PDA

View Full Version : Drivers w/cell phones


nishiki
09-11-2006, 10:55 AM
Why are people still allowed to drive while talking on their cell phones?
I almost got hit twice as a pedestrian and as a cyclist...

It s time to change this, cell phones behind wheels are simply very dangerous.

GelFreak
09-11-2006, 02:35 PM
its been a hot point for years in many places. Its slowly changing...as with anything in the USA. Eventually I'm sure it will be a ticketable offense...but in Portland no such luck yet.

nishiki
09-11-2006, 03:17 PM
Things changing in the USA...
Sounds like you know a lot about other places.

What other part of the world (as outside of the US) have you lived in?

GelFreak
09-12-2006, 11:35 AM
I don't feel obligated to give that information out, but I have lived & visted places outside of the USA...and besides you don't have to live somewhere to know politics and laws of other countries.

Haven_kd7yct
09-12-2006, 11:53 AM
Sounded to me more like an innocent question....

nishiki
09-12-2006, 12:30 PM
Touchy,

I was wondering how the US is slower with change than other countries.

GelFreak
09-12-2006, 01:13 PM
sorry I mis-inturpeted what you wrote.

The US government is slow to react for a couple reasons.

By nature the human brain is reactionary. Unless someone forces change within, for example Management within a company, you'll always be reactionary. IE always putting out "office fires" and such. We've all been in situations where we've said ... I know this isnt going to work but if you say so... The good old trial by error method. Well generally problems can be forseen with the proper methods in place...causing you to go from reactionary to proactive. Which other countries governments are and have been doing for years now.

Now Democracy's in general are slow to react to anything except military threats.

BUT

If you take countries with similar econmies. Such as Australia, Britian, etc and look at deaths from vehicle accidents you will see a drastic difference from the USA.

Reason being is they forsee problems (such as cell phone use and driving) and address them before they become major issues.


I'm sure someone will disagree with my statements as is the case with any political argument/discusion, which is fine.

Simple Nature
09-12-2006, 08:20 PM
America coddles the special interests and lobbyists like no other place on Earth. They have the money to spend and get a tax write-off at the expense of the people being victomized. The double whamey. Don't you know you are the cattle of the machine?

bikejunkie
09-13-2006, 12:09 AM
While there isn't much we can do legally, some catchy slogans can help.
Signs like"

"Don't be a cell - fish"
or
"Sell car not Cell car."

Aaron

FixForLife
09-13-2006, 10:49 AM
sorry I mis-inturpeted what you wrote.

The US government is slow to react for a couple reasons.

By nature the human brain is reactionary. Unless someone forces change within, for example Management within a company, you'll always be reactionary. IE always putting out "office fires" and such. We've all been in situations where we've said ... I know this isnt going to work but if you say so... The good old trial by error method. Well generally problems can be forseen with the proper methods in place...causing you to go from reactionary to proactive. Which other countries governments are and have been doing for years now.

Now Democracy's in general are slow to react to anything except military threats.

BUT

If you take countries with similar econmies. Such as Australia, Britian, etc and look at deaths from vehicle accidents you will see a drastic difference from the USA.

Reason being is they forsee problems (such as cell phone use and driving) and address them before they become major issues.


I'm sure someone will disagree with my statements as is the case with any political argument/discusion, which is fine.


yes, it is fine. and no, these countries did not all get together in their offices and talk about the cell phone menace. they realised when people were getting in accidents (reactionary) to do something about the problem. now, simple nature had it right, special intrest groups keep alot of things from happening such as legal pot, clean cars (replacing the gas eaters that we have all over), among other things. cell phones will still be in the hands of drivers here as long as people that are making the laws are doing the same damn thing.

GelFreak
09-13-2006, 11:23 AM
I didn't say the Countries all got together. I know they don't each country handles national problems internally.

jami
09-13-2006, 04:05 PM
there's been discussion of this sporadically both on bikeportland's blog and on the trafficsafety mailing list.

in oregon, there is, insanely, a law _banning a ban_ on cell phones while driving. that is, cell phones while driving are legally required to be legal. i wrote my state representative to ask how the hell that happened (i bet you $20 there were lobbyists and republicans involved). i haven't heard back. maybe other people can try their reps.

find your reps here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
write them here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/

there's plenty we can do -- we could write an initiative to remove the ban on a ban, then write an initiative to ban cell phones while driving.

it wouldn't be easy. but writing your reps to let them know that, for example, mike wilberding was killed by a cell-phone-gabbing driver and that's not okay, couldn't hurt.

dhormann
09-16-2006, 09:34 PM
yes, it is fine. and no, these countries did not all get together in their offices and talk about the cell phone menace. they realised when people were getting in accidents (reactionary) to do something about the problem. now, simple nature had it right, special intrest groups keep alot of things from happening such as legal pot, clean cars (replacing the gas eaters that we have all over), among other things. cell phones will still be in the hands of drivers here as long as people that are making the laws are doing the same damn thing.

FixForLife, Why aren't you making the laws? You can run for office just like anyone else, so why curse the darkness when you can light a candle instead? If you don't see that in your future, I hope you're voting for folks who hold your views. If you think that only rich or connected people can get into politics, think again. I have a co-worker who is running for state representative. Okay, he's running on the "dark side", but he's just a regular guy who got fed up with the system and decided to do something about it. I can't say that I'm going to vote for him because our politics are pretty much 180 degrees opposite, but I have to admire him for being willing to do stand up and take part in the process.

Doug

alpinejunkie
09-17-2006, 07:36 AM
If we can actually get tickets the same as cars can, will I be ticketed for talking on my cellphone while riding too?

editrixpdx
09-18-2006, 12:53 PM
Christ, I can barely ding my bell and ride my bike at the same time--how can you use your cell and bike? Clearly I have no coordination!!

alpinejunkie
09-18-2006, 04:04 PM
It's easy- if you can take a drink of water while riding you can answer your phone or even use speed dial to make a call, or even ride with no hands- not very hard of course you can't take your eyes off the road, that would be suicide. I can have my right hand back on the handlebars and braking to avoid unforseen obstacles fast enough, and I've actually had to a few times, granted I gave the drivers getting out of their car and the one backing into traffic a piece of my mind through hand gestures and vocal insults only in the seconds before I was out of earshot but I'm sure they got the idea and probably thought of me as one of those militant bikers that hates drivers but hey, when I'm driving I don't appreciate bikers who can't ride the speed limit and yet can't seem to ride as close to the side of the road as they could or should be. Sorry this was such a long rant, long day at work:)

OutdoorDad
04-01-2010, 08:47 PM
If we can actually get tickets the same as cars can, will I be ticketed for talking on my cellphone while riding too?

Great question - has it been difinitively answered?!?!

If it is legal, what is the most bike friendly bluetooth headset? Which reasonably priced headset cuts through the wind for the clearest connection?

Psyfalcon
04-01-2010, 09:34 PM
Zombie thread...

OutdoorDad
04-02-2010, 07:14 AM
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5488/threadnecromancyjk7.jpg

...seems I forgot to cast the correct spell when resurrecting this thread...

Rather than start anotherthread and have the 1st few replies be "do a search", I found the most currect thread on the topic of cell phone headsets and added to it. Since the last posting head set laws hav been placed in OR; after which time, I moved back to the Pacific Northwest. So I'm not fully up to speed on the legality of biking and cell calling nor on which cell head set is best forclear calls while legally going down the road - cuts the wind noise, road noise, but not the callers voice.

Spiffy
04-02-2010, 09:16 AM
House Bill 2377 (http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2300.dir/hb2377.a.pdf)

Prohibits person of any age from operating motor vehicle while using mobile communication device except under certain circumstances.

so it looks like it only applies to motor vehicles...

looks like bicycles are safe for now...

on a side note I think these laws send a message to amputees that they're all bad drivers since the lawmakers are obviously stating that you need two hands in order to drive effectively...

canuck
04-02-2010, 10:29 AM
"looks like bicycles are safe for now..."

No cyclists riding and using cell phones are not safe, they are excluded from the law, but they are far from safe.

bironi
04-02-2010, 04:39 PM
Hand held cell phone use and texting became a primary offense in Washington State with the governor's signature recently. It goes into effect in June of this year, but there will be a warning ticket period.

I am a happy to see this pass. I commuted into Seattle for over 15 years, and can remember when cell phones first appeared in drivers hands. Smiling faces chatting into their cells as they headed straight for me.

I hope Oregon's governor is ready to sign a similar bill soon.

Byron

wsbob
07-09-2010, 09:24 PM
I picked this old thread to bring to everyone's attention, an interesting article and comments in response to it, about a distracted driver (gps rather than cell phone) charged and found innocent of a felony. Case was appealed by plaintiff before the supreme court (state, I'm presuming) and is awaiting decision.

bikeforums/Hit biker appeals court decision/posted by forum member 'The Human Car' (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?660259-Hit-biker-appeals-court-decision/page2)

50 posts when I read it...a number of them are helpful and informative. Check out the OP's #40 post in addition to the the first one.

Spiffy
07-12-2010, 07:14 AM
I don't think the reason matters one bit... convict on the crime not the motivation...

focus on what happened, not why...

wsbob
07-12-2010, 09:54 AM
It seems the question people are being forced to consider by this recent case and others in the 'personal device era' (I just made that up! hope it fits!), is how serious an offense is allowing oneself to be distracted by personal devices and other things.

Used to generally be that serious injury or death to a person on the road by someone operating a vehicle mostly came about by the operator deliberately intending to do the person harm, or knowingly flaking off somehow in the operation of their vehicle in a way that would allow traumatic consequences to occur. And of course, though it's always been recognized that 'accidents do occur', the line between traumatic consequences having occurred by intent, conscious negligence or recklessness, and by brief suspension of the concentration required to safely operate a vehicle used to be quite clear.

Today, with the onset of the 'personal device era', or maybe call it 'personal device revolution', in which people are more commonly being traumatically hurt, though the operator of the vehicle involved in hurting them didn't have intent to hurt, that line has become blurred.

People are no longer sure what the crime is. It's turning out to be hard to convict someone of a crime where tradition says that certain circumstances leading to traumatic infliction of injury on another person isn't a crime.