Alberta govt to ban the use of cell phones and other driver distractions

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

The type is a guy with road rage. He already said he is that type. Plus, I was talking directly to him. I was not talking about ALL people in general. I was talking specificy to him.

Never said you were talking about ALL people in general. You were talking about a large? number of people in general (his "type")

[MaDMaN_26]

Originally Posted by kevman

Define "conversation"...

What about truck drivers and CB radios? What about cab drivers and their conversations with dispatch? A cop car calling for backup? How about the "learn to speak Spanish e-book" that you repeat back to during your morning commute?

And while we're at it, seeing as you're so against it and feel you've got the definitive answer, how do you feel about GPS and Ipods?

jeesus, seriously?

All of those things are probably a distraction and possibly make people worse drivers...

Can we outlaw texting, talking on a cellphone, typing addresses into your GPS or searching for you Fav tune on your I-pod/touch while driving? Absolutely.

Should we? I sure as hell think so... I've heard of distracted driver laws, that would cover a women putting on her makeup, eating and a slew of other things... I'm not against punishing people for driving poorly or increasing the risk of an accident.

Making people think about and focus on driving instead of it being secondary activity they do while they do something they deem more important should be enforced.

[The Yen Man]

I say treat this law like you would treat the seatbelt law, or speeding. It's not 100% enforcable as the cops can't monitor people all the time. But if you use your cell while driving, you run the risk of getting a ticket. All the talk about less risk during certain situations is useless IMO. You can apply those same arguments to speeding, but it doesn't make it less illegal.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Well explained. I appreciate you taking the time to do that. You're still wrong, though, in my opinion.

Absolutely your risk is lower driving on a road like that than on a busy, curvy road. Similarly, your risk is lower driving drunk on a road like that. The whole problem is that perceptions and reaction times in both cases are negatively affected. I'm not suggesting that driving while on the phone is as bad as drunk driving (although the study mentioned earlier seems to suggest that). The fact is, though, that bad things can still happen on such roads, and choosing to use your cell phone increases the risk of those things happen.

If drunk driving doesn't work for you as an example, what about speeding? Your risk of getting into an accident would be much lower on that road than certain other roads, but it is still higher for that road than it would be if you weren't speeding. Should you be allowed to go 130 on that road because it's safer? And yes...speed limits are different on different roads, but many highways are less "safe" than that one, but have the same speed limit.

I don't think it's about right or wrong. If that were that case, driving is inherently unsafe and therefore wrong. It's about the risk profile. Drunk driving is a bad analogy in my opinion as giving a drunk driver something to focus on enhances their ability rather than detract (ie. a pace car.) Bad study, in my opinion.

Speeding is a better example. If I'm on a barren stretch of road in the middle of Alberta, I would assess the risk of speeding (or talking on the cellphone) and, yes, I would be at greater risk than if I didn't, but the risk increase may be so negligent that I would choose to anyway. Do I look at that herd of antelope? Sure. Not alot of traffic, straight highway, low risk. If I was on the Deerfoot, I'd do none of the above.

I'm talking about our ability to leverage common sense to guide appropriate decisions based on the situation, the brain processing a million inputs in seconds. And I've already mentioned that many drivers fail to exercise this ability and therefore we are all legislated down to the lowest common denominator. It happens and, in many cases, is completely justified as is this one.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Locke

I just think people should be responsible for their own actions

Yet you make fun of a remedy that agrees with this statement wholeheartedly.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I don't think it's about right or wrong. If that were that case, driving is inherently unsafe and therefore wrong. It's about the risk profile. Drunk driving is a bad analogy in my opinion as giving a drunk driver something to focus on enhances their ability rather than detract (ie. a pace car.) Bad study, in my opinion.

Speeding is a better example. If I'm on a barren stretch of road in the middle of Alberta, I would assess the risk of speeding (or talking on the cellphone) and, yes, I would be at greater risk than if I didn't, but the risk increase may be so negligent that I would choose to anyway. Do I look at that herd of antelope? Sure. Not alot of traffic, straight highway, low risk. If I was on the Deerfoot, I'd do none of the above.

I'm talking about our ability to leverage common sense to guide appropriate decisions based on the situation, the brain processing a million inputs in seconds. And I've already mentioned that many drivers fail to exercise this ability and therefore we are all legislated down to the lowest common denominator. It happens and, in many cases, is completely justified as is this one.

Hmmm... all of a sudden I think we're on the same page. Well said.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I say treat this law like you would treat the seatbelt law, or speeding. It's not 100% enforcable as the cops can't monitor people all the time. But if you use your cell while driving, you run the risk of getting a ticket. All the talk about less risk during certain situations is useless IMO. You can apply those same arguments to speeding, but it doesn't make it less illegal.

I think thats sort of the key. If JustAnotherGuy is really that good at multi-tasking, no problem, he won't be noticed and won't get busted. Sort of like the seat belt thing. If he starts lane drifting or his driving becomes erratic, he'll get noticed and pulled over. I have no problem with the law as while its not directly stated, the fallout result will be those that are reckless will probably get fined and those that can multi-task won't be noticed and life goes on.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Obviously the topic is a hot topic for some people.

So hot that posters start doing their nitpick with wording and phrasing and oh yeahs, prove it comments. I said my piece. I am out. Except of course if somebody directly insults me and tries to bring me back into the thread. A person has to stand up to the bully types.

[MaDMaN_26]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

The type is a guy with road rage. He already said he is that type. Plus, I was talking directly to him. I was not talking about ALL people in general. I was talking specificy to him.

When did I say that I rage? you said it repeatedly... all I said is that cell phone drivers piss me off, especially when they cut me off or do something stupid that affects me and ya I'll mouth you off while I'm behind you... hardly "RAGING" - my idea of mouthing you off is a running comentary about how terrible a driver you are... normally every 50 feet or so new material is offered to me by just watching your "safe" driving

You want to pigeon hole me as a rager so you can be "right"... your wrong and your assumption of my "type" is baseless and skewed to how you want it to be... like I said I hope you get more tickets than you know what to do with, I hope the penatly is severe and I'll giggle as you rage about it shouldn't affect you as you are different.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Hmmm... all of a sudden I think we're on the same page. Well said.

The difference being that I think it's stupid. Thinking it's stupid and thinking it's necessary are mutually exclusive.

[Ironhorse]

This legislation is going beyond cellphone use, and looking at the broader issue of distracted driving -- it's going to include cellphones, and we've looked at all entertainment devices, like reading and texting."

Though the final legislation is still being tweaked, Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette told Sun Media the law will ban distracting activities while driving.

"That would include pets on your lap, putting on makeup, shaving, using a cellphone -- all kinds of distractions," Ouellette said, two weeks ago.

Good. I don't see how people think it is safe having Fifi sitting there looking out the window.

[Sample00]

i just saw this tpic while drivin home and thought I shud post that its a realy gud idear!
damn I hate tryin to post with one hand on the steerin whel.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

So hot that posters start doing their nitpick with wording and phrasing

I can only assume you're talking about my calling you out on type-casting him, in which case it's not so much wording and phrasing as entire posts.

"I would see you before you see me. I know your type. You think everybody is a tool because there are ahead of you."

Guess you must be getting all hot and bothered because you don't like having to defend what you say.

Not sure who has said, "oh yeah, prove it".

Is it bullying to call someone out for what they say on a message board? If so, consider yourself bullied. Bullies don't have to be stood up to, though. My mommy always told me to just ignore them because their pleasure comes from your reactions.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MaDMaN_26

Should we? I sure as hell think so...

Ok, fair enough. Where do we stop? IMO, my brother reaching in to his back seat to get his CD book and flipping through the pages on his lap is more dangerous than me scrolling through my Ipod. So I think changing CD's should be illegal while driving. No big deal, just pull over when your CD is done right? How about taking a jacket off while driving? Reaching for a water bottle from the back seat? Obviously these should be illegal too! I probably shouldn't tell you this but...sometimes, when I've been driving for hours and I'm on a relatively safe stretch of road I'll sit cross legged while using cruise control. This should definitely be illegal!

My point isn't about it being safe to talk on the phone (ok it kind of is) it's more about where do you draw the line? Furthermore, in my opinion a lot of these so called dangerous activities can be done safely and that's where the law regarding driving without due care comes into play.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by MaDMaN_26

When did I say that I rage? you said it repeatedly... all I said is that cell phone drivers piss me off, especially when they cut me off or do something stupid that affects me and ya I'll mouth you off while I'm behind you... hardly "RAGING" - my idea of mouthing you off is a running comentary about how terrible a driver you are... normally every 50 feet or so new material is offered to me by just watching your "safe" driving

You want to pigeon hole me as a rager so you can be "right"... your wrong and your assumption of my "type" is baseless and skewed to how you want it to be... like I said I hope you get more tickets than you know what to do with, I hope the penatly is severe and I'll giggle as you rage about it shouldn't affect you as you are different.

I have no rage. If I do something wrong as I am driving then I accept the ticket.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by zuluking

The difference being that I think it's stupid. Thinking it's stupid and thinking it's necessary are mutually exclusive.

Ok you've lost me again. You think it's a stupid law, but you think it's a necessary law? Why would it be stupid to do what's necessary?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Highway #1 between Brooks and Medicine Hat is a double-lane highway predominately in a straight line with zero hills resulting in an unobstructed line of sight for miles.

None of which helps you when, five minutes into your conversation with your family, you only see at the last second debris on the highway (such as the remnants of a blown truck tire), panic, swerve, over correct and roll your car into the ditch. If you had been paying attention to the road, you see that debris a kilometre ahead of time and easily glide around it.

[BuzzardsWife]

I am very happy about this law. My brother was very close to being killed by a semi while on his cell phone..he was dragged for a distance, his trunk was 12 inches wide afterwards. It was a miracle he wasn't worse off, but he did suffer a broken collar bone and head injuries. Ever since then I've been pretty bitter over cell phone use, oh yeah and i got hit by a 19 year old girl talking on her phone. My favorite bumper sticker ever is the one that says 'maybe you'd drive better with that phone shoved up your a$$.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by kevman

Ok, fair enough. Where do we stop? IMO, my brother reaching in to his back seat to get his CD book and flipping through the pages on his lap is more dangerous than me scrolling through my Ipod. So I think changing CD's should be illegal while driving. No big deal, just pull over when your CD is done right? How about taking a jacket off while driving? Reaching for a water bottle from the back seat? Obviously these should be illegal too! I probably shouldn't tell you this but...sometimes, when I've been driving for hours and I'm on a relatively safe stretch of road I'll sit cross legged while using cruise control. This should definitely be illegal!

My point isn't about it being safe to talk on the phone (ok it kind of is) it's more about where do you draw the line? Furthermore, in my opinion a lot of these so called dangerous activities can be done safely and that's where the law regarding driving without due care comes into play.

I think the difference is cell phones are easy to target and get public support over. Look at how emotional some of the responses are in this thread, if you can pull the emotional strings of society, you'll get support. Try banning something else, and watch the usual do-gooders blow a load. We all know how this is going to be enforce, a cop will only notice you if you are driving impaired.

(for the record, i think this is a good law being passed)

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by kevman

Ok, fair enough. Where do we stop? IMO, my brother reaching in to his back seat to get his CD book and flipping through the pages on his lap is more dangerous than me scrolling through my Ipod. So I think changing CD's should be illegal while driving. No big deal, just pull over when your CD is done right? How about taking a jacket off while driving? Reaching for a water bottle from the back seat? Obviously these should be illegal too! I probably shouldn't tell you this but...sometimes, when I've been driving for hours and I'm on a relatively safe stretch of road I'll sit cross legged while using cruise control. This should definitely be illegal!

My point isn't about it being safe to talk on the phone (ok it kind of is) it's more about where do you draw the line? Furthermore, in my opinion a lot of these so called dangerous activities can be done safely and that's where the law regarding driving without due care comes into play.

My sons friend was killed reaching for cd's. He was only 17. But I still don't think it should be illegal. Cell phone talking is alot worse.