Ban the Cell Phones Law

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]

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?

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.

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.

'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.

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...

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

Maybe he was on his cell phone?

Reflections wrote:

racer wrote:

This guy hit the boat

Maybe he was on his cell phone?

I think he was a DIYer who couldn't find the gangplank.

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.

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.....

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.

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..........

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.)

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 ) or if it's some alpha male thing, where we refuse to be told what to do by another man, machine or not.

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

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.

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.

Hmm. Oh wait, you're allowed to use the phone for emergency services.

I've had plenty of conversations at 160 km/h. There is nowhere near the level of distraction that a phone call presents, handsfree or not. I have read studies that show how it is distracting to us, as mentioned above, but I haven't really found anything that explains why. What's so different about a phone call that keeps our brains from processing other information?

Squishy wrote:

What's so different about a phone call that keeps our brains from processing other information?

Part of your brain during a phone conversation dedicates itself to forming a mental quasi-image of the person you are talking to. Ever notice how you might be hand-gesturing while talking on the phone even though the person can't see you?

tdrive2 wrote:

What if your insurance company would not pay a single dime if you got into an accident while on a cell phone.

Because people involved in those collisions who were talking on a cellphone, realizing that they weren't covered by insurance, would hit and run. So then we find that the guilty party doesn't have insurance coverage (due to being on the cellphone), the victim gets hosed and we all pay higher insurance rates because we have to cover for people who talk on cellphones who are involved in collisions. No thanks.

tdrive2 wrote:

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

This is probably why more rear-end collisions happen in stop-and-go traffic when the trailing driver had a LARGE following distance as opposed to a small one. (Traffic stops, person is pre-occupied by cellphone, traffic starts moving again, notices it some time later, so starts moving, still pre-occupied by cellphone, traffic stops again, then person notices... BANG.) If you want to be preoccupied with something while on the road and find the task of driving too boring, take public transit. Then you can talk on the phone, text message, read a book or eat a bowl of cereal if that's your thing.

But for anyone who feels justified in using a cellphone while driving and thinks others should do the same, except for emergencies, I'd ask you this: I'm an airline pilot. Let's say you're one of the passengers. We're going into Toronto or Ottawa or wherever in a heavy snowstorm with high winds, heavy icing conditions and low visibility (or any other challenging situation). How safe would you feel if I was chatting on my cellphone during the approach instead of giving my undivided attention to flying the plane?

Squishy wrote:

I don't know if it's that we learn to obey women (mothers, girlfriends, wives ) or if it's some alpha male thing, where we refuse to be told what to do by another man, machine or not.

Be interesting to find out...

tdrive2 wrote:

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.

ok smarty clown, how do you propose we obtain this information that someone is talking on a phone and collides with something? I have never had anyone tell me that, even when prompted in an interview.

hwybear wrote:

tdrive2 wrote:

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.

ok smarty clown, how do you propose we obtain this information that someone is talking on a phone and collides with something? I have never had anyone tell me that, even when prompted in an interview.

Phone records. You would probably be able to hear the impact, air bags deploy, glass shattering...... for example.

Part of your brain during a phone conversation dedicates itself to forming a mental quasi-image of the person you are talking to. Ever notice how you might be hand-gesturing while talking on the phone even though the person can't see you?

That's always been my hypothesis as well, but then why does the predominant 'reasoning' seem to be that a real passenger knows how to shut up during tense moments? The 'mental image' reasoning makes more sense to me; it's like when you immerse yourself in a book and lose track of your surroundings.

Phone records. You would probably be able to hear the impact, air bags deploy, glass shattering...... for example.

I don't think phone records include recordings of your call...yet. The driver could say the passenger was making that call, although I think they're screwed if there is no passenger.

Phone records aren't very easy to obtain, are they?

Hwybear i know this for a fact.

by law phone companies, internet companies keep a record of everything you do for criminal purposes.

I think for phone calls and e-mails in the states it is like 6 months or something.

And phone records are way easier.

The police would have no problem doing that.

All you would do is call them. You guys already have access to them. I am sure you guys investigate accidents all the time. They already pay big bucks for people to "re construct accidents"

They'll even close a road off for hours and inconvenience thousands of people.

So a officer calling a phone company asking for a phone record at a certain time and is not a big deal is it?

It would take ten minutes or so.

Phone companies record calls how else would they bill you?

If you get caught doing bad stuff online they can look at your history, e-mail etc with a warrant.

Even if you needed a warrant don't tell me it would be a big deal to call a phone company asking for a record of phone calls on one day of a month.

Police will go way further then that for other investigations. I know this is not a big deal.

Reflections okay people will run, but maybe they wont talk? If someone does something bad already why wont they run.

Lots of people would rather run rather then pay thousands for auto insurance.

i think the biggest thing the province and state makes when setting laws or speed limits is people arent stupid.

They have their own opinions and thoughts to.

Just cause a rule is set does not mean people will listen to it.

Let's be realistic they're is way more people speed than get caught, way more that drink and drive that don't get caught, way more aggressive drivers then they say, and probably more accidents and collisions.

I got another idea. How about We wont cover medical insurance for those using phones to get into accidents. They can pay the bill themselves?

Or what about those fat people and those who smoke who stress our medicare system.

I mean you guys all hate speeders right. But you will always say they had a choice to not go 50 over.

I mean people have a choice not to smoke to, they also have a choice to not be obese and ruin their hearts.

So what now will Ontario ban fast food to?

This cell phone law does absolutely noting, i tried a hands free set. Its annoying you gotta fart around, talk louder, frankly its a bigger annoyance and a hassle. Then you gotta have a cord up to your window and probably get pulled over cause some cop thinks your using a radar detector.

Im sick of the Nany state. I can make my own decisions, and judge danger/risk for myself. I am sure plenty off others are like this to.

All things depend. I know when to use my phone. I also know i don't drive as fast in city traffic as i do in the middle of the night on a 3 lane highway.

Forced Insurance, medicare, etc. The list goes on. I think they hamper peoples decision and they do stupid things.

I wonder if less people would smoke if they knew later on in life they would be responsible to foot the bill of any complications from cigarettes.

Why don't insurance companies do this.

For all of you that hate speeders. What if they said your on your own for driving drunk?

You can suspend their license but they will drive. You can give them a ticket and they will pay for it. But don't you think it would send a stronger message if they drove drunk crashed their car into a river and were responsible for the medical charges, the damage to the car, hurting someone else, damaging public property.

I am just trying to make a point, its not perfect but then again that calls into question the whole object of insurance contracts.

For speed limits how come we never see people come here and complain about getting tickets in down town toronto?

Well of course 50 there is fast. With lanes stopping, trucks parked on side of the road, pedestrians running across the road, construction, 1 way streets.

I cant imagine driving fast in downtown Toronto its hard enough as it is. But 100 on the 401 with 3 lanes and a huge concrete barrier at 3 am in the morning?

We always here people getting tickets for that but never speeding way over on city streets.

I mean how can you even consider 50 over in a school zone, with 50 over on a controlled access super highway?

Handsfree makes you fart? That's...hmm.

Damn T, you are long winded....

Squishy wrote:

That's always been my hypothesis as well, but then why does the predominant 'reasoning' seem to be that a real passenger knows how to shut up during tense moments?

Good question... I believe that it's because it is a simple, succinct explanation, and the whole "mental image" thing seems a bit abstract, even though I think the "mental image" idea makes more sense. Another thing to add to the mix is that 55% of our communication is non-verbal, 38% is "paralanguage," and 7% is verbal - the words we actually say. Without the person sitting right there, our brain tries to "fill in the blank" for the 55% we don't have. Or when driving, as one writer put it, "while talking on the cellphone, our eyes might be on the road, but our mind certainly isn't."

tdrive2 wrote:

Lots of people would rather run rather then pay thousands for auto insurance.

You got me and Reflections mixed up there. Well, consider this. Now, as a result of the collision, they're going to personally be on the hook for the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to fix their car, fix the other car, and pay compensation to the victim that they just hit if the person is seriously injured. Why do you think most people carry $1 or $2 million liability? If you know you stand a better chance of avoiding total personal financial ruin by running, most people would run. Why give them the incentive to do so? Also, if the person does not have any substantial amount of savings, the victim's insurance company pays but cannot recoup any of the costs. So who do they pass the bill on to? ALL OF US BY HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

tdrive2 wrote:

Hwybear i know this for a fact.

by law phone companies, internet companies keep a record of everything you do for criminal purposes.

I think for phone calls and e-mails in the states it is like 6 months or something.

And phone records are way easier.

The police would have no problem doing that.

All you would do is call them. You guys already have access to them. I am sure you guys investigate accidents all the time. They already pay big bucks for people to "re construct accidents"

Not quite so simple.

First we would have to find out which company the person deals with(ask or if cell phone stamped with company), if they tell us to "pound salt" we would then have to get a warrant to search every cell company to see if that person is a client. Involved in the warrant has to be reasons to believe what we are searching for is where it is and why this will be helpful to the investigation.

Not saying it can not be done, but is countless hours of paperwork.

Wouldn't privacy laws prohibit the cellphone companies from giving this information? Also, I am not sure that any of the phone calls are recorded, that is a huge privacy infringement and that would get decried very quickly.

I think a warrant can force the phone companies to give up that information, like Bear describes above. But for a traffic accident? I hear that accident reconstruction isn't even called out unless there is a fatality - this seems like roughly the same amount of manpower, although the hours would be spent on paperwork instead of at the scene with a measuring tape.

And what's being suggested isn't even for laying charges; it would be for the benefit of the insurance companies. I don't see the police wasting their time on that. There would have to be legislation passed to allow insurance companies to access phone logs, like they can now with our ticket history. Good luck trying to pass that.

Squishy wrote:

I think a warrant can force the phone companies to give up that information, like Bear describes above. But for a traffic accident? I hear that accident reconstruction isn't even called out unless there is a fatality - this seems like roughly the same amount of manpower, although the hours would be spent on paperwork instead of at the scene with a measuring tape.

And what's being suggested isn't even for laying charges; it would be for the benefit of the insurance companies. I don't see the police wasting their time on that. There would have to be legislation passed to allow insurance companies to access phone logs, like they can now with our ticket history. Good luck trying to pass that.

Everyone has to comply with a warrant. That is what is required to get past the privacy issues. The officer has to have grounds for the warrant, draft up the warrant, (about 10 plus pages), take the draft warrant to court and present the draft to the courts, the JP then reads the draft, decides if it is reasonable and either declines or approves the warrant.

Collision Investigation - I`ll go make a thread in police area.

A warrant might/could be done for serious bodily harm/ death collisions where use of a cellphone could help determine the cause of a collision.

This is an interesting discussion. thank you for sharing

Plus for a warrant you actually have to have a belief that a phone was used. If there is no witnesses no JP would give the warrant

you cannot just go fishing with a warrant.

OPS