The Nanny’er State Next Door
The province of Quebec has joined Newfoundland & Labrador in restricting cell phone use while driving, once again the nanny state feels compelled to place restrictions on all of us because of the stupidity of some.
I use my cell phone while driving a car. The first thing I do when I get behind the wheel is put the phone on the centre console where I can reach it without taking my eyes off the road, it’s a flip phone that is set to answer as soon as I open it so I don’t have to look for a button – when it rings I reach (if it’s safe to do so), flip it open, put it to my ear, and talk.
The rational behind the Quebec law is that “It’s distracting” – my cell phone usage is no more distracting that holding a conversation with a passenger while drinking a coffee or having a smoke – so which of those distractions will they outlaw next?
How about cranky kids in the back seat? That’s a distraction. What about back seat drivers? Loud music? What about the potential of spilling hot coffee all over yer private bits while driving down the freeway at 100km/h?
– and lets not forget lighting a cigarette while driving at night, how sure is an open flame 2 inches in front of your eyes to screw up your night vision and potentially cause an accident of such proportions that country and western singers write songs about it for generations to come.
When in a vehicle I use my cell phone responsibly, I don’t make calls, and I don’t read or send text messages – I answer it when it rings because it just might be important, and you’ve already read how I do that responsibly.
Are there cell phone users who do not use their phones responsibly while driving? Yes, and every body and their dog has a story about a cell phone user who has done them, or someone they know, wrong – and I have no difficulty in the world with the cops hauling someone over and giving them a ticket if they’re driving down the road, wheel in one hand, blackberry in the other, weaving back and forth across the lane while reading their email or sending text messages to their great aunt Martha.
– that ain’t everyone, and that ain’t me, but once again all of us find ourselves being regulated by the irresponsibility and/or stupidity of some – and it ain’t right.
A government’s time would be better spent ensuring that only the competent are awarded a drivers license in the first place. We put people on the road at 100 kph without any real test of their driving abilities, or of their common sense, or of their knowledge about what they are operating.
Speaking from the perspective of a driving instructor, this is one hot topic for me. I emphasize safety first to all my students — with qualifiers.
You can play around with your own safety as much as you want. And if you kill or maim yourself, you can blame only yourself. Have at it. Leave your motorcycle helmet at home.
But when you put the safety of others at risk, you are stepping over the line of acceptable practise. Wear that seat belt.
Driving is a never-ending series of decisions that you must always make on the spot, and without too much analysis. Anything that distracts you from that task increases the risk that you will put other people in danger. If a driver kills himself, people call him stupid. But if a driver kills someone else, they call him a criminal.
Ultimately, I believe in the right of the individual to do whatever he wants, so long as he’s willing to pay whatever price for his mistakes. So…what would be a price on which we can agree if a driver kills someone because he’s distracted by a call on his cellphone?
So shall we outlaw all things that may distract the driver of any motor vehicle Chimera? Cranky kids? Backseat drivers? Loud music? Talking to the right-seat while drinking coffee? Neon billboards? Roads too close to topless beaches?
Shall we also institute the “lighter patrol” and have them hit the streets as soon as the sun sets to make sure that drivers are not affecting their night vision when they flick their bic (or gods forbid they’re like me and carry a Zippo)?
You’ve read the description of how I use my cell phone while driving, is it unsafe? Is it irresponsible? Am I putting others in significant (or even likely) danger?
If the point of the exercise is to save others by removing a distractions why not get rid of the ones I listed?
We have laws that drivers who are being irresponsible or dangerous can be charged or ticketed under – why not use them instead of making more?
I did say this was a hot topic, didn’t I? I wasn’t kidding. It’s also one that isn’t easily answered simply by debate. Practical demonstrations of some of the principles behind the need for such an intrusive law is advised. And yes, it’s intrusive. Sorry about that.
But the same part of your brain that is used when driving is also the part of the brain that’s used when having a conversation with someone, whether they’re on the phone or sitting in the seat next to you. So if you’re engaged in a conversation that is unrelated to the task of driving, you are dividing your focus and giving full attention to neither. Failing to give full attention to a conversation might result in missed understanding. Failing to pay attention while driving could result in something far more tragic. As of right now, you have the option of deciding if you want to take that chance.
Can we pass laws forbidding conversation with a passenger? No. For one thing, it would be unenforceable, and lawmakers know that, so they don’t even try. Safety experts, though, look for the day when someone will build a vehicle that will completely isolate the driver from everyone else in the car, much like a commercial pilot is isolated from his passengers. Professional chauffeurs don’t make conversation with their passengers, either, and it’s not because they’re anti-social.
Background noise (kids, music, etc) is engaged by a different part of the brain, and it can be filtered and ignored.
I don’t know if we’ll ever have laws that forbid cellphones completely in cars (although I’d back one that forbade them in restaurants and theatres
), but I do wonder what we did before they became available, and how we coped without them. I can only govern myself at this point, and I have always refused to use the phone while driving. No phone call is more important than my safely reaching my destination.
Some of those ideas are great, stageleft. I don’t think it’s at all appropriate to target advertising at drivers. Well spotted. I do think you can already be pulled over and charged if you are spotted talking to the right seat while drinking coffee, or are subjecting yourself or other drivers to dangerous distractions. The hypothetical smoker you mention is not the sort of person I’d hold up as a role model, though I’ve never heard anyone caution against that. Also well spotted.
Your argument appears to be the “where do we draw the line?” one. It works both ways. Do you think mandatory seat belts are an infringement on your right to endanger yourself? Headlights? Working breaks? Why don’t we just get rid of licensing all together?
I think we draw the line at safety measures which cost more than they save. A Canada where drivers may use cell phones has measurably more deaths than a Canada where drivers don’t. (Or it would if we could examine those two Canadas.) The savings are paid for by the inconvenience and time of all drivers. A rational argument would address the trade off by examining research and trying to work out whether this measure is a net savings or not. Your emotional argument merely appeals to the need to fit everything to a particular pet philosophy.
I don’t have a license. I notice people who do often forget and take for granted that they enjoy more privileges than the rest of us. The whole idea behind licensing is that, no, the typical human in the raw is NOT smart and responsible enough to be allowed to do whatever they like with a car. The typical human is stupid (look at us), and stupid + car = dangerous. The idea that we don’t need some kind of nanny looking after us where very large machines are concerned is contrary to everything we know about people.
I bet we agree on helmet laws, tho.
Yup
Personal safety issue, personal decisions should apply.
Now you’re just being silly
See above
There was a day, but see above.
Setting up absurd and ridiculous arguments is not the way to debate this 300baud, give me something with meat on it. Give me a study that shows that the majority of people who use cell phones while driving have or cause accidents. Better still, give me a reason why a person driving dangerously because of cell phone use cannot be charged under existing laws pertaining to dangerous driving?
A pretty wide sweeping statement, but if your point is that there are a lot of irresponsible drivers on the road you have my agreement – remember, I’m a cyclist and a motorcyclist and have seen great stupidity on the part of my four wheeled brethren.
Given what your position seems to be on other things I somehow doubt it.
“Better still, give me a reason why a person driving dangerously because of cell phone use cannot be charged under existing laws pertaining to dangerous driving?”
Bingo! Best argument you’ve made. And yes, I agree.
So we don’t need more laws, targetting cell phone users specifically. What we need is awareness that cell phones can be very distracting, and that if you get into an accident while using one, you stand the risk of being charged with dangerous driving and having your insurance coverage denied? That would have to stand whether or not the driver actually caused the accident…or was simply unable to avoid it because he was distracted by the cell phone.
Whether you agree with the legislative interference or not, it’s clear to me that non-hands-free cellphones are a vast distraction to most drivers. If I am behind a cell phone user who takes a call, almost without exception I observe the driver’s ability to centre in his lane is temporarily lost and speed slows by about 10% (and typically stays there). Those are similar to the distractions of changing a tape or CD. Furthermore, a driver with a non-hands-free cell phone can not safely operate anything other than a vehicle with an automatic transmission in ideal conditions.
That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it lrC, but (and you knew a but was coming) I seriously doubt that in most cases it can reasonably be described as a “vast distraction to most drivers”.
– and even if it is, do we really need new laws to deal with it?
“Give me a study that shows that the majority of people who use cell phones while driving have or cause accidents.”
I disagree with your test. I only need to show that people who use cell phones cause more lossage than would be incurred from lost productivity if they were not able to talk and drive at the same time. Or, you need to show that they don’t. You’re the one with the fancy blog.
I mean, the requirement you state is insane. If I understand it, you think more than half the talking drivers on the road have to have an accident before something can be done? Where do you get that 50% number from? It seems, from thin air.
How is mandatory use of headlights silly? Why is it not germane? It is a restriction on how you may operate a car, which is enforced for the general good more so than for the operator of the vehicle (who also benefits).
I’m not sure, but I think your position on seatbelt laws is that we should not be under such requirements. But your position on using headlights is, we should be under such requirements. Presumably because your wearing or not wearing a seatbelt does not affect anyone else on the road. But submitting yourself to increased distraction does. I don’t see your “personal safety” exception applying to driving while connected.
I am not setting up absurd arguments. I am finding absurd arguments that follow from (my best interpretation of) your position. They are not my arguments or my position. I think we should have licensing, for example. I agree that issues of personal safety should tend to be left to personal digression. I do not think it just that a driver can be punished because a legally adult passenger refused to buckle up. I also do not think that safety gear should be legally mandated for an adult performing an unlicensed activity.
I simply do not agree that voluntary distractions are a matter of personal safety when driving a vehicle.
You did not comment on my direct criticism of your argument. I called it an emotional argument. Where I come from, those are fighting words. Are you just going to take that? I also suggested what a rational argument would look like. You responded with your own 50% figure, but did not address my cost analysis approach, which I reiterated above.
“…your wearing or not wearing a seatbelt does not affect anyone else on the road.”
Actually, it can have a tremendous affect on others, if your not wearing the seatbelt causes you to slide out of position from behind the wheel, away from the pedals, and lose control of the car. And passengers who are not belted into place have the potential to become mobile obstructions to your continued ability to drive safely, as well.
Hey! Comment previews! Yay!
My test is not a test, it’s a request to show that talking on a cell phone is dangerous and/or a significant factor in accidents. More dangerous for example, than driving with one hand while drinking a cup of coffee and talking politics with the ride side seat. Show me with objective data that it presents a significant danger to the driving public and maybe I’ll be willing to shift my position – anythings possible
What’s your objective number? 40% 25% 10% What is a fair number to pick?
Because it’s a demonstratively public safety hazard to drive down a country road at 100km/h in the dark.
That is correct, seat belts (and motorcycle helmets) are personal safety issues, not general public safety issues.
Yup, see above
Exactly
One handed driving, hot coffee, and talking to the right seat is a distraction. Highway advertising is a distraction. That girl running towards me in a really skimpy bikini in Jasper last summer was a heck of a distraction (almost missed a turn over that). Loud music is a distraction. Cranky kids in the back seat are a distraction. Lighting your cigarette with a Zippo at night is a distraction. How shall we deal with people who “submit themselves” to those distractions?
Then you do not understand my position. It is simply that we have laws in place to deal with dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe, driving. Reread what I said about my cell phone use when behind the wheel – is it more or less dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe, than drinking coffee and talking to the passenger in the right seat?
If you think my cell phone usage is more dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe than that explain to me why.
If you think my cell phone usage is not more dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe than that explain to me why I should be prohibited from my usage because others do not use their cell phones responsibly.
Any and all distractions that may cause a drivers attention to waver?
Well, I don’t know where you are, but here in the bunker the whole “calling out” gig is generally viewed as a distraction, usually minor – we got really thick skins.
In actual fact it is not an “emotional argument”, it is a logical question – why should I be prohibited from engaging in an activity simply because others are not able to engage in that activity safely? Shall we tune into the Discovery Channel to see who “Canada’s Worst Driver” is this season and construct our driving laws and regulations based on that persons ability? That would probably cover just about any possible activity that might harm others wouldn’t it? I mean, if safety is the issue…………
I didn’t consider that to be a rational argument.
A rational argument would be presenting me with some hard objective data showing me that my using a cell phone, in the manner which I have described, is so much more dangerous than other (at least hitherto) legal activities that it requires it’s very own law to stamp it out.
As I have said before, there are already laws on the books that could easily cover hazardous driving because of cell phone use without prohibiting cell phone use. Convince me that they are not sufficient, and remember while doing so that you’re talking to an individual who does not believe that his, or anyone else’s, life should be regulated by the stupidity of others – so you’ve got a (really) long row to hoe if you’re gonna try and convince me that it should.
Chimera: So can driving with hot coffee…. it’s good to have the comment preview back ain’t it?
>– and even if it is, do we really need new laws to deal with it?
The “nanny” examples presented divide into two camps:
1) Laws intended to maintain competency to operate the vehicle.
2) Laws intended to minimize injury in the event of accident.
It isn’t necessary to show that the majority of cellphone users cause accidents; it’s simply necessary to show that cellphone use increases the risk factor when compared to someone who is not using a cellphone.
It would still be up to the discretion of police. I don’t believe any new regulations are necessary if there is already one in place which covers inattention and distractions.
And I have never heard of a driver sliding out of a seat due to lack of a seatbelt, except during the sudden changes of momentum when an accident is already in progress.
“And I have never heard of a driver sliding out of a seat due to lack of a seatbelt, except during the sudden changes of momentum when an accident is already in progress.”
Oh, I have.
Try imagining (do NOT try a practical demonstration unless you are on a test course, and properly protected!) what happens to a driver who is confronted with a sudden change of direction for any number of reasons — suddenly slippery surface causing a wild spin, for example. Centrifugal force will yank that driver out of position, making it necessary for him to fight the centrifugal tendency and taking both his energy and his attention away from steering. He can loose or skew the steering wheel, and lose the pedals. No controls = no control.
In other words…. the accident was already in progress
;D Not necessarily.
Such a situation has the potential to be recoverable, and the accident prevented, if the driver does not have to fight to regain the controls he lost by not being belted in…
I had some practical experience with this when the Vancouver Police designed a skill development course based on police driving training, and they used the instructors at my training school as guineau pigs to test it. What fun! Twenty-four hours on unused runways at an abandoned airport, and not just permission, but encouragement to push your driving skills ‘way beyond the limit!
Sadly, the course never got offered to the public. The cops figured out that they weren’t just teaching us how to upgrade our skills — they were also teaching us how to outrun any cop car that might give chase if we decided to commit a crime and make a run for it.
Mistrustful buggers, they were…lol.
[...] to my last post on this stupidity, additional information comes to light regarding new laws concerning cell phone [...]