Cell Phone Laws

[ammit82379]

Hello. My name is Christine, and I am attempting to get some real opinions from people regarding cell phone usage while driving and the laws that are being put in to place regarding it. This includes both talking on a cell phone and texting. This isn't an attempt to change anyones mind about their opinion, and I do not hope to start any arguments regarding this topic, I just want to know if you are for or against the laws and why. The purpose of this is research, not for any government or media interest, but for my Writing 123 class. This is a topic that interests me, so I would really appriciate your feedback. Thank you.

Current Laws:

Alaska: All drivers are banned from text messaging

Arizona- School bus drivers are banned from talking on cell phones

Arkansas- School bus drivers are banned from talking and texting on their cell phones

California- All drivers are banned from using a hand held device to talk on their cell phone, all drivers are banned from text messaging, school bus drivers and drivers <18 are banned from talking on cell phones

Colorado- Drivers with their learners permit are banned from talking on their cell phone

Connecticut- All drivers are banned from using handheld devices and text messaging, all school bus drivers and persons with their learners permit and are <18 are banned from all cell phone usage

Delaware- School bus drivers and GDL (Graduated Drivers License) drivers are banned from talking on cell phones, GDL drivers are banned from text messaging.

D.C.- Hand held ban, texting ban, school bus drivers and persons with learners permit banned from cell phones

Georgia- School bus drivers banned from talking on cell phones

Illinois- Hand held ban by jurisdiction, school bus drivers and persons <19 banned from talking on cell phones

Kentucky- School bus drivers banned from talking on cell phones

Louisiana- 3 different laws prohibiting cell phone use but it is unclear if hand held is prohibited on cell phone use in general is, texting is prohibited, school bus drivers are prohibited from calls

Maine- <18 prohibited from calling and texting

Maryland- <18 w/ learner or provisional license prohibited from calling and texting

Massachusetts- hand held prohibited by jurisdiction, school bus drivers prohibited from calls

Michigan- hand held prohibited by jurisdiction, teens with probationary licenses whose cell phone usage contributes to a traffic crash or ticket may not use a cell phone while driving

Minnesota- School bus drivers are prohibited from talking and texting, novice drivers are prohibited from talking and texting for the first 12 months

Nebraska- <19 w/ learners permit or provisional license are prohibited from talking and texting

New Jersey- hand held ban, school bus drivers and <21 w/ GDL or provisional license prohibited from calls, texting ban

New York- Hand held ban

North Carolina- School bus drivers and <18 prohibited from calls and texting

Ohio- Hand held ban by jurisdiction

Oregon- <18 w/ learners permit or provisional banned from talking and texting

Pennsylvania- Hand held ban by jurisdiction

Rhode Island- School bus drivers and <18 banned from calls

Tennesse- School bus drivers and learners permit or intermediate licence prohibited from calls

Texas- School bus drivers with passengers <17 and intermediate drivers in their first 6 months prohibited from calls and texting

Virgin Islands- Hand Held ban

West Virginia- Persons in the learner or intermediate stage prohibited from calls and texting.

[spot]

Which are the laws that are being put in to place regarding it?

If we're to know what we're discussing I think we need links from you to all the proposed legislation so that we can read and compare and discuss.

I'll bring the UK legislation for an international perspective, you can bring the different States. Which ones do you know already?

[spot]

Here's the current UK law

26 Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) Section 41D Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc., A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement -

(b) as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other device,

is guilty of an offence.

What's under discussion at the moment is extending that ban to hands-free systems as well. The evidence available indicates that just talking on a hands-free system is as mentally distracting as talking on a hand-held and that there's a correlation between traffic accidents and legal hands-free cellphone use at the time.

[wildhorses]

Originally Posted by spot

Here's the current UK law

26 Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) Section 41D Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc., A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement -

(b) as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other device,

is guilty of an offence.

What's under discussion at the moment is extending that ban to hands-free systems as well. The evidence available indicates that just talking on a hands-free system is as mentally distracting as talking on a hand-held and that there's a correlation between traffic accidents and legal hands-free cellphone use at the time.

I think they are going too far with restricting hands free usage while driving. I dont think it is more of a distraction than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. Certainly it is not more of a distraction than having kids or a dog in the car. Driving while stressed out is also distraction. Driving while sick....also.

[spot]

Originally Posted by wildhorses

I think they are going too far with restricting hands free usage while driving. I dont think it is more of a distraction than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. Certainly it is not more of a distraction than having kids or a dog in the car. Driving while stressed out is also distraction. Driving while sick....also.

Perhaps I can offer views to the contrary? This is part of the 17 Oct 2005 debate in the House of Lords on the Road Safety Bill which I quoted from, in which the evidence I offered to find about hands-free systems is referenced, The bolding is mine.

Viscount Simon: I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, just said. He stated that using a hand-held mobile phone is dangerous. The same applies to hands-free mobile phones. The person at the other end of the phone does not know what one's driving conditions are or what else is happening on the road and therefore one's concentration can be badly affected. Transport Research Laboratory research has shown that reaction times for drivers using mobile phones—both hands-free and hand-held—are worse than those for drivers over the blood alcohol limit. That leads to increased likelihood and severity of collision.

A considerable body of research indicates that the impairment caused by hands-free mobile phones is as significant as that caused by hand-held mobile phones. The impairment occurs primarily through distraction from the conversation and not from taking a hand off the wheel. Therefore we go back to the distraction of the person at the other end of the phone. Continuing to allow hands-free mobile phone use may give the mistaken impression that that is safe driving behaviour. It is not. An evidence-led policy on mobile phones would suggest that both types of phones should be banned.

It is sometimes argued that banning the use of hands-free mobiles would be unenforceable. However, even if the ban on the use of hands-free mobiles were not in force, it would still be possible for police crash investigators to determine afterwards if the driver had been engaged on a mobile phone conversation at the time. A case has already come to court following a fatal collision last year. The driver would by definition be guilty of an offence and any injured parties would automatically be able to initiate a damage claim without having to wait for the courts to decide whether the driving amounted to careless, dangerous or some other form of bad driving offence.

A ban would also prevent manufacturers from promoting hands-free mobiles as being recognised in law as safe for use in cars, contrary to the evidence.

Lord Bradshaw: I back up what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said. I fear that the reason people use hands-free equipment is that it is known that there is no way of enforcing the law or prohibiting the use of hands-free equipment, because any policeman or other enforcement agency cannot see it. However, it leads to a serious situation in that people promote hands-free phones as safe. They are safe only from anybody detecting their use; they are certainly not safe in respect of other road users and other drivers. When the Minister sums up I would like him to underline the message that the Government are not in the business of promoting unenforceable laws, but nonetheless should deprecate any organisation that promotes things it says are safe but that it really means are undetectable.

Lord Berkeley: I agree with what my noble friend Lord Simon said about hands-free phones, in which he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There is a new type of hands-free phone. It clips around one's ear and has a spike that goes toward one's mouth, which hears what one says. I bought one a few months ago, not so that I could break the law if it is amended by Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, but so that I could use it on my bicycle. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about using a mobile phone on a bicycle are right. It is dangerous to cycle along the road with one hand on the handlebar and holding the other hand to one's ear.

I bought one of these things that clips on to one's ear, and it works fine if you are stationary. However, once you are moving the wind is blowing past you and whereas you can hear what the other person is saying, they cannot hear what you are saying because it is like the noise of a mighty rushing wind. They are useless when going along on a bicycle and, I presume, on a motorbike. My son has had the same experience. To the question of bicycles and mobile phones the answer is to stop. It is the only solution, if you want to be on the phone, much as you want to keep going. The noble Lord has a point, but it should apply both to traditional mobile phones and the ones that are hands-free, because the latter do not work anyway.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. I do not think the fact that police cannot detect them should be a reason for not including hands-free mobiles in the definition of a mobile phone. If you have one of the things clipped to your ear the policeman can see that—if he happens to be around, which is probably unlikely, but he might be. It is possible to check through the mobile phone companies whether someone was using a mobile phone if there has been an accident. If you are on a bicycle you tend to get run into by cars just as frequently when people are using a hands-free mobile phone as when they are using an ordinary mobile phone while driving, because they are not concentrating. I support all the amendments.

[Odie]

our Canadian laws:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phones and Driving: Questions and Answers

A person using a cell phoneYou'll survive a missed phone call;
you might not survive a collision!





1. Is it illegal to use a cell phone while driving anywhere in Canada?

2. Which level of government is responsible for laws dealing with cell phones?

3. Are hands-free devices safe?

4. What about other distractions such as adjusting the radio, eating a snack or the other things drivers do while driving?

5. Don’t cell phones actually contribute to highway safety?


Safety Tips >>
Questions and Answers

1. Is it illegal to use a cell phone while driving anywhere in Canada?

Yes. It is currently illegal to use a handheld cell phone while driving in 3 provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Other jurisdictions are considering similar legislation. Cell phones are banned in many jurisdictions worldwide.

A driver who causes a collision or who is observed driving unsafely while using a cell phone can be charged under a number of provincial, territorial or federal laws including but not limited to, those related to dangerous driving, careless driving and criminal negligence causing death or injury.

Newfoundland & Labrador: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releas...sl/1220n03.htm

Nova Scotia: http://www.gov.ns.ca/tran/cellphone.asp

Quebec: http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/accide...hone/index.php

2. Which level of government is responsible for laws dealing with cell phones?

Use of cell phones by drivers comes under provincial and territorial regulation.

All levels of government are concerned about the increased risk posed by the use of cell phones (and related devices) while driving. A number of provincial and territorial governments have conducted research and are monitoring the situation. Transport Canada has conducted research on this issue and continues to monitor public attitudes. Recent surveys indicate that many drivers recognize the danger associated with using cell phones while driving and that a large proportion of the public supports some restriction on their use.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp2436/rs200802/menu.htm

3. Are hands-free devices safe?

No. Research indicates that there is an increased risk of collision when using a cell phone, even if it is hands-free. Distraction that arises from the need to think about the conversation is still present. Hands-free phones reduce only the requirement to physically operate the phone.

4. What about other distractions such as adjusting the radio, eating a snack or the other things drivers do while driving?

A driver’s primary responsibility is the safe operation of their vehicle. A driver may be charged if erratic driving or a crash results from inattention, regardless of the cause.

5. Don’t cell phones actually contribute to highway safety?

A cell phone can be a valuable tool for highway safety, enabling you to rapidly report collisions, for example. The safety value, however, lies in having the phone available to make an outgoing call, not in having the phone turned on while you are driving. When reporting an emergency situation, pull over safely so that your vehicle isn’t posing a risk to others and that you can adequately report the details and answer any questions.

[spot]

Originally Posted by wildhorses

I dont think it is more of a distraction than listening to the radio or talking to a passenger

This is the abstract from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory report "Conversations in cars: the relative hazards of mobile phones" on this specific issue.

The aim of this study was to benchmark the distraction caused by hands-free mobile phone conversations in relation to other conventional in-car tasks, and to similar conversations held with a front seat passenger.

Thirty experienced drivers aged between 21 and 64 years drove a 17 km route in the TRL driving simulator for each experimental condition. The results showed a complex but consistent picture of distraction. Measures of car following ability and general measures of speed control showed that all additional conversation and in-vehicle tasks produced more variable performance consistent with the additional load imposed. Self report subjective workload measures showed that both in-vehicle and passenger conversation tasks were rated equally more difficult than baseline driving. Handsfree conversations were rated yet more difficult. This pattern was repeated in results of choice reaction time tasks.

When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving baseline condition, with a significant deterioration to in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the handsfree conversation drive. The act of driving was shown to have a distinct effect on the quality and character of a conversation. The rate of talking, the number of pauses, number of errors and performance on verbal and numerical reasoning tasks all deteriorated when driving at the same time.

Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.

[wildhorses]

Originally Posted by spot

This is the abstract from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory report "Conversations in cars: the relative hazards of mobile phones" on this specific issue.

The aim of this study was to benchmark the distraction caused by hands-free mobile phone conversations in relation to other conventional in-car tasks, and to similar conversations held with a front seat passenger.

Thirty experienced drivers aged between 21 and 64 years drove a 17 km route in the TRL driving simulator for each experimental condition. The results showed a complex but consistent picture of distraction. Measures of car following ability and general measures of speed control showed that all additional conversation and in-vehicle tasks produced more variable performance consistent with the additional load imposed. Self report subjective workload measures showed that both in-vehicle and passenger conversation tasks were rated equally more difficult than baseline driving. Handsfree conversations were rated yet more difficult. This pattern was repeated in results of choice reaction time tasks.

When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving baseline condition, with a significant deterioration to in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the handsfree conversation drive. The act of driving was shown to have a distinct effect on the quality and character of a conversation. The rate of talking, the number of pauses, number of errors and performance on verbal and numerical reasoning tasks all deteriorated when driving at the same time.

Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.

Yes I know about all the studies done. But it makes no sense at all. How can a conversation on a hands free phone be more distracting than a passenger conversation? If you are having a conversation with a passenger....say you were having the exact same conversation with the exact same person on a hands free phone. You are still engaged in the conversation if the person is sitting there or not. How would the person sitting there be less of a distraction? The study is flawed. I work in the research industry and I am sometimes appalled at how some studies are done. The flaws are apparent from the beginning and so of course the study results don't make sense. Then everyone says "oh but a study was done". However, when the results dont make sense, it should occur to someone to analyze how the study was done.

[spot]

Originally Posted by wildhorses

Yes I know about all the studies done. But it makes no sense at all.

There's the difference between an evidence-led policy on mobile phones and one which relies on opinion. You're setting your opinion up against the UK's national traffic research unit. The national traffic research unit relies on peer review for its reputation. if it had no reputation it would be dead in the water and nobody would pay its bills much less quote its results.

If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.

If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.

Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.

[wildhorses]

Originally Posted by spot

There's the difference between an evidence-led policy on mobile phones and one which relies on opinion. You're setting your opinion up against the UK's national traffic research unit. The national traffic research unit relies on peer review for its reputation. if it had no reputation it would be dead in the water and nobody would pay its bills much less quote its results.

If you can produce any evidence which contradicts their findings then great, that would be perfect, I'd be delighted. Fire away. That's all we need, a way of assessing the reputation of the people making the statements.

If I may summarise Christine's added list from her first post of the thread, there's a currently a ban on hand-held cellphone use in vehicles with the engine running in six states, California, Connecticut, D.C., New Jersey, New York and the Virgin Islands. Jurisdictions are allowed to impose bands on hand-held use in a further five states, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The other thirty nine states allow the driver to hold mobile phone voice calls, hand-held and hands-free, while the vehicle's engine is running and even if the vehicle's in motion.

Nobody anywhere has a ban on hands-free systems. In my opinion the reason for that is an inability to stop people and book them for doing it because it's undetectable at the time they're doing it. In the UK, if someone's been in a lethal crash and the phone company records show the surviving driver was on his hands-free phone at the time, I guarantee they'll go to jail for it because the crash is going to be put forward as evidence of their dangerous behaviour. People here are in jail just for changing radio stations while crashing.

Do you just eat up any information just because it is a "study"? Tell me how the results of this study makes sense. Have you ever seen a study that gives certain results and then a later study gives the complete opposite? This happens more often than anyone wants to admit.

Remember that respected scholars once thought the world was flat. But actually if you look at the faroff horizon you can see a curve....so it doesnt take much for someone to see that their insistence that it was flat should have been questioned.

It makes no sense that a conversation on a hands free cell phone would be more of a distraction than the exact same conversation with a passenger. You are talking and listening. The only difference is that the other end of the conversation is coming from a bud in your ear as opposed to from another passenger. You are still going to use the same amount of attention to engage in the conversation.