Cell Phone Ban While Driving Being Considered

Oh really? The police recommend this? The same police who encouraged the introduction of the draconian 'street racing' law to combat the plague (exaggerated, dramatized) of 18 year olds wreaking havoc on city streets with their souped up civics.

Another revenue stream for the government.

Out my office window, I've seen people chowing down on slices of PIZZA while behind the wheel on Spadina.

As one of the worst offenders of this proposed law (talking on the phone while sending an email on my berry while changing stations on the satellite radio.. in a stick shift car), I think it makes perfect logical sense.. but man.. I'll need a raise to pay for all the tickets I'll be getting.

Insurance companies are going to LOVE this if it goes through.

If the province actually cared about safety it would stop perpetuating the myth that speeding = accidents.

Get rid of speed traps that do little for safety and start cracking down on actual BAD drivers... you know, the ones who never signal or weave in and out of traffic... or the ones who barely drive at the speed limit in the fast lane forcing other drivers to change lanes unnecessarily.

That looks like the dashboard of a 1998 Cavalier.

Almost. It's a 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier Countach aka a "grocery pusher".

"If the province actually cared about safety it would stop perpetuating the myth that speeding = accidents.

Get rid of speed traps that do little for safety and start cracking down on actual BAD drivers... you know, the ones who never signal or weave in and out of traffic... or the ones who barely drive at the speed limit in the fast lane forcing other drivers to change lanes unnecessarily."

People who go excessively over the speed limit ARE bad drivers. Cracking down on speeders is cracking down on bad drivers. Maybe speeders don't consist of all the bad drivers out there, but they are certainly some of the most dangerous. Do you have -ANY- idea how many people die each year when excess speed is a factor?

Sure there are bad slow drivers, but when they fuck up, they don't KILL PEOPLE.

Ryan L: Of course slow drivers kill people. When they go so slow, they get in the way of speeding drivers!

Anyway, my favourite story is the driver who was eating chicken wings. With both hands! I hope that wing was that damn delicious.

Gloria: It was to die for....

I OFTEN talk on my cell phone while driving, do my best to pay attention to the road while doing so, and haven't had a problem related to this yet.

I ONCE ate sushi with chopsticks (adding ginger and wasabi, and dipping in soy sauce) while driving on the 401. I didn't have any problems, but this was clearly a stupid idea.

It is strange to me that the former could potentially become a punishable traffic offense (fully written in the traffic laws), while there is nothing official on the books that could get me for the latter (unless their was a careless driving charge or something).

Seems to me that somebody will end up on the bottom. On one hand we have the drivers with cellphones and the phone companies, who will both likely heavily lobby against this, and on the other we have... Hmm, EVERYBODY ELSE. It is true that while not many FATAL accidents occur, that does not count all the other accidents. I myself was hit by a car whose driver was on the cellphone. The car promptly sped away. Was there any damage to my bike or my person? Thankfully not. But it was a crowded street, and it could very well have been serious. This legislation is necessary to prevent lapses in concentration that cause these accidents. Let's just hope that the government will have the guts this time around to say no to the phone companies.

Ryan L.

"Cracking down on speeders is cracking down on bad drivers. Maybe speeders don't consist of all the bad drivers out there, but they are certainly some of the most dangerous. Do you have -ANY- idea how many people die each year when excess speed is a factor?"

Speed is only ever the exclusive cause of an accident when the driver is doing something insane like 150 or above... but the vaste majority of people nabbed by speed traps are going maybe 125 or 130.

When you're doing 125 or 130... on a day with good weather + little or no traffic volume I'm sorry but the odds are extremely low that you'll get into an accident? let alone a fatal one.

I have no issue with speed traps near schools or areas with lots of people constantly walking around... but in my experience almost all of them are placed on the highway? nowhere near a city? at a time when visibility is perfect... and you might be sharing the road with one or two cars? do you honestly think that people going 130 in that scenario are just a fatal accident waiting to happen?

I recall a few different studies which have shown that talking on a cellphone while driving is akin to driving drunk. (Driving drunk = driving just over the legal limit.)

The one advantage to a cellphone over drunk driving is that you can simply hang up the phone if trouble were to arise. However, that advantage is negated by the fact that once trouble has arisen, it is already too late to hang up the phone.

Scenario:
The person driving ahead of you is doing 105 in the fast lane and not passing anyone. You tail at a safe distance, but the driver doesn't get out of the fast lane. You run out of patience, and pass on the right. AS you pass, you see that the driver is on their cel phone.

Scenario:
The driver in your rear view changes lanes into the fast lane without signaling, then passes you. You notice that they're on their cell phone.

I encounter these both every time I drive. My point? Cell phones actually cause bad driving.

@Ryan L
I've heard that analogy too. I've also heard this one:
Prohibiting hand-held cell phone use, but not hands-free use, is like prohibiting open alcohol bottles in the car, but not making driving under the influence of said alcohol illegal.

Andrew, it's good to hear you haven't gotten into an accident yet (and I have to say I'm impressed you managed chopsticks.)

But "nothing's happened to me yet!", I think you know, is a silly defense. What are you going to say if something does happen? "Well, it was only once"? "There's a first time for everything"?

I also find it telling that people often say "I" or "me" when they defend their dangerous behaviour. It's easy to forget that other people can be hurt or killed in "your" accident.

Also, Dave: Yeah!

Fact: Driving, or riding in, an automobile is THE MOST DANGEROUS thing that 99% of the Public does.

there had been numerous studies of driver awareness with fairly driving simulator elaborate setups (cameras tracking eyeball movements, blood pressure, etc). My impression was that they were fairly conclusive and showed that any distraction is a distraction and some are very serious. Thumbing a BBerry or even fliping open a phone and dialing digits would clasify as a major distraction, regardless how self assured we're all are and proud of our multi-tasking skills. Disputing this is - to me - like saying seat belts or helmets may not work - happy driving, dummies

Will a citizen be able to arrest a police officer who uses his or her two-way radio, or keying in on their on-board police computer? What about the police officer who just has to read information on your automobile on their computer screens, while they are driving?

Or is it that just a case of "some people are more equal than other people"?

MER1978, In the case of speed traps they very rarely pull over everyone going over the speed limit. If the flow of traffic is going 120 on a 100 km/h highway they generally won't pull you over until you are going a good 135.

Doing 135 while everyone around you is going 120 is being a bad driver. People overestimate their driving abilities. That's why they are out in full force during good, clear weather, because that tends to also be the time when people think they are more than capable of going 140.

Thinking you're perfectly capable of being safe at 140 is being a bad driver. Why? Because you're being ignorant of the fact there are lots of bad drivers out there. Even if you're quite a good one yourself, if someone pulls in front of you without signaling while you're going 140 and they're only going 115, you have LESS time to react and have a MUCH HIGHER chance of sustaining (and causing) fatal injuries when you do.

Being a good driver is understanding that you're not the only one on the damn road and driving appropriately.

Josh, I never said it wasn't stupid that they won't ban cellphone use all together in the car. Yes, is the cellphone use itself that causes most of the problem and not the holding of the phone.

Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the UK's legal alcohol limit - even if you are using a hands-free set.

Driving simulator experiments by researchers at the Transport Research Laboratory found drivers talking on mobile phones had 30 per cent slower reaction times than those who had been drinking, and 50 per cent slower times than sober participants.

"In addition," the TRL report says, "drivers using mobile phones missed significantly more road warning signs than when drunk."

The report adds: "The distraction caused by making or receiving a call can be visual, auditory, mental (cognitive), or physical (biomechanical). A hand-held mobile phone call could involve all four forms of distraction at the same time."

Drivers who use their phones to send text messages were subject to the highest levels of physical and visual distraction, the report noted.

Stopping distance
In one test, the participants were asked to drive at 70 mph (112 km/h) and then asked to stop. Those talking on hand-held sets came to a stop in an average 45 metres, those using hands-free sets stopped in 39 m, those with blood alcohol levels at just over 80 mg/100 ml stopped at 35 m, whilst the control group stopped in 31 m.

Dominic Burch, Direct Line insurance company's road safety campaign manager, said: "Most people accept that talking on a mobile phone while driving is distracting, however, many drivers don't appreciate how dangerous it is."

"In effect, 10 million drivers are partaking in a driving activity that is potentially more dangerous than being drunk," Burch says.

The report, commissioned by Direct Line, will add more support to calls for a complete UK ban on using mobile phones while driving, in line with other countries such as Ireland. There is currently no specific law against the practice in Britain.

this one was made!!!

RyanL: My analogy was meant to complement and expand on yours, not counter anything you said. I find comparisons to drunk driving particularly compelling.

mike: thanks for sharing - great stuff!

Cell phone use should be banned while driving whether or not the driver is using a hands-free device. It's dangerous either way.

should be banned for sure. and the argument that people eat, apply make-up, or whatever else while driving is silly.

it's all bad. obviously.

but taking one of the 'bads' out doesn't make it a bad idea. this isn't a zero sum game.

though enforcing it will be a delight for the popo, I'm sure. I can just see it...

pulled over driver(POD) - 'what did I do?'

officer - 'sir, you were on your phone'

POD - 'no I wasn't. I barely even looked at it'

officer - 'sir, I saw you talking on it'

POD - 'that's crazy talk officer, the battery's practically dead! I couldn't talk on it even if I wanted to.'

officer - 'whatever. I saw you talking. and talking and driving is against the law. license and registration.'

I OFTEN drive drunk, do my best to pay attention to the road while doing so, and haven't had a problem related to this yet.

Just kidding.

Think of all the poor cabbies who will now have to focus on driving while they are at work.

RE: Ryan L.

I'm sorry but speed traps are glorified money machines for the municipality and the province. They have a quota as one downtown precinct recently admitted... it has very little to do with safety.

I've written the city to question the two speed traps I see almost every day when I'm driving to and from work (one with a graveyard on one side and absolutely nothing on the other) and they couldn't give me one good reason for them being there... no "we've had a lot of accidents in that area" or "there are a pedestrians walking around and we're worried about their safety"... nothing. Cities should try raising money transparently through I dunno taxes or something... oh wait that taxes balls... something most politicians don't have.

I think you overestimate the revenue the police gets from things like speed traps. Sure they have 'quotas', but those are more in place to validate the expenditure of the speed trap in the first place.

But you are right, there is definitely a monetary reason behind safety blitzes. It turns out, fewer people dying and being gravely injured reduces the cost on our health care system (among others), which is paid for by our tax dollars.

RE: Ryan L.

"It turns out, fewer people dying and being gravely injured reduces the cost on our health care system (among others), which is paid for by our tax dollars."

It also turns out that city and police should be able to easily justify speed traps that are in the same location almost every day of the week for months... funny how they couldn't when I asked.

Cabbies who talk on the phone the whole time while driving a customer should get a crappy tip or no tip, with explanation. :)

I'd imagine the justification goes something like "we keep catching people speeding there".

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I respect that some of the people out there CAN drive just fine with a cell phone. Most of these people are excellent at multi-tasking and know how to push back the distraction of a conversation in a critical moment. Even for these people, you have to admit that the cell phone does provide some form of distraction, whether it is insignificant in 99% of the cases or not. However, many good drivers are put into extraordinary circumstances by other bad drivers, road conditions, or good old fashioned surprises. And let's be fair, your driving a large chunk of metal around pedestrians and cyclists (not that most of you seem to notice us). As a driver, we have to be aware about what is actually included in your privilege to drive. That you can handle a cell phone and the wheel is not the issue, that there is NO justifiable reason to take this risk is.

All of that being said, I am sure the city is looking at this as a cash cow. I'm not sure how they will actually enforce this. Also, I do agree with other posters that the safety of drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists could be improved by simply making an effort to curtail arrogant and reckless driving. Such an effort would obviously include *Bad* cell phone drivers. Of course the reality is that is just a situation where the agenda is not safety, but public relations and generating income. When a personal or group agenda becomes the driving force of a public initiative then the value is always in question.

In some municipalities the enforcement is what I'll call a sliding scale. Fines vary depending on the situation, with the highest fines for situations where you were on your phone and involved in a collision. In those cases, it would probably depend on witness accounts.

It seems MER178 and others are not wrong.

I remember reading a study by the California Highway Patrol (yes, CHiPs) that ranked highway fatalities in that state by the single greatest contributing cause.

Speeding ranked #11, behind such causes as "improper left turn" and "distracted by a passenger or pet".

I remember that drunk driving was the #1 cause (duh), and "driving under the influence of a substance other than alcohol" was #2.

Unfortunately, I don't remember where cell phone use ranked.

I'm unable to see why it being a cash cow means we shouldn't try and curtail poor drivers.

"I'm unable to see why it being a cash cow means we shouldn't try and curtail poor drivers."

Because doing the right thing for the wrong reason invariably leads to doing the wrong thing.

A specific example in this case is putting officers in speed traps, where they will make the public only marginally more safe, instead of on patrol, where they were making the public much more safe.

james a says...

"I'd imagine the justification goes something like "we keep catching people speeding there"."

Well if speeding in the area is a big problem... and as Ryan keeps saying... speeding = bad drivers... they should also be able to say "there were a lot of accidents before we started doing this"... and they couldn't... cuz speeding traps are cash grabs and much of the time they have little to do with actual safety.

Diane says...

"improper left turn"

On a highway... wow... now that's a special level of stupid.

That is assuming the *primary* reason is doing it for cash. It may also simply be a secondary benefit.

I'm speaking on the issue of a cell phone ban, which a few commentators seem to be against because catching offenders will benefit the city financially. I don't see a problem if police officers are doing so as part of their regular patrol.

I'm protesting the idea that fines have inherently evil effects, not the idea of officers who are idled with only one minor duty.

Diane says...

"A specific example in this case is putting officers in speed traps, where they will make the public only marginally more safe, instead of on patrol, where they were making the public much more safe."

That's EXACTLY how I feel... I just don't see how most speed traps are actually making the road any safer.

Really bad drivers are caught by police using their eyes and witnessing something. Radar guns are great if you want to catch people speeding on a sunny clear day with low traffic volume... when was the last time you saw them out during a snow storm... you know when speeding on its own actually is dangerous.

"(improper left turn) On a highway... wow... now that's a special level of stupid."

Well, not every jurisdiction's definition of highway is limited to a multi-lane ramp and median affair.

(Not that I haven't actually seen this on the 407.)

I was behind someone in the right hand lane at the bottom of the southbound DVP a couple weeks ago, who literally stopped right on the highway, put on their left turn blinker, and waited to turn left acrtoss 3 lanes of traffic onto the off-ramp to Lakeshore Blvd!

FAIL

Employers
The new law includes an offence of ?causing or permitting? a driver to use a hand-held phone while driving. This will, therefore, apply to employers who will be guilty of an offence if they require or permit their staff who drive for work, to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Employers would be unwise to respond by supplying their staff with hands-free kits. Even if the use of these while driving does not contravene the specific ban on hand-held phones, employers could fall foul of health and safety laws if an investigation determined the use of the phone contributed to an accident.

Recent guidance from the Health and Safety Executive makes it clear that employers have a duty under health and safety law to manage the risks faced by their employees on the road. And one of the biggest risks they face is when using mobile phones while at the wheel. Research clearly shows that using a hands-free phone while driving is just as dangerous as using a hand-held phone ? there is little point in having both hands connected to the steering wheel, if the brain is not connected to the hands.

There are good reasons for providing mobile phones to staff who drive for work, especially for lone workers and staff who will be travelling through areas where access to a public phone is difficult. If a member of staff breaks down, for example, they need to be able to summon help. Some employers provide mobile phones for certain staff and others reimburse the cost of work related calls made on private mobile phones.

But, this should not mean that staff use the phone while driving. As part of the management of work related road safety, employers should provide employees with clear guidance on the use of mobile phones. The use of hand-held or hands-free phones while driving should be prohibited, particularly as there is a simple alternative ? let the phone take messages and return calls when stopped in a safe place.

a bit more info from the uk,it already in place there