Chapel Hill Bans All Cell Phone Use While Driving Including Bluetooth and Hands Free Operation Chapel Hill, North Carolina has voted to ban all cell phone use while driving, including any hands free use like Bluetooth headsets or use of a speakerphone. After two years of discussion on the issue, the city council voted 5-4 to become the first in the nation to ban both. "If you have a Bluetooth, if you have a relatively new car with a dashboard that allows you to talk wirelessly, you can't use it," says Council member Laurin Easthom. You can of course continue to be a perfectly awful driver who gets distracted while putting on makeup, reading, changing your radio station or arguing with your significant other.
|
  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | How? How the heck are they going to enforce it, especially if you're using the speakerphone? "No, officer, I was talking to myself." | |
|  | | | Re: How? About as good as they do the no smoking laws...not! | |
| | | | | Re: How? Truly an enlightened law.
I'm sure this law isn't a petty personal preference and rather it's firmly rooted in conclusive findings about an evidence based need. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones
What it does do is make it even easier for insurance company lawyers to deny claims after accidents. Get in a costly accident; get sued; lawyers check phone records. If on the phone, your insurance company will refuse to defend you and pay claim because I am sure insurance policies already have clauses denying coverage to those who get in an accident while on the phone.
I wonder if insurance industry lobbied Chapel Hill to start the ball rolling on laws like this?
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| |  coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones Not an altogether implausible theory... | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones Its closer to reality than a theory.
When there's a car crash here in SoCal, one of the things that's done by Police down here is to take any cellphones as evidence - whether or not it was used.
Insurance companies have a big stake in this. | |
| | | | | | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones That's also a good thing.
Whenever you seem some idiot driving erratically or holding everyone up for no legitimate reason in a state that still allows cell phone use, they're typically holding a phone to their face. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones they could be changing the radio station. It has happened to me before. Trying to find a certain station or playing with my satellite radio and had someone honk at me because the light was green. | |
| | | | |  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by Telco:That's also a good thing.
Whenever you seem some idiot driving erratically or holding everyone up for no legitimate reason in a state that still allows cell phone use, they're typically holding a phone to their face.
LOL "in a state that still allows cell phone use" buddy that's MOST of them.
The laws on the books so far are more about handsfree, which I agree with.
It is entirely feasible to drive well while being handsfree on a phone call.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
| | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones But it is still distracting. I hope all states ban any sort of communicative use of cell phones while driving, but I am also hoping that they keep exemptions for interacting with GPS and music/podcasts/audiobooks while driving, since otherwise I, along with many others would fall into an interesting trap on that. | |
| | | | | | | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
1 edit | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones said by BiggA:But it is still distracting. I hope all states ban any sort of communicative use of cell phones while driving, but I am also hoping that they keep exemptions for interacting with GPS and music/podcasts/audiobooks while driving, since otherwise I, along with many others would fall into an interesting trap on that.
Well see that's just it. For this to matter they have to also ban GPS, radio and pretty much anything else that's distracting.
See that's why the law isn't needed. They just want to ban SOMETHING. I want to see the research methodology used to come up with the supposed proof for the statement that handsfree is just as distracting. Sounds like a job for Mythbusters.
My kid in the back seat is more distracting. Really, he is. You cannot tell me the woman trying to shave her intimates on her way to a booty call is less distracting. Or putting on make-up, or men shaving in the car...eating etc. There's a myriad of them.
Cell phones are a great scapegoat but the reality is there are much more distracting things especially if you are using handsfree. I spend hours on the road every week going between clients and such from Palm Beach to downtown Miami. If there was no way for me to ever be on the phone during that time I lose countless hours of productivity, and that's just not acceptable. So yes I am biased. I see a lot of distracted drivers out there. I am on the road with them every day. And the ones using phones? None of them are hands free. Every one has the thing plastered up against their head. If the act of talking and having a conversation is the issue then it DOES actually make it the same thing when someone is in the car with you. Heck then you are more likely to look at them, turn your head away all those things.
Face it, some people can multitask and some can't. The comment earlier that humans can't do two active tasks, yea like to see that study too since in the wild I don't see that being the case. Responsible driving means knowing what you physically and mentally can and cannot do behind the wheel, not just what the rules makers say who want to be the Nanny of us all.
What we need very simply is a law on the books with regards to distracted driving. If you're in an accident and shown to have been distracted and causing it then there's more penalty your way. Pretty simple. Otherwise with this ordinance being a secondary offense it really doesn't matter. It is a grandstanding move decided with a vote from a guy who's an avid cyclist with a bone to pick with drivers...cause I am sure he's perfect when he drives, and he's also perfect when he cycles too.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
| | | | | | | | coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
 ·Windstream
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones Actually, what would end the issues completely is to eventually move to autonomous vehicles where the "driver" is AI/Robotic and the humans are merely passengers. When that is realized, it will not matter what is distracting the humans as long as the autonomous robot is not effected in any way...
For those who still want the control and pleasure of actually driving, then the potential distractions other than additional passengers would be locked out except for pertinent updates and status from the vehicle...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| | | | | | | | | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones said by coldmoon:Actually, what would end the issues completely is to eventually move to autonomous vehicles where the "driver" is AI/Robotic and the humans are merely passengers. When that is realized, it will not matter what is distracting the humans as long as the autonomous robot is not effected in any way...
For those who still want the control and pleasure of actually driving, then the potential distractions other than additional passengers would be locked out except for pertinent updates and status from the vehicle...
I would go nuts...not trust the AI bot to run the vehicle.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
| | | | | | | | | | coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones said by GlobalMind:said by coldmoon:Actually, what would end the issues completely is to eventually move to autonomous vehicles where the "driver" is AI/Robotic and the humans are merely passengers. When that is realized, it will not matter what is distracting the humans as long as the autonomous robot is not effected in any way...
For those who still want the control and pleasure of actually driving, then the potential distractions other than additional passengers would be locked out except for pertinent updates and status from the vehicle...
I would go nuts...not trust the AI bot to run the vehicle. Sedation would be optional... 
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
|
| | | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Very true. We have the tech for this, I wish they would make it accessible to all. The roads would be much safer.
The possibility also exists for a human driver for people who like to drive, but where the car would automatically take over control if the human was driving unsafely.
The only big downside is that it would, in effect, require civil speed enforcement, which may not be an issue on I75 in Michigan, but on many roads here in CT is a big problem, since they set the speed limits far too low to make money on tickets. | |
| | | | | | | | | | coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones said by BiggA:Very true. We have the tech for this, I wish they would make it accessible to all. The roads would be much safer.
The possibility also exists for a human driver for people who like to drive, but where the car would automatically take over control if the human was driving unsafely.
The only big downside is that it would, in effect, require civil speed enforcement, which may not be an issue on I75 in Michigan, but on many roads here in CT is a big problem, since they set the speed limits far too low to make money on tickets.
One way to enforce the speed in most areas would be to have the speed signs/roads also be a speed limiter, especially in urban areas where the road or signs could have a transmitter that told the car what the maximum is and then not allow the driver to exceed that speed. IOWs, a form of variable governor that would limit the power output of the engine so that the driver simply cannot exceed the speed limit.
Your note on the ticket income would be a political football however that some would attack as another limitation on freedoms. With the traffic levels we face these days however, the number of places where you can actually speed is getting narrower and narrower.
I have had an opportunity to drive on the German autobahn and can tell you that it is far from the wide open legend of the past these days and the number of unlimited speed areas are getting smaller as towns and cities grow...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| | | | | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones That's my point. The self-driving cars wouldn't even need any complicated transmitters, they already have GPSes and a database of all US speed limits, so they could limit themselves.
In my town, there are a lot of back roads that are 25 limit, but if you know the roads, and if you know the corners that you will skid/flip if you do more than 20, you can do 40-50 on most of the rest of the road.
We already have the ridiculous low limits in many places. However, there is a stretch of heavily commercial road in the next town over that has a speed limit of 40, but it would be suicidal to actually do 40 with the amount of traffic that goes through that area. | |
| | | | | | | | | | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by coldmoon:I have had an opportunity to drive on the German autobahn and can tell you that it is far from the wide open legend of the past these days and the number of unlimited speed areas are getting smaller as towns and cities grow... This is very true. The Autobahn is now as crowded as many of our interstates around cities.
I've been told - by Germans of course - that they're better drivers because it costs so much to get a license. They overtake on the left ONLY, they don't measure the value of a car by cup holders...that sort of thing.
A little rant here just on the topic in general...not you of course...
Part of the problem here, is that driver education these days is hardly required in many areas. We don't TRAIN people to drive properly the way we used to require. And by that I don't mean train them how to obey the speed limit.
I mean train them how to control the vehicle, how to react given certain situations, control a skid...those types of skills. The speed limit is a who cares really in terms of driver skill. It takes nothing to do.
Why do we overtake on the left, right, wherever? Part of it is that folks drive under the limit in every lane, including the left and just sit there. So where do you go?
We don't enforce minimum speed like we should either. Folks puttering along at 10 below the limit need to get the hell right, but while you're there do the right thing and move over when you come up to an on-ramp with other vehicles entering. Don't force them to find a way in.
See so much of this is about courtesy. It isn't about the damn phone or shaving or anything else that distracts. The real danger out there is simple incompetence behind the wheel. A complete lack of focus. No interest in understanding how your vehicle works, and how to control it and react. Driving well takes focus and attention, and so many don't do it even without a phone on their ear. But like I said before, hands free makes a huge difference for the simple fact that you have both hands to drive the dang car! lol
Personally I think it would be really, really sad to have a world where it's all automated. I drive a lot, and after 25 years on the road I still love it. An open road, the pull of the car that's handling well around a long sweeping turn, even at the speed limit, it's still fun. It would really suck to lose that, or have the car controlled by some outside agency.
But, cars and driving aren't just necessary evils for me like they are for some people, so I view it a bit differently.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
| | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | The issue is so many people do it so much, much more so than other things. And communications are what is most distracting, not value adds for driving like GPS and music/podcasts/audiobooks. | |
| | | | | | | | | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones said by BiggA:The issue is so many people do it so much, much more so than other things. And communications are what is most distracting, not value adds for driving like GPS and music/podcasts/audiobooks.
Yea sure pretty much everyone does it...but I disagree to a large extent that the communications is the biggest distraction.
The "value add" items you talk of, can be VERY distracting...every bit as much as the conversation. Especially things like GPS where you're interacting with the device.
The content isn't the issue. Whether it is Howard Stern or music or an audiobook, that's not the issue, but the DEVICE interaction certainly is.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
|  ExitWoundPorsche Snob
join:2001-12-13
State College, PA | Is that a bad thing? | |
| | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones That's a good thing. It's good that the public has an ally in the insurance companies to get safety and accident-prevention laws passed. | |
|
| cahiattPremium
join:2001-03-21
Smyrna, GA | said by Linklist:This ban is unenforceable. How will police even tell if you are on the phone ... I've been beside people at an intersection that were using their in-car bluetooth systems. They volume was up so loud I could hear almost the entire conversation. Those are easy to pick.
But I can see in reality that this gives them extra ticketing power during accident investigations. They can check call/text logs to see if the device was in use at the time of or just prior to an accident. Add some big fat fines on top of the "failure to yield" fee. | |
| | | | | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones Without a warrant, they aren't checking shit. | |
| | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones said by Uncomm0n:Without a warrant, they aren't checking shit. Want an insurance settlement? Hand over the records. Want to sue your insurance carrier to cover the accident? Hand over the records in discovery.
Not saying which side is right or wrong, just saying how it will play out. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones You have a valid point, but I was referring to the police checking your cell phone at the time of the accident possibly creating additional fines or tickets. They CANNOT do this without a warrant. | |
| | | | | |  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones The records of use belong to the cell phone company don't they? The CONTENTS of the call, the words couldn't be snooped on but whether or not the phone was in use could be volunteered by the mobile operator couldn't it? The police wouldn't be interested in the purpose or contents of the call but rather the device was in use. | |
|
| | | usually throwdemsout I don't see eye to eye on your take of a subject, and can appreciate the fact that we agree to disagree.. However in this case WE UNANIMOUSLY AGREE. | |
| | | | |  mondoz
join:2000-08-26
Houston, TX | Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones What if I had an aneurism while driving and died, causing my car to crash into yours?
Did I illegally die? | |
| | |  BenPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL | said by skeechan:But it seems to me virtually EVERY collision or crash is the result of some law being violated; running a red light, speeding, driving too fast for conditions, following too close, etc. I can't think of a situation where a crash gets crashed without a law being violated.
You only talked about the cases of the at-fault driver. In a crash involving multiple vehicles, then chances are not every driver is at fault.
If John Doe rams into the rear of Joe Public's car, who's fault is it? Just about everyone would say it was John's fault. | |
| | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones My point is in virtually every crash, SOMEONE is at fault and the fault is usually some violation of the vehicle code whether following too close, speeding, running the red light, something.
If the insurance company covers the driver when he runs a red light and causes an accident it is logical that they would cover someone talking on the phone unless it is specifically excluded in the policy.
If insurance companies wouldn't cover people who cause an accident because they were in violation of the vehicle code, virtually no one who caused the crash would have their insurance paying claims to the people they run into. The insurance company of the at fault person would be off the hook in virtually every case. | |
| | | | | coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones said by skeechan:My point is in virtually every crash, SOMEONE is at fault and the fault is usually some violation of the vehicle code whether following too close, speeding, running the red light, something.
If the insurance company covers the driver when he runs a red light and causes an accident it is logical that they would cover someone talking on the phone unless it is specifically excluded in the policy.
If insurance companies wouldn't cover people who cause an accident because they were in violation of the vehicle code, virtually no one who caused the crash would have their insurance paying claims to the people they run into. The insurance company of the at fault person would be off the hook in virtually every case.
And how do you square that circle in a no-fault state?
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| | | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Unenforceable - they can't even enforce the hand held ones No fault doesn't mean someone isn't at fault. It only means that insurance companies payout to their own clients. And even then my understanding is you can still go after the other party if your own insurance doesn't cover all the damages caused by the other party while some states have limitations for no fault where over a certain amount the claim isn't done under the no fault system (e.g. no fault only used when damages are less than $1000 or $2000). | |
|
|  sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | said by Linklist:This ban is unenforceable. How will police even tell if you are on the phone if nothing is visible as they drive by. Police don't even enforce against those with a cellphone held up to their ear now.
What it does do is make it even easier for insurance company lawyers to deny claims after accidents. Get in a costly accident; get sued; lawyers check phone records. If on the phone, your insurance company will refuse to defend you and pay claim because I am sure insurance policies already have clauses denying coverage to those who get in an accident while on the phone.
I wonder if insurance industry lobbied Chapel Hill to start the ball rolling on laws like this?
I'm...actually okay with this. Maybe it'll get people off their fucking phones if it hits them in the wallet one way or the other.
--
Think Outside the Fox. | |
| | | | While enforcing the hands free ban will likely to be very difficult, but they can and do enforce hand held phone usage bans. (I happened to be a passenger once when the driver got ticketed for it  )
--
Wacky Races 2012! | |
|
| | City roads only? Doesn't an Interstate run along Chapel Hill? | |
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: City roads only? said by grydlok:Doesn't an Interstate run along Chapel Hill?
Yes. Rt40 runs along northern edge of Chapel Hill. Don't know if runs thru Chapel Hill political boundaries. But Google Map makes it look like it is outside Chapel Hill jurisdiction. | |
| | | coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: City roads only? Don't forget 15-501 as it is a major artery feeding US 1 going south as well as a route to 87 through Sanford for Fayetteville and FT. BRAGG...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| | | | | | Re: City roads only? My company had a training facility in Roxborro that was a long drive down 501. | |
|
| | | | I thought I40 did. I worked around the area before. | |
|
| |  firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Re: Must wear Silence of the Lambs mouth restraint if driving. The difference is studies show that talking to a person produces certain behavior in the person talking while talking on a phone produces a different type of behavior. There's also the evidence of numerous accidents with injuries and deaths as a result of someone talking on a phone.
Obviously not all people are going to be affected the same just as some people are able to drive perfectly while over the legal limit of alcohol but you don't see a push to remove dui laws because of this.
There's also the fact that why in the last 15 years has it been so critical that people MUST be allowed to talk on a phone while driving their cars? The roads are dangerous enough in this country so anything that can reduces the deaths from automobile accidents is a very good thing.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
| | |  MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: Must wear Silence of the Lambs mouth restraint if driving. It's not that talking on a phone is different from talking to someone in the car, it's just that people in the car can see the traffic and will cut back on their conversation if it looks like the driver needs to focus fully on the road.
The real issue is that the human mind does not multitask active tasks well. Driving and having a conversation are both active tasks, as such if you shift your attention to the conversation you are having, you are talking attention away from driving. "Normally" that's not a problem, but if something unexpected comes up (say a child runs into the road), your reaction time will be a lot slower.
If you are completely enthralled in a conversation you might not even be aware of what's going on around you and simply be subconsciously driving. I've been in several close accidents with people who were completely oblivious to their surroundings while on the phone. For example, I had a left turn light and was in the process of making a left turn, when a person going the other direction decided to make a right on red without even looking. I slammed on my brakes and honked the horn and the person literally jumped in her seat. She had no idea I was there.
I've noticed this even with passive multitasking such as listening to the radio. I can be listening to talk radio while driving, but then get into an area with heavy traffic that requires a lot of my attention. When that clears up, I'll havd no idea what the people on the radio were saying during the time I was actively engaged in navigating traffic.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by firephoto:The difference is studies show that talking to a person produces certain behavior in the person talking while talking on a phone produces a different type of behavior. There's also the evidence of numerous accidents with injuries and deaths as a result of someone talking on a phone.
Obviously not all people are going to be affected the same just as some people are able to drive perfectly while over the legal limit of alcohol but you don't see a push to remove dui laws because of this.
There's also the fact that why in the last 15 years has it been so critical that people MUST be allowed to talk on a phone while driving their cars? The roads are dangerous enough in this country so anything that can reduces the deaths from automobile accidents is a very good thing.
Even Wiki makes you cite your sources. | |
|
|  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by Mr Matt: Why don't these Rectums ban the driver from talking to anyone while driving.
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! don't give ideas!!!!!111
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
google this "(sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200*x)+sqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)^0.01, sqrt(9-x^2), -sqrt(9-x^2)" | |
|
| | As Long As Laptops and Police Radios are Banned After almost being sideswiped by a Texas DPS officer while he was using his laptop at 60 mph I agree that electronic use should be banned while driving as long as everyone is banned.
There is only one class of citizen in this country. | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post | |
turbo25
join:2002-08-08
Fuquay Varina, NC | Ban... You need to remember C Hill is full of liberals, and is the capital of nanny state. Best thing to do is stay out of the place before they arrest you for breathing improperly. | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
 CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
·Suddenlink
| Loopholes make it useless anyway quote:
Drivers would be allowed to make emergency calls, and calls with a spouse, parent or child.
Dunno about anyone else, but that's where all my calls and distracted driving come from, anyway.
--
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Islamic religion? | |
| |  93388818It's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX | Re: Loopholes make it useless anyway said by Cabal: quote:
Drivers would be allowed to make emergency calls, and calls with a spouse, parent or child.
Dunno about anyone else, but that's where all my calls and distracted driving come from, anyway. +1 | |
| |  thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
right here
kudos:2
·Suddenlink
| said by Cabal: quote:
Drivers would be allowed to make emergency calls, and calls with a spouse, parent or child.
Dunno about anyone else, but that's where all my calls and distracted driving come from, anyway. I agree. That's all I talk to. I have no friends. | |
|
93388818It's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX | define use Would this mean my cell phone, which sits in a holder mounted to the windshield and displays GPS info while streaming Google music over the car's Bluetooth is also prohibited? If that's the case, then any music players or standalone GPS units should also be banned, shouldn't they?
--
"To be sincere, you don't have to know anything, you just say whatever makes you feel good and spin and smug circles in your tiny fucked up little head, happy as long as you're true to yourself. In other words, Sincerity is bullshit!" -Penn Jillette | |
| | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: define use Yes. Here is the ordinance (or at least a recent draft of it). Additional technology devices includes "Any technology that provides access to digital media including, but not limited to, a camera, music, the Internet, or games. The term does not include electronic mail or text messaging."
So since you use your phone, you would be in violation. However a stand alone GPS, iPod (but not iPhone), or a cellular-enabled iPad could because none of them are a mobile phone. | |
|
| | Here's how they'll enforce it I hear folks saying laws like this, as well as bans on texting while driving, are unenforceable. Not true. Granted, it would be very unlikely that you'd be cited for this alone, unless you were dumb enough to do it right in front of a cop. However, that isn't how the law will be used. Instead, it will come into play if you happen to be involved in an accident, especially if someone is injured or killed. This will allow the cops to check to see if you were calling (or texting, in the case of a texting ban) at the time of the accident. If you were, they can then charge you with violating that law in addition to any other charges filed against you. In addition, they might use the violation to upgrade other charges. For example, a prosecutor might decide to charge you with vehicular homicide instead of manslaughter. And finally, if your case goes to trial, the prosecutor can point out to the jury that, not only were you at fault for the accident, but you were also violating a ban on calling/texting while driving, which was a contributing factor. It'll be used to increase the likelihood that you'll be convicted and receive a stiffer sentence.
So, no, you aren't likely to be charged with violating this law, but if you're unlucky enough to be involved in an accident while you're using your phone, you're likely to face more serious charges. | |
| |  ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Here's how they'll enforce it said by ISurfTooMuch:Instead, it will come into play if you happen to be involved in an accident, especially if someone is injured or killed.
I'm pretty sure when you're facing charges of vehicular manslaughter, a +$60 (or whatever the fine is) fee isn't the biggest concern on your mind. This would make the law seem less of a public safety standpoint, and more of a cash grab. | |
| | | | | Re: Here's how they'll enforce it True, unless they use it to augment the other charges you're facing. IANAL, but having such a law on the books may make it easier for them to find out from your cell phone company if you were on the phone at the time of the accident, and that could lead to more serious charges.
Granted, this particular law may not be set up to be used in this way, but I guarantee you that someone has thought of doing it. | |
| | | | ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | Re: Here's how they'll enforce it said by ISurfTooMuch:True, unless they use it to augment the other charges you're facing. IANAL, but having such a law on the books may make it easier for them to find out from your cell phone company if you were on the phone at the time of the accident, and that could lead to more serious charges.
If there were a criminal investigation into an accident (where phone use is suspect as a contributing factor), phone record logs would be pulled regardless of this law. The only difference now is that the local authorities can ding your checking account a little, while you're sweating bullets about the much more serious offense playing out with existing laws. | |
|
| cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by ISurfTooMuch:Instead, it will come into play if you happen to be involved in an accident, especially if someone is injured or killed. This will allow the cops to check to see if you were calling (or texting, in the case of a texting ban) at the time of the accident. If you were, they can then charge you with violating that law in addition to any other charges filed against you. Yes, because a local ordinance of what amounts to a parking ticket will make a significant difference with any other criminal charges. It probably wouldn't even be handled by the same court.
In addition, they might use the violation to upgrade other charges. For example, a prosecutor might decide to charge you with vehicular homicide instead of manslaughter.
And finally, if your case goes to trial, the prosecutor can point out to the jury that, not only were you at fault for the accident, but you were also violating a ban on calling/texting while driving, which was a contributing factor.
It'll be used to increase the likelihood that you'll be convicted and receive a stiffer sentence. | |
|
tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA | How can this be legal? 1) Drivers and vehicles are licenses by the state - regulated by a jurisdiction other than the city of Chapel Hill.
2) Telecommunications (cell phones) works under federal regulations (i.e. the FCC enforcing guidelines passed by Congress)
How does the city of Chapel Hill get off with overriding state and federal law? | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
 scotsAre we there yet??Premium
join:1999-12-06
Raleigh, NC
kudos:1 | Secondary Offense The Chapel Hill cops can't pull you over just for using your cell phone. The ordinance designates this as a "secondary offense", which means the cop first has to pull you over for something else (such as speeding) before they can issue you a citation for using your phone. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| Having been involved in such an accident I was involved in an accident in March of 2011 where a cell phone and alcohol were involved. My car was totalled and one of the passengers in the at fault vehicle was killed as this happened on I-95 at 65 mph.
I was lucky I or my passenger walked away from the accident (as I am religious on making sure that me and my passengers use seat belts). The other car rolled, which is why one of the passengers was killed.
--
All of my CPE (including my EMTA) is customer owned. The only Comcast owned equipment in my house is the CableCards in the two TiVO boxes I own. | |
| | Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Having been involved in such an accident Well driving 65 on 95 is the problem :_) I'm glad you are OK and saddened by the passenger loss of life, but maybe alcohol had something to do with it--or not, or the driver had a 90 IQ, or he was wearing sandals that got caught on the pedal, or he turned and looked and the passenger, or their tires were low on air, or the steering rack was loose, or he was driving with one hand, or he dropped his 40 on the floor, or he was driving a SUV which rollover, or he hit a rut in 95, or 100 other things. All of the above could be factors, one will never know.
Statistically speaking it has been proven that alcohol at .12 causes an increase in traffic fatalities. OK, now this is a potential public safety issue. There are no such proven studies for cell phones, so this is just some special interest acting and one needs to speak out even if we agree with them. And guess what states started lowering the .12 limit, and sooner or later it may be a zero tolerance. That will be fun.
You can be high on pot and drive, and that is not and bad as a DUI. So lets not sugar coat it, alcohol like 1000 other pharmaceuticals can cause a factor in you rolling your vehicle, however it's perfectly legal to pop a few Xanax (with said prescription) and troll the roads. | |
| | | | | Re: Having been involved in such an accident You most certainly can get a DUI/DWI under the influence of Xanax or even cold medicine for that matter.
Driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while impaired or intoxicated (DWI) does not just relate to an intoxicated driver that has consumed alcohol. It is possible to be convicted of DUI or DWI when the driver has used a drug, whether a legal or illegal drug, and whether prescribed by a physician or not.
In many states, the definition of a drug is very broad, and typically includes any substance that can affect a person's mental or physical capacities to the extent that driving may be affected. In fact, it is possible to be convicted of driving under the influence of drugs where the drug is of the over-the-counter variety, such as cold medicine, or even coffee or caffeine pills, if their consumption results in impairment. | |
|
| | Can't fix stupid. . . But they try to legislate it all the time, wasting time and money. | |
| | Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: Can't fix stupid. . . I cannot fathom how a law like this would stand a test in court.
I mean cripes, why not just force the driver of any vehicle to be strapped into a HANS device, a fireproof suit and make it illegal for them to do anything other than use the steering wheel, gas & brake pedals.
I mean damn, even up here in Canada we ain't that stupid (yet)
NefCanuck | |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:2
·Bright House
| OK if you pass/enforce laws against boomers and air horns If the point of the ban is to promote safety by minimizing distractions:
LEO would be enforcing bans on both boomers and air-horners, which are a clear distraction to every driver near them.
--
The Dark Tower's Skynet evolves from 4chan. | |
| | | I can't support this I can slightly understand some texting bans, but I still stand by the fact that you are just as distracted by other people (especially young children and teens) than what most people are while texting. A few years ago texting was banned because of teenagers, but now I see more adults doing it than kids.
I still think if you're going to ban texting you need to also ban radios, GPS, kids, friends, food, smoking, any liquids, make up, shaving...the list could go on and on. Texting is dangerous, but so is every single distraction I just listed. I know a kid a couple of years ago who got killed while leaning over to pick up a pop bottle off of his car floor.
I admit I still use my phone occasionally while driving, and cops have even seen me do it. 9 times out 10 when I drive past a cop while on my phone he is looking at HIS LAPTOP.
If people have paid the money to have bluetooth headsets or hands free devices, they should be able to use them, plain and simple. | |
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: I can't support this said by daake07:I can slightly understand some texting bans, but I still stand by the fact that you are just as distracted by other people (especially young children and teens) than what most people are while texting. If you don't care about evidence and prefer to make laws that are convenient, based on your gut feeling of how things work, then we should repeal the law. We could then all rest easy since daake07 somehow just knows the solution based on his gut feeling. Whew. I'll have a beer now. | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Good This should be the law nationwide. | |
| | | Another law... that I might agree with as most individuals are pretty poor drivers, and with all the distractions, increased traffic, increased speed limit, very few have the reaction time with mind processing a phone conversation.
RANT ahead, proceed with prejudice and sarcasm:
Concentrate on operating the vehicle, not whether there is something more important that other lives on the road.
If you need to talk, pull over. Why is it that people think they are entitled to being lost and excuses? (Where were you going? Wait, you knew you were going there, and didn't figure it out ahead of time??? So you dialed the cellphone while driving, and then cut off three cars, all while you were under the excuse that its ok to be lost? (true story from my cop buddy) ... driver told cop he was lost and calling for directions...crossed double-line, cut off car in right lane, ran stop sign...)
Can we have cops in the Express Lane at the supermarket with a law that if you have MORE than seven or 15 items, FINE! Or paying by check and waiting till total and all bagged BEFORE pulling out the coupons and checkbook...FINE! Hey, its obvious, right?? 
--
Splat | |
| | | What about police? Are the police now forbidden to use their radios while driving? | |
| | | Run Forrest Run. Stupid is as stupid does! | |
|  PacketeersPremium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| blow up doll sales boom in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
as drivers put them in the passenger seat so they
can talk to their dashboard without being noticed.
in other news, Gay Fagerty, NC's a cappella singer,
is arrested on charges of singing to his dashboard,
and tonight's concert will be postponed till he can
afford legal council. stay tuned as we investigate
what airborne virus is sweeping NC as drivers are
now seen covering their mouths with filter masks. | |
| | | | Re: blow up doll sales boom another law that is useless | |
|
| |
|
|
Must wear Silence of the Lambs mouth restraint if driving.
What a bunch of Rectums. The part of their brain that normally controls their Sphincter Muscles now controls their thought process. What is the difference if I talk to my wife on my built in hands free phone in my car or talk to her while I am sitting next to her. Why don't these Rectums ban the driver from talking to anyone while driving.
