States Banning Driver Distractions
02-09-2007, 09:55 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 08-20-2006
Location: Hillsdale, Michigan
Posts: 21,640
States Banning Driver Distractions
While I agree that you shouldn't be doing a majority of these things while driving I'm tired of all these useless laws that I feel are only being made to make money for the states. What's next? I can't speak to the person in the passenger seat? I'm no longer allowed to sing along with the radio? Better take down all the Billboards. Sure wouldn't want to be distracted by reading them.
States Try to Ban Driver Distractions
Friday, February 9, 2007 2:53 AM EST
The Associated Press
By JOHN CURRAN
BARRE, Vt. (AP) — Put down the flute and keep your eyes on the road. And forget about sipping that cup of coffee on the way to work, or smoking a cigarette on the way home. In some states, it could soon be illegal — if it isn't already.
Emboldened by the passage of cell phone bans for drivers in some communities, states are turning their attention to other things that drive motorists to distraction.
Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, "interacting with pets or cargo," talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.
Similar bills are under consideration in Maryland and Texas, and Connecticut has passed one that generically bans any activity that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle.
"Cell phones attracted people to this issue," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "Now that people are more focused on distracted driving issues, they're beginning to talk about the broader range of distractions."
For the sponsor of the Vermont bill, the motivation came from his own observations.
"What finally pushed me over the edge was when I was at a stop sign and somebody opposite me was trying to navigate around the corner with a cell phone to the ear in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and she wasn't doing very well," said Republican state Rep. Thomas F. Koch.
He said his wife recently saw a driver playing the flute, which led him to include the instrument ban in his bill.
"There are a lot of bad habits out on the road. This isn't just for drivers' own good. This is to protect the other people on the road," he said.
Often, they need protection:
—In Illinois, a bicyclist was killed by a driver who had been downloading cell phone ring tones while behind the wheel last September.
—In Westminster, Calif., a 7-year-old boy was struck and killed by an SUV whose driver lost control as he was trying to reach a cell phone and plowed into a family at a bus stop Nov. 29, authorities said.
—In Spokane, Wash., a man driving a pickup who was allegedly using a cell phone crossed a highway median and struck another truck head-on, killing five children, in 2005.
—In Athens, Ala., a woman lost control of her car while reaching for a ringing cell phone and crashed into a church last month.
Distracted drivers were involved in nearly eight out of 10 collisions or near-crashes in a study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute that was released last year by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Young drivers are some of the worst offenders. A study of more than 5,600 students released last month by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance Co. reported that nearly 90 percent had seen friends drive while talking on cell phones and that half saw drivers playing hand-held games, using listening devices or sending text messages.
Jeff Rogers, 44, of Barre, filling up his pickup at a gas station Thursday, said the Vermont bill is "going a little too far."
"I can understand the cell phone thing," he said. "But the rest of it, how are they going to enforce that?"
States Try to Ban Driver Distractions
Friday, February 9, 2007 2:53 AM EST
The Associated Press
By JOHN CURRAN
BARRE, Vt. (AP) — Put down the flute and keep your eyes on the road. And forget about sipping that cup of coffee on the way to work, or smoking a cigarette on the way home. In some states, it could soon be illegal — if it isn't already.
Emboldened by the passage of cell phone bans for drivers in some communities, states are turning their attention to other things that drive motorists to distraction.
Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, "interacting with pets or cargo," talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.
Similar bills are under consideration in Maryland and Texas, and Connecticut has passed one that generically bans any activity that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle.
"Cell phones attracted people to this issue," said Matt Sundeen, a transportation analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. "Now that people are more focused on distracted driving issues, they're beginning to talk about the broader range of distractions."
For the sponsor of the Vermont bill, the motivation came from his own observations.
"What finally pushed me over the edge was when I was at a stop sign and somebody opposite me was trying to navigate around the corner with a cell phone to the ear in one hand and a cigarette in the other, and she wasn't doing very well," said Republican state Rep. Thomas F. Koch.
He said his wife recently saw a driver playing the flute, which led him to include the instrument ban in his bill.
"There are a lot of bad habits out on the road. This isn't just for drivers' own good. This is to protect the other people on the road," he said.
Often, they need protection:
—In Illinois, a bicyclist was killed by a driver who had been downloading cell phone ring tones while behind the wheel last September.
—In Westminster, Calif., a 7-year-old boy was struck and killed by an SUV whose driver lost control as he was trying to reach a cell phone and plowed into a family at a bus stop Nov. 29, authorities said.
—In Spokane, Wash., a man driving a pickup who was allegedly using a cell phone crossed a highway median and struck another truck head-on, killing five children, in 2005.
—In Athens, Ala., a woman lost control of her car while reaching for a ringing cell phone and crashed into a church last month.
Distracted drivers were involved in nearly eight out of 10 collisions or near-crashes in a study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute that was released last year by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Young drivers are some of the worst offenders. A study of more than 5,600 students released last month by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance Co. reported that nearly 90 percent had seen friends drive while talking on cell phones and that half saw drivers playing hand-held games, using listening devices or sending text messages.
Jeff Rogers, 44, of Barre, filling up his pickup at a gas station Thursday, said the Vermont bill is "going a little too far."
"I can understand the cell phone thing," he said. "But the rest of it, how are they going to enforce that?"
02-09-2007, 11:56 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-01-2006
Location: New London, CT USA
Posts: 2,507
Yeah more reasons for the agents of social control to reach out and help us.
It is their job to get all of us on something and crowd the prisons.
Seriously though driver distractions are at an all time high. I see folks staring at the navigation consoles rather than the road. The consoles may as well play movies for how safe I feel seeing drivers peering at the small screens.
Face it , people are selfish and suck.
There, we as a race are doomed.
Hence the plethora of lawyers.
It is their job to get all of us on something and crowd the prisons.
Seriously though driver distractions are at an all time high. I see folks staring at the navigation consoles rather than the road. The consoles may as well play movies for how safe I feel seeing drivers peering at the small screens.
Face it , people are selfish and suck.
There, we as a race are doomed.
Hence the plethora of lawyers.
02-10-2007, 11:12 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-26-2006
Location: kankakee, IL
Posts: 266
I`m for this except for the eating part. I can handle taking a bite of hamburger or a sip of drink. We can joke about this because were not the parent of one of those kids. I drive for a living and see stuff like this all the time and worse.
02-10-2007, 01:00 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-16-2006
Location: dayton, oh
Posts: 117
okay all conspiracy theorists.....now from the devil's advocate.
Yes, I am a police officer, so I admit some bit of bias.
I once stopped a lady who was reported as a drunk driver. Upon stopping her, I realized she was eating a donut, drinking a can of 7up, smoking a cigarette, and talking on the phone. She nearly hit six parked cars....and god forbid someone would have been walking on the sidewalk too close to the curb. This type of law exists to protect us all from this type of driver. I have never got the feeling from my employers that I needed to write more tickets for revenue purposes. In ten years of law enforcement, I have seen more serious injuries and deaths than I ever cared to. If restricting other activities while driving reduces the amount of traffic injuries and deaths....I'm all for it. Heck, have you seen Allstate's commercials.....they're even getting involved in the cause.
At least be fair and responsible about any accusations that the government has other motives when trying to address a problem. Okay, I am stepping down from my soap box.
Yes, I am a police officer, so I admit some bit of bias.
I once stopped a lady who was reported as a drunk driver. Upon stopping her, I realized she was eating a donut, drinking a can of 7up, smoking a cigarette, and talking on the phone. She nearly hit six parked cars....and god forbid someone would have been walking on the sidewalk too close to the curb. This type of law exists to protect us all from this type of driver. I have never got the feeling from my employers that I needed to write more tickets for revenue purposes. In ten years of law enforcement, I have seen more serious injuries and deaths than I ever cared to. If restricting other activities while driving reduces the amount of traffic injuries and deaths....I'm all for it. Heck, have you seen Allstate's commercials.....they're even getting involved in the cause.
At least be fair and responsible about any accusations that the government has other motives when trying to address a problem. Okay, I am stepping down from my soap box.
02-10-2007, 01:32 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-26-2006
Location: kankakee, IL
Posts: 266
Let me ask you this,213. As a police officer how strict are you on a law like this? For example the previously mentioned woman deserved to be pulled over,and beaten, ok that last part is me. Now if your going down the road behind someone who is going down the road who takes a drink of soda but otherwise is driving correctly, should that person be pulled over? There`s the letter of the law and then there`s the intent. Hopefully if a law is passed it will allow for the police to exercise their common sense between the two.
02-10-2007, 01:37 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-19-2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 20,687
I think a law like this should be applied to an accident if one of these situations was a contributing factor for the accident. I think there is some kind of law like this in Fl where the citation has a box marked "DWD - Driving While Distracted".
02-10-2007, 02:55 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-05-2006
Location: Greenville, MS
Posts: 342
I think maybe we should get tough on the laws to allow people a license to drive to begin with. In my neck of the woods you can get a Drivers License if you can walk and talk, dont have to be able to read or anything else. I for one can smoke a cigarette or have a drink while going down the road without losing my focus on what I am doing . Maybe for some that is a problem, for them I would say they would be better off taking public transportatiion as no matter what law you pass there willl always be things that could, if you let them, distract you from driving. The only law that will fix all of the problems would be one that banned driving .. As far as Cell Phones, I agree. I do not use mine when driving and think they should not be allowed while driving. After all my phone will record the number of the missed call and I can call them back when it is safe, or I can pull off the road and take the call so that I am not distracted by carrying on a conversation when my attention should be on my driving.. Just my opinion.. I think some States are going Way overboard on this in a grand effort to protect the stupid from themselves. If I qualify for this please do not try and protect me. Let me suffer from my own stupidity. As far as others being the victum of my stupidity, then I should have to pay dearly for it ....