Baltimore Sun: O'Malley signs cell phone ban

[JohnLockesGhost]

Thank you. I am surprised, but now I am better informed.

Sure thing. Do they have this ban in California?

[Predicto]

Sure thing. Do they have this ban in California?

Yep. People just got a hands free device and moved on. They cost ten bucks. :whoknows:

I've got to say that your study still surprises me. I would think that not having something occupying your hands, not having people looking at the phone to dial - thos would make a difference. But I have no evidence, so I'm not going to argue with the only study I know about - yours.

[Elessar78]

JLG, do you work in the district? If you live in Frederick and commute into DC then that's a long time in your car and you could be getting a lot done, if that's the nature of your business. I do think some people handle talking on their cellphone better than others. You can't tell me that you've never encountered another driver who clearly wasn't paying attention only to drive by and see them yammering on their cell phone?

[Larry]

I'm with Predicto. Kind of.

My assumption would have been that talking (and just talking) would be pretty much the same distraction whether you're using a headset or not.

IMO, the really huge threats to other cars are things which require you to hold the phone while looking at it. Things like dialing, reading or sending text, that kind of thing.

----------

That said, though, I don't think you'll ever see a ban on use of headsets, simply because I don't think it could be enforced.

When a cop gets behind somebody who's driving 10 miles under the limit, in the center lane of a three-lane road, protecting a 20 car length empty space in front of him, the cop can see that the driver is holding a phone to his ear.

I don't think it's possible for a cop to see if someone is talking on a bluetooth. ("No, officer, I was arguing with Rush Limbaugh on the radio.")

[chipwhich]

Please ban women putting on makeup and men shaving too.

Thanks.

[Larry]

Long as they don't ban reloading.

[mjah]

I had seen the study demonstrating that distraction, not the phone handling itself, is the primary factor in dial-and-drive crashes. It's surprising, particularly since my anecdotal experience is that terrible drivers have a stupid phone glommed to their heads about 95% of the time. But that's anecdote vs. statistics for you. The facts are what they are.

Of course, today's phones aren't what they were even a couple of years ago. Surfing while driving, mapping while driving, avoiding traffic snarls while driving... all are realities on a scale that was greatly reduced even a few short years ago. And I wonder whether a similar study performed a couple of years from now will show that these wonder-gadgets have begun to cause more crashes simply by increasing the amount of distraction available to irresponsible drivers.

Time will tell.

Technology will help us evade laws like this. My car and many others like it connect automatically to a phone via Bluetooth and become completely voice-controllable, integrating the car's speaker system and a driver's side mic for hands-free, ear-jewelry-free communication. Calling, answering, dialing, hanging up, contacts, volume... my hands don't leave the wheel.

And that probably doesn't make a damned bit of difference when it comes to phone-call-related distraction and the crashes it can cause. But it definitely DOES allow a driver to use full calling functions without being tempted to pull up a video, send a bunch of idiotic texts, hit the wireless web, tweet some pointless inane garbage that nobody cares about, etc. As those functions outpace boring phone use, at least hands-free laws keep us away from those functions while driving.

...Until technology catches up, of course. Then rinse and repeat...

[MikeSellers45]

This law is stupid. Holding something to my ear doesn't make me a worse driver than when I am not holding something. I don't see how a hands free device is any safer than holding your phone to your ear.