Bluetooth / Private Smoking Ban (Aka California Sucks)

[Danoff]

It is an impossible and improper task - eliminating distractions while driving. Whether it's a cell phone, a radio, a passenger, or a pretty girl on the sidewalk.

These laws, like so many of their kind, are misguided in their approach. They attempt to prevent people from committing crimes by taking things that are not inherently criminal and making them so. Any time you do that you basically lose sight of any principled argument and start your way down a slippery slope.

 

[FoolKiller]

seatbelts

cigarettes

trans fats


Hey, when did it get icy?

 

[a6m5]

If you look away for just a second to flip teh radio station and a five-year-old kid runs in front of your car did it matter if you weren't looking away the rest of the time? No, accidents happen due to seconds of distractions. What you were doing before and after those seconds is inconsequential, so any distraction for no matter how long is the cause of an accident. All apples, all red delicious, just some are bigger.

I think you are missing my point though. What is the chance of that kid jumping in front of your car in that one paticular second?

Now, what if you change that one second to three minutes of one handed, distracted driving? That's what I'm trying to get at.

99% of those cases they pointed because I didn't know I was supposed to make the turn because it was a new direction for me. Why, are so easily distracted by passengers that you often miss turns you know you should make? Good thing that wasn't a kid coming from a side they couldn't see or while they were looking at you.

Did you mean to ask me why "I" get so distracted? Although I do have people pointing stuff out to me all the time, 99% of the time(yeah, very scientific), I've seen them before they did. But I've ridden in cars enough times, I know this happens. I was pointing this out as an example of how passengers often look out for stuff around the vehicle they are in.

P.S. I'm an excellent driver........ in a sense that I'm safe(I'm no Paul Walker or Vin Diesel). My sole insurance claim was when I parked my damn car in front of my huffy basketball hoop during an wind storm.

It is an impossible and improper task - eliminating distractions while driving. Whether it's a cell phone, a radio, a passenger, or a pretty girl on the sidewalk.

These laws, like so many of their kind, are misguided in their approach. They attempt to prevent people from committing crimes by taking things that are not inherently criminal and making them so. Any time you do that you basically lose sight of any principled argument and start your way down a slippery slope.

Fair enough. I do see your point.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think you are missing my point though. What is the chance of that kid jumping in front of your car in that one paticular second?

I don't know, let's ask all the people in accidents who say, "I looked away for just a second." Remember the VW commercials touting thier safety that would show people in a car, talking with passengers, that glance away and miss a stop or don't see someone pull out in front of them? Why would they use that as an example and not someone on a cell phone? Could it possibly because more people can relate to that than cell phone use?

When you drive many, many instances that could be accidents happen every mile but because you and the drivers around you were paying attention they don't. They do happen in that one instant when someone isn't paying attention and suddenly one of a million everyday driving situations becomes a catalyst to an accident. What are the odds that you look away just as a kid runs in teh road as you drive by? What are the odds that the kid runs into the road just as you drive by at all? The point isn't about the perfect timing of your position, inattentiveness and the kid. The point is that of the millions of things you see at any given time and almost unconciously react to and never once think of as being a close call any of them can lead to an accident if you don't see them. Odds of a specific event during a moment of inattentiveness are low, but odds of any event during that moment of inattentiveness are extremely high because they are constant.

Now, what if you change that one second to three minutes of one handed, distracted driving? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Well, as odds of vehicle position and child position meeting at the same place and time are low at all then it is three minutes of low odds, but the odds of any other event happening in those three minutes are just as high as they are during that one second as accident causing events are nearly constant.

Quite frankly, driving in America is one of the riskiest things you can do and if governments truly wanted to save as many lives as possible without concern for political backlash they would just ban personal vehicles.

I was pointing this out as an example of how passengers often look out for stuff around the vehicle they are in.

I am guessing this is much more rare for me as my wife considers car time nap time.


I have had two accidents (three if you count my car getting hit in a parking lot). The first was before my days of understanding the importrance of regular maintenance and my brake pads were non-existent so whatever was there dug into my rotors and locked my tires as I went into a turn. Neglect, not distraction was my cause.

The second was when I heard a noise and glanced down for just a second. At that moment I came upon a slight turn and dropped a tire off the road, which spun my car sideways and then I clipped an embankment on the other side of the road and flipped. What were the odds of a noise that would distract me occuring just as I came upon a turn and an embankment? Low, but it happened.

Side note: whatever the thumping noise on the side of the car was became completely irrelevant at that point.

 

[Danoff]

I am guessing this is much more rare for me as my wife considers car time nap time.

Yours too?

I've had 3 accidents in my lifetime. 1 was when I was young and stupid and didn't mind weather conditions enough. I was living in Texas - where weather can change rapidly. One day I was in a T-shirt. The next day I had hit a patch of ice and spun off the road. No damage to the car or anyone involved.

The next two happened in parking lot-type situations and both involved me coming up to a turn, checking one direction - clear, checking the other direction - clear, then going, only to find out that the first direction was no longer clear. In each case I failed to identify the nuances of the first direction. One case resulted in zero damage (very slow speeds), the other case resulted in slight damage.

I've done a lot of things in the car. Eaten, changed CDs, talked on cell phone, used bluetooth, had long conversations with passengers and over the cell phone, been a bit buzzed (for the sake of this discussion we'll assume I was under the legal limit). For years, on my commute home the first thing I would do is call my wife and I would basically chat with her the entire way home - but none of the incidences I've had have involved lack of attention. Worse, all three of them were botched judgment calls. And in none of those cases was I on a cell phone.

I've had two close calls based on a similar concept that I clearly need to work on as well. Both involved me attempting to turn left onto a busy 4 lane road (2 lanes per direction). In both cases I could not tell whether the oncoming car (going the direction I wanted to go) was in the left or right lane. In both cases he was alone. In both cases I assumed he was a) in the right lane (as he should be if he's alone) and b) that he would see me coming and move over into the right lane if he was not already in it.

Both resulted in honking and general-upsetness.

Again, judgment calls. In my experience, it's "experience", or lack of it, that leads to accidents.

 

[Slick6]

Good, and actually I'd completely remove all ability for anyone under 18 to even touch a steering sheel. Its quite obvious that teenagers--and anyone under 21 for that matter--as a group cannot drive safely. The statistics prove it as well as the insurance rates. Hey teenie bopper, you want to drive a car? Prepare to spend 100's of hours in training both inside and outside of the classroom.

By starting the driving age at age 18, wouldn't this just essentially move all of the bad drivers to the the 18-25 age group? I think the sooner you learn these things, the more willing you will be to take it seriously. It's a given that a group of people starting a complex task such as driving will make mistakes, but as everyone one else has said, experience generally prevails and by off-settting the driving age another four to five years, gives everybody that much less experience.

On a side note, I am 18 and have been driving on the roads since 14 (legally) and previously off roads at a much younger age. I have my Class A license (CDL) and I honestly don't know where I'd be, just beginning my driving career. There is a strict points system in my state for beginning drivers and I think it helps maintain a level of maturity and imposes the fact that driving is something to be taken seriously and people can be hurt if not done so.

 

[a6m5]

Danoff & FK, I think you guys are going strictly off of your personal experiences. Saying that your accidents or near misses came while you weren't on the phone is hardly scientific, is it? Majority of the time you are driving, you are not on the phone. Chances are, when I get into my accident, I won't be on a cell phone either. I don't know of a single person who was involved in a accident when they were drunk either, but they've been in accidents when they were sober.

There will always be accidents due to chance, mechanical failure, etc. But I'm sure you guys have read the unusually high numbers of accidents by teen drivers, drivers under influence, etc. I think the numbers support how most of accidents happen due to the drivers driving. Not the kid jumping in front of your car, or tire coming off. It's driver errors that cause most accidents And IMO, you are fooling yourself if you think driving while you are holding your cell phone to your head, having a conversation does not considerably impair your focus & driving ability.

 

[Danoff]

And IMO, you are fooling yourself if you think driving while you are holding your cell phone to your head, having a conversation does not considerably impair your focus & driving ability.

It's not a question of whether it impacts my focus & or driving ability. It does. But so does my radio, air condition controls, blinker, tachometer, stick shift, passenger, runny nose, headache, soft drink, cigarette, armrest, sunroof, screaming kid in the carseat, arguing children in the back seat, map, sun visor, itch on my leg, beer buzz, aching knee, paper cut, furniture piled up covering the back window, lack of cutting edge headlights, lack of cutting edge stability control, lack of cutting edge windshield display, windshield crack, squashed bug guts on the windshield, snow, rain, fog... not to mention the hot chick on the sidewalk, the blimp overhead, the skywriting above, the billboard on the side of the road, and the Ferrari that just drove by.

Shall we make each and every one of those things illegal? Should we make driving in the rain illegal? Should we make manual transmissions illegal? Afterall, if you've ever looked at your tach, that's a second that your eyes weren't on the road. (and before you say it, yes I have driven a stick shift without a tach, but I didn't have both hands on the wheel when I shifted)

Yes, cell phones impact your driving ability - just like everything else. Part of being a responsible adult is figuring out which distractions you can handle and still be safe on the road. That's a judgement call that should be left to each of us. And when we fail, we should be pulled over and ticketed for reckless driving.

 

[a6m5]

It's not a question of whether it impacts my focus & or driving ability. It does. But so does my radio, air condition controls, blinker, tachometer, stick shift, passenger, runny nose, headache, soft drink, cigarette, armrest, sunroof, screaming kid in the carseat, arguing children in the back seat, map, sun visor, itch on my leg, beer buzz, aching knee, paper cut, furniture piled up covering the back window, lack of cutting edge headlights, lack of cutting edge stability control, lack of cutting edge windshield display, windshield crack, squashed bug guts on the windshield, snow, rain, fog... not to mention the hot chick on the sidewalk, the blimp overhead, the skywriting above, the billboard on the side of the road, and the Ferrari that just drove by.

Shall we make each and every one of those things illegal? Should we make driving in the rain illegal? Should we make manual transmissions illegal? Afterall, if you've ever looked at your tach, that's a second that your eyes weren't on the road. (and before you say it, yes I have driven a stick shift without a tach, but I didn't have both hands on the wheel when I shifted)

Yes, cell phones impact your driving ability - just like everything else. Part of being a responsible adult is figuring out which distractions you can handle and still be safe on the road. That's a judgement call that should be left to each of us. And when we fail, we should be pulled over and ticketed for reckless driving.

I believe I asnwered this question 2 times. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Danoff]

I believe I answered this question 2 times. Let's agree to disagree.

Well, we'll have to disagree on that too. You've never really addressed the question of whether we should make those things illegal - or discussed what makes cell phones so unique.

 

[FoolKiller]

Danoff & FK, I think you guys are going strictly off of your personal experiences. Saying that your accidents or near misses came while you weren't on the phone is hardly scientific, is it?

I wasn't trying to say that using a cell phone was a good idea. In fact, I bought a Bluetooth device packed in with a video game more for use in the car than for talking smack after killing Land Sea Air or Solid Fro. The point we are making is that a dozen other things are just as distracting and have just as much potential to cause an accident.

I think that using a cell phone while driving is extremely careless and in my book ranks up there in intelligence with not wearing a seatbelt (which also shouldn't be required) and smoking (which shouldn't be banned on any private property). In fact, I have been known to pull alongside people who appear drunk, while really just using a cell phone, to honk and make a hang up motion with my hand. Just because I think someone is being an asshat does not mean I think we should go around banning their behavior.

If we enforce current reckless driving laws we will bust people for doing all the things we are wasting time and money to draft laws against. Instead if some guy has the ability to use his cell phone and drive his car exactly the same as he does without it we will give him a ticket. The time giving that ticket could be time that officer could have been finding someone actually being reckless and endangering others.



Let me put it this way: if we keep banning things that may be a danger to health then we are in trouble. Don't know if you have noticed any but I have seen two stories in the past year about hwo all this wireless technology could cause cancer, autism, and probably even flatulence and we won't know until it is too late. If this crazy idea gets big enough how long do you think it will be before someone proposes banning WiFi and the like?

And before you scoff, just remember that people are repeatedly tricked into trying to ban water because it can be deadly if inhaled.
http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

 

[V1P3R]

Erm... ok, so how does this work with the law that's suppose to go into effect (july?) about everyone having to use a hands free device on a c phone while driving?

Other than that... as long as they don't ban wifi. I don't care. xD

 

[a6m5]

Well, we'll have to disagree on that too. You've never really addressed the question of whether we should make those things illegal

We are still talking about non-headset, non-bluetooth, good old cell phone against your head while driving, right? My stance is what got you going off, remember? Once again, my answer is "yes".

or discussed what makes cell phones so unique.

That's mostly what I've been posting about.

I don't agree with your examples at all. Taking off your jacket? Hot chicks, stereo, big gulp, I've already spent a few minutes saying that I don't see those things as same thing as a three minute conversation with one of your hands holding a phone to your head, while driving.

And you do realize that those things you and FK have been listing can still happen while you are cell phone driving, right? Part of your mind is on the phone, and you don't have use of one of your hands, a kid runs onto a street, you want to take your jacket off, etc., etc. Way I look at it, it impairs your driving ability considerably(remember, you have use of just one hand). Especially in a emergency maneuver situations. Good luck downshifting, making that tight right turn..... whoa, a pedestrian just starting crossing in front of your car.

I wasn't trying to say that using a cell phone was a good idea. In fact, I bought a Bluetooth device packed in with a video game more for use in the car than for talking smack after killing Land Sea Air or Solid Fro. The point we are making is that a dozen other things are just as distracting and have just as much potential to cause an accident.

I think that using a cell phone while driving is extremely careless and in my book ranks up there in intelligence with not wearing a seatbelt (which also shouldn't be required) and smoking (which shouldn't be banned on any private property). In fact, I have been known to pull alongside people who appear drunk, while really just using a cell phone, to honk and make a hang up motion with my hand. Just because I think someone is being an asshat does not mean I think we should go around banning their behavior.

If we enforce current reckless driving laws we will bust people for doing all the things we are wasting time and money to draft laws against. Instead if some guy has the ability to use his cell phone and drive his car exactly the same as he does without it we will give him a ticket. The time giving that ticket could be time that officer could have been finding someone actually being reckless and endangering others.

What if we made it the secondary offense, where officers can't pull you over for the cell phone thing, alone? That way, while it is still illegal, the police can not pull you over, unless they have another reason to or see another violation?

P.S. I'll check out your health related post later, but I understand what you are getting at. I have already derailed this thread enough, and I think Danoff have already created a thread for that paticular subject sometime ago.

 

[Danoff]

We are still talking about non-headset, non-bluetooth, good old cell phone against your head while driving, right? My stance is what got you going off, remember? Once again, my answer is "yes".

I'm pretty sure your answer is actually "no, hot chicks on the sidewalk should not be illegal". And that somehow the logic got switched up.

I don't agree with your examples at all. Taking off your jacket? Hot chicks, stereo, big gulp, I've already spent a few minutes saying that I don't see those things as same thing as a three minute conversation with one of your hands holding a phone to your head, while driving.

Yea, I know. You've said you don't see them as being the same. But you haven't really explained why. I mean, is the length of time the only thing you have to go on here? So you can have a big gulp, but only if you put it down periodically? You can have furniture piled up in the back of the car blocking your rear view mirror completely, but only if you're only going 5 miles?

What I'm trying to say is, I'm completely confused about your point of view here. Where exactly is your beef here? The 1-handedness? Because surely you're not going to require that we all have 2 hands on the wheel at all times. So is it 1-handedness for a long period of time? Or should we simply outlaw driving for people with only one hand? Is it the conversation? Because that requires preventing passengers from riding in the car. Or is it the combination of the two? In which case a one-handed driver with a passenger is out of the question. Or is it the duration of the combination of the two that bothers you - in which case one handed drivers can have conversations but if it lasts longer than a few minutes a cop should pull them over.

 

[a6m5]

I'm pretty sure your answer is actually "no, hot chicks on the sidewalk should not be illegal". And that somehow the logic got switched up.

Yeah, I was cell phone typing. I get confused, my bad.

I mean, is the length of time the only thing you have to go on here? So you can have a big gulp, but only if you put it down periodically? You can have furniture piled up in the back of the car blocking your rear view mirror completely, but only if you're only going 5 miles?

For me, it would be the combination of the length + one handedness + distraction. And I already touched on the big gulp.

 

[Gil]

Well, my city (near Pasadena CA), has officially banned the use of bluetooth and any other wireless handsfree devices (including built-in car bluetooth) for use while driving for anyone under the age of 18 (regardless of parental permission or supervision). Straight-up cell phone usage, of course, is already illegal. Cops are authorized to pull over any vehicle in which they suspect a minor of using a hands free device. I assume this means they'll also be pulling over some adults that look underage.

In related news, my city has also banned smoking in a car that also contains a child. This is a law aimed to protect children from the unknown-but-presumed-harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

I see almost no reason to suspect that eventually bluetooth devices will be illegal for adults as well (aside from the fact that everyone has them and will be upset). There is no principled argument that was used to ban handsfree devices for minors that cannot also be used to ban them for adults. For example:

"Some underage drivers will be safe, but others are still new to the road and are learning how to drive safely. This distraction will put others in danger."

similarly

"Some adult drivers will be safe, but others are still new to the road (because some people learn to drive as adults) and are learning how to drive safely. This distraction will put others in danger."

Likewise, I see very few principled arguments to differentiate smoking in your own car with your child present from smoking in your own home with your child present. I see both of these laws as a step towards an all-out ban on mobile phones (and CB radios) while driving and smoking anywhere.

Edit: California is like the anti-freedom state. Economic freedom? No no no. Social freedom? Why no, not that either.

Dan, Dan, Dan,
You know I love you like a son.
I have two sons that can text while walking, never looking at their phones.
Does that mean I think they should do that while driving? No
I would prefer that my under 18 drivers don't talk to anyone on the phone while they are driving. That holds true for holding the handset, or with a bluetooth.
But if they are gonna talk on the phone (usually to answer a call from one of their parents) I would prefer they used a wireless device and kept both hands on the wheel at 9 and 3 (or 8 and 4).

In my own experience, I was good at car control when I was 16-18, but I was not a very good driver. Why?
Just because I could put a car 6 and a half foot car thru a 7 foot wide hole at 100 MPH, (and I could and did) doesn't make it a SMART or SAFE driving decision.

Just because I could blow the doors off my friend's Camaro with a Station Wagon (and I did, 3 or 4 times a week) doesn't make it a SMART or SAFE driving decision).

Just because I could keep my T-Bird sideways for nearly a block (and I could, and did) doesn't make it a SMART or SAFE driving decision.

I never ran into anyone or anything doing that dumb stuff. But I could have.

By the same token, my old man, great guy that he was did me a bit of a dis-service putting me on the streets in a Station Wagon with 375 HP, and a T-Bird with 300HP and able to lay down 500+ lb/ft of torque.

It is for this reason that my kids all drive sensible cars. Some are "cool" looking, but are way down on the power scale. After all, my old man was a hooligan in a car in his youth, I was a hooligan in a car in my youth...
I had to break the cycle.

Oh, and BTW, in Germany I think it is still law that you must be 14 years old to sit in the front seat.
It is also no mistake that Porsches don't have cup holders.
And if my reading is up to date, I believe that all cell phone use in a moving vehicle (by the driver) is at the very least ticketable.

I do agree that California Sucks. And I'm not coming back to make it better.

 

[Alfaholic]

Hmmm. I agree with Danoff's original confusion about why age is important in this bluetooth ban. I can't see why being under 18 makes any difference.

As for teenagers being the highest risk drivers, I nearly always see that being down to them being young and risk taking, but never see anyone crediting it to them all being, by law, inexperienced drivers. I wonder if the accident rate in teenagers is any worse than the accident rate of drivers of all ages who have held their license for two years or less? Speeding and taking corners does not automatically make rank make the driver the biggest risk for an accident. Less than 5% of accidents on UK roads list excessive speed as a cause. A 35 year old who has only been driving for a year can be easily as dangerous by not reading the road situation competently, not yielding properly, hitting the accelerator instead ot the brake in a panic. All sorts of things. I wouldn't be surprised if the major reason teenagers are high risk drivers is because they are all inexperienced, not because they are all young.

While I was similar to Gil in so much as I gave less margin for error when I was a younger driver, it wasn't because I was young. It is because experience has taught me to put less trust in my environment while driving. I always drove with a margin for error, but experience taught me that I needed to increase that margin to reach the level of personal safety I was comfortable with.

2 more ideas I'd like to put my opinion to: 1) the question of what is more or less distracting behind the wheel. Firstly, while a mobile phone can distract for a longer period of time, Danoff is right in saying that driving while distracted is dangerous, and the cause of the distraction is not relevant from the point of view of enforcement. It all can fall under "driving without due care and attention" and as such should be enforced like that. Simple. There should be no need to list particular causes of distraction. When driving, just pay attention at all times. Simple. As for driving with a hand held phone meaning driving with one hand, most drivers I've ever seen drive one handed all over the place, even if the other hand is doing nothing more than keeping the driver's thigh or gearlever warm.... but as for the distraction of any item like a mobile phone or talkative passenger, I often hear people give examples that they can drive and do something else without being distracted. Rubbish. If you give attention to a phone, your jacket, your latte, your stereo, or anything else while driving without paying any less attention to actually driving, you weren't giving your full attention to driving in the first place.

Personally I don't think it matters what you ban. Drivers that can no longer catch up on gossip on the drive home from work will find some other way to distract themselves from the boring, tedious chore that they see as driving. They won't pay any more attention to the road because they didn't feel they were missing it in the first place.

2) I can't remember the second point..

 

[V1P3R]

Hay, what do ya know... the idiots over here finally figured out that handsfree cell phones aren't going to do jack ****ing squat... it's just as dangerous as being on a cell...

 

[Danoff]

Hay, what do ya know... the idiots over here finally figured out that handsfree cell phones aren't going to do jack ****ing squat... it's just as dangerous as being on a cell...

It's not just as dangerous, handsfree does make a difference, and cell phones should not be banned while driving anyway.

 

[Slicks]

Mobile phones + Driving.

One can argue to the merits for or against cellular/bluetooth use while driving. I happen to agree that while unsafe at times, cellular use while driving shouldn't be illegal. Hands-free poses no further distraction than a talkative passenger.

Our perceptions of each action differ by person as well (obviously), with local driving conditions such as roads, weather, and traffic playing a heavy role. Driving through a school zone at the speed limit at 8 AM in the wet with a mobile pressed to your ear is a vastly different situation than driving on a dry, empty primary road at midday with a mobile pressed to your ear. Forethought, perception, and risk assessment should be up to drivers as individuals, rather than the city, state, or country.

I'll put my head on the block, here. I'm not quite 20, and have been driving solo for three years. In that time I've driven over 100,000 KM - It's been an occupation, a neccessity, and a hobby for me in that time. I actively compete in Autocross, and have attended a high-performance driving course. It's something I'm rather passionate about - I love driving, and I love driving quickly when the conditions are right. Call me 'spirited'. While statistics and my wonderfully run insurance corporation would rather disagree, I consider myself to be a safe driver. Why?
Distractions. Or, rather, the distinct lack of them that I incur on myself. I don't eat or drink in the car, and limit the time I spend on my cellular - I try to make any calls that need to be made before I've set out, or while I'm waiting in traffic. I wouldn't dream of texting on the road.

I think that a competent driver needs to be good at three primary things: Perception and foresight, Risk assessment and risk taking, and car control. Risk taking behaviour and an ablility to assess and manage risks associated with driving will allow a driver to set behavioral limits while at the wheel (Applying to everything from cellular use to speeding). Perception and foresight will allow you to anticipate the actions of others and the way they will effect you and/or impose a risk. And an ability to properly control your vehicle will let you react to self imposed risks, the conditions surrounding you, and the actions of others. A weakness in any of those three areas - Including poor judgement concerning cellular use - Can make for an unsafe driver.

So rather than cracking down on drivers as a whole - Unfair, in my opinion - Crack down on careless driving and inattention. If using your cellular degrades your driving ability to the point of having others notice, then you should by all means be ticketed. If your driving is just plain poor without factoring distractions such as food and phones, and this is plainly visible, you should be ticked just the same.

 

[Omnis]

I hope California doesn't have brain-dead juries.

Pray for some jury nullification.