quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44
From: Marlene Blanshay
Subject: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National

as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
driving....

Date: 18 Jul 2007 21:09:13
From: Michael
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

It's a pipe dream. Here in New York State use of a cell by a driver (with some
exceptions) has been illegal for some time but that has not curtailed their use
nor has it lead to massive arrests. This law is just one more silly,
unenforced, dead on arrival piece of legislation. Yesterday afternoon I counted
three cell-using cagers while I cycled between home at the MUP, a distance of
0.75 mile.

For you and me and anyone else who spends any time on or close to a roadway, the
days of near misses due to distraction by cell phone will not fade into history
anytime soon.

Marlene Blanshay wrote:
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National
>
> as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
> many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
> driving....

Date: 07 Jul 2007 12:56:21
From: Steven S
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

Date: 07 Jul 2007 13:39:26
From:
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Jul 7, 9:12 am, Doug Smith W9WI <w...@invalid.nospam > wrote:
> It surprises me that so many phone users are unable to properly prioritize
> things.
>
> I've been a radio ham for 30 years; for most of that period I've had a
> two-way radio installed in my car. Frequently, even using Morse Code.
>
> Hams around the world have wondered why I suddenly stopped transmitting in
> mid-word, or failed to respond to their question - not knowing that a
> traffic situation required that the radio be set aside. (limiting radio
> operation to the open highway, where sudden traffic contingencies are not
> an every-minute concern, is also quite helpful. And knowing when things
> are just too congested to make radio work safe.)
>
> It *is* possible to drive safely while on the phone -- but it requires the
> attitude that safe driving is more important than the person on the other
> end of the call. Obviously many mobile callers don't seem to have their
> priorities straight.
>

I'd say _most_ mobile phone callers don't seem to have their
priorities straight.

My guess is that the typical ham operator thinks at a much higher
level than the typical cell phone user. Cell phone users don't have
to study electronics, learn Morse code, take a licensing test, and
search out obscure equipment from hard-to-find sources. That alone
filters millions of brainless folks out of the ham scene. And it's
the brainless ones that can't keep their priorities straight.

(And yes, I know Morse code is no longer part of the licensing
process. Sigh.)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 07 Jul 2007 05:45:51
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Jul 7, 7:44 am, Mark Shroyer <usenet-m...@markshroyer.com > wrote:
> On 2007-07-06, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
> ><blans...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPS...
>
> >>as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
> >>many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
> >>driving....
>
> > Am I reading this right, though?
>
> > Is this another "hand-free only" law?
>
> > If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
> > distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.
>
> > Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
> > equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
> > legally intoxicated drivers).
>
> > Maybe it's a step, but....
>
> I've always wondered about this... it makes sense that it would be
> the conversation itself and not the physical telephone which is a
> dangerous distraction to drivers, but has anyone shown that the
> distraction of talking to someone over a hands-free phone while
> driving is significantly greater than the distraction of carrying on
> a conversation with somebody in the passenger seat? And if that is
> the case, then why?
>
> --
> Mark Shroyerhttp://markshroyer.com/

Yes there a quite a number out there. The evidence is pretty
convincing. Some studies suggest that you're better off driving drunk
(well not blind drunk but impaired) than driving while talking on a
cell phone. I don't remember seeing any significant difference
between hand-held and hand-free.

The reason seems to be that there is a much higher cognitive demand in
speaking on a phone. My guess is that we must concentrate much more
on the phone conversation because we lack other visual or auditory
cues about the other person's behaviour.

It may also be that the driver more willing to break off talking to a
passenger since the driver and passenger share a space and it is clear
to the passenger that when the driver stops talking they are not
leaving the phone or getting bored but rather dodging a semi or
passing another vehicle.

As for studies here are a few. There are lots more
Strayer, D. L.; Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. A comparison of the cell
phone driver and the drunk driver. Hum Factors, 2006, 48, 381-391

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to determine
the relative impairment associated with conversing on a cellular
telephone while driving. BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence suggests
that the relative risk of being in a traffic accident while using a
cell phone is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a
blood alcohol level at the legal limit. The purpose of this research
was to provide a direct comparison of the driving performance of a
cell phone driver and a drunk driver in a controlled laboratory
setting. METHOD: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare
the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were
intoxicated from ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08
weight/volume). RESULTS: When drivers were conversing on either a
handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were
delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when
they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers
were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving
style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them
and applying more force while braking. CONCLUSION: When driving
conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments
associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as
those associated with driving while drunk. APPLICATION: This research
may help to provide guidance for regulation addressing driver
distraction caused by cell phone conversations.

A quick overview
http://www.distracteddriving.ca/english/documents/WardVanlaar_002.pdf

and a reference taken from it
Direct Line Motor Insurance, 2002. The Mobile Phone Report. Direct
Line Insurance, Croydon.

The Direct Line report is on the web if you're interested.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Date: 07 Jul 2007 04:50:31
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Jul 7, 1:44 pm, Mark Shroyer <usenet-m...@markshroyer.com > wrote:
> On 2007-07-06, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
> ><blans...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPS...
>
> >>as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
> >>many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
> >>driving....
>
> > Am I reading this right, though?
>
> > Is this another "hand-free only" law?
>
> > If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
> > distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.
>
> > Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
> > equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
> > legally intoxicated drivers).
>
> > Maybe it's a step, but....
>
> I've always wondered about this... it makes sense that it would be
> the conversation itself and not the physical telephone which is a
> dangerous distraction to drivers, but has anyone shown that the
> distraction of talking to someone over a hands-free phone while
> driving is significantly greater than the distraction of carrying on
> a conversation with somebody in the passenger seat? And if that is
> the case, then why?
>
> --
> Mark Shroyerhttp://markshroyer.com/

I don't have the reference to this, but I read an article specifically
addressing this. People in the car having a conversation tend to
moderate when they speak based on their observations of what is going
on in terms of the traffic situation. People on the other end of the
phone are oblivious to what is going on on the road in front of the
car. This is similar to how distracting kids can be in a car. The
don't know when to shut up! ;-)

Joseph

Date: 06 Jul 2007 13:08:02
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

"Marlene Blanshay" <blanshay@videotron.ca > wrote in message
news:%7vji.48641$HP3.289551@weber.videotron.net...
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National
>
> as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how many
> near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
> driving....

This is a big mistake. The law forbids hand-held phones but still allows
phone conversations. As a cyclist (and motorist) this puts you at more risk.
The danger in cell phone use comes from the distraction of the conversations
taking place not so much the hand usage. Seeing a fellow motorist or even
some pedestrians holding phones to their heads has often provided important
visual clues that someone was distracted and may do something careless and
cause a collision. Heck, I've seen it with fellow pedestrians walking on
city sidewalks. Seeing the phone held to the head lets others know to be a
little more on guard.

jb

Date: 07 Jul 2007 23:52:13
From: Marlene Blanshay
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

it's true about pedestrians actually...they seem oblivious when blabbing
on phones or texting...and then there's the ipods...how many times have
i had near misses on the bike path because of some yob with an ipod. We
have too many distractions altogether...is it any wonder so many people
have ADD?

Jim Boyer wrote:
> "Marlene Blanshay" <blanshay@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:%7vji.48641$HP3.289551@weber.videotron.net...
>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National
>>
>> as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how many
>> near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
>> driving....
>
> This is a big mistake. The law forbids hand-held phones but still allows
> phone conversations. As a cyclist (and motorist) this puts you at more risk.
> The danger in cell phone use comes from the distraction of the conversations
> taking place not so much the hand usage. Seeing a fellow motorist or even
> some pedestrians holding phones to their heads has often provided important
> visual clues that someone was distracted and may do something careless and
> cause a collision. Heck, I've seen it with fellow pedestrians walking on
> city sidewalks. Seeing the phone held to the head lets others know to be a
> little more on guard.
>
> jb
>
>

Date: 06 Jul 2007 18:34:06
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Jul 6, 8:58 pm, Marlene Blanshay <blans...@videotron.ca > wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
> > <blans...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPS...
>
> >> as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
> >> many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
> >> driving....
>
> > Am I reading this right, though?
>
> > Is this another "hand-free only" law?
>
> > If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
> > distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.
>
> > Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
> > equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
> > legally intoxicated drivers).
>
> > Maybe it's a step, but....
>
> i guess they'll start with cells...frankly, seeing someone texting
> doesn't exactly encourage me either....

At least it is a start but not a good one. Still it is good to see la
province do something a bit progressive, Nice change from here :(

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Date: 06 Jul 2007 12:22:00
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Jul 6, 7:58 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
>
> <blans...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPS...
>
> >as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
> >many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
> >driving....
>
> Am I reading this right, though?
>
> Is this another "hand-free only" law?
>
> If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
> distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.
>
> Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
> equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
> legally intoxicated drivers).
>
> Maybe it's a step, but....

They have laws like that here in Norway but at times when I am out
riding I can count as many as half of the drivers driving alone
yapping away on their hand-held while driving. And the ticket for such
and offence is USD $250. So while such laws may help in getting
insurance payouts after you get run over, don't expect them to do much
about lessening your chances of getting run over. And as you say it's
distracted minds that matter.

Joseph

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:58:34
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
<blanshay@videotron.ca > wrote:

>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National
>
>as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
>many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
>driving....

Am I reading this right, though?

Is this another "hand-free only" law?

If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.

Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
legally intoxicated drivers).

Maybe it's a step, but....

Date: 07 Jul 2007 08:04:42
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Roadside finds

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:59:00 -0700, Brian wrote:
>> Who(m) here has found a cellphone by the roadside? How l337? Did you get
>> the phone back to its owner?
>
> - USB thumb drive, run over by numerous cars but still working. Contained
> a backup of the website of a local dance studio. (making it easy to
> return)
>
> - Copy of Windows 98. Never opened, except by its impact with the road.
>
> - Numerous American flags. With the plastic brackets that you stick on
> top of a window, then roll the window up to hold it in place. Kids roll
> the window down & the flag goes flying, not in a good way. And they yell
> at radical leftists for desecrating the flag?

"The flag should not be draped over the hood, top, sides, or back of a
vehicle or of a railroad train or a boat. When the flag is displayed on
a motorcar, the staff shall be fixed firmly to the chassis or clamped to
the right fender." - Title 4, Section 7 (b), US Code.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 07 Jul 2007 11:44:41
From: Mark Shroyer
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On 2007-07-06, Neil Brooks <neil0502@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
><blanshay@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National
>>
>>as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
>>many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
>>driving....
>
> Am I reading this right, though?
>
> Is this another "hand-free only" law?
>
> If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
> distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.
>
> Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
> equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
> legally intoxicated drivers).
>
> Maybe it's a step, but....

I've always wondered about this... it makes sense that it would be
the conversation itself and not the physical telephone which is a
dangerous distraction to drivers, but has anyone shown that the
distraction of talking to someone over a hands-free phone while
driving is significantly greater than the distraction of carrying on
a conversation with somebody in the passenger seat? And if that is
the case, then why?

--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/

Date: 07 Jul 2007 23:41:36
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Mark Shroyer wrote:

> I've always wondered about this... it makes sense that it would be
> the conversation itself and not the physical telephone which is a
> dangerous distraction to drivers, but has anyone shown that the
> distraction of talking to someone over a hands-free phone while
> driving is significantly greater than the distraction of carrying on
> a conversation with somebody in the passenger seat? And if that is
> the case, then why?

I find it far more demanding and stressful to talk on a phone than
to someone present. The reason I know this is that I have a stutter
(word repetition kind) which only surfaces under unusual stress, and
that happens much more often on the phone.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 01:14:34
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:41:36 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au >
wrote:

>I find it far more demanding and stressful to talk on a phone than
>to someone present. The reason I know this is that I have a stutter
>(word repetition kind) which only surfaces under unusual stress, and
>that happens much more often on the phone.

That parallels my experience in learning foreign languages. In
increasing order of difficulty come: conversing with persons who are
present, following film/tv soundtracks, understanding radio
broadcasts, and most difficult, trying to hold a telephone
conversation.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:58:47
From: Marlene Blanshay
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
> <blanshay@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National
>>
>> as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
>> many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
>> driving....
>
> Am I reading this right, though?
>
> Is this another "hand-free only" law?
>
> If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
> distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.
>
> Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
> equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
> legally intoxicated drivers).
>
> Maybe it's a step, but....

i guess they'll start with cells...frankly, seeing someone texting
doesn't exactly encourage me either....

Date: 06 Jul 2007 12:36:02
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

Neil Brooks <neil0502@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:40:44 -0400, Marlene Blanshay
> <blanshay@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070706.ROADS06/TPStory/National
>>
>>as a cyclist in montreal...i have no complaints. I can't tell you how
>>many near misses I've had just from idiots blabbing on their cells while
>>driving....
>
> Am I reading this right, though?
>
> Is this another "hand-free only" law?

It looks like it.

> If so, then ... as always ... what's the point? I'm not worried about
> distracted hands. I'm worried about distracted minds.
>
> Studies consistently show that drivers using hands-free technology are
> equally dangerous to those using hand-helds (roughly similar to
> legally intoxicated drivers).
>
> Maybe it's a step, but....

Not much of one, but theoretically it's better than nothing. Washington
state recently banned (wait for it) texting (SMS, email) while you're
driving.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
-- Johnny Hart

Date: 06 Jul 2007 21:37:03
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: quebec aims to ban cells behind the wheel

Dane Buson wrote:
> ...
> Not much of one, but theoretically it's better than nothing. Washington
> state recently banned (wait for it) texting (SMS, email) while you're
> driving.

SMS, the world's greatest expert on bicycle lighting, has been banned by
Washington State?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com