Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 22, 2009, 05:17:47 PM
-
Booooooo. Sounds a little broad.
Council votes to ban use of cell phones while driving
Advertiser Staff
The Honolulu City Council this morning passed a bill that would ban the use of handheld cell phones while driving.
Motorists could still use their phones via hands-free technology.
Mayor Mufi Hannemann has said he supports such a ban. If he signs it, the law would take effect July 1.
Maj. Thomas Nitta, head of the Honolulu Police Department's traffic division, said some details on how the law will be implemented need to be worked out. However, it's likely the fine for a first violation would be between $20 to $100.
The measure was proposed by council members Rod Tam and Donovan Dela Cruz after Hannemann vetoed an earlier ban that included text messaging and playing video games.
Hannemann and Honolulu police said the law would be unenforceable since officers would have to determine what the driver was doing.
Under the new bill, an officer only needs to see a driver holding an electronic device while driving to issue a citation.
The bill exempts emergency workers if they are in the performance of their duties.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090422/BREAKING01/90422050
-
What's to get? It should be that way with every state. People can barely drive without any distractions.
-
What's to get? It should be that way with every state. People can barely drive without any distractions.
This part sounds a little broad: "Under the new bill, an officer only needs to see a driver holding an electronic device while driving to issue a citation."
-
They just passed similar legislation today here in Ontario. Very soon it will apply to ALL handheld devices.
I completely agree with it. Changing the radio station can be distracting enough, ...we don't need people texting on their blackberries, reading eMail, or scrolling through their iPods instead of focussing on driving their vehicles.
-
This part sounds a little broad: "Under the new bill, an officer only needs to see a driver holding an electronic device while driving to issue a citation."
what is broad about that. Sounds good to me. Find something that fits holding an "electronic device" that you think it's ok to drive and use? Can you name one thing?
-
I don't see whats so hard about talking on the cell and driving but I've seen enough idiots on the road blabbing away completly oblivious to whats around them that they fucked it up for everyone else. Looks like I'll have to get a hands free device for myself eventually.
-
This part sounds a little broad: "Under the new bill, an officer only needs to see a driver holding an electronic device while driving to issue a citation."
Wow, one of the rare occasions you and I are in agreement.
-
What about truck drives holding onto a CB Radio Microphone? ???
-
It really is a matter of safety. I see many people's reflection in their rear view mirror and they are looking down while driving. The same thing happens when they are holding the phone to their ear.
-
It really is a matter of safety. I see many people's reflection in their rear view mirror and they are looking down while driving. The same thing happens when they are holding the phone to their ear.
Absolutely. Most people will hold the phone in their dominant hand which leaves only one hand on the wheel,
...and if an Italian guy driving a caddy, ...that leaves only one pinkie on the wheel. :P
With todays blue tooth technology, speakerphone capabilities on cells, there's no reason for someone to not take advantage of handsfree technologies.
-
Absolutely. Most people will hold the phone in their dominant hand which leaves only one hand on the wheel,
...and if an Italian guy driving a caddy, ...that leaves only one pinkie on the wheel. :P
With todays blue tooth technology, speakerphone capabilities on cells, there's no reason for someone to not take advantage of handsfree technologies.
So very true, and not just of cab drivers.
I cringe hearing people in CA complain about the inconvenience. I've had the same headset for 3 years and I think it cost me 10 bucks. I still see people in high end cars using their hands. You mean to tell me they can't afford the devices you mentioned? It's funny. My dad hates technology and rarely uses a cell phone and he even bought one in the off chance he needs to use his phone in the car. His work cars over the years all had hands free sets with a cradle for the phone and a regular phone attached for private matters. He always used the speaker mounted to the visor. People complaining about these things bother me when they complain about their tickets.
It reminds me of AZ where there were traffic cams for speeding and running red lights. The areas are well known and marked for traffic enforcement and people still complained about unfairness when ticketed.
-
What about truck drives holding onto a CB Radio Microphone? ???
Or cops that use them, good point. maybe they should list the items individually. I know that it's become routine to see that the idiot doing something erratic on the road just happens to be talking on his cell phone I can't count the times I see some clown sitting through the turn light talking on a cell phone only to snap back into driving when honked at. big annoyance. Then watching them try to turn, shift and talk at the same time lol... Now you have all these clowns trying to text and drive as if talking on the cell wasn't enough of a distraction for them.
-
LOL @ Hawaii.
you guys are so darn cute.
-
Now you have all these clowns trying to text and drive as if talking on the cell wasn't enough of a distraction for them.
Don't even get me started on that shit. I saw some guy doing that a few days ago. Always reaching up and typing away at every red light or in traffic and like you said they always end up 10 cars behind the other guy because they are in glued to these fucking things. I even hate the sound of the buttons getting mashed down while people texting in elevators and shit. I just wanna rip the thing ouuta their hand and stomp on it.
We managed to survive without texting every damn minute 25 years ago.
-
Don't even get me started on that shit. I saw some guy doing that a few days ago. Always reaching up and typing away at every red light or in traffic and like you said they always end up 10 cars behind the other guy because they are in glued to these fucking things. I even hate the sound of the buttons getting mashed down while people texting in elevators and shit. I just wanna rip the thing ouuta their hand and stomp on it.
We managed to survive without texting every damn minute 25 years ago.
yup, very annoying. Even worse for me are the people who talk on their cell phones so loud you can't possible not be drawn into their stupid conversation. I hate waiting in line somewhere right beside some ass that's loud as hell and talking on their phone the whole time.
-
i think you should be able to throw a handful of pennies at ANY driver who is texting in traffic.
I see 16 year old kids, mouth ajar, driving with their knees while texting away. I get pretty pissed. Worse than drunk drivers, who are least are trying to focus on not getting pulled over.
-
Yup, but in CA it's illegal to talk and hold the phone.. they enforced it hardcore for about a couple weeks... now everyone is back to doing it again.
-
yup, very annoying. Even worse for me are the people who talk on their cell phones so loud you can't possible not be drawn into their stupid conversation. I hate waiting in line somewhere right beside some ass that's loud as hell and talking on their phone the whole time.
or when they're on bluetooths, all hidden up in their big ugly beehive haircut. You turn and look at them and say "excuse me?" and they look all irritated that you interrupted their call.
-
or when they're on bluetooths, all hidden up in their big ugly beehive haircut. You turn and look at them and say "excuse me?" and they look all irritated that you interrupted their call.
yea and they seem to talk even louder when they have the bluetooth on. There's been a few times I wanted to snatch a cell phone and smash it lol.
-
Worse than drunk drivers, who are least are trying to focus on not getting pulled over.
lol
-
Why do so many people yell when they talk on the phone?
-
I've been driving for 6 years now and haven't been pulled over one time. Fuckin bastards going slow in the fast lane is what pisses me off.
Glad the fucktards ruin it for me! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
I've been driving for 6 years now and haven't been pulled over one time. Fuckin bastards going slow in the fast lane is what pisses me off.
Glad the fucktards ruin it for me! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
No shit.
I hate that too. People need to get the F*%&$^#* over. >:( >:( >:(
-
or when they're on bluetooths, all hidden up in their big ugly beehive haircut. You turn and look at them and say "excuse me?" and they look all irritated that you interrupted their call.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
I can't tell you how many times I thought I was standing beside a crazy person who was simply talking to themselves, then breathed a huge sigh of relief when i realized they were on the phone. It's unnerving, ...especially when the conversation gets passionate. Other than that time in 1995 when I saw the crazy guy running down Queen Street in nothing but a diaper, I'm not used to seeing crazy people walking the streets muttering to themselves.
-
what is broad about that. Sounds good to me. Find something that fits holding an "electronic device" that you think it's ok to drive and use? Can you name one thing?
Doesn't matter if you're using it. Merely holding an electronic device in your hands is a violation according to the article. I've held my BlackBerry in my hand countless times while driving. I only type and read while at stop lights. There are plenty of times when I've asked my kid to put one of their scheduled sports games on my calendar, which at some point required me to hold the device in my hand.
-
I just got pulled over the other here in California for talking on a cell phone.
I think its a stupid law. People who are bad drivers will still be bad drivers with or with out cell phone use.
-
It's been illegal here in ny for years
-
I just got pulled over the other here in California for talking on a cell phone.
I think its a stupid law. People who are bad drivers will still be bad drivers with or with out cell phone use.
Yeah. I agree. Bad law.
-
I just got pulled over the other here in California for talking on a cell phone.
I think its a stupid law. People who are bad drivers will still be bad drivers with or with out cell phone use.
It's a stupid law because YOU got pulled over?
It's not about bad drivers vs. good drivers, ...it's about a device that interferes with someone's ability to focus behind the wheel. Holding a cell phone or any device in your hand lowers your response time in the event evasive action needs to be taken. How can you possibly argue otherwise? It's a fact.
I'm a good driver, but even I know holding a cell phone instead of gripping the wheel compromises my abilities behind the wheel, ...no matter how accustomed I am to doing it. When I got in the car, my cell phone sat on a sticky pad on the dash, and was set to answer automatcally on the 4th ring. As the call display came up, I could push a button and automatically send the caller into voice mail, ...or let it answer in speakerphone mode automatically. It's just common sense and prudence not to be holding the phone while driving. I won't even talk to people if I call them and they're driving. I can't tell you how many times people are like "Oh no... it's ok, I can drive and talk at the same time" ...next thing you know, they're having near misses or they're dropping the phone, or you hear honking and then they say 'oh shit... the light's green' etc., I won't even talk to people without handsfree while they're driving. If they want to talk to me, I make them pull over and come to a stop otherwise I won't talk to them. or I tell them, call me back when you get to where you're going. or I'm calling back to leave it in voicemail, ...but that sometimes doesn't work, cause they only end up trying to dial into voicemail to see what message I left. :-\
It freaks me out, ...especially some nights when I'm on conference calls with truckers. Some of these guys are driving down the highways with 80,000 lb loads on and doing a conference call. Granted most of them are using blue-tooths, but man I hate it, ...especially in the winter, and these guys are pulling mountains and the roads are icing up... my heart is in my throat the whole frikking time. :o
-
It's a stupid law because YOU got pulled over?
It's not about bad drivers vs. good drivers, ...it's about a device that interferes with someone's ability to focus behind the wheel. Holding a cell phone or any device in your hand lowers your response time in the event aversive action needs to be taken. How can you possibly argue otherwise? It's a fact.
It's just common sense and prudence not to be holding the phone while driving. I won't even talk to people if I call them and they're driving. I can't tell you how many times people are like "Oh no... it's ok, I can drive and talk at the same time" ...next thing you know, they're having near misses or they're dropping the phone, or you hear honking and then they say 'oh shit... the light's green' etc., I won't even talk to people without handsfree while they're driving. If they want to talk to me, I make them pull over and come to a stop otherwise I won't talk to them. or I tell them, call me back when you get to where you're going. or I'm calling back to leave it in voicemail, ...but that sometimes doesn't work, cause they only end up trying to dial into voicemail to see what message I left. :-\
x2
Good stuff.
OzmO you should have told the CHP where to stick it.
-
I just got pulled over the other here in California for talking on a cell phone.
I think its a stupid law. People who are bad drivers will still be bad drivers with or with out cell phone use.
Were you on the phone with Luke about that whole bigfoot thing?
-
lol@Ozmo... He got pulled over for it, therefore it's a stupid law. He probably doesn't even notice he's one of the people swerving all over the road. It sure doesn't look like the people driving recklessly while on their phone seem to notice or care. With it being so common seeing people like this, how are we to know Ozmo isn't one of these oblivious drivers? Credibility issues :D At least you have something in common with Rush Ozmo ;) He thinks it's a stupid law too...
-
It's a stupid law because YOU got pulled over?
It's not about bad drivers vs. good drivers, ...it's about a device that interferes with someone's ability to focus behind the wheel. Holding a cell phone or any device in your hand lowers your response time in the event evasive action needs to be taken. How can you possibly argue otherwise? It's a fact.
I'm a good driver, but even I know holding a cell phone instead of gripping the wheel compromises my abilities behind the wheel, ...no matter how accustomed I am to doing it. When I got in the car, my cell phone sat on a sticky pad on the dash, and was set to answer automatcally on the 4th ring. As the call display came up, I could push a button and automatically send the caller into voice mail, ...or let it answer in speakerphone mode automatically. It's just common sense and prudence not to be holding the phone while driving. I won't even talk to people if I call them and they're driving. I can't tell you how many times people are like "Oh no... it's ok, I can drive and talk at the same time" ...next thing you know, they're having near misses or they're dropping the phone, or you hear honking and then they say 'oh shit... the light's green' etc., I won't even talk to people without handsfree while they're driving. If they want to talk to me, I make them pull over and come to a stop otherwise I won't talk to them. or I tell them, call me back when you get to where you're going. or I'm calling back to leave it in voicemail, ...but that sometimes doesn't work, cause they only end up trying to dial into voicemail to see what message I left. :-\
It freaks me out, ...especially some nights when I'm on conference calls with truckers. Some of these guys are driving down the highways with 80,000 lb loads on and doing a conference call. Granted most of them are using blue-tooths, but man I hate it, ...especially in the winter, and these guys are pulling mountains and the roads are icing up... my heart is in my throat the whole frikking time. :o
Blah blah blah.
It was stupid law before i got pulled over for it.
I really don't give a shit what other people think or what some bean counter thinks about it. I drive fine talking on my cell phone which it much of the time i drive.
It's only a $20 fine. So it's no big deal.
Still a stupid law.
-
Does anyone drive with two hands? I never do. I don't think holding a cell versus hands free will make a lick of difference when it comes to concentrating on the road. If the genuine issue is safety then they should ban all cell phone use while driving.
-
x2
Good stuff.
OzmO you should have told the CHP where to stick it.
I was thinking about doing just that. It was a city motorcycle traffic rookie. I was more interested in getting back on the phone.
-
This is just a revenue raising scheme. The cops will be on the phone more than anyone else.
-
Were you on the phone with Luke about that whole bigfoot thing?
No, I told the cop that the cell phone he saw in my hand was a hologram and that i have grainy you tube vid to prove it. He said: "What do you think I am a complete idiot?" ;) ;D :D 8)
-
lol@Ozmo... He got pulled over for it, therefore it's a stupid law. He probably doesn't even notice he's one of the people swerving all over the road. It sure doesn't look like the people driving recklessly while on their phone seem to notice or care. With it being so common seeing people like this, how are we to know Ozmo isn't one of these oblivious drivers? Credibility issues :D At least you have something in common with Rush Ozmo ;) He thinks it's a stupid law too...
You assume a lot. But that's pretty much how you operate.
-
Does anyone drive with two hands? I never do. I don't think holding a cell versus hands free will make a lick of difference when it comes to concentrating on the road. If the genuine issue is safety then they should ban all cell phone use while driving.
Exactly!
What's next? Outlawing eating in your car? followed by talking in your car?
It's a very stupid law, probably written by the same idiots who thought raising the speed limit past 55 MPH would result massive accidents and a gigantic rise in automotive deaths.
-
You assume a lot. But that's pretty much how you operate.
How I operate? No I don't swerve around the road talking on a cell phone, but I see plenty of others do it. ;)
-
How I operate? No I don't swerve around the road talking on a cell phone, but I see plenty of others do it. ;)
There's plenty of idiot drivers out there.
Maybe i should have use a ";" hmmmmmm
-
There's plenty of idiot drivers out there.
Maybe i should have use a ";" hmmmmmm
yea, and maybe you can explain why it's so common to see the person driving like an idiot so often has a cell phone in hand? Have no idea what your last remark means. If they're already shitty drivers, how is letting them multitask while driving helping them or any of us?
I'm pretty sure nobody has ever taken the driving portion of their test to get a license while talking on a cell phone, if it's not going to be illegal, maybe they should since so many idiots drive and text or talk on their phones. That sounds absurd, but no more absurd than all these fuckers multitasking behind the wheel while lives are on the line just so they can bullshit with their buddies ::) That's absurd.
-
yea, and maybe you can explain why it's so common to see the person driving like an idiot so often has a cell phone in hand?
Really? Have you done a study on this? Or is this your "expert" opinion based on what exactly? All the instances you can remember? Did you record those in some log you keep in your car?
Have no idea what your last remark means.
Obviously because you had no idea what this meant:
" You assume a lot. But that's pretty much how you operate. "
If they're already shitty drivers, how is letting them multitask while driving helping them or any of us?
If they are shitty drivers they shouldn't be driving. Good drivers, shouldn't penalized for what shitty drivers do.
I'm pretty sure nobody has ever taken the driving portion of their test to get a license while talking on a cell phone, if it's not going to be illegal, maybe they should since so many idiots drive and text or talk on their phones. That sounds absurd, but no more absurd than all these fuckers multitasking behind the wheel while lives are on the line just so they can bullshit with their buddies ::) That's absurd.
Just as absurd as someone eating a hamburger while taking a driving test. Should we outlaw eating and drinking in the car too? While we are at, how about outlawing talking in the car. That's a distraction. Or how about putting make up on in the car? How about picking your nose in the car? How about changing the radio station?
How about outlawing writing down every time you see someone driving bad while talking on the phone in a log book too?
The law is stupid.
-
No, I told the cop that the cell phone he saw in my hand was a hologram and that i have grainy you tube vid to prove it. He said: "What do you think I am a complete idiot?" ;) ;D :D 8)
Was it a real cop, or an alien cop?
You believe in those, right?
-
Some first pass stuff from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety)
Hands-free
Driving while using a hands-free device is not safer than while using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[2][3] epidemiological,[4][5] simulation,[7] and meta-analysis[9][10]. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[13][14][15]
The American National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says that the distraction created by the use of a cellular telephone while driving is similar to that associated with other distractions in increasing crash risk. However, the data are insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the safety problem.[1]
-
Was it a real cop, or an alien cop?
You believe in those, right?
I was a cop wired with thermite riding a missile that looked just like an airliner.
-
Blah blah blah.
It was stupid law before i got pulled over for it.
I really don't give a shit what other people think or what some bean counter thinks about it. I drive fine talking on my cell phone which it much of the time i drive.
It's only a $20 fine. So it's no big deal.
Still a stupid law.
Only a $20 fine to the state.... what's the premium increase once your insurance company finds out about it? {LOL}
You should have taken the $20 and got yourself an earpiece. It would've been cheaper in the long run. ;D
-
Really? Have you done a study on this? Or is this your "expert" opinion based on what exactly? All the instances you can remember? Did you record those in some log you keep in your car?
Obviously because you had no idea what this meant:
" You assume a lot. But that's pretty much how you operate. "
If they are shitty drivers they shouldn't be driving. Good drivers, shouldn't penalized for what shitty drivers do.
Just as absurd as someone eating a hamburger while taking a driving test. Should we outlaw eating and drinking in the car too? While we are at, how about outlawing talking in the car. That's a distraction. Or how about putting make up on in the car? How about picking your nose in the car? How about changing the radio station?
How about outlawing writing down every time you see someone driving bad while talking on the phone in a log book too?
The law is stupid.
nice meltdown, you've been doing that a lot recently. LOL, now I need to be an expert to know what I'm seeing when some ass is driving erratic and talking on the phone ::) No, people shouldn't eat and drive, what a stupid question ::) Yes they can talk and drive, I'm for using a headset or bluetooth as it's no different than talking in the car. Again what a stupid thing to say. You're talking to the guy giving you your driving test right? Yup, but are you eating KFC or talking on the cell phone or texting, NOPE!!!... You're in dire need of some common sense Ozmo ;) Your other examples are lame. Are they a distraction, yes. A temporary distraction, you can't get rid of all distractions nor does anything with this law attempt to do so. What laws like this do is focus on elimating the most extreme distractions which pose a large threat to other drivers on the road. Cellphone talking and texting is a lengthy distraction while driving and that is why it is so easy to spot someone driving like shit and talking on their phone and no you don't need to be an expert to see this. It's not a stupid law, you're a selfish person willing to put your own needs above the community. You can call your buddy on your time. When you're on the public roads I expect you to think about not only yourself but others too, focus on driving. Have some decency.
-
Only a $20 fine to the state.... what's the premium increase once your insurance company finds out about it? {LOL}
You should have taken the $20 and got yourself an earpiece. It would've been cheaper in the long run. ;D
I'd be willing to bet my insurance doesn't do one dam thing about it. Hadn't had a ticket or accident in years. Over 40. Non-smoker etc...
-
nice meltdown, you've been doing that a lot recently. LOL, now I need to be an expert to know what I'm seeing when some ass is driving erratic and talking on the phone ::) No, people shouldn't eat and drive, what a stupid question ::) Yes they can talk and drive, I'm for using a headset or bluetooth as it's no different than talking in the car. Again what a stupid thing to say. You're talking to the guy giving you your driving test right? Yup, but are you eating KFC or talking on the cell phone or texting, NOPE!!!... You're in dire need of some common sense Ozmo ;) Your other examples are lame. Are they a distraction, yes. A temporary distraction, you can't get rid of all distractions nor does anything with this law attempt to do so. What laws like this do is focus on elimating the most extreme distractions which pose a large threat to other drivers on the road. Cellphone talking and texting is a lengthy distraction while driving and that is why it is so easy to spot someone driving like shit and talking on their phone and no you don't need to be an expert to see this. It's not a stupid law, you're a selfish person willing to put your own needs above the community. You can call your buddy on your time. When you're on the public roads I expect you to think about not only yourself but others too, focus on driving. Have some decency.
Oh god, Is every time someone details an explanation to you constitute a meltdown in your eyes? Being that you melt down here more than anyone on this board i can understand why you'd see that as a meltdown.
Interesting, your "expert opinions" seem to be at odds will real experts.
I'll continue driving while talking on the cell phone. Just stay out of N. Cali. ;)
-
I'd be willing to bet my insurance doesn't do one dam thing about it. Hadn't had a ticket or accident in years. Over 40. Non-smoker etc...
You can bet they'll be blowing their load over this. They finally got you. hahaha.
Have you ever seen an insurance company NOT jump at the chance to raise someone's rate?
-
You can bet they'll be blowing their load over this. They finally got you. hahaha.
Have you ever seen an insurance company NOT jump at the chance to raise someone's rate?
yeah i know >:(.
but the good news is:
i can switch to gieco and save 15%!
-
Here's some more, you know.................... ............... studies...........by people who do that sort of thing. You know just an article. Not expert unrecorded behind the wheel subjective experiences of ONE person.
Effectiveness of drivers' cellphone ban is debatable
While traffic officials applaud a new law that makes it illegal for drivers to read, write or send text messages, they admit there is little evidence that last year's ban against talking on a hand-held cellphone has actually prevented accidents.
Since holding a phone to your ear was made a traffic violation last July, the California Highway Patrol has written about 48,000 tickets, fining drivers from $20 to $50.
City police and sheriff's departments across the state have likely written thousands more, officials say, and sometimes charge higher fines. The Santa Monica Police Department issued about 1,200 tickets in 2008.
But just how effective the law has been, no one can say, just as they can't say speeding tickets necessarily keep drivers from stepping too hard on the gas.
Santa Monica Police Sgt. Larry Horn, who often patrols on a motorcycle, believes the hands-free law has made a difference.
"Six months ago, everywhere I looked someone who was driving was on the phone," he said. "From the saddle, I'm seeing less people on the phone now."
Six states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws against using hand-held cellphones while driving and another six states have given local jurisdictions the option of prohibiting it, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/03/local/me-handsfree3 (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/03/local/me-handsfree3)
-
Oh god, Is every time someone details an explanation to you constitute a meltdown in your eyes? Being that you melt down here more than anyone on this board i can understand why you'd see that as a meltdown.
Interesting, your "expert opinions" seem to be at odds will real experts.
I'll continue driving while talking on the cell phone. Just stay out of N. Cali. ;)
I just hope you only kill yourself and not some innocent family. since you have such high demands for who can and can't speak on an issue, save me your wiki experts or at least post the rest of what it said and not only the portion that made your case. ::) But I'm sure you have some convenient shootdown for the portions of the wiki entry that you don't like.
-
http://motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/cell-phones-and-dui-drunk-driving.html
-
How much money has it raised for state coffers? Look at that figure and tell me it hasn't been effective.
-
http://motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/cell-phones-and-dui-drunk-driving.html
From the title of the article: "This is a Declaration of War."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
-
How much money has it raised for state coffers? Look at that figure and tell me it hasn't been effective.
Let's see: Let's all of them were $50 fines: 50 x 48,000 = 2.4 million and the state is still fucked up and broke.
-
New Institute research quantifies the added risk — drivers using phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. The increased risk was estimated by comparing phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash occurred with use by the same driver during the prior week. Subjects were drivers treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries suffered in crashes from April 2002 to July 2004.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/cell-phone-crash.htm
"We didn't have sufficient data to compare the different types of hands-free phones, such as those that are fully voice activated."
-
From the title of the article: "This is a Declaration of War."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA
and? That's a total loss of cred for you no doubt lol... ::) What's not...
-
Let's see: Let's all of them were $50 fines: 50 x 48,000 = 2.4 million and the state is still fucked up and broke.
That's 2.4 million more than it had before. I wouldn't turn down 2.4 million dollars, ...would you?
I'm sure that would fix a pot-hole or two...no?
-
I just hope you only kill yourself and not some innocent family. since you have such high demands for who can and can't speak on an issue, save me your wiki experts or at least post the rest of what it said and not only the portion that made your case. ::) But I'm sure you have some convenient shootdown for the portions of the wiki entry that you don't like.
You should read it. There's other stuff in there that challenges those findings. While you are at it, read the other article i posted. My demands aren't high. Just realistic. One driver's opinion versus expert study.
-
New Institute research quantifies the added risk — drivers using phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. The increased risk was estimated by comparing phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash occurred with use by the same driver during the prior week. Subjects were drivers treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries suffered in crashes from April 2002 to July 2004.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/cell-phone-crash.htm
"We didn't have sufficient data to compare the different types of hands-free phones, such as those that are fully voice activated."
We have conflicting studies. Imagine that.
-
and? That's a total loss of cred for you no doubt lol... ::) What's not...
Omg! loss of "cred" for me, what am i gonno do, oh geez......
::)
-
That's 2.4 million more than it had before. I wouldn't turn down 2.4 million dollars, ...would you?
I'm sure that would fix a pot-hole or two...no?
In California?
California is the money pit state. :D
-
That's 2.4 million more than it had before. I wouldn't turn down 2.4 million dollars, ...would you?
I'm sure that would fix a pot-hole or two...no?
You could pay good-ol-boys to lean on shovels for weeks with that kinda money.
-
You could pay good-ol-boys to lean on shovels for weeks with that kinda money.
...even a city slicker princess like me would lean on a shovel or two, ...screw the callouses, I'd be there. :D
-
You could pay good-ol-boys to lean on shovels for weeks with that kinda money.
Yeah 2.4 million. About 2.3999999 of that million will be wasted on something stupid and 1 pot hole gets fixed by an illegal alien tired of hitting the thing on the way to work.
-
Total ownage for those who think it's ok to use a cell phone and drive:
no data here on voice activated devices such as bluetooth.
Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
Utah Psychologists Warn Against Cell Phone Use While Driving
June 29, 2006 -- Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.
"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology. “If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving.”
Psychology Professor David Strayer, the study's lead author, adds: “Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar.”
“Clearly the safest course of action is to not use a cell phone while driving,” concludes the study by Strayer, Drews and Dennis Crouch, a research associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology. The study was set for publication June 29 in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
The study reinforced earlier research by Strayer and Drews showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones because the conversation itself – not just manipulation of a handheld phone – distracts drivers from road conditions.
Human Factors Editor Nancy J. Cooke praised the study: “Although we all have our suspicions about the dangers of cell phone use while driving, human factors research on driver safety helps us move beyond mere suspicions to scientific observations of driver behavior.”
The study first gained public notice after Strayer presented preliminary results in July 2003 in Park City, Utah, during the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. It took until now for the study to be completed, undergo review by other researchers and finally be published.
Key Findings: Different Driving Styles, Similar Impairment
Each of the study"s 40 participants “drove” a PatrolSim driving simulator four times: once each while undistracted, using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level after drinking vodka and orange juice. Participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Both handheld and hands-free cell phones impaired driving, with no significant difference in the degree of impairment. That “calls into question driving regulations that prohibited handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones,” the researchers write.
The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:
Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk.
Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. “Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly” from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.
“Impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk,” they conclude.
Are Drunken Drivers Really Less Accident-Prone than Cell Phone Users?
Drews says the lack of accidents among the study’s drunken drivers was surprising. He and Strayer speculate that because simulated drives were conducted during mornings, participants who got drunk were well-rested and in the “up” phase of intoxication. In reality, 80 percent of all fatal alcohol-related accidents occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. when drunken drivers tend to be fatigued. Average blood-alcohol levels in those accidents are twice 0.08 percent. Forty percent of the roughly 42,000 annual U.S. traffic fatalities involve alcohol.
While none of the study’s intoxicated drivers crashed, their hard, late braking is “predictive of increased accident rates over the long run,” the researchers wrote.
One statistical analysis of the new and previous Utah studies showed cell phone users were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers. Other studies have shown the risk is about the same as for drivers with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level.
Strayer says he expects criticism “suggesting that we are trivializing drunken-driving impairment, but it is anything but the case. We don't think people should drive while drunk, nor should they talk on their cell phone while driving.”
Drews says he and Strayer compared the impairment of motorists using cell phones to drivers with a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level because they wanted to determine if the risk of driving while phoning was comparable to the drunken driving risk considered unacceptable.
“This study does not mean people should start driving drunk,” says Drews. “It means that driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society.”
University of Utah Cell Phone Research
Previous research by Strayer, Drews and colleagues include:
A 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones.
A 2003 study showing that the reason is “inattention blindness,” in which motorists look directly at road conditions but don’t really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. And such drivers aren’t aware they are impaired.
A 2005 study suggesting that when teenagers and young adults talk on cell phones while driving, their reaction times are as slow as those of elderly drivers.
The University of Utah psychologists conducted the alcohol study because a 1997 study by other researchers evaluated the cell phone records of 699 people involved in motor vehicle accidents and found one-fourth of them had used their phone in the 10 minutes before their accident – a four-fold increase in accidents compared with undistracted motorists.
Those researchers speculated there was a comparable risk from drunken driving and cell phone use while driving. So Strayer and Drews conducted a controlled laboratory study.
The study included 25 men and 15 women ages 22 to 34 who were social drinkers (three to five drinks per week) recruited via newspaper advertisements. Two-thirds used a cell phone while driving. Each participant was paid $100 for 10 hours in the study.
The driving simulator has a steering wheel, dashboard instruments and brake and gas pedals from a Ford Crown Victoria sedan. The driver is surrounded by three screens showing freeway scenes. Each simulated daylight freeway drive lasted 15 minutes. The pace car intermittently braked to mimic stop-and-go traffic. Drivers who fail to hit their brakes eventually rear-end the pace car. Other simulated vehicles occasionally passed in the left lane, giving the impression of steady traffic flow.
Each study participant drove the simulator during three sessions – undistracted, drunk or talking to a research assistant on a cell phone – each on a different day.
The simulator recorded driving speed, following distance, braking time and how long it would take to collide with the pace car if brakes were not used.
The study was funded by a $25,000 grant from the Federal Aviation Administration – which is interested in impaired attention among pilots – and by Strayer’s and Drews’ salaries. The Utah Highway Patrol loaned the researchers a device to measure blood-alcohol levels.
Driving while Distracted: A Growing Problem
The researchers cited figures from the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association indicating that more than 100 million U.S. motorists use cell phones while driving. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimates that at any given moment during daylight hours, 8 percent of all drivers are talking on a cell phone.
“Fortunately, the percentage of drunk drivers at any time is much lower,” Drews says. “So it means the risk of talking on a cell phone and driving is probably much higher than driving intoxicated because more people are talking on cell phones while driving than are driving drunk.” The main reason there are not more accidents is that “92 percent of drivers are not on a cell phone and are compensating for drivers on cell phones,” he adds.
Cell phone use is far from the only distraction for motorists. The researchers cite talking to passengers, eating, drinking, lighting cigarettes, applying makeup and listening to the radio as the “old standards” of driver distraction.
“However, over the last decade many new electronic devices have been developed, and they are making their way into the vehicle,” the researchers write. “Drivers can now surf the Internet, send and receive e-mail or faxes, communicate via a cellular device and even watch television. There is good reason to believe that some of these new multitasking activities may be substantially more distracting than the old standards because they are more cognitively engaging and because they are performed over longer periods of time.”
News media may obtain a copy of the study by emailing leesiegel@ucomm.utah.edu or, starting June 29, by going to http://hfes.org and clicking on “What’s New”
Other studies by Strayer and colleagues on cell phones and driving may be downloaded from: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/
-
Hell, they pay them $36 an hour out here! Plus every benny under the sun.
-
We have conflicting studies. Imagine that.
yea and I just posted another confirming that one and worse! But you go with the one you like ::)
-
yea and I just posted another confirming that one and worse! But you go with the one you like ::)
Sure, as will you. ::)
In the mean time, I'll continue to drive as i have talking on the cell phone. Next time I'm in colorado Springs or Denver I'll let you know so i can call you up while I'm driving to warn you to stay off the roads.
Its the least i can do. :D
-
Sure, as will you. ::)
In the mean time, I'll continue to drive as i have talking on the cell phone. Next time I'm in colorado Springs or Denver I'll let you know so i can call you up while I'm driving to warn you to stay off the roads.
Its the least i can do. :D
It won't be your cell phone I worry about as much. you guys should be forced take lessons on driving in colder climates. The hazard you warm weather drivers pose is probably 10 times worse than drunk drivers. It gets a little slick and you fools are all over the place stacking up and crashing into others. Do me a favor and stay down there with your cell phone, lack of driving ability and selfish attitude. ;)
-
(Not that I'm interested in getting into a article posting contest)
Here's an article published yesterday talking about it in from a different angle bringing up some points i did earlier:
Published: 2009-4-22
Cell Phones and Driving: The Effectiveness of Prohibition
Article provided by Law Office of Steven G. Toole, PS
Visit us at www.sgtoolelaw.com
When the Washington State legislature banned the act of texting while driving, in January of 2008, it became the first state in the nation to explicitly enact such a prohibition. In July of the same year, the state followed with a ban on driving while talking with a handheld cell phone, joining a nationwide trend to regulate the technological distractions that drivers may encounter.
Drivers should pay attention to the road; no one questions this assertion. However, after several months with both bans in place, many people in Washington are still questioning the effectiveness and necessity of these laws. Although there are legitimate reasons to maintain these bans, there are also strong arguments for eliminating or modifying the existing laws.
The Current State of the Law
Under the current laws in Washington, a person is guilty of a traffic infraction if he or she operates a moving motor vehicle "while holding a wireless communication device to his or her ear" or if he or she "sends, reads, or writes a text message" while operating a moving motor vehicle.1
Both these statutes provide several exceptions. For example, tow truck drivers are explicitly exempt from the ban on cell phone usage when they are responding to disabled vehicles. Taxi drivers are exempt from the prohibition on text messaging, as long as they are relaying information to the taxi operator using a device that is permanently affixed to the vehicle. For people who are operating emergency vehicles or reporting illegal activities, both text messaging and cell phone usage are permissible.
Additionally, under both these statutes the traffic infraction is a secondary violation. This means that a police officer may only enforce this law if a driver is pulled over for a separate infraction.
Questioning the Effectiveness of These Laws
On the surface, the ban seems fairly reasonable. When responsible for safely guiding several tons of metal through the streets, people should be paying attention. Phones are distracting, and the use of handheld phones for talking or texting leaves everyone on the roads less safe. However, those opposed to these laws come equipped with several strong arguments — most notably that the laws are neither effective nor enforceable.
These laws attempt to reduce the distractions a driver encounters in the car. The fact is though, eliminating cell phones does not eliminate distractions. Children in the car are often distracting, but no one is suggesting a ban on passengers. Finding a favorite song on an mp3 player or selecting a radio station can take just as much attention as sending a text message, but these activities are still permitted. Simply fretting over the day's events or upcoming meetings or presentations can prevent someone from truly focusing.
Furthermore, the cell phone laws have an explicit exception for people using hands-free devices. However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has concluded that hands-free talking can be as risky as holding the phone when driving. Accordingly, one might reasonably question the effectiveness of a law with such a broad and inexplicable exception. Certainly, more research is in order — but if hands-free conversations are no safer than handheld phone conversations, the law has added prohibitions without actually making things safer.
Even assuming that these laws are effective and result in safer driving, the enforceability of the bans remains questionable. If a police officer pulls someone over, believing that he sent a text message, will the officer be checking phone logs to verify the offense? In an age when cell phones are often intertwined with mp3 players, changing the song might look very similar to sending a message.
Clearly, as the laws do exist, there is a significant amount of support for the prohibition despite the limitations. The fact is, when someone is driving while distracted, the driver is putting everyone else on the road at risk. Even if the distracted driver doesn't cause an accident, he or she can impede traffic and force other drivers to react to erratic driving. Furthermore, although it is true that drivers may face many forms of distraction, even small steps to reduce these distractions may have positive effects.
However, given the apparent limitations of the laws, the legislature may be wise to reexamine the laws and fully examine the ultimate effects of such a prohibition. If the restrictions are not having the intended effects, then perhaps a repeal or amendment of the law is in order.
http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2009/Apr/1199294_1.html (http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2009/Apr/1199294_1.html)
-
It won't be your cell phone I worry about as much. you guys should be forced take lessons on driving in colder climates. The hazard you warm weather drivers pose is probably 10 times worse than drunk drivers. It gets a little slick and you fools are all over the place stacking up and crashing into others. Do me a favor and stay down there with your cell phone, lack of driving ability and selfish attitude. ;)
No worries. Won't be going there in the winter and chance one of those blizzards that you get. Just so you know, I don't wouldn't talk on the phone in conditions like that. Both hands would be on the steering wheel the whole time.
-
I was a cop wired with thermite riding a missile that looked just like an airliner.
LMAO.... i love you man :)
-
LMAO.... i love you man :)
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
I love you too man. :)
I concede, you won!
lolololololololololololo lolololololololololololo loo
-
It won't be your cell phone I worry about as much. you guys should be forced take lessons on driving in colder climates. The hazard you warm weather drivers pose is probably 10 times worse than drunk drivers. It gets a little slick and you fools are all over the place stacking up and crashing into others. Do me a favor and stay down there with your cell phone, lack of driving ability and selfish attitude. ;)
Ain't that the truth!
Cali drivers are among the best drivers in the US, ...but the moment they encounter snow or ice, all hell breaks loose.
-
No worries. Won't be going there in the winter and chance one of those blizzards that you get. Just so you know, I don't wouldn't talk on the phone in conditions like that. Both hands would be on the steering wheel the whole time.
So you admit talking on the cell phone while driving impedes one's abilities behind the wheel?
-
Ain't that the truth!
Cali drivers are among the best drivers in the US, ...but the moment they encounter snow or ice, all hell breaks loose.
same thing with texans. Never fails, I'll be driving on icy roads and get past by somebody from TX or CA going way to fast and sure as shit be passing them in the ditch not long after or stoping to help if it's bad.
and, I've always been able to react faster to any slide with one hand on the wheel. Two hands impede control for me. But that's just being on icy roads so much and it's what works well for me. They don't have any instinct of what to do when they start to slide, but no problem, they're free to drive in conditions they have no clue how to handle. very annoying.
-
same thing with texans. Never fails, I'll be driving on icy roads and get past by somebody from TX or CA going way to fast and sure as shit be passing them in the ditch not long after or stoping to help if it's bad.
and, I've always been able to react faster to any slide with one hand on the wheel. Two hands impede control for me. But that's just being on icy roads so much and it's what works well for me. They don't have any instinct of what to do when they start to slide, but no problem, they're free to drive in conditions they have no clue how to handle. very annoying.
Yep. ...been there many a time. Or the ones who don't have a clue about how to handle a skid.
Was once behind a guy going ALL over the road. This was on Hwy 401. This guy just could not get control, and no one was taking the chance of trying to get ahead of him, cause he was all over the road... all 4 westbound lanes.
Finally he came to a stop, ...sideways in the middle of the road. I went passed him then, ...sure enough Cali plates.
-
So you admit talking on the cell phone while driving impedes one's abilities behind the wheel?
In a snow storm it can. It only takes common sense based on the weather conditions, winds, rain, snow, black ice. Even traffic conditions affect if I'm on the phone or not.
Again it's common sense. Presently there are conflicting studies about cell phone use. Oddly, I've never been close an accident on the phone, however, i have while not on the phone.
The article i last posted also brought some good points about other distractions that are similar to cell phone use.
-
This sucks.
Mayor signs cell phone ban for drivers
By Star-Bulletin staff
POSTED: 12:11 p.m. HST, May 07, 2009
Starting July 1, Honolulu motorists will not be allowed to use hand-held cell phones and other electronic devices while driving, under a bill signed by Mayor Mufi Hannemann today.
Bill 4 prohibits text messaging, the use of laptop computers, e-mailing and electronic game-playing while driving. Violators will be subject to fines of $15 to $100, as determined by the state District Court.
Motorists will still be allowed to use cell phones with a hands-free device.
“Our intent is to ensure drivers keep their attention focused on the road, where it belongs,” Mayor Hannemann said at a bill-signing ceremony at Honolulu Hale. “We all must be more careful and more considerate of other drivers and of pedestrians, especially the elderly, children and the disabled.”
The new law exempts:
>> Emergency responders such as police officer and firefighters who are performing official duties.
>> The use of two-way radios while performing work-related duties, such as operating a taxi.
>> Drivers holding a valid amateur radio operator license issued by the Federal Communications Commission.
The City Council approved the measure on April 24 by a vote of 6 to 1.
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/44556127.html
-
Most Hawaiians drive like a cat on ice when it rains.
Scary shit. As bad as the tourists sometimes...
-
Really? I haven't noticed that.
And not to get all technical, but I think you mean "Hawaii drivers" and not "Hawaiians" (which are actually an ethnic group).
-
Really? I haven't noticed that.
And not to get all technical, but I think you mean "Hawaii drivers" and not "Hawaiians" (which are actually an ethnic group).
Yep yep.
"Hawaii drivers"
10-4
-
wtf dude, really?
That would ruin my diet.
-
>:(
Honolulu drivers with hand-held gadgets to get fine, not warning
Starting July 1, drivers who are caught using hand-held devices risk being ticketed
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writer
Honolulu police plan to ticket drivers who disobey a new law that bans mobile electronic devices immediately after it goes into effect July 1 — a change that may take many drivers by surprise.
"I don't know what the law is, what the fine is or even when it starts," said Karen Taumua of Waimanalo, in a comment typical of many drivers.
The answers are:
Potentially confusing. The law applies only to O'ahu and bans "hand-held mobile electronic devices" while driving. "Hands-free" devices will be allowed.
Asked by reporters yesterday about several possible exceptions, Maj. Thomas Nitta, commander of the HPD's traffic division, said his officers will ticket drivers caught with electronic devices in their hands while driving. It will then be up to the drivers to prove to a judge that they should not have gotten a ticket, Nitta said.
"The person will be cited based on what we observe," Nitta said.
The fine is $67 for a first offense and a judge may impose additional penalties for subsequent offenses, which could possibly run as high as $500, said deputy prosecutor Lori Nishimura.
The law goes into effect July 1 and officers will not be letting violators off with warnings.
"There will be no grace period," Nitta said.
Honolulu police have set up a page on their Web site, www.honolulupd.org, to try to clarify details of the law.
The effort to spread the message to O'ahu residents as well as tourists is ramping up as well. The Department of Transportation plans to meet with HPD officials next week about reminding drivers about the law on its electronic sign boards — and at Honolulu International Airport and at airport rental car companies to remind tourists.
"We're definitely willing to get the word out to drivers," said DOT spokeswoman Tammy Mori.
According to information provided by Honolulu police yesterday, a "mobile electronic device" is "any hand-held or other portable electronic equipment capable of providing wireless and/or data communication between two or more persons or of providing amusement, including but not limited to a cellular phone, text messaging device, paging device, personal digital assistant, laptop computer, video game, or digital photographic device. The law does not prohibit the use of audio equipment installed in a motor vehicle for the purposes of providing navigation, emergency assistance to the operator of the motor vehicle, or video entertainment to the passengers in the rear seats of a motor vehicle."
As Nitta said yesterday, "use is considered any time you have a device in your hand."
But there are several exceptions, Nitta said:
Drivers can legally make 911 emergency calls while driving. Patrol officers, however, won't know the difference between that and an illegal call. So drivers who are ticketed will have to show their cell phone bill to a judge proving they were making a legitimate 911 call at the time listed on the ticket.
The law allows drivers to make calls or send text messages after pulling over to the side of the road. To be legal, they first have to turn off their cars' engines, Nitta said.
Drivers can use their phones' "push-to-talk," walkie-talkie-like systems for work purposes. Again, Nitta said, officers won't know the difference between a legal, work-related conversation and an illegal non-work call. Because walkie-talkie conversations usually don't appear on a cell-phone bill, Nitta said ticketed drivers most likely will have to provide the judge with a letter from their employer.
To Jake Thompson — a music promoter from the Punahou area who's constantly on the phone — the law is complicated and destined to frustrate Honolulu drivers.
Thompson ended a cell phone call yesterday and said: "There's going to be a lot of confusion. You know they're going to end up rewriting the law after everyone gets frustrated and complains and writes letters."
Graham Henderson, a student at San Francisco State University, regularly disobeys California's ban on cell phones while driving and plans to keep making calls — and texting — while driving whenever he visits Honolulu.
"I haven't been caught yet so I'll keep doing it," Henderson said. "It is super dangerous. I still do it all the time."
'take my chances'
Mia Graffam, who lives Downtown, just finished sending a text message yesterday and said she probably will hide her cell phone under the dash after July 1 so she can keep texting while driving.
"Texting while driving is dangerous," she said. "But I'll take my chances."
Nitta has no idea how many tickets his officers might issue in the first few days the law goes into effect. Instead, Nitta said, the emphasis is on changing drivers' behavior instead of issuing lots of tickets that will end up generating fees for the state, not the city.
Nitta referred to a hono luluadvertiser.com poll that found that 50 percent of respondents plan to buy hands-free technology to comply with the new law, 25 percent won't talk on the phone while driving after the law goes into effect and 25 percent don't plan to change their driving-while-calling behavior.
"As long as you have the device in your hand, it's considered a violation," Nitta said. "The purpose of this law is to prevent you from being distracted from something else other than operating your vehicle."
-
This sucks.
Mayor signs cell phone ban for drivers
By Star-Bulletin staff
POSTED: 12:11 p.m. HST, May 07, 2009
Starting July 1, Honolulu motorists will not be allowed to use hand-held cell phones and other electronic devices while driving, under a bill signed by Mayor Mufi Hannemann today.
Bill 4 prohibits text messaging, the use of laptop computers, e-mailing and electronic game-playing while driving. Violators will be subject to fines of $15 to $100, as determined by the state District Court.
Motorists will still be allowed to use cell phones with a hands-free device.
“Our intent is to ensure drivers keep their attention focused on the road, where it belongs,” Mayor Hannemann said at a bill-signing ceremony at Honolulu Hale. “We all must be more careful and more considerate of other drivers and of pedestrians, especially the elderly, children and the disabled.”
The new law exempts:
>> Emergency responders such as police officer and firefighters who are performing official duties.
>> The use of two-way radios while performing work-related duties, such as operating a taxi.
>> Drivers holding a valid amateur radio operator license issued by the Federal Communications Commission.
The City Council approved the measure on April 24 by a vote of 6 to 1.
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/44556127.html
well, you wanted a list and it looks like they gave you a list. What sucks? Can't afford a bluetooth lol?
-
well, you wanted a list and it looks like they gave you a list. What sucks? Can't afford a bluetooth lol?
Who wanted a list? List of what?
This law sucks.
I don't want a bluetooth, but I'm getting one. >:(
-
Who wanted a list? List of what?
This law sucks.
I don't want a bluetooth, but I'm getting one. >:(
maybe it was ozmo, I thought you mentioned something about the law being to vague. hell maybe it was me that mentioned it lol... The bluetooth works great, it's faster and way more convienent while driving. Just take it off when you get out of the car so you don't look like a douchebag.
-
maybe it was ozmo, I thought you mentioned something about the law being to vague. hell maybe it was me that mentioned it lol... The bluetooth works great, it's faster and way more convienent while driving. Just take it off when you get out of the car so you don't look like a douchebag.
I probably said something like it being too vague. I don't think this is enforceable. You can get ticketed for holding a device in your hand. If you get ticketed, you have to prove that either you were not holding it, or that you were calling 911. Don't like it.
Bluetooth. >:(
And how is using Bluetooth safer than holding the phone in your hand? I always drive with one hand anyway. If talking is the distraction, Bluetooth doesn't solve that problem.
-
it's crap. It's a useless law, that hasn't yet proven that it decreases accidents.
It's really a lame way for state government and city governments to suck up more money.
-
I probably said something like it being too vague. I don't think this is enforceable. You can get ticketed for holding a device in your hand. If you get ticketed, you have to prove that either you were not holding it, or that you were calling 911. Don't like it.
Bluetooth. >:(
And how is using Bluetooth safer than holding the phone in your hand? I always drive with one hand anyway. If talking is the distraction, Bluetooth doesn't solve that problem.
I don't care what people say, talking may be a distraction for some, but talking and holding the phone is surely a greater one. Bluetooth is easier because you don't have to do anything. You just say, "Call Darth Vader" and it'll call Darth for you with your hands never leaving the stearing wheel.
-
it's crap. It's a useless law, that hasn't yet proven that it decreases accidents.
It's really a lame way for state government and city governments to suck up more money.
you're insane. Conspiracy theories now? You? hahahahaha
-
you're insane. Conspiracy theories now? You? hahahahaha
No........... But doling out fines for stupid crap does increase revenue.
I don't care what people say, talking may be a distraction for some, but talking and holding the phone is surely a greater one. Bluetooth is easier because you don't have to do anything. You just say, "Call Darth Vader" and it'll call Darth for you with your hands never leaving the stearing wheel.
Stupid weak argument based on nothing.
-
Man, every single day I am irritated by an innefficient driver TEXTING while driving, and it makes me want to punch someone.
These people are fat, slow, annoying. They drift outta their lanes. They have 2 or 3 ratty kids in the back. And they're smoking. And they're texting with this ignorant look on their face.
And when you beep out of frustration and perhaps to warn them that they are driving 1000 pounds of metal at 45 mph in an unsafe manner, they flip you the bird and shout some profanity.
Seriously, you should be allowed to shoot such people on sight.
-
Man, every single day I am irritated by an innefficient driver TEXTING while driving, and it makes me want to punch someone.
These people are fat, slow, annoying. They drift outta their lanes. They have 2 or 3 ratty kids in the back. And they're smoking. And they're texting with this ignorant look on their face.
And when you beep out of frustration and perhaps to warn them that they are driving 1000 pounds of metal at 45 mph in an unsafe manner, they flip you the bird and shout some profanity.
Seriously, you should be allowed to shoot such people on sight.
"Every" single day? Those are bad drivers, period. A bad driver's texting causes them to swerve. A "good" driver doesn't text if it causes him to swerve or if they have children in the car.
If its happening "every" single day, perhaps you should run for congress, start a petition or move.
-
Bluetooth. >:( $70. >:( Law takes effect 1 July (tomorrow). I have a feeling I'll be updating this thread when I get caught checking my e-mail at a stoplight. :-\
-
Does anyone drive with two hands? I never do. I don't think holding a cell versus hands free will make a lick of difference when it comes to concentrating on the road. If the genuine issue is safety then they should ban all cell phone use while driving.
r u black?
-
r u black?
I'm an American. Why? I'm not happy that I have to put that stupid Bluetooth in my ear. >:(
-
well todays the day. if the concern was safety they should also ban applying makeup and eating in the car. i dont see how they can conclude that solely talking on the cell impares driving ability.
gas tax goes up, car registration goes up, click it or ticket, sounds to me like they need money and want to squeeze the people more.
-
well todays the day. if the concern was safety they should also ban applying makeup and eating in the car. i dont see how they can conclude that solely talking on the cell impares driving ability.
gas tax goes up, car registration goes up, click it or ticket, sounds to me like they need money and want to squeeze the people more.
Tell me about it. Bad law.
-
Tell me about it. Bad law.
what sucks is im friends with a city councilman who helped propose the law, he told me a few months ago it was going to be passed. Donavan Dela Cruz
-
what sucks is im friends with a city councilman who helped propose the law, he told me a few months ago it was going to be passed. Donavan Dela Cruz
Tell him he sucks. j/k. :) This isn't going to improve public safety one bit IMO.
-
>:(
Posted on: Friday, July 3, 2009
38 Honolulu drivers ticketed on first day of cell phone ban
By Katie Urbaszewski
Advertiser Staff Writer
Honolulu's new ban on the use of cell phones and other hand-held electronic devices while driving led to just 38 citations on its first day.
Police said it appears motorists changed their calling habits or bought hands-free accessories to comply with the new law.
"The majority are complying with the law," Maj. Clayton Kau said yesterday in announcing Wednesday's enforcement numbers.
Some motorists pulled over before or soon after they used their phones, and others just avoided making or taking calls on the road.
Most found that while it required some adjustment, it wasn't a major problem.
Teri Yanagi, who works in Chinatown, said it only cost her the time to dig out her old Bluetooth device, which is legal to use while driving.
The low citation numbers appeared to show that most residents were aware of the new law. That had been a major concern for police, who mounted a public awareness campaign over the past few weeks.
The law focuses on cell-phone use, but also bans drivers from operating any hand-held electronic communication or entertainment devices while their engines are running. Hands-free devices are allowed, but hand-held phones, texting devices, laptops, video games and personal digital assistants all fall under the ban.
The numbers weren't broken down, Kau said, so he didn't know which electronic devices drivers were cited for using. However, he said, HPD will continue tracking overall citation numbers.
Citations carry a $67 fine.
Officers also issued seven warnings Wednesday, Kau said.
HPD's traffic division issued 11 citations. Other non-traffic officers, mostly in East Honolulu and Windward O'ahu, issued the remaining 27.
Kau said there were not any officers solely patrolling for violators of the new law.
Drivers flocked to cell- phone stores over the past week to purchase hands-free accessories.
Wednesday at lunchtime, the Downtown Verizon Wireless store was filled with people looking for Bluetooth devices to use on their way home.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090703/NEWS01/907030370/38+Honolulu+drivers+ticketed+on+first+day+of+cell+phone+ban
-
>:(
Posted on: Friday, July 3, 2009
38 Honolulu drivers ticketed on first day of cell phone ban
By Katie Urbaszewski
Advertiser Staff Writer
Honolulu's new ban on the use of cell phones and other hand-held electronic devices while driving led to just 38 citations on its first day.
Police said it appears motorists changed their calling habits or bought hands-free accessories to comply with the new law.
"The majority are complying with the law," Maj. Clayton Kau said yesterday in announcing Wednesday's enforcement numbers.
Some motorists pulled over before or soon after they used their phones, and others just avoided making or taking calls on the road.
Most found that while it required some adjustment, it wasn't a major problem.
Teri Yanagi, who works in Chinatown, said it only cost her the time to dig out her old Bluetooth device, which is legal to use while driving.
The low citation numbers appeared to show that most residents were aware of the new law. That had been a major concern for police, who mounted a public awareness campaign over the past few weeks.
The law focuses on cell-phone use, but also bans drivers from operating any hand-held electronic communication or entertainment devices while their engines are running. Hands-free devices are allowed, but hand-held phones, texting devices, laptops, video games and personal digital assistants all fall under the ban.
The numbers weren't broken down, Kau said, so he didn't know which electronic devices drivers were cited for using. However, he said, HPD will continue tracking overall citation numbers.
Citations carry a $67 fine.
Officers also issued seven warnings Wednesday, Kau said.
HPD's traffic division issued 11 citations. Other non-traffic officers, mostly in East Honolulu and Windward O'ahu, issued the remaining 27.
Kau said there were not any officers solely patrolling for violators of the new law.
Drivers flocked to cell- phone stores over the past week to purchase hands-free accessories.
Wednesday at lunchtime, the Downtown Verizon Wireless store was filled with people looking for Bluetooth devices to use on their way home.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090703/NEWS01/907030370/38+Honolulu+drivers+ticketed+on+first+day+of+cell+phone+ban
its all about the $$$
-
its all about the $$$
Yep. It's much more about the Benjamins than public safety. You suck Mufi!
-
Jumpin Jeebus - 5 pages of bitching and moaning about having to use a ear piece.
wtf?
I've been using one for years and much prefer it to holding the phone to my ear and only having one hand on the wheel.
-
Jumpin Jeebus - 5 pages of bitching and moaning about having to use a ear piece.
wtf?
I've been using one for years and much prefer it to holding the phone to my ear and only having one hand on the wheel.
It's a restriction of rights and gross over regulation dammit! ;D
-
Honolulu drivers have tough time beating fines for cell phone use
Only 3% of 271 cases dismissed, rest found guilty or just paid up
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writer
Good luck challenging Honolulu's new ban on talking on a cell phone while driving because only 3 percent of ticketed drivers have gotten off so far.
Since the City Council's ordinance took effect on July 1, Honolulu police have issued 385 citations and given 71 warnings through Aug. 8.
Of 271 cases that have gone through the District Court system as of this week, 97 percent of the defendants either have been found guilty or simply paid the $67 fine, according to court records provided to The Advertiser yesterday.
Only nine of the 271 defendants have had their cases "dismissed with prejudice," meaning no verdict was rendered and the prosecution is not allowed to bring the same charges.
Among those nine cases, three defendants claimed innocence and six admitted guilt with mitigating circumstances. All of the cases were decided only after a private "in chambers review" by the judges who heard the cases, according to court records.
The 7-week-old law provides for several legal exceptions, such as emergency 911 calls or work-related, "walkie-talkie" type conversations.
But Honolulu police have said that officers won't know the difference between a legitimate call and an illegal one and drivers would have to prove their innocence to a judge.
In all, 23 people admitted to illegally using an electronic device while driving but said they had mitigating circumstances.
According to the data released by the state judiciary yesterday, 17 of the 23 drivers were still found guilty, although they may have received reduced fines.
Five other people who pleaded guilty with mitigating circumstances are scheduled for in-chambers reviews today through Tuesday.
The data also show that Honolulu police have cited drivers at particular locations, especially in and around Waikiki:
• Ala Wai Boulevard and Kuamo'o Street (40 times).
• Ala Wai Boulevard and Kai'olu Street (20 times).
• Ala Wai Boulevard and Wai Nani Way (15 times).
• Kalakaua Avenue and McCully Street (14 times).
• Ala Wai Boulevard and McCully Street (10 times).
The convictions may have costly ramifications as insurance companies debate whether to raise rates for people convicted of driving while talking on a cell phone.
A moving violation that results in a one-point penalty on a driver's record typically translates into a 10 to 15 percent increase in insurance premiums for an average of three years and for as long as five years, said John Schapperle, president and CEO of Island Insurance, who is also the president and chairman of the Hawaii Insurers Council.
MOVING VIOLATION?
But the City Council ordinance is silent on the issue of whether a violation constitutes a "moving violation," said Janine Gibford, assistant vice president of state affairs for the western region of the American Insurance Association.
"I do not see anything in this legislation as to whether or not it's a moving violation or a misdemeanor," Gibford said. "Each state does things a little differently and some assign points for a moving violation, which an insurer would see when they pull a driver's record."
Six states and the District of Columbia ban cell phones while driving, according to the American Automobile Association and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Officials at Geico, Hawai'i's largest underwriter of automobile insurance, have discussed whether to raise premiums for cell phone convictions in Honolulu, but have not made a decision.
"I'm not convinced yet that people with a conviction (for violating the cell-phone law) are a significant risk, but we're still looking at it," said Tim Dayton, Geico's general manager in Hawai'i. "We've discussed it a couple of times and we haven't come anywhere close to making a decision."
Even if Geico officials choose to pursue an increase in premiums for cell-phone convictions, the process to get approval from the state insurance commissioner could take months and would not go into effect this year, Dayton said.
"For the next six months for sure, we're not going to be doing anything with it," he said. "It definitely won't happen in 2009, if at all."
Even if drivers' premiums rose for cell-phone violations, Dayton said, people who are currently cited would not see their rates go up.
"I can't see us changing the rules retroactively for an existing policy," he said.
Those same kinds of discussions are being held at other major insurance companies across Honolulu, Schapperle said.
"The cell-phone law is so new and we want to make sure we're not making a snap decision," he said. "But I do think you'll see that some company will step out there and make the decision and other companies will start falling in line."
http://beta.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090814/NEWS01/908140368/0/NEWS20/Honolulu-drivers-have-tough-time-beating-fines-for-cell-phone-use
-
Honolulu drivers have tough time beating fines for cell phone use
But Honolulu police have said that officers won't know the difference between a legitimate call and an illegal one and drivers would have to prove their innocence to a judge.
Well....that pretty much shits all over the Constitution. Strange...I don't hear the ACLU crying foul...
-
Well....that pretty much shits all over the Constitution. Strange...I don't hear the ACLU crying foul...
??? I don't see this as a constitutional issue. You're not allowed to sew needlepoint or solve a rubik's cube in traffic either. it's called distracted driving, careless driving, etc.
If you're texting, your eyes and min aren't on the road. Pull over and write your message.
-
Well....that pretty much shits all over the Constitution. Strange...I don't hear the ACLU crying foul...
I could be wrong, but I think the only reason this isn't unconstitutional is it's a traffic citation and you don't face any criminal penalties (although I'd consider a fine pretty punitive). Most people here think the law stinks.
-
!@#$%^&*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody must have told them that I use my cell every time I'm on Maui just to spite the stupid Oahu ban. >:(
Maui council votes to ban use of cell phones while driving
By Chris Hamilton
Maui News
WAILUKU — A Maui County Council committee voted unanimously yesterday to ban the use of hand-held mobile electronic devices, including cell phones, while driving.
The bill is intended to reduce distracted driving accidents and will very likely become law July 1, said Committee of the Whole Chairman Mike Molina. The first violation would be a traffic citation with a fine of $100 and $250 for subsequent tickets, he said.
The council's Committee of the Whole is made up of all nine council members. Council member Joe Pontanilla introduced the measure last year. Maui County is the last county in the state without a ban on driving while using mobile electronic gadgets, such as phones, global positioning systems, e-mail, electronic book readers and texting devices.
"We have no excuses today, but to act," council member Wayne Nishiki said. "If it saves one person's life or keeps someone from being maimed, then it is our responsibility to get something passed today."
The committee vote on the bill was 7-0, with council members Danny Mateo and Jo Anne Johnson absent and excused.
The law would be fairly simple. People could still use cell phones as long as they didn't hold on to it while speaking, according to the bill's authors. The measure makes exemptions for hands-free devices, such as Bluetooth earpieces and voice-activated phones that are installed in the car's dashboard.
"This legislation reminds us that driving is a privilege and should be done with the least amount of distractions to ensure that safety is not compromised," Molina said after the vote.
Molina said the bill will go before the full council for first and second readings in the coming weeks and then to Mayor Charmaine Tavares for her signature before becoming law.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100513/BREAKING01/100513022/Maui+council+votes+to+ban+use+of+cell+phones+while+driving
-
We have had that here for a long time. Its about raising money and nothing else.
-
:o
Study: Texting and Driving Killed at Least 16,000 in US
AOL News Surge Desk (Sept. 27) -- Sending text messages while driving was the culprit in the deaths of an estimated 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007. Even more sobering, researchers warn that fatalities have shot up significantly since 2005.
An analysis of federal data on road fatalities, published this week in the American Journal of Public Health, concluded that deaths due to "distracted driving" surged from 4,572 in 2005 to 5,870 in 2008. That's a 28 percent increase in three years.
Many of the deaths involved collisions with roadside objects, as drivers typing on their cell phones veer off-track and into poles, traffic lights or other items.
"Distracted driving is a growing public safety hazard," the study reads. "Specifically, the dramatic rise in texting volume since 2005 appeared to be contributing to an alarming rise in distracted driving fatalities."
Thirty states now have legislation enacted to prohibit texting while driving, but anecdotal evidence suggests the bans often go unenforced.
Sponsored Links "We're back where we were when we started going after drunk drivers," Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said during this year's Distracted Driving Summit in Washington.
Not to mention that while it might be easier for a police officer to spot a driver talking on the phone in states with hands-free mandates, it's tougher to catch them leaning over to type out a text message.
And as Linda Stamato at NJ.com points out, car companies aren't exactly keeping the risks of distracted driving in mind when designing their next-generation vehicles.
Ford, for example, is already rolling out Twitter and Pandora apps as part of a dashboard console entertainment "hub" that also seems like a recipe for distracted disaster.
"Distracted driving has reached epidemic proportion. It is a disease that we can control," Stamato writes. "We need to strengthen laws and beef up enforcement. We need to encourage better driving practices, in all contexts, by all age groups."
http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/texting-and-driving-is-growing-american-killer-study-reports/19650470?test=latestnews
-
Next they're going to ban cell use while sitting on the toilet. ::)
Kobayashi introduces bill to outlaw cellphone use in crosswalk
By Associated Press
POSTED: 09:53 p.m. HST, May 10, 2011
City Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi wants to make illegal pedestrian use of a cellphone or electronic device while crossing streets.
KHON reported Monday that Kobayashi has sponsored the measure, which faces an initial vote at the Council today.
Police spokeswoman Michelle Yu says the department does not track whether electronic devices play a role in pedestrian fatalities. So far this year, five pedestrians have been killed on Oahu roadways, with three of those deaths in marked crosswalks.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/121620049.html
-
Do- gooders...... ::)
-
"Under the proposal, simply holding an electronic device while crossing the street would be a violation of the law." This is a terrible idea.
Gadget ban clears Council
The bill would outlaw holding iPads and cellphones while crossing city streets
By B.J. Reyes
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, May 12, 2011
A bill advancing in the City Council would ban the use of cell phones and other electronic devices while crossing the street.
Sending a text message on a cellphone or reading an iPad — even just holding the devices — while crossing the street would be outlawed under a proposal the City Council is advancing.
Bill 43 amends the city's ban on holding mobile electronic devices while driving, a law passed in 2009, and extends it to pedestrians crossing streets.
The Council cleared the measure on first reading yesterday but it still must go through additional committee and Council readings before passage.
Yesterday's Council meeting drew testimony from just three people, including Makiki resident Bob Keating, who opposed the bill.
"I totally agree with not using the telephone while driving — texting and all that — but walking across a crosswalk using a phone?" Keating said. "Why are you trying to control our lives?
"Everything we do, we're not doing it right and you guys just want to change everything."
The 2009 mobile device ban was aimed at stopping activities such as text messaging and video-game playing while driving, but law enforcement officials said a blanket ban was needed to make the measure enforceable. With a blanket ban, a police officer would only have to see a driver using a hand-held device, not determine what was being done, to issue a citation.
Police Maj. Kurt Kendro said the department opposes Bill 43 because the restrictions were too broad and that any changes to the existing law could water down the driving ordinance.
Under the proposal, simply holding an electronic device while crossing the street would be a violation of the law.
"Even if you're holding it and you're not actively using it and you cross the street, you're in violation of the law," Kendro said. "We think it's a good law to get pedestrians to be aware of their surroundings, but we think this is a bit over-broad because of how it's worded."
The bill was introduced by Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi at the request of a constituent.
Council members also advanced a proposal allowing for the storage on Oahu of consumer fireworks that still may be legally sold on the neighbor islands.
Supporters say Bill 38 will clarify the city's fireworks ban and address an issue raised in a recent lawsuit against the city.
Honolulu's consumer fireworks ban took effect this year and by law, fireworks that may be sold legally on neighbor islands may not be warehoused or stored on Oahu. The city has been sued by one retailer, which said it completed significant upgrades at its Honolulu storage facility to comply with storage regulations before the ban went into effect.
Officials with the Honolulu Fire Department, which opposes the reintroduction of fireworks on Oahu, said other retailers have complied with the law and moved storage of fireworks off Oahu.
Bill 38 goes back to committee for further vetting.
Meanwhile, the Council gave final approval to end a decades-old subsidy that supports recycling by private companies and nonprofits.
The 80 percent discount on "tipping fees" the city charges when companies deliver recycling residue to the Waimanalo Gulch landfill deprived the city of about $2 million last year.
The subsidy has been criticized as too generous to a single company, Schnitzer Steel Hawaii. Schnitzer does the most recycling in Honolulu with more than 100,000 tons of metal a year from automobiles, appliances and other bulky metal items. Since 1998, Schnitzer has received about $19 million in discounts, including $1.9 million last year.
While Council members have said they want to do away with the subsidy in the interest of fairness, they also have said they want to continue to encourage recycling.
They continue to work on proposals that would restore the subsidy at a lower rate and cap the amount a single company can claim.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110512__Gadget_ban_clears_Council.html
-
>:(
Police state! :D
Cellphone-driving violations multiply
More tickets than ever are being issued, and fines have brought in $1.6 million
By Paige L. Jinbo
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 29, 2011
Nearly two years after driving while holding a cellphone was banned on Oahu, many motorists still have a hard time putting down the device and keeping both hands on the wheel.
Honolulu police have issued tickets at a steady clip of about 1,000 per month in 2010 and the first half of 2011.
In fact, the number of violators has increased with time, as only about 320 drivers were ticketed per month in the first six months of the ban, which took effect on July 1, 2009.
Oahu was the first county in the state to forbid using a hand-held cellphone — as well as other portable electronics — while driving. The other counties followed with similar legislation in the first half of 2010.
Law-violating drivers in the four counties have paid a total of more than $1.6 million in fines, the state attorney general's office said.
Graham Wilson is among those who have been ticketed for holding his cellphone while steering his car. Despite the sting of Oahu's $97 fine, he admits he continues to break the law because he does not think his driving is impaired.
"Cellphones aren't distracting; it's the number of drivers out there who lack driving skills that's distracting," said Wilson, 25, a system administrator for Farmers Insurance Hawaii.
That rationale is precisely the problem, says a national expert on distracted driving. Donald L. Fisher, Engineering Department chairman at the University of Massachusetts, said people don't realize how little it takes to turn a focused driver into a distracted one.
"Our research has found that 20 percent of crashes are due to people glancing away for more than two seconds," Fisher said. "We've found that glancing away for more than two seconds presents very dangerous outcomes, and most drivers aren't aware of the two-second rule."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that nationwide in 2009, 995 traffic deaths out of 33,808 involved reports of a cellphone being a distraction.
Honolulu police have issued 20,654 tickets for the violation — 1,899 in the second half of 2009, 12,548 in 2010 and 6,207 so far this year, the attorney general's office said.
Here are totals for each county since their bans took effect:
» Oahu (ban in effect since July 2009): 20,654 tickets and $1,439,043 in fines
» Hawaii County (since January 2010): 1,359 tickets and $88,676 in fines
» Kauai County (since May 2010): 930 tickets and $60,720 in fines
» Maui County (since July): 964 tickets and $70,904 in fines
Cathleen Hasegawa, 28, a server at Bonsai Restaurant, said she stopped using her phone while driving after the ban took effect.
"I still see a lot of people using their phones when they're driving, and when it prohibits them from driving, well, then it's a problem," Hasegawa said.
Honolulu police periodically target certain areas for cellphone-driving enforcement. On Saturday, during a three-hour period, officers issued 109 tickets at intersections in Pearl City and Kalihi.
"Law enforcement is a continuous process, and our goal is through continued enforcement efforts, awareness and conformance in the community will increase," police Capt. Andrew Lum said.
Winson Yu, manager of Upnext Wireless on Pensacola Street, said that there has been a drop in sales for hands-free devices — which may be legally used while driving — for cellphones.
"When the ban first took effect, there was such a high demand for the Bluetooth headsets, but now the demand has died out," Yu said.
John Ulczycki, group vice president for the National Safety Council, said drivers understand the potential dangers but might ignore the risks when they do use their phones and nothing bad happens.
"Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a car crash to wake them up," Ulczycki said.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110629_Cellphone-driving_violations_multiply.html
-
Study: No Evidence Cell Phone Bans Reduce Crashes
By Doug McKelway
Published July 07, 2011
FoxNews.com
A comprehensive study on distracted driving has found there is no conclusive evidence that hands-free cell phone use while driving is any less risky than hand-held cell phone use.
The study, which was commissioned by the non-profit Governors Highway Safety Association, and funded by State Farm Insurance, also found that there is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes.
The findings come after nine states have imposed bans on hand-held cell phone use while driving, and 34 states have imposed texting bans for drivers behind the wheel. Despite the findings, The Governors Highway Safety Association does not recommend that restrictions on cell phone use or texting be lifted in any of the states where they presently exist.
But it does recommend that those 41 states which don't ban talking on a cell phone hold off on enacting new legislation.
The study offers often contradictory findings. For example, it found that drivers are frequently distracted by any number of factors ranging from eating, to talking to texting, perhaps as much as 50 percent of the time they spend behind the wheel.
But it also found that drivers adapt by paying more attention to driving -- and less to distractions -- when the road risk level increases. It also found that states should enforce existing distracted driving laws, but should consider that such enforcement takes away from other traffic enforcement efforts.
The study also documents the proliferation of cell phone use and texting among American motorists.
It found two-thirds of all motorists reported using a cell phone while driving, about one-third of them routinely. It also found that one-eighth of all drivers reported texting while driving, although observational studies during the daylight hours in 2009, show that only 1 percent of all drivers were observed to be texting.
The authors make a number of recommendations including enacting a total ban of cell phone use for novice drivers, as well as texting bans for all drivers.
It also suggests that greater use of highway engineering solutions, such as rumble strips and automotive technological innovations can reduce distracted driving accidents.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/07/new-study-downplays-distracted-driving-dangers/
-
Give me 5 minutes filming at any random busy road and I'll guarantee I can show you at least 2 idiots driving crazy with a cell phone stuck to their face.
your study is bullshit, most of the time I see some asshole almost cause an accident, the dumbass was swerving around with his hand up to his head holding a phone.
Are you that fucking stupid? What fucking driving test anywhere in the country tests you one handed? WELL? fucking name one? How about this, go in to take your driving test to get your drivers license and talk on the cell phone the entire time if it's not a big deal ::) I'm sure that'll work out well for you ::)
-
r u black?
sorry but... lol
-
Motorcyclists should be wearing helmets while sharing the road with all these assholes that can't put their cell phones down.
-
I still think the law is BS and is based on BS studies. Like for example, the study BB put about how deaths rose 28% in 3 years from distracted driving. It only suggested that many of these might have been from drivers textng on a cell phone with out providing actual numbers. I think driving while texting is dangerous but would like to see hard evidence or a complete study first that shows it, same with talking on one. I believe talking ona cell doesn't increase the chances of an accident significantly.
However, that being said, I ask anyone to feel free to show any stats that would indicate otherwise.
Think about it, talking on a cell, in my mind is very similar to talking to your kids in the back seat, eating, drinking etc. Of course we can add that most drivers drive with one hand on the wheel also.
-
I still think the law is BS and is based on BS studies. Like for example, the study BB put about how deaths rose 28% in 3 years from distracted driving. It only suggested that many of these might have been from drivers textng on a cell phone with out providing actual numbers. I think driving while texting is dangerous but would like to see hard evidence or a complete study first that shows it. I believe talking ona cell doesn't increase the chances of an accident significantly.
However, that being said, I ask anyone to feel free to show any stats that would indicate otherwise.
Think about it, talking on a cell, in my mind is very similar to talking to your kids in the back seat, eating, drinking etc. Of course we can add that most drivers drive with one hand on the wheel also.
I agree. Driving while texting is very dangerous, but driving while holding a cell isn't any different than driving while talking on a bluetooth IMO.
Speaking of texting, my daughter texted me the other day from the backseat. I was in the front seat (passenger). Times have really changed. :)
-
I still think the law is BS and is based on BS studies. Like for example, the study BB put about how deaths rose 28% in 3 years from distracted driving. It only suggested that many of these might have been from drivers textng on a cell phone with out providing actual numbers. I think driving while texting is dangerous but would like to see hard evidence or a complete study first that shows it, same with talking on one. I believe talking ona cell doesn't increase the chances of an accident significantly.
However, that being said, I ask anyone to feel free to show any stats that would indicate otherwise.
Think about it, talking on a cell, in my mind is very similar to talking to your kids in the back seat, eating, drinking etc. Of course we can add that most drivers drive with one hand on the wheel also.
Fine, can you at least agree that you should pass your driving test while talking on a cell phone? I'd love to see them do that with a manual trans. Becuase I've certainly seen enough people swerving while trying to shift and talk at the same time. hey, it's only fair, I wanna see how these cocksmockers do on the test in the same conditions.
-
Fine, can you at least agree that you should pass your driving test while talking on a cell phone? I'd love to see them do that with a manual trans. Becuase I've certainly seen enough people swerving while trying to shift and talk at the same time. hey, it's only fair, I wanna see how these cocksmockers do on the test in the same conditions.
I agree, and I also agree that a study needs to be made with manual transmissions because I don't know about that.
-
I agree. Driving while texting is very dangerous, but driving while holding a cell isn't any different than driving while talking on a bluetooth IMO.
Speaking of texting, my daughter texted me the other day from the backseat. I was in the front seat (passenger). Times have really changed. :)
Hehehehe
-
I agree, and I also agree that a study needs to be made with manual transmissions because I don't know about that.
yea, seriously, think about it. You're holding one hand to your head, one hand on the wheel, now shift through the corner? LOL, it doesn't work out so well. Yet I see assclowns trying there best to do it all the time... maybe it's because I'm in wyoming/colorado where there are more manual trans that I see it more often, but I swear, everytime I have to dodge some shithead, he/she is on their cell.
-
BB, since you think it's ok for everyone, maybe you can go down and take a driving test while talking on the cell phone and driving a manual trans? Let us know what the results are lol...
-
But Beach... this is just like a helmet law or a seatbelt law.
It's saving you from yourself.
Surely it must be ok with you? Right?
-
We need laws banning cell phones in cars, we need to take toys out of happy meals, and we need to regulate salt and trans fat. Saves the tax payer money.
-
But Beach... this is just like a helmet law or a seatbelt law.
It's saving you from yourself.
Surely it must be ok with you? Right?
Are you calling BB a hypocrite? ;D
-
But Beach... this is just like a helmet law or a seatbelt law.
It's saving you from yourself.
Surely it must be ok with you? Right?
Not it isn't.
Not it's not.
No.
-
I'm full of shit
I'm full of a lot of shit
I just shit myself
fixed
-
I'm full of shit
I'm full of a lot of shit
I just shit myself
fixed
HAHAHAHAHAHH!!!
-
(http://www.prlog.org/11378859-no-spin-zone.jpg)
-
ooops :D
-
yea, seriously, think about it. You're holding one hand to your head, one hand on the wheel, now shift through the corner? LOL, it doesn't work out so well. Yet I see assclowns trying there best to do it all the time... maybe it's because I'm in wyoming/colorado where there are more manual trans that I see it more often, but I swear, everytime I have to dodge some shithead, he/she is on their cell.
Yeah, I don't think I would try talking on a cell phone and shift in city traffic too. Seems like a no brainer.
-
How about Beach explain how this is different from a helmet law or a seatbelt law?
Beach says helmet laws and seatbelt laws are fine because if someone is killed in a crash then that is an unfair burden on the tax payer.
So is not an unfair burden on the tax payer if someone is killed in a crash while texting?
ah screw it... this guy has spent his entire time here baiting/trolling others and then bailing when it gets to hard but he will never ever concede even the smallest point. Best to just treat him like he does others...
-
How about Beach explain how this is different from a helmet law or a seatbelt law?
Beach says helmet laws and seatbelt laws are fine because if someone is killed in a crash then that is an unfair burden on the tax payer.
So is not an unfair burden on the tax payer if someone is killed in a crash while texting?
It's different because it hasn't been conclusively shown that cell phone driving raises the risk of accidents significantly as compared to the chances of severe injury resulting from an accident when not wearing seat belts or a helmet.
Now, I do think or predict that there is a study out there that can conclusively show that texting raises the danger of an accident significantly. Just haven't seen it yet.
-
But motorcycle drivers are also not protected by a car around them.
Side note to continue, what makes texting dangerous is not what you are ding with your hands, it's reading the text as you type or as you read it and there for not looking at the road.
-
It's different because it hasn't been conclusively shown that cell phone driving raises the risk of accidents significantly as compared to the chances of severe injury resulting from an accident when not wearing seat belts or a helmet.
Now, I do think or predict that there is a study out there that can conclusively show that texting raises the danger of an accident significantly. Just haven't seen it yet.
you gotta be kidding...
find any and all positions you want
Not real hard, google, "study cell phones driving"
first on the list:
http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html
-
As bad as drunks... and we all know how DUI laws are.
Surely taking a "drunk" off the road is OK right?!
DAMN.
No, they're fine. It's the %0.00020 of people that are killed not wearing a motorcycle helmet that I'm concerned about!
-
to be fair Ozmo said he had not seen a study that "conclusively shows" and well maybe there is not, but to turn it, are the studies that show there is no added danger any more conclusive than the ones that do?
-
you gotta be kidding...
find any and all positions you want
Not real hard, google, "study cell phones driving"
first on the list:
http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html
Yeah I will delve into this later tonite. But thanks.
-
How about Beach explain how this is different from a helmet law or a seatbelt law?
Beach says helmet laws and seatbelt laws are fine because if someone is killed in a crash then that is an unfair burden on the tax payer.
So is not an unfair burden on the tax payer if someone is killed in a crash while texting?
I have never read or seen comparable studies showing injuries and fatalities comparing cell phone use, helmet use, and seat belt use. Have you?
No comparison.
-
There is certainly many studies discussing "driver inattentiveness".
Comparing them to seatbelt fatalities or helmets? Of course not.
They are not related in regards that cell phone usage is not a safety device where seat belts and helmets are... What would that study even consist of?
Let's modify the parameter then and ask you this... Are you ok with DUI checkpoints and the way DUI stops are handled?
Do you believe that people who drive drunk are endangering the public and should be stopped?
I haven't seen the studies either, and I doubt there is really any comparison in terms of number of accidents, related costs, etc. You're the one making the comparison, so if you have something to support your opinion that they are related, I'll read it.
DUI checkpoints? What does that have to do with cell phone use? lol. In any event, I have no problem with DUI checkpoints. But that's a different subject.
You're asking me if drunk drivers are a danger to the public? Really? ::)
-
BB... Always right, never wrong... ::)
He's so special perfect...
-
You could tell Beach that shit is brown and he would disagree... ;D
-
It's not entirely different and here's why.
Yes... because there is a study posted in this very thread that states that people on cell phones are just as dangerous as drunk drivers.
So I'm asking if you believe that drunk drivers are dangerous and should be stopped.
If you answer yes, then you are agreeing that people on cell phones should be stopped as well... because they pose the same danger to the public.
So Beach... How are these things unrelated? I await your response.
I don't think cell phone drivers are just as dangerous as drunk drivers. Did I post that one? lol If I did, I certainly don't agree with that study.
-
You did not... but why would you disagree with the study?
Do you have some basis or are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable?
Driver inattentiveness is commonly known as the number 1 reason car crashes occur... MUCH higher than driving under the influence.
Obviously if you are texting on your cell phone you are not being attentive to the process of driving an automobile.
Are you talking about texting or talking? Big difference. I agree that texting while driving is very dangerous. Talking on a cell is not and poses no greater risk than using a bluetooth.
I disagree that driving while drunk is just as dangerous as driving while talking on a cell because it doesn't make any dang sense. Nothing more than that.
-
So you just have your "belief".
Gotcha...
Also to note, the same study also showed that talking on the phone was almost just as dangerous because you are still being "inattentive" to the process of driving.
Yes, my belief, my opinion, whatever you want to call it.
I haven't read the study, but using a bluetooth is talking on the phone. How is that any different than using a hand-held cell, especially if most drivers only drive with one hand?
-
Read the study... I'll let you decide on your own.
However... a snippet.
Key Findings: Different Driving Styles, Similar Impairment
Each of the study"s 40 participants “drove” a PatrolSim driving simulator four times: once each while undistracted, using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level after drinking vodka and orange juice. Participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Both handheld and hands-free cell phones impaired driving, with no significant difference in the degree of impairment. That “calls into question driving regulations that prohibited handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones,” the researchers write.
The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:
Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk.
Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. “Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly” from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.
Interesting. If accurate, it confirms what I've been saying about there being no difference between talking on a cell vs. a bluetooth.
Not sure if .08 is a good measure. I wonder how many people get into accidents with a .08. I'd think it's people who are at 2.0 and above that cause most of the DUI accidents (but I'm guessing).
-
Well every state uses .08 as the measure... If you are at .08 you get a DUI.
So your opinion is unchanged in the matter of cell phone usage and the law?
I know the know the standard is .08, just saying I don't think people driving with a .08 are the causing most of the accidents.
No, I haven't changed my mind about cell phones being banned. Hate it.
-
You are very much the hypocrite then... Everyone can see this.
lol. Ok. :)
Where are the studies showing cell phone use causes the same number of accidents and has the same impact on taxpayers as the dummies who ride with no helmet?
-
After reading this study here is why I don't feel it s very conclusive:
Cell phone driving has been prevalent for over 10 years in the USA. In this study 40 people were tested on simulators by psychologists. This seems like a very poorly conducted test by people who I question to have the expertise to conduct a tst like this. Why psychologists? Was it only psychologists? Should there have been other scientists, doctors and or engineers invovled in this? And why teachers? Why simulators? Has anyone ever tried to drive a simulator? I know it's is no where the same as driving in real life because it is not 3D and the vision is not the same. BB is right about the legal limit. You all know .08 is total bullshit. It's there because the low limit helps prevent people from rationalizing drinking and driving.
So no, this seems like a spun bullshit test because they took 40 people on a simulator and compared it to drunk driving based on the limit. Basically scaring people into thinking cell phone drivers are like drunk drivers who kill people. spin for sure by those who did it. How about statistics that show the accident rate for only people who drove with .08 in there blood?
Here's what I am looking for: actual data from actual drivers and not 40 on a simulator, more like 2000 to 5000 to get a more accurate conclusion.
-
Agreed... which is why they say if you have it in your hands, it's illegal.
One would be reasonable to assume that if you've got it in your hands, you are reading it.
How could a person be reading it if it's next to his ear when he's talking on it?
Texting on cell phone and taking on a cell are 2 entirely different things.
-
Here's other questions about the test. Did they test 40 people on the simulator with out cell phones and with out drinking to .08?
Did they test the same 40 for both? Or were they 2 different groups of 40?
-
They are... and I was confusing two separate points really.
The study is simply about talking and driving, while Beach's complaint is about him not being able to text on his phone.
My point was that if talking on the phone is as bad as being legally unable to drive a car, then obviously texting would be worse and you would be less attentive.
Also, the law that Beach is pissed about says if you are seen even holding a phone you can be charged... My point was that if you are holding a cell phone you are using it in some capacity either way.
I guess I just took it for granted that it's a scientific study so they used the same people... Perhaps they didn't, but I would think that would be in the study itself, not just the report.
I think .08 is bullshit too... as a matte of fact I HATE DUI laws... and Cell Phone Laws and Helmet laws and seatbelt laws.
MY point is that Beach is a total hypocrite because he hates these cell phone laws, but thinks DUI laws are fine, and that Helmet laws and Seat Belt laws are ok too.
Complete bullshit from the Beach Bum on this one.
I never complained about not being to text while driving. ::) I complained about not being able to talk on my cell while driving. Big difference.
Cell phone laws aren't in the same universe as DUI laws, nor are the dangers associated with people who talk on a cell versus drink drivers. Absurd comparison.
And I still haven't seen studies showing comparable cell phone accident, healthcare, and tax studies with the failure to wear a helmet.
-
Funny how the study did JUST THAT... Oh right... You "believe" it's not true, so it must not be.
::) (appropriate use of rolling eyes here)
Also, you also complained about not being able to hold your cell phone... Well, if you're texting at a light (as you've stated you do) then you might impede the flow of traffic by not moving when the light turns green. You know, you're not watching the light when you're typing on your phone.
Do you even have tax studies to show how much it costs the tax payers for not using a helmet anyway?
I mean, I pay taxes... way too many... So if I don't wear a helmet and I die... and my insurance covers everything, haven't I, as a taxpayer, already paid to clean my brains up off the pavement already?
No, the excerpt you posted did not show "comparable cell phone accident, healthcare, and tax studies with the failure to wear a helmet."
I posted some information in the helmet thread about the costs associated with lack of helmet use. I have yet to see comparable studies involving people who talk on their cell while driving. ::)
-
Because that's not what you said... You said.
And the study did exactly THAT.
You are now saying that you want a study that compares "comparable cell phone accident, healthcare, and tax studies with the failure to wear a helmet."
Well, when that study is done, fine... but it doesn't exist yet.
None the less, YOU sir are a hypocrite of the finest order... You want to tell other people what they can and can't do, right up until someone tells you something that YOU don't agree with. You want to "save people from themselves for the public good" right up until the point where someone does it to you.
You are a hypocrite... That's ok.
Everyone who reads this will know.
Hypocrite Bum.
The worst part is that you are just unwilling to admit that you're wrong even when I think deep down you know you stepped in it, but instead of just saying "yes... I guess so", you will fight and fight and fight just to be "right."
It's pretty sad really.
What the heck are you babbling about?? There is no study that shows comparable accident, healthcare, cost, etc. involving lack of helmet use versus cell phone use. The excerpt you posted doesn't do any such thing. ::) Like I said, if you have one you'd like to share, I'll read it.
And I'm not fighting for anything. Just responding to some dumb questions, involving absurd comparisons. :)
-
You can't be this big of an idiot where you don't even realize what you said... You are simply trying to cover up.
If you are THIS stupid, then I can't believe I haven't noticed before now.
RE-READ what you fucking posted you idiot.
Nah. I know what I posted. And I know what you posted. If you have relevant a study, I'll read it. If not, quit crying about it. :)
-
Here is some information I posted in the motorcycle helmet thread about the impact of non-helmet use and the adoption of helmet laws. I haven't read anything comparable about the impact of cell phone use and the adoption of cell phone/driving laws.
How do helmet use laws impact health care costs?
Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."24
Among the specific findings of several of the studies:
* A 1996 NHTSA study showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).25
* After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.26
* A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.17
A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists' hospital bills would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.11
Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.29
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
-
Brilliant.
NTSB recommends ban on driver cell phone use
By Joan Lowy
Associated Press
POSTED: 04:44 a.m. HST, Dec 13, 2011
WASHINGTON >> States should ban all driver use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices, except in emergencies, the National Transportation Board said Tuesday.
The recommendation, unanimously agreed to by the five-member board, applies to both hands-free and hand-held phones and significantly exceeds any existing state laws restricting texting and cellphone use behind the wheel.
The board made the recommendation in connection with a deadly highway pileup in Missouri last year. The board said the initial collision in the accident near Gray Summit, Mo., was caused by the inattention of a 19 year-old-pickup driver who sent or received 11 texts in the 11 minutes immediately before the crash.
The pickup, traveling at 55 mph, collided into the back of a tractor truck that had slowed for highway construction. The pickup was rear-ended by a school bus that overrode the smaller vehicle. A second school bus rammed into the back of the first bus.
The pickup driver and a 15-year-old student on one of the school buses were killed. Thirty-eight other people were injured in the Aug. 5, 2010, accident near Gray Summit, Mo.
About 50 students, mostly members of a high school band from St. James, Mo., were on the buses heading to the Six Flags St. Louis amusement park.
The accident is a "big red flag for all drivers," NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman said at a meeting to determine the cause of the accident and make safety recommendations.
It's not possible to know from cell phone records if the driver was typing, reaching for the phone or reading a text at the time of the crash, but it's clear he was manually, cognitively and visually distracted, she said.
"Driving was not his only priority," Hersman said. "No call, no text, no update is worth a human life."
The board is expected to recommend new restrictions on driver use of electronic devices behind the wheel. While the NTSB doesn't have the power to impose restrictions, it's recommendations carry significant weight with federal regulators and congressional and state lawmakers.
Missouri had a law banning drivers under 21 years old from texting while driving at the time of the crash, but wasn't aggressively enforcing the ban, board member Robert Sumwalt said.
"Without the enforcement, the laws don't mean a whole lot," he said.
Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone and texting records when they launch an investigation.
In the last few years the board has investigated a commuter rail accident that killed 25 people in California in which the train engineer was texting; a fatal marine accident in Philadelphia in which a tugboat pilot was talking on his cellphone and using a laptop; and a Northwest Airlines flight that flew more than 100 miles past its destination because both pilots were working on their laptops.
The board has previously recommended bans on texting and cell phone use by commercial truck and bus drivers and beginning drivers, but it has stopped short of calling for a ban on the use of the devices by adults behind the wheel of passenger cars.
The problem of texting while driving is getting worse despite a rush by states to ban the practice, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last week. In November, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to forbid texting while driving.
About two out of 10 American drivers overall — and half of drivers between 21 and 24 — say they've thumbed messages or emailed from the driver's seat, according to a survey of more than 6,000 drivers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
And what's more, many drivers don't think it's dangerous when they do it — only when others do, the survey found.
At any given moment last year on America's streets and highways, nearly 1 in every 100 car drivers was texting, emailing, surfing the Web or otherwise using a handheld electronic device, the safety administration said. And those activities spiked 50 percent over the previous year.
The agency takes an annual snapshot of drivers' behavior behind the wheel by staking out intersections to count people using cellphones and other devices, as well as other distracting behavior.
Driver distraction wasn't the only significant safety problem uncovered by NTSB's investigation of the Missouri accident. Investigators said they believe the pickup driver was suffering from fatigue that may have eroded his judgment at the time of the accident. He had an average of about five and a half hours of sleep a night in the days leading up to the accident and had had fewer than five hours of sleep the night before the accident, they said.
The pickup driver had no history of accidents or traffic violations, investigators said.
Investigators also found significant problems with the brakes of both school buses involved in the accident. A third school bus sent to a hospital after the accident to pick up students crashed in the hospital parking lot when that bus' brakes failed.
However, the brake problems didn't cause or contribute to the severity of the accident, investigators said.
Another issue involved the difficulty passengers had exiting the first school bus after the accident. The bus' front and rear bus doors were unusable after the accident — the front door because the front bus was on top of the tractor truck cab and too high off the ground, and the rear door because the front of the bus had intruded five feet into the rear of the first bus.
Passengers had to exit through an emergency window, but the raised latch on the window kept catching on clothing as students tried to escape, investigators said. Exiting was further slowed because the window design required one person to hold the window up in order for a second person to crawl through, they said.
It was critical for passengers to exit as quickly as possible because a large amount of fuel puddled underneath the bus was a serious fire hazard, investigators said.
"It could have been a much worse situation if there was a fire," Donald Karol, the NTSB's highway safety director, said.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/135504458.html?id=135504458
-
I'm so fucking sick of this garbage admn its not funny.
-
>:(
Obama Administration Seeks National Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving
Thursday, 26 Apr 2012
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.
Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a "national epidemic," he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials.
LaHood said it is important for the police to have "the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive."
LaHood has previously criticized behind-the-wheel use of cell phones and other devices, but calling for a federal law prohibiting the practice takes his effort to a new level.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 3,000 fatal traffic accidents nationwide last year were the result of distracted driving. Using a cell phone while driving delays reaction time the same amount as having a blood alcohol concentration of .08, the legal limit, the highway agency said.
But Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association, said laws banning specific actions like talking on a phone or texting are not necessary because those actions are already covered by existing distracted-driving laws. It would be more productive, he said, to invest resources in campaigns that discourage inattentive driving in general.
"It shouldn't matter if the driver is distracted by a conversation with another vehicle passenger, tuning the radio, eating a snack, or talking on a cell phone," Biller said in a statement. "Existing laws cover all those distractions and more."
LaHood said, however, he was not as concerned about people who eat, apply makeup, or perform other distracting activities in cars because "not everyone does that."
"But everyone has a cell phone and too many of us think it is OK to talk on our phones while we are driving," he said at the summit, sponsored by insurance company USAA, the Texas Department of Transportation and Shriners Hospitals for Children.
LaHood was joined by people who have been hurt in accidents caused by motorists talking on cell phones, including children in wheelchairs who were paralyzed. Such accidents are "100 percent preventable," he said.
He compared the situation facing the United States today with the problem of drunk driving 20-30 years ago.
"It used to be that if an officer pulled you over for drunk driving, he would pat you on the back, maybe call you a cab or take you home, but he wouldn't arrest you," LaHood said. "Now that has changed, and the same enforcement can work for people who talk on cell phones while driving."
Thirty-eight states have laws restricting or outlawing the use of electronic devices while driving, LaHood said.
LaHood said his department was researching the effect that hands-free devices and new systems like Ford Motor Company's Sync have on distracting drivers. He said he has called the CEOs of major car companies and encouraged them to "think twice" before placing too many Internet-based systems into new cars.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/lahood-ban-cell-phones/2012/04/26/id/437254
-
This communist marxist dictator wants to runs everyones lives from cradle to grave from the moment we wake to the time we sleep.
-
What do you guys think of DUI laws?
They are the same thing.
interesting analogy there. I drive a lot and all day long, it's idiots drifting out of their lanes while they text.
maybe just make it so that if you're caught texting, you lose your license... i know a DUI costs a person in FL 8 to 10k and they don't drive for a year.
-
what is broad about that. Sounds good to me. Find something that fits holding an "electronic device" that you think it's ok to drive and use? Can you name one thing?
You need to learn to read Hugo. The text in question is "Under the new bill, an officer only needs to see a driver holding an electronic device while driving to issue a citation." Holding and using are two very different things and you can hold an electronic device without using it, just like you can hold a cup of coffee without drinking from it. Words have meaning Hugo.
And yes, I can come up with a number of electronic devices that are OK to drive and use. Off the top of my head, I'll say clicker/garage door opener is one such electronic device; a car radio is another such electronic device. HELL, THE WHOLE FUCKING CAR COULD EVEN QUALIFY AS ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
-
maybe they just start nailing people harder for breaking the existing law.
for example, if a police camera catches you drifting lanes and sees you on that phone while doing it - you lose your license 3 months - no questions asked.
it'll take a few people taking the bus for 12 weeks for everyone else to realize "wow, i'd better not do this..."
-
How bout talking in the car to other passengers with both hands in the wheel? Should that be next? ::)
Fucking lame.
-
Maybe driving tests should be more difficult, for example, the cdl test, make everybody pass that test, minus the part covering air brakes. That would probably get rid oh half of the idiot drivers in this country.
-
::)
Law bans driver's use of cellphone
By Amy Busek / abusek@staradvertiser.com
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, May 21, 2013
Everyone riding in an automobile in Hawaii must now use a seat belt, under one of two traffic safety bills Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed into law Monday.
The second new law bans drivers from holding cellphones and other electronic devices, in effect replacing various county ordinances.
Abercrombie said of the seat belt law, "This measure closes the gap in protecting all passengers riding in a motor vehicle."
Previous law required occupants in front seats and minors in back seats to use seat belts or child safety seats. Adults in the back seat had the option of using seat belts. The amended law means everyone must buckle up.
The new law took effect Monday. Though police sometimes break in a new law by providing a grace period — with warnings but no citations — officials on Monday said there may be none this time.
Honolulu police spokeswoman Michelle Yu said there is little chance of a grace period for the seat belt law because of the widespread availability of information.
Caroline Sluyter, state Department of Transportation spokeswoman, said there have been extensive public outreach campaigns for Senate Bill 4 in radio and television ads, posters in public schools and tourism industry and rental car notifications.
Passengers in back seats who don't wear seat belts are three times more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than those using seat belts, state Health Director Loretta Fuddy said at the news conference in the governor's office.
David Manning of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said although data show occupants are 47 percent more likely to survive a crash by wearing a seat belt, only 19 states, including Hawaii, require all vehicle occupants to use seat belts. Manning said traffic accidents are the No. 1 cause of death for Americans between the ages of 2 and 34.
Honolulu police Capt. Darren Izumo said buckling up, or not, can affect the effectiveness of a car's airbag system.
"You have to understand that in a modern vehicle, your computer detects all that," Izumo said. "If it thinks you're wearing the belt, it deploys the airbags based on that or (doesn't) deploy the airbags based on that. You try to trick the system, bad things will happen."
House Bill 980, which is effective July 1, bans the use of handheld electronic devices, such as cellphones, while driving.
Adults may use hands-free devices such as Bluetooth headsets, but drivers under 18 may not.
"While all counties have some form of a distracted driving ordinance in place, this measure establishes a state law that creates consistent requirements across all counties for the use of mobile electronic devices while driving and will simplify enforcement," Abercrombie said in a news release.
Nearly one-third of all Hawaii traffic collisions in 2007 were caused by distracted driving, according to a state transportation department study.
Using a cellphone while driving puts drivers at four times the risk of an accident with injuries, Transportation Deputy Director Jadene Urasaki said.
"In 2011, the national annual statistics showed approximately 3,300 people (were) killed in distracted-driving crashes," Urasaki said. "To put that into a local perspective, that's all the people that can be seated at the Neal Blaisdell Concert Hall, plus 1,000 more."
The law carves out a few exceptions, such as allowing people to dial 911. Medical responders, work-related users of two-way radios and drivers with radio operator licenses are also exempt.
Violators caught using a cellphone in school zones and construction areas will face double the usual fine, which is $100 to $200 for a first offense.
-
Interesting, the article talks a lot about "distracted" driving but doesn't give details.
-
Interesting, the article talks a lot about "distracted" driving but doesn't give details.
There probably aren't many details about it. The definition of "Distracted Driving" will be vague and open for the police officers interpretation. Thus opening up a door a mile wide for more tickets and fines.
-
There probably aren't many details about it. The definition of "Distracted Driving" will be vague and open for the police officers interpretation. Thus opening up a door a mile wide for more tickets and fines.
Sure but the article is using the "distracted driving" study as support for the "new" cell phone laws with out differentiating in detail the various ways drivers are distracted and how many of those are from cell phone use.
-
Interesting, the article talks a lot about "distracted" driving but doesn't give details.
Yeah, I'd like to know how many of the "distracted" drivers were using cell phones. I don't see a major distinction between holding a phone and using a bluetooth. You're still talking/listening to someone in both instances.
-
Yeah, I'd like to know how many of the "distracted" drivers were using cell phones. I don't see a major distinction between holding a phone and using a bluetooth. You're still talking/listening to someone in both instances.
a lot of people now are texting which you have to take your eyes off the road which you don't do on a bluetooth connection
-
a lot of people now are texting which you have to take your eyes off the road which you don't do on a bluetooth connection
I agree people should not be texting while driving, but texting and talking are not the same.
-
but the law has to do with banning cell phones while driving not just talking on them and most younger people now are texting
-
but the law has to do with banning cell phones while driving not just talking on them and must younger people now are texting
Nobody should be texting while driving, because you have to take your eyes off of the road to do it. They can easily ban texting without banning talking.
-
i lot of the accidents happen when the person is reaching for the phone to answer it becaues your taking your eyes off the road
-
i lot of the accidents happen when the person is reaching for the phone to answer it becaues your taking your eyes off the road
How do you know this? You have statistics that show this?
And you don't have to take your eyes off the road to answer your phone. Also, answering a phone is not in the same category as texting IMO.
-
a phone works both ways as you know some are actually dialing numbers to call out
-
How a Cell Phone Contributes to Driving Dangers
Two types of cell phone behavior typically lead to unsafe driving conditions:
• Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc.
• The conversation introduced to the environment.
Thought fumbling with the cell phone itself was a more dangerous activity than your conversation? Think again. That conversation involves quite large chunks of your thought, which according to study simulations sucks the life out of your driving concentration, especially your ability to react when seconds count.
The National Safety Council reports that in simulated driving tests, those subjects that were asked to carry on a cell phone conversation were so distracted that they went unaware of some traffic signals. The study tangentially examines the psychology of a conversation, especially the participation level required, versus other “listening” behaviors such as audio books and news radio. It seems that the more emotionally engaged the subject the less attentive to safety signals. The results were unaffected by whether the subject manually held the phone or if the mechanism was hands free, a reason why some believe hands-free initiatives are a weak and ineffectual way to control cell phone use while driving, and allegations that use of a cell phone impairs a driver’s ability as much as driving drunk.
-
How a Cell Phone Contributes to Driving Dangers
Two types of cell phone behavior typically lead to unsafe driving conditions:
• Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc.
• The conversation introduced to the environment.
Thought fumbling with the cell phone itself was a more dangerous activity than your conversation? Think again. That conversation involves quite large chunks of your thought, which according to study simulations sucks the life out of your driving concentration, especially your ability to react when seconds count.
The National Safety Council reports that in simulated driving tests, those subjects that were asked to carry on a cell phone conversation were so distracted that they went unaware of some traffic signals. The study tangentially examines the psychology of a conversation, especially the participation level required, versus other “listening” behaviors such as audio books and news radio. It seems that the more emotionally engaged the subject the less attentive to safety signals. The results were unaffected by whether the subject manually held the phone or if the mechanism was hands free, a reason why some believe hands-free initiatives are a weak and ineffectual way to control cell phone use while driving, and allegations that use of a cell phone impairs a driver’s ability as much as driving drunk.
Three problems with this:
1. It lumps "Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc." together. Texting involves a far greater level of "distractedness." (Is that a word?)
2. See the bold part. Supports what I've been saying for years that there is no logical distinction between holding a phone and using a bluetooth when it comes to whether or not a driver is "distracted."
3. No statistics.
-
whether one distracts more than the other really doesn't matter if they all distract, as they do,all it takes is a second or two and you could be in trouble, i have bluetooth built in on my car and all i have to do is push a botton on the steering wheel and i still don't use it
-
whether one distracts more than the other really doesn't matter if they all distract, as they do,all it takes is a second or two and you could be in trouble, i have bluetooth built in on my car and all i have to do is push a botton on the steering wheel and i still don't use it
It matters if the government is banning holding a phone in your hand and essentially endorsing bluetooth as a safer alternative. It's not.
-
well i guess it makes it a little safer by taking the handling the phone, dialing, answering, text messaging out of the equation
-
How a Cell Phone Contributes to Driving Dangers
Two types of cell phone behavior typically lead to unsafe driving conditions:
• Handling the phone: dialing, answering, text messaging, etc.
• The conversation introduced to the environment.
Thought fumbling with the cell phone itself was a more dangerous activity than your conversation? Think again. That conversation involves quite large chunks of your thought, which according to study simulations sucks the life out of your driving concentration, especially your ability to react when seconds count.
The National Safety Council reports that in simulated driving tests, those subjects that were asked to carry on a cell phone conversation were so distracted that they went unaware of some traffic signals. The study tangentially examines the psychology of a conversation, especially the participation level required, versus other “listening” behaviors such as audio books and news radio. It seems that the more emotionally engaged the subject the less attentive to safety signals. The results were unaffected by whether the subject manually held the phone or if the mechanism was hands free, a reason why some believe hands-free initiatives are a weak and ineffectual way to control cell phone use while driving, and allegations that use of a cell phone impairs a driver’s ability as much as driving drunk.
If the conversation is an issue, does the National Safety Council also advocate for making it illegal for. A driver to talk to passengers? What about a driver listening to conversations between passengers? Is it OK if he just doesn't think about the conversation?
-
California Court Says Viewing Phone While Driving OK
By Steven Nelson Feb. 28, 2014
A California appeals court decided Thursday some cellphone use while driving is legal.
Steven Spriggs of Fresno, Calif., successfully argued he didn't deserve a $165 fine for violating a state law against using cellphones while driving because he was not using his phone for communication, but instead using a map application to find a new route.
“Spriggs contends he did not violate the statute because he was not talking on the telephone. We agree,” a three-judge panel ruled. “Based on the statute’s language, its legislative history and subsequent legislative enactments, we conclude that the statute means what it says – it prohibits a driver only from holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it.”
The decision from the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal overturned a previous ruling against Spriggs from the Fresno County Superior Court.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris's office argued unsuccessfully for a more expansive interpretation of the state's 2008 anti-distracted driving law.
The appeals court ruled the government's assertion "that the statute bans all hand-held use of wireless telephones [while driving]" would "lead to absurd results and is opposed to the legislative intent.”
It’s unclear if Harris will appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.
“Our office is still reviewing the decision,” says Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.
Supporters of tough distracted driving laws are upset about the judges' decision.
“It’s an incredibly irresponsible ruling,” says Candace Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and president of traffic safety advocacy group We Save Lives.
“It may be legal but it’s still dangerous,” she says. “All of a sudden now, people are going to think twice and perhaps not be as serious as they should, even though the problem is getting worse and not better.”
Lightner says people often claim they weren’t sending text messages when nabbed by police.
“It’s like saying, ‘I only had two beers,’ the old drunk driving thing,” she says.
Lightner, whose activism in the 1980s helped raise the national drinking age to 21, says she’s worried the ruling may erode the enforcement of anti-distracted driving laws in other states.
The ruling is not without its fans. Well-known George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr declared “reason has prevailed” in a post on The Volokh Conspiracy blog.
A spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, which ticketed Spriggs, told the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday “we will continue our enforcement the way we do it,” suggesting drivers won’t be able to automatically dodge a ticket by claiming they were looking at a map.
In the past decade 41 states passed laws against sending text messages while driving and many others banned hand-held use of phones to make calls. The ruling has no bearing on other states.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/28/california-court-says-viewing-phone-while-driving-ok
-
The unrealistic reality of do-gooders is unbelievable at times.
-
California Court Says Viewing Phone While Driving OK
By Steven Nelson Feb. 28, 2014
A California appeals court decided Thursday some cellphone use while driving is legal.
Steven Spriggs of Fresno, Calif., successfully argued he didn't deserve a $165 fine for violating a state law against using cellphones while driving because he was not using his phone for communication, but instead using a map application to find a new route.
“Spriggs contends he did not violate the statute because he was not talking on the telephone. We agree,” a three-judge panel ruled. “Based on the statute’s language, its legislative history and subsequent legislative enactments, we conclude that the statute means what it says – it prohibits a driver only from holding a wireless telephone while conversing on it.”
The decision from the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal overturned a previous ruling against Spriggs from the Fresno County Superior Court.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris's office argued unsuccessfully for a more expansive interpretation of the state's 2008 anti-distracted driving law.
The appeals court ruled the government's assertion "that the statute bans all hand-held use of wireless telephones [while driving]" would "lead to absurd results and is opposed to the legislative intent.”
It’s unclear if Harris will appeal the ruling to the California Supreme Court.
“Our office is still reviewing the decision,” says Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.
Supporters of tough distracted driving laws are upset about the judges' decision.
“It’s an incredibly irresponsible ruling,” says Candace Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and president of traffic safety advocacy group We Save Lives.
“It may be legal but it’s still dangerous,” she says. “All of a sudden now, people are going to think twice and perhaps not be as serious as they should, even though the problem is getting worse and not better.”
Lightner says people often claim they weren’t sending text messages when nabbed by police.
“It’s like saying, ‘I only had two beers,’ the old drunk driving thing,” she says.
Lightner, whose activism in the 1980s helped raise the national drinking age to 21, says she’s worried the ruling may erode the enforcement of anti-distracted driving laws in other states.
The ruling is not without its fans. Well-known George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr declared “reason has prevailed” in a post on The Volokh Conspiracy blog.
A spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, which ticketed Spriggs, told the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday “we will continue our enforcement the way we do it,” suggesting drivers won’t be able to automatically dodge a ticket by claiming they were looking at a map.
In the past decade 41 states passed laws against sending text messages while driving and many others banned hand-held use of phones to make calls. The ruling has no bearing on other states.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/28/california-court-says-viewing-phone-while-driving-ok
CA is using an outdated law that will surely be changed before long.
Hawaii's law seems more practical in that it seems more concerned with what one's eyes are doing.
(Even answering a phone isn't something that most do without using their eyes -- I don't know anyone who answers their phone without looking at it to see who it is unless they've set up their phone to have a special ringtone for certain callers.)
-
Michigan woman gets odd sentence for fatal bike crash
By Ken Palmer, Lansing State Journal
June 4, 2015
ST. JOHNS — A woman whose car struck and killed a bicyclist last fall near DeWitt drew an unusual sentence Wednesday in Clinton County District Court.
Mitzi Nelson will serve two years of probation and at least 90 days in jail, but she will also have to speak to 20 driver's education classes about the dangers of distracted driving, perform 150 hours of community service and forgo owning or using a cell phone or other portable communications device during her time on probation.
Judge Stewart McDonald acknowledged that someone could challenge his authority to bar someone from using a cell phone but hopes the sentence will deter others from using one behind the wheel.
"I don't think she has a right to have a cell phone," he said. "I think it's a privilege."
Jordan Byelich, center, husband of killed bicyclist Jill Byelich, reaches to hug Mitzi Nelson, left, in court in St. Johns as her family looks on before she is taken to jail Wednesday. Nelson pleaded no contest to a charge of committing a moving violation causing death or severe impairment in the 2014 accident, which police and prosecutors called a case of distracted driving. (Photo: Rod Sanford / Lansing State Journal)
"I thought the judge thought it through very well and looked at all the factors on both sides," he said after the hearing.
Nelson's attorney, Mike Nichols, said he was struck by Jordan Byelich's compassion.
"Jordan gave Mitzi a hug," Nichols said. "That's what it's all about."
McDonald gave Nelson six months in jail, with the final 90 days deferred depending on her progress. Nelson will have to serve the first 30 days of her jail sentence immediately and another 30 days next spring. The rest of the 90 days will be served over four holiday periods. The judge said he would consider her request for work release at a later time.
He also ordered that she pay more than $15,600 in restitution and $1,500 in fines, fees and costs. The state in May suspended her driver's license for a year.
McDonald recommended that Nelson consider speaking to school assemblies about what happened to her as part of her community service.
"If you do that, then maybe that message of deterrence will most emphatically get through," he said.
Nichols said he doesn't expect to challenge the judge's order that she can't own or use a cell phone or other portable communication device for the term of her probation.
"Mitzi may be just fine with that," he said.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/06/04/michigan-jail-sentence/28459901/