requires our full attention and learn how to give it that attention. This is something I always challenge myself to do behind the wheel or when riding my bike or even walking as a pedestrian near traffic.

Saying that using a cell phone while driving or indulging in other distractions is an acquired skill reminds me of the people who used to claim that they could drive just fine after a night of drinking, because they had done it enough to know how to handle it. Many people a few decades ago used to rail against the imposition of drinking and driving laws and breathalysers, now only a few do in private with their drinking buddies.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce,

I understand what you have written above. This still brings me my question of the automobile industry that places toys inside the vehicle that allows for distractions. I mean, what about the technology that has brought us centre dashboard computer screens that control everything in your vehicle? They are not directly in front of you, they are to the right of the driver and sit where your radio would be in a normal vehicle. They are huge, take up space, and are hugely distracting while you drive, as you have to look over and figure out how to change the temperature. 

I have also read up and not sure if this exists yet, but there was talk of making these centre consoles to allow the driver to check e-mail, surf the web etc... on top of the usual controls and GPS units that are inside these vehicles.

Say they do ban cell phones, does that mean the automobile industry will have to stop placing such gadgets into their vehicles? Go back to using basic technology like having just the dashboard in front of you? Get rid of the GPS screens? Get rid of the all in one computer consoles that run your vehicle like in the high end vehicles? 

Where does this leave room for just bad drivers who don't own a cell phone? or any of the above toys in their vehicles?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Considering how people aren't fully responsible for their own mistakes, some car company will probably be sued for enabling distraction. When that happens, the thread should be fun to read.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGYVER said:


> This still brings me my question of the automobile industry that places toys inside the vehicle that allows for distractions. I mean, what about the technology that has brought us centre dashboard computer screens that control everything in your vehicle? They are not directly in front of you, they are to the right of the driver and sit where your radio would be in a normal vehicle. They are huge, take up space, and are hugely distracting while you drive, as you have to look over and figure out how to change the temperature.


I would say that this would depend on the design of the console, but it should be designed to minimize distraction and make it quicker and easier to change things, not harder. If it's more difficult and more distracting then it's a bad design.


MacGYVER said:


> I have also read up and not sure if this exists yet, but there was talk of making these centre consoles to allow the driver to check e-mail, surf the web etc... on top of the usual controls and GPS units that are inside these vehicles.


Dumb idea, if it's true, IMHO.


MacGYVER said:


> Say they do ban cell phones, does that mean the automobile industry will have to stop placing such gadgets into their vehicles? Go back to using basic technology like having just the dashboard in front of you? Get rid of the GPS screens? Get rid of the all in one computer consoles that run your vehicle like in the high end vehicles?


Again it depends on the design, but if the gadget is distracting or makes the task of driving more complex, then keep it out of the car.


MacGYVER said:


> Where does this leave room for just bad drivers who don't own a cell phone? or any of the above toys in their vehicles?


Cutting down on driver distraction through legislation makes it easier for those bad drivers to not become even worse drivers. There have always been bad drivers. I would hope we could make it harder for them to keep driving, through other methods such as not getting automatic driver's licence renewals, and tougher testing, that was mentioned earlier in this thread.


Beej said:


> Considering how people aren't fully responsible for their own mistakes, some car company will probably be sued for enabling distraction. When that happens, the thread should be fun to read.


If someone chooses to distract themselves while fiddling with a gadget not essential to the vehicle's operation, such as temp controls, while the car is in motion, then I would say that it's the driver's fault if an accident results. If the car company installs a gadget in the vehicle, essential to the vehicle's operation, which through bad design makes it easier to get distracted while driving, I would say they then bear some responsibility for a crash resulting from that. Just my non-lawyerly opinion.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Forgetting about all the new gadgets for a minute, it would be great if the autoindustry (or the government) standardized a few basic operating controls on cars. I find that especially annoying when using a lot of rentals.
The wiper switch for instance can be at the right or the left of the steering column or on the dash. Operation then varies for the various speed settings and wash - posh up. posh down, pull, push or turn.
Same with the speed control - at least it's always on the left as far as I have seen but the way the controls themselves operate are always different.
Even the power mirror controls, some are on the door, some are in the centre console.

And don't tell me 'You should become familiar with all those controls on the car before you drive off'. Easier said than done when you sit in a dark rental car parking lot at 11 o'clock at night after flying for eight hours.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Thank you, krs for pointing that out. 

You're absolutely correct that the automobile industry could be the cause of distraction and they just don't know it. I know exactly where you're coming from when it comes to car rentals. Too darn confusing to figure it all out while sitting in the parking lot. Then when you try to find stuff or figure it out while driving on the road, you are too distracted and become a hazard to others. The best example is how to turn on the windshield wipers on some of these foreign cars, or how about the lights? 

Those are just basic things that the auto industry has royally messed up for everyone. Never mind people not knowing how to drive or talking on a cell phone. 

Could you just imagine if the auto industry decided to place the clutch pedal in different positions on all types of cars? or switch the gas pedal around with the clutch pedal on standard cars? That's exactly what they're doing when it comes to simple controls like windshield wipers or head light switches on vehicles.


----------

