Ban the Cell Phones Law

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined:
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

Ban the Cell Phones Law

Unread post by Reflections on

It's about fookin time. I wonder though, the news mentioned MP3 players....I have a hook-up in my console and it plugs into my Ipod, whoops little plug there. So if I reach down, don't take my eyes off the road, and switch songs, am I busted? Should I pony up now for the bluetooth hands-free for the personal phone, the wired headset for the work phone and the Ipod adapter because I have steering wheel controls.....wow, future shop will be busy....still it doesn't address the true problem, in that it's the conversation that's distracting[sidebar below], not the phone in your hand. I can see searching for songs, texting and the video games, but once again the Gooberment missed the boat.......


[Sidebar] I will stop talking to passengers when I am driving. Don't know, maybe the chat sucks, but hey I'm driving here. The wife says "didn't you hear me?"......"No, I didn't, I'm driving! I don't have an automatic mouth, sweety. kisses, luv u"[End Sidebar]
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined:
Location: Orillia
Contact:

Unread post by Squishy on

Yeah, the headset leaves both hands free, I find that I am equally distracted by just the phone conversation. I lose track of many details that I would otherwise know - how many cars are behind me and their colours, what gear I am in, my speed, and even upcoming turns and the colour of traffic signals (although instinct tells me to stop on a red and I can make turns, although with sharper turns I will sometimes be jerky or forget to slow down before the turn).

Now with regard to the rest of the "driving distractions" ban, does this make my car-mounted laptop illegal? It has no multimedia software or files, in fact nothing is loaded on it except Microsoft Streets and Trips. It has been a lifesaver on the backroads - last December when I got stuck in two feet of snow, I would have had no idea I was within hiking distance of Fergus if it wasn't for my GPS. I would hate to have to get rid of it; the small dash-mounted GPS units are both expensive and too small to read safely.
Reflections wrote:[Sidebar] I will stop talking to passengers when I am driving. Don't know, maybe the chat sucks, but hey I'm driving here. The wife says "didn't you hear me?"......"No, I didn't, I'm driving! I don't have an automatic mouth, sweety. kisses, luv u"[End Sidebar]
Women just don't get that, do they? :lol:

I get the grumpy silent treatment because the road conditions change and I stop talking mid-sentence or ignore their, um, valuable input on very relevant issues.
         Image


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

When I was in university, my Cognitive Psychology professor talked about his research on human multitasking and the ability to do things like drive and talk on the cellphone at the same time. This is basically what he said (this is going back a few years): Our brains have a limited ability to process things simultaneously. People talk about "multitasking" but in reality are brains are not wired to be able to effectively multitask. As we dedicate more resources to something (cellphone conversation), we lose the ability to focus and notice on other things (driving).

Drivers engaged in a cellphone conversation, instead of scanning around their environment, tend to focus, rather narrowly, straight ahead. The ability to detect various hazards, changes in the environment, changes in traffic and so on, starts to get reduced, because the "conscious" part of the brain (prefrontal cortex) is more occupied by the conversation or whatever task is at hand except driving. When a hazard is detected, it also takes a lot longer to react, because the main part of your "thought process" is occupied by the cellphone conversation. Also people get "rewarded" by talking on the cellphone when driving. Every time they do not get into a collision, it reinforces their belief that what they are doing is safe, and that they are good at "multitasking." So while the hands-on cellphone is a problem, the bigger problem is the distraction from driving.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined:
Location: Orillia
Contact:

Unread post by Squishy on

'Attentional blindness' for talking on a cell phone, 'cognitive capture' for texting while driving. I'm not sure why talking with a passenger is different, but maybe it has to do with the fact that we have to make the extra connection that we are talking to a person instead of the phone. I have heard the 'passenger can shut up when conditions change' argument, but I have had completely clueless passengers in the car who will keep talking when blowing snow causes a complete whiteout, and had nowhere near the 'attentional blindness' I catch myself having when using a cell phone. I stopped using cell phones while driving once I found myself missing information about my environment.

I just read the bill, and it mentions nothing about the mounting of equipment. I don't know what the news articles are talking about when they mention that GPS units must be secured to the dash. The newest version also has a change from the original version I read, where an exception to the 'visible screen' law included a device whose function is solely as a navigational device. Now it makes a visible screen legal whenever it is being used as a navigational device, which means my laptop would be legal as long as I don't close Streets & Trips or play Minesweeper.
         Image


User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined:
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:

Unread post by racer on

Found some proof that even hands-free sets do nothing to prevent collisions. More proof here, a U of T study, done in Toronto in mid-90s.

CBC reports that using a cellphone while driving increases chances of collision by 38%, while others (look above links) say that talking on a cellphone quadruples the chances of a collision while talking on it. I think that the 38% figure is compared to those who do not use cellphone while driving at all.

Some opponents to the ban are CAA (surprisingly, but I guess how would you call them to use their services?), and Canadian Wireless Telecom Association (surprise-surprise).

Here's a curveball for the politicians though. UNC Highway Safety Research Center found that drivers under 20 were most likely to be distracted by changing a CD, while those 20-29 were most likely to be distracted by other passengers. This is when our new(ish) law prohibits G2 drivers under 20 from driving with more than one passenger in the same age group, a condition which is gone as soon as the driver turns 20, ie when they are most likely to be distracted by the passengers...
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined:
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

Unread post by Reflections on

racer wrote:Found some proof that even hands-free sets do nothing to prevent collisions. More proof here, a U of T study, done in Toronto in mid-90s.

CBC reports that using a cellphone while driving increases chances of collision by 38%, while others (look above links) say that talking on a cellphone quadruples the chances of a collision while talking on it. I think that the 38% figure is compared to those who do not use cellphone while driving at all.

Some opponents to the ban are CAA (surprisingly, but I guess how would you call them to use their services?), and Canadian Wireless Telecom Association (surprise-surprise).

Here's a curveball for the politicians though. UNC Highway Safety Research Center found that drivers under 20 were most likely to be distracted by changing a CD, while those 20-29 were most likely to be distracted by other passengers. This is when our new(ish) law prohibits G2 drivers under 20 from driving with more than one passenger in the same age group, a condition which is gone as soon as the driver turns 20, ie when they are most likely to be distracted by the passengers...

This guy hit the boat Image

Maybe he was on his cell phone? :?:
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined:
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Unread post by ticketcombat on

Reflections wrote:
racer wrote:This guy hit the boat Image

Maybe he was on his cell phone? :?:
I think he was a DIYer who couldn't find the gangplank.
Fight Your Ticket!


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined:
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Unread post by ticketcombat on

I remember a 20/20 show years ago that showed how F-15 fighter pilots were trained and how dangerous it could be. Sometimes they would pass out from the G-force. One interesting thing was the low altitude warning was a woman's voice. An Air Force study found that fighter pilots responded better to a woman's voice than a man's.
Fight Your Ticket!


User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined:
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

Unread post by Reflections on

ticketcombat wrote:I remember a 20/20 show years ago that showed how F-15 fighter pilots were trained and how dangerous it could be. Sometimes they would pass out from the G-force. One interesting thing was the low altitude warning was a woman's voice. An Air Force study found that fighter pilots responded better to a woman's voice than a man's.
Funny, I stopped responding all together.....
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined:
Location: GTA

Unread post by FiReSTaRT on

I'm just pissed off that hands-free is still legal. Even when chatting with passengers I get distracted, so I keep that to a minimum. People should put 100% of their focus on safely operating the deadly hunk of metal.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined:
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

Unread post by Reflections on

FiReSTaRT wrote:I'm just pissed off that hands-free is still legal. Even when chatting with passengers I get distracted, so I keep that to a minimum. People should put 100% of their focus on safely operating the deadly hunk of metal.
I prefer well sculpted, deadly hunk thank you.

Kind of has a vampire ring to it..........
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

ticketcombat wrote:One interesting thing was the low altitude warning was a woman's voice. An Air Force study found that fighter pilots responded better to a woman's voice than a man's.
Most of the aural warnings on fighter jets are a woman's voice. They call her "Bitching Betty." I'm not kidding, either. Maybe cars should come equipped with that... but I'm sure some people, if they get a warning such as: "Caution - moose ahead" they'd try to figure out how to shut the thing off as they slam into the moose.
FiReSTaRT wrote:I'm just pissed off that hands-free is still legal.
I carry my cellphone with me when I'm driving, but I don't make calls unless I'm parked. I also don't answer calls. I've got call display and voicemail. If it's important, they'll leave a message and I'll get back to them. I don't want to be like someone who ends up saying: "Oh I'm really sorry I ran over little Timmy as I drove through a red light... but I was so focused on my cellphone conversation that I couldn't possibly have seen him." (Actually, the sad thing is, that HAS happened.)


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined:
Location: Orillia
Contact:

Unread post by Squishy on

Radar Identified wrote:Most of the aural warnings on fighter jets are a woman's voice. They call her "Bitching Betty." I'm not kidding, either. Maybe cars should come equipped with that... but I'm sure some people, if they get a warning such as: "Caution - moose ahead" they'd try to figure out how to shut the thing off as they slam into the moose.
Our old 1987 Nissan Maxima had a "Bitching Betty" that would tell us about low fuel and other warnings. It was a used car from Quebec, though, so Betty would bitch at us in French and we would have no idea what was wrong.

GPS instructions are generally female voices, too. I don't know if it's that we learn to obey women (mothers, girlfriends, wives :lol: ) or if it's some alpha male thing, where we refuse to be told what to do by another man, machine or not.
         Image


tdrive2
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 346
Joined:

Unread post by tdrive2 on

People need to make the decision themselves.

The first thing is insurance companies should not offer any coverage on claims for those who get into accidents while talking on a cellular phone.

That there, would be more powerful than any silly law or device they could come up with.

On highways, cell phone users should be in right lanes.

But i can't blame these people.

Have you ever sat in stop/go traffic on the 401.

BORING. Phone = something to do, read, etc.

Same as driving at 100 km/hr it is so boring and slow i cant pay attention.

I am like bookm, i love the "fun" aspect of driving.

I love driving on our 400 series as soon as someone asks me to take a small 1 or 2 lane highway with a limit of 80/60 i start to fall asleep and am very dangerous.

I always let them drive and nap on these silly little roads.

When the traffic gets going up to 120 or higher its actually very fun to drive and i tend to pay alot more attention to the road, surroundings, infront, behind me, and under those pesky overpasses 8)

I am very tempted to play with a phone or my mp3 or talk to people on a slow 50 km/hr street.

But if im on the 401/400 and the traffic is going really fast, no way.


I mean lets get real here its a choice people need to make. Right now it isnt. Maybe if we had a higher limit, and people were at fault for cell phone accidents then things would change.

Let's say the 401 limit was 130 and you were in the left lane talking on a cell phone? Would you try to drive at 140 km/hr while talking on a conversation or talking to your wife?

No way you would pull over to the right. How many race car drivers would do this?

How many times have you driven down the 401 and some a hole is in the left lane on the cell phone and looking like everyone else is crazy as they fly around her.???

Exactly, all the time.

What if she knew she could get a major ticket for this, plugging up traffic, be at complete fault for an accident.

I bet she would move over.


tdrive2
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 346
Joined:

Unread post by tdrive2 on

Our highways are such a joke sometimes.

Can you guys imagine driving down the autobhan at a fast speed while talking on a cell phone?

While also having to watch your mirrors to make sure no one else is going to pass you.

You would just pull over.

What if your insurance company would not pay a single dime if you got into an accident while on a cell phone. And boy would this be easy to prove. You would send your bill to them all call times are recorded.

How many people would drive drunk if they knew they were 100 % liable for everyone else and their own vehicle and would not get 10 cents from the insurance company?

Secondly i love the CAA, they seem to have alot of common sense.

Do you guys remember the University of Toronto study that discussed highway speed limits and suggested most parts of the 401 have a 130 km/hr limit along with the 403 at 110km/hr etc.

These are the same guys who do not agree with this law.

It must just be Fantino.

So what's next then. Will they tow your car if you talk on a phone?

Will they blow it up for going 75 over the limit?

What happens now if i am along the highway and i see a major accident.

Maybee even worse lets say a transport crashes into the Back of an OPP officer and the car he pulled over and injured 2 people.

Well i mean i don't want to break the law do i. I wouldn't want to face sky high insurance rates and have to do something illegal for trying to save 2 peoples lives?

What about if im the highway and i see a drunk truck driver who has a huge tanker full of gasoline and he is swerving all over a 3 lane highway?

Call *OPP, ahhhhhhhhhh what a great idea then i can get this guy pulled over and prevent an accident.

But oh well your gonna make it illegal to talk on my phone, bad idea.






Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”