Did I mention that I got my first traffic ticket in almost five years the other day? It was in New York, and it was for looking down at the Droid phone in my hand at a red light. The cop walked right off the sidewalk to ticket me. That’s the crummy part about the city: it’s tough to duck the cops when they’re sneaking around on foot.
At least he saved me from certain death from holding a phone while operating a motor vehicle (at a stoplight), right? I mean, everybody knows it’s not possible to drive and hold something at the same time. Or is it? Perhaps I’ll send a copy of this video along with my $150…
Take a look at this: it’s Bruno Senna driving around Spa while holding some type of handheld camera, possibly a camera phone. While Senna isn’t exactly running at the bleeding edge here, he’s working a lot harder than any of us would on the street. Look for young Mr. Senna to get a call from the FIA before long: they don’t like it when racers pull stunts like this.
As fate would have it, I’m considering a little experiment to be conducted some time in the next months: lap times around a road course with and without a hand-held phone conversation. I’ve taken calls on tracks before, always without bloodshed, but I’m a little leery of openly doing an experiment like this. What if there’s almost no change in the lap time? Is that my “fault”? What would it say? Could it be argued that a racetrack is, fundamentally, a much simpler and more predictable environment than day-to-day traffic? Are there any New York cops hiding hiding in the bushes at VIR?
Monty twitters from his car sometimes, even about a fresh caution! Saw it myself.
Let it go.
There are decades of scientific research showing dual-task decrements. You’re not going to win this one.
There are decades of research (e.g., Brown, 1991), but it has proven to be a lot harder to find this problem in the real world through naturalistic studies.
Not so. Lots of excellent research from Virginia Tech.
The VaTech 100 car study is pretty cool. I’ve heard anecdotal evidence of folks lighting up doobies while the camera was on!
Anyway, from psychophysics, to neuroscience, cognitive science, and military psychology, dual-task decrements are old hat. Trying to argue against them is like arguing that you can lift 1000 lbs.
No sale. A pro fiddling with a camera on a controlled course. A bunch of commoners managing day to day life via smart-phone behind the wheel, at the least driving in opposing directions, disaster.
+1 I was using my phone to play music through the car radio today on the way to work. It rang. I did not answer it because I didn’t figure there was any way to get it out of the mount and up to my ear in the time required without crashing. Concentrate on driving.
Could Baruth handle it? Maybe. The only reason I fear distracted driving legislation is that some nannys want to install cell phone jammers on the cars themselves.
Of course, jammers are a stupid idea- they would affect passengers, and also (probably) people near the car.
Even without that, though, it should remain possible for the driver to make a cell-phone call in case of emergency. In the UK, where using a hand-held phone while driving is illegal (though headsets are OK), there’s an exception for emergency calls if it’s unsafe or impractical to stop.
The problem with this argumentation is that it’s not necessarily ‘disaster’. I think that overstating the dangers is something that is contributing to the stubbornness of those folks who don’t want to give up whatever convenience they feel they derive from using these devices.
Messing with stuff in the car increases the risk of accident. Whether it’s food, the radio, passengers, kids, makeup, shaving, phones, whatever. But it doesn’t always mean that you’re going to crash if you yell at the kids, converse with a passenger, grab your soda out of the cupholder, or answer a phone call.
But where I think phone usage differs from these other things is in two ways. One, people are conditioned to a pathological need to answer a phone. Just try to ignore a phone ringing for you. Try to ignore that email notification. It’s hard to do. Educator Dan up there probably really wanted to answer that phone, and had to make the conscious decision to ignore it, based on his current situation. Most people don’t have that kind of self-control.
Two, phone usage is longer lasting and more constant than things like changing the radio station, opening the window, or sipping a drink. Not only are the times you’re looking away from the road a lot longer than you think they are, the time you’re distracted is continuous, and much more likely to then intersect a time where your attention is needed for driving.
I hate laws against… well, almost everything. Laws like ‘distracted driving’ laws won’t stop people from doing that. Similarly, laws against drunk driving didn’t make people stop driving drunk. What did change that was the mindset change: People stopped thinking it was ok. People were finally convinced that they didn’t drive as well when they had ‘one for the road’. People realized that designated drivers were for their benefit. It wasn’t the laws or the fines or the jail time. It was the realization that it was the wrong thing to do. That’s what is needed with phones and driving. People need to realize that texting, yakking, and whatever is the wrong thing to do. The benefits are just not worth the risks. A law won’t change that. Only a mindset change will.
You are probably correct. I imagine if the police got serious about enforcing the ban on using a cell phone while driving here in California, you would probably see a lot of repeat offenders. The best (or worst) example of this that I know of occurred on a highway about 5 miles east of the city I live in. A woman was paying bills using her cell phone while driving at approximately 65 mph on the freeway. Unfortunately, traffic was stopped due to road construction that was going on at that time. She plowed into the back of a car with no evidence of using her brakes in an attempt to stop. The mother in the car that she hit (and pushed into the car in front and so on) was killed. Several months later while out on bond awaiting sentencing for vehicular manslaugther, she was pulled over for using her cell phone while driving. Nobody will ever convince me that this was not just as bad as the four time DUI conviction driver who plowed into a daycare center at the end of a street. Both cases show a blatant disregard for the value of human life and an extreme level of selfishness that resulted in the ultimate of crimes, the stealing of someone’s life. I only hope that the majority of people out there will come to the same understanding regarding distracted driving as they have regarding drunk driving, that neither is reasonable or acceptable.
+1
There is a world of difference between driving and driving well. If you doubt this, try riding a motorcycle in heavy traffic or other adverse conditions. Intense concentration is required to do this well (i.e. with maximum safety). I have become a much better car driver since I took up motorcycling, and while I know you can get Bluetooth devices to answer a phone call while riding, I can’t imagine ever wanting to do this.
video? – what video?
It is linked in the article.
Do you ever switch songs on that music? Do you ever drink coffee on your commute? How about getting sunglasses out of the glovebox? Ever talk to the person sitting next to you in the car? Or in the back seat?
The entire cell phone while driving debate is a little silly. Most of the time its simply no big deal. If you NEED to talk on the phone a lot, use a headset. Whats the big deal?? The people who have problems talking on a phone while driving are also the same people who cant do ANYTHING else while driving. Its thier skill level, its not the phone. They are just as bad at eating and driving, putting on makeup and driving, and most likely walking and chewing gum.
Well actually studies have shown that more distracting to a driver than talking on HIS (or her) cell phone is having the passenger talk on theirs. Apparently only hearing one side of a conversation and trying to figure out what the heck is going on is more distracting to the average human being.
Anything proceeded by “studies have shown” is BS. Please show me the studies that have shown…
It’s not a big deal….until it is and someone is killed or hurt…maybe even someone you care about. The whole argument IS silly…piloting an automobile in the US is getting more challenging all the time…traffic density, pedestrians, bicyclists, construction, dogs and kids running into streets…
Ask yourself this question: Your kids are playing with a ball on your lawn….the ball rolls into the street and your youngest, heedless of your many warnings, runs after it. A car is coming right at her. Do you want the driver to have the legal right to be texting his stock transaction (despite common-sense telling him otherwise) on his smart-phone, or would you rather that the weight of the law compels him to be paying attention to the road conditions in front of him?
Just because Mr. I-can-do-everything-in-a-car-and-play-guitar-and-get-chicks-too says it is okay…doesn’t make it okay.
Sorry, Jack. Some people really ARE too stupid to figure out life for themselves. Even if I occasionally have to pay the cost of having such laws myself, that is a choice I make. The laws are there to protect the lives and property of the rest of us from those who can’t figure out how to poor piss out of a boot without having instructions printed on the sole.
And I disagree with your position that people stopped driving drunk because it became an uncool thing to do… Driving under the influence of alcohol has been greatly reduced because people became aware of the personal consequences to themselves of doing so….fines, jail, high insurance rates, loss of job and reputation, etc…..and all these things came about because of the change in laws….not because people all of a sudden became enlightened and realized that they might kill others or themselves…..
Mark –
In your scenario were the driver to hit the kid, he could likely be charged with criminal negligence. Still, that doesn’t mean that I want cell phone use outlawed while driving. Punish the actual instances where damage is done, and let drivers decide in any given situation if using the phone while driving is safe and worth the risk.
Also, it’s worth noting that if a child isn’t old or mature enough to not run into the road without looking, that child should not be playing unsupervised near a roadway. We shouldn’t restrict the freedoms of all drivers just to appease the nanny-state folks who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own children’s safety through supervision and proper parenting.
Many of you are still missing my point. So I’ll repeat it and use small words. Having a law does have a beneficial effect. The consequence of enforcement(fines, etc.) are more immediate and less catastrophic than a fatality. The closer the ‘punishment’ is to the infraction, the more likely the behavior is to be dissuaded. It is far less onerous on society that Jack Baruth get a ticket while stopped at a stop light than it is for ONE person to get killed if Jack has an accident due to texting while driving. I am sorry, Jack got a ticket. Okay, no I’m not. But the fact remains. Jack getting a ticket and then publicizing it by ranting on TTAC about the injustice of it all has served the cause by reminding all readers that there are consequences of distracted driving. Even if you are not driving.
Have a nice day, Jack. Hope the ticket doesn’t prevent you from enjoying a nice guitar solo in the company of one of your buxom lady friends.
Nullomodo,
Punishing the actual act according to the damage caused would be fine with me as well. But, just like DUI, if you should cause someone’s death while driving distracted, the worst you’re looking at is 3 to 5 years for vehicular manslaughter. In teh case of DUI it’s because you weren’t in possession of your faculties at the time and therefore were not making a consciuos decission to kill that person or even know that what you were doing could kill a person. I don’t know what the reasoning is behind distracted driving other than there was no intent to kill. Make the punishment for killing someone while driving (DUI, distracted, or just plain poor driving) 2nd degree murder, and I would have no problem with eliminating drunk driving as well as distracted driving laws. However, I don’t think that will ever happen.
@Dan… true, I get very distracted when my wife talks on her phone while I am driving, I hate that!
@Mark, you are right, however my choice is for that driver thats too stupid to not be on the road at all, though I know that wont happen. I am not saying they need to have the “legal right” to text thier stock tips. I am saying that passing laws and enforcing them like what happened to Jack are completely idiodic and not going to help anyone or anything about the situation. People still drive drunk. The only people we have “raised awareness” for are the ones who wouldnt do it in the first place. The same idiots still do it, just like the same idiots still do all the same idiot things they do. Its because those people are idiots.
In a way, they are trying to enforce what I always preach… better driver training. The same arguements people always give me about how that will never happen here in the US are the same reasons these dumb cell phone laws wont work either.
I believe one of the more astute members of the B&B mentioned a few months ago that one way to really cut down on accidents would be to mount on the steering column, instead of an air-bag, a 6-inch poisin-tipped spike. That would tend to focus the attention of drivers, and cut down on texting, phone calls, shaving, applying makeup, reading and all the other really stupid shyte people do while driving.
I suppose another solution would be for people who want to text and talk while driving: mount your child’s seat on the front bumper, and see if you really want to try and drive while doing other things.
The only thing that annoys me more than people who drive stupid are people who defend their right to do so, by saying ‘we don’t need laws.’ Yes, we do. Cuz some morons don’t learn any other way. I wish it wasn’t true, but it is.
You guys aren’t cogitating properly on this. This existence of the law has desirable and undesirable results. Result A: Jack Jones decides to NOT answer his phone while driving. Instead of swerving into traffic and killing pregnant mother Joyce Smith and her three year old son, he continues on to work safely and catastrophe is avoided. Result B: Officer smilely sees Jack Baruth using a hand held device and issues him a ticket, causing Mr. Baruth impotent anger and gnashing of teeth over the fine he has to pay. ADD the two results together and the NET BENEFIT OF THE LAW is apparent. Sorry, Jack, about your ticket…okay,no I’m still not. Chalk it up to karma, recognize that your inconvenience may have saved lives, get on with your day. But don’t whine. It is unseemly and makes us think less of you. Okay, I can’t possibly think less of you. Never mind.
It is not the “action” of using a ‘phone while driving that is the problem. What IS the issue is that your mind is conjuring up images as the person at the other end is talking and that is the EPITOME of distracted driving and it is PROVEN beyond all doubt to cause crashes (note – not “accidents”) and subsequent death and mayhem.
To those “deniers” – just grow up and get with the program. You CAN’T drive properly while yakking on the phone whatever you may believe.
Um, he was STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT! How much concentration does it take to keep the brake pedal depressed?
So an overzealous cop abused the law and Jack has to pay a fine. Boo frickety hoo. As a knee-jerk result, all laws are bad just because one law was mis-used and Jack freakin’ Baruth got an unjust ticket?
Dazzling display of logic.
As a person who was rear-ended while stopped at a stoplight, (for at least 20 seconds, I might add), because the SUV driver behind me saw fit to answer his phone while not coming to a completely stopped, I would say, a lot, for some people.
What if you are stopped at a traffic light as Jack claimed? Do you think he would get so excited he’d take his foot off the brake and roll into traffic? Another reason to stick with manual transmissions, I guess. Someone please think of the children!
This is an example of the blunt instrument of law. Of course the dangers of distracted driving are greatly reduced when sitting at a stop light. And if there wasn’t a law, but people realized there was a difference between sitting-and-reading and driving-and-reading, there wouldn’t be a cop on the street corner waiting to put another check in his monthly quota.
But people keep saying “There oughta be a law…” and they get the laws that government wants.
It’s also the officer’s discretion and it seems he needed to fill his quota for the month at best or is just enjoys hassling people at worst.
Or maybe he just took one look at Jack and KNEW this guy was trouble, that somewhere along the line, Jack had done something illegal and gotten away with it, and now was the time for Karma to balance the scale. (Like, 116 mph in a Phaeton near DC, narrowly missing an accident with friends sleeping in the car…..)
Don’t you just love Karma?
Of course the NYPD encourages their officers to talk on the radio and use the computers in their cars while behind the wheel. Nothing like double standards for those who “enforce the law” is there?
I’d love for the police commissioner of NYC to explain to us how police are not distracted drivers.
Also, it’d be interesting to see how the ordinance is written. Does the law distinguish between holding a cell phone and holding an iPod? What about using an iPad or some other tablet computer?
Jack, do me a favor and post the ordinance # listed on the citation.
Studies show that police are super-human!!!
Okay, it appears that NY state law concerns using a “hand held electronic device” while driving. Under that standard, it’d be perfectly legal to be operating a mechanical adding machine while driving.
A few years ago, 2nd Amendment activist Dave Kopel proposed that if guns are the problem then all laws that restrict firearms should equally apply to police. If it’s dangerous for you or me to bring a gun into a school or church, it’s equally dangerous for a cop to do likewise.
The same applies to using electronic devices behind the wheel.
Don’t tell me how well trained they are. If their knowledge of the law is any measure of their training, most cops are not trained well.
So let’s stop treating LEOs as some kind of super-citizens with special privileges.
Right now we have the absurd situation of a cop radioing in from behind the wheel that he pulled someone over for holding a cell phone behind the wheel.
Great suggestion for Teen Defensive Drive schools during autocross event. We’ll just have extras to chase cones! :)
All this stupid law does is free up one hand to do something else… Great, now drivers can haul ass, gab on the phone AND put on makeup? Does nothing to make anyone safer and I will continue to take calls and hold my phone up to my ear as I’ve done for the last 20 years without incident. The last 15 I’ve either had flip phone or slider so I never need to take my eyes off the road. Ok maybe scanning for cops is a distraction but it’s offset by being super aware of my surroundings, right? I will use the speaker function in heavy traffic where a cop could blend in, even though that forces me to look down and wait for my cell to offer the “SPEAKER ON”? option about 2 seconds into the call. Wait 3 seconds and the screen goes dark. With the speaker on, I still need to hold the phone close enough for the mic to pick up. Velcro’d it to the steering wheel but it kept falling off.
Driving is a distraction in itself as anything other than looking at what’s ahead of you, or is about to be, is a deadly distraction. Stay home if any of this, including the way I use my phone, is a problem for you. Keep your kids home too. Won’t bother one… Your wife? What does she look like?
Like helmet laws and seatbelt laws, distracted driving laws are yet another attempt by lawmakers to legislate common sense. The result is a population with less and less common sense every day.
Common sense is now so rare… http://myspace.roflposters.com/images/rofl/myspace/1207786610605.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jpg
Cop is dead stinking wrong. The car was stopped at a light, which means it was not moving. But the Traffic Violations Bureau in NYC is crooked as hell, so beating it will be tough. Fight it anyway.
Baruth broke the law and got caught. My advice to him is as follows. Suck it up and pay the fine instead of posting on TTAC and trying to justify your actions.