Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« C'mon Fucker, DIE! | In Other Imus News »

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Shut Up and Drive

posted by on April 11 at 18:09 PM

It’s not just a good idea. It’s the law.

After seven years of debate, the Legislature passed a measure that bans driving while talking on a cell phone with a bipartisan, 59-38 House vote. But Senate Bill 5037 would make driving with a hand-held cell phone only a secondary offense, which means drivers would not be ticketed unless they commit another driving infraction.

And drivers would still be allowed to use “hands free” cell phone devices like headphones or earpiece.

But studies show that “hands free” cell phone devices are every bit as distracting to drivers as cell phones. Hand-held or hands-free, using a cell phone will driving makes you more dangerous than a drunk driver. So what does this law achieve? Not much—it may, in fact, make us less safe.

Now when I see someone driving toward me holding a cell phone up to her fool head, I give her a wide berth. I think, “There’s a dangerous, might-as-well-be-drunk driver, and I’m going to keep an eye on that asshole and get the fuck away from her as soon as possible.” But once those same assholes are all using handhelds, I won’t be able to tell which drivers are might-as-well-be-drunk drivers and which aren’t. I won’t be able spot drivers I need to avoid on my bike, I won’t know at a glance who I can trust to see me in the damn crosswalk.

So come one, lawmakers, no half-measures here. If you’re going to ban cell phone use by drivers because it’s not safe then fucking ban it, period, hand-held or hands-free. Sheesh.

RSS icon Comments

1

Amen! When I lived in Portugal it was a 400 euro fine, on the spot, for talking on a cell phone while driving - hands-free or not. It's so increadibly dangerous! I agree, now I won't know how to look out for in the crosswalk.

Posted by J on 1st Hill | April 11, 2007 6:26 PM
2

text messaging is worse, and i see it more and more. although the other day i drove next to a woman who had a car full of kids and was eating a salad from a huge ceramic salad bowl while driving.

Posted by something else | April 11, 2007 6:40 PM
3

And no conversations with passengers, either!

Posted by gfish | April 11, 2007 6:57 PM
4

I saw a chick reading her bible once on my morning commute. She was easy to pick out -- going about 10 miles an hour slower than everybody else and would occasionally jerk the car back into her lane when she finally noticed she had strayed from it. Very strange.

Maybe she was cramming for finals at bible school?

Posted by Eastey | April 11, 2007 7:03 PM
5

Personally, I think they oughta just outlaw talking. Anywhere.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | April 11, 2007 7:22 PM
6

i like how the person you describe driving towards you is a "her"

Posted by justnoticed | April 11, 2007 7:35 PM
7

What I don't understand is why they don't ban talking to anybody else in the car, which hands-free talking is, pretty much. What's the difference?

Posted by The CHZA | April 11, 2007 7:40 PM
8

It should be noted that it is a secondary offense. Meaning you will not get a ticket for talking on your your hand held cell phone, only if you do something else that might get you pulled over.

So in many ways, it is exactly like drunk driving.

However, since no one in Seattle can drive anyway, does it really matter at all?

Posted by GDC | April 11, 2007 7:46 PM
9

It's too bad cell phone jammers are only legal in other countries. I'm sure you'd be violating the law if you got on the intarweb and orderd a cell phone jammer from UKia and drove around jamming every phone within 40 meters. It would be a crime wave if lots of people did that.

The law is the law.

Posted by elenchos | April 11, 2007 7:57 PM
10

#7: No one gets to feel superior for joining a completely outdated pseudo-populist bandwagon by complaining about normal talking. Some people just can't accept that mobile communication is no longer even slightly a class issue. Not to mention it's going to play a greater and greater role in defining our civilization, so you might as well get used to it.

Posted by gfish | April 11, 2007 8:00 PM
11

As long as I can still get a blowjob while driving, I'm cool with it.

Posted by Sean | April 11, 2007 8:12 PM
12
i like how the person you describe driving towards you is a "her"

women are the other. they should not be referred to in print.

What's ridiculous is that wearing regular earphones is illegal, but these hands-free earphones are not. I had my car radio stolen so I thought I'd listen to my ipod while driving and I was pulled over after driving about three blocks. After that I'd just put an earphone in one ear and pretend i was talking whenever I drove by a police car.

Now if there was only a way I could pretend I was texting in the car while smoking weed, I would win the driving game!

Posted by jamier | April 11, 2007 8:31 PM
13

What I don't get is why they don't just put all this stuff under the heading of "driving with undue care and attention" (or the US equivalent catch-all law) that takes into account the actual poor driving part.

I don't understand the need for specific laws to deal with what is in essence just dangerous driving. I don't care _why_ people are driving badly. I just care that they're driving badly. We don't really need laws that deal with each possible thing that could be distracting people. The thing that gets me about how cell phones are a dangerous distraction whether they're handsfree or not is that they are also exactly as distracting as having an involved conversation with the person sitting next to you. It's the lack of attention that's the problem here. That's what needs to be addressed, and that's not done by these laws.

Posted by wench | April 11, 2007 8:40 PM
14

What's the difference between talking to someone in the car and talking on a hands-free cell? Well, as John Perry Barlow put it in 1992, "cyberspace is where you are when you're on the phone." I don't know if there's any scientific evidence that shows difference in brain activity between having a conversation in person (even with someone you can't see) and having a conversation on the phone. But I'd be willing to bet that there is.

It'd be even more interesting to see if there's a difference in brain activity when on the phone between people who have never lived in a world without cellphones and older folks.

Posted by Josh | April 11, 2007 9:22 PM
15

9--

I'm pretty sure making everyone near you suddenly lose their cell connection would distract them even MORE, making it even less safe around you.

Posted by Jessica | April 11, 2007 9:24 PM
16

Actually, it's not exactly the same as talking to a person in the seat next to you. The person next to you is in the same car you're in and might stop talking or even yell "look out!" if you start drifting into another lane or cruising through a red light or whatever. The person on the other end of the phone won't. Numerous studies back me up on this point. So the "they should ban talking" cracks are hilarious, but wrong.

But yes, many things can prove distracting when one drives. It's interesting that this policy classifies talking on the phone as a "no harm no foul" secondary offense, while drinking and driving is still considered by many to be irrefutable proof that you're a baby-killing lunatic who willfully spreads destruction and hates Jesus. I mean, given that both things increase one's chances of being involved in an accident equally, it sure is interesting that drinking is the one with a serious moral stigma attached. Almost as if our society's values were derived from some sort of puritanical religious background.

And gfish: You know what else is playing a greater and greater role in defining our civilization? Laws that govern acceptable behavior while operating dangerous motor vehicles. Get used to it.

Posted by flamingbanjo | April 11, 2007 9:30 PM
17

I've had one occasion where I had too much before driving home (something I didn't quite realize until I was halfway home, and totally regret and have never done again). I talk on my cellphone while driving on a daily basis. To equate the two is fucking ridiculous.

Posted by Gitai | April 11, 2007 9:41 PM
18

15--

Less safe? Yeah, now that you mention the safety angle, perhaps it would be less safe. I wasn't really thinking along those lines.

I thought the point was just to fuck with them back. Maybe I'll just stick with the old flicking-a-booger-on-their-windshield routine.

Posted by elenchos | April 11, 2007 10:37 PM
19

What horseshit, if some idiot can't handle driving and talking at the same time, that person should have their licence removed outright. Driving tests are already too damn easy and a large amount of people out there simply can't handle a vehicle to begin with.

Driving is a priveledge, not a right, if youre not skilled enough to operate a vehichle with a small amount of distraction get the fuck off the road.

Posted by Wurm | April 12, 2007 11:29 AM
20

i hate it when i have to go & dig up my cell phone manual to learn how to use the speaker phone feature.

but as long as no one proposes taking away the arsenal of concealed weapons i normally drive with, nervously stroking the cold, cold polished steel, its cool.

Posted by Max Solomon | April 12, 2007 12:04 PM
21

Yes, Dan~ Loyal femfan very upset at the easy use of "her" 3 times over.

From the Guardian, 2004 "The difference between men and women behind the wheel was brought into sharp relief this week when new Home Office figures revealed men are guilty of a staggering 97% of dangerous driving offences and 94% of accidents causing death or bodily harm."

If you read the whole article, you'll find lots disclaimers, but it reminds us, at least, to be neutural.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1214983,00.html

Posted by Pepper | April 12, 2007 12:13 PM
22

To back up #16:

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/HFES2004-000597-1.pdf

"The results show that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because
the surrounding traffic becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation
awareness, and mitigating the potential effects of conversation on driving."

there is evidence that talking on a cell phone is more distracting and more dangerous than talking to a person next to you. The person next to you can also see the road, so if there is a dangerous situation, they are more likely to shut up, or even provide a second pair of eyes for you.

Posted by exelizabeth | April 12, 2007 12:16 PM
23

Nobody here has followed the logic in the other direction:

We've set the legal definition of drunk driving so low that normal cell phone use is an equivalent distraction.

Police State anyone?

Posted by trollish | April 12, 2007 2:19 PM
24

flamingbanjo: yeah, a person in the car can say "Watch out!" or "Be careful!" Who knows, a miracle might occur such that there IS something to watch out for or be careful OF. Usually there isn't.

And then there's traveling with small children. Or teenagers. Don't bother telling them to shut up so you can focus - it'll just make them talk MORE about how mean you are and what could be wrong and they can't wait to drive and blah blah blah argh.

And don't get me started on driving with my mother...

Posted by JenK | April 13, 2007 9:47 AM
25

Statistics and studies be damned, all I know is that when I see a car weaving in and out of its lane, or going 15 mph UNDER the speed limit, or showing indecision at an intersection, or making sudden turns without signaling (because both hands are already busy) ... it is almost always a driver holding a cell phone to his/her ear.

If you want to outlaw other distractions (putting on makeup, eating a Dick's Deluxe), go for it. But this is the best place to start.

Posted by BobH | April 13, 2007 10:27 AM
26

Gecco Logistics Company is looking for new candidates for the shipping
manager position.
We are the world's largest global transportation company, operating in
more than 18 countries and territories and employing 200 people worldwide.
Many Internet auctions and stores in the US do not ship the products
overseas. As the result thousands of customers in Europe and Asia are not
able to
access the large market and purchase high-quality merchandise at so low
prices. Our service is in the ever-growing demand. Today we have more then
80
merchandise managers on the territory of the United States and Canada but
quantity
of our customers increases and we plan to expand.

As a part-time employee, you'll have access to the following benefits:

- $3,100 per month
- You need 8-10 hours free during the week, not more
- $38,000 per year
- Free UPS shipping
- Comprehensive medical and life insurance for you and your dependents
- Weekly paychecks
- Direct deposit
- Set work schedule

If you are interested in our offer send the following data to our e-mail resume@gecco-logistics.com

- Your full name
- Your contact e-mail
- Your phone number

Thanks

Posted by FrontFrontDoor | April 14, 2007 6:45 PM
27

If you want a bigger penis visit www.gobiggerpenis.com

Posted by bigger penis | April 17, 2007 2:35 PM
28

aren't the above three entries spam?

besides, with some women, I've been TOO big, but you never see ads for reduction ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 20, 2007 11:58 AM
29

qdkpmgr sxmv edtaon zovmyk jepzt sqpuh kxsn

Posted by eftr lnrpk | April 22, 2007 2:57 PM
30

qdkpmgr sxmv edtaon zovmyk jepzt sqpuh kxsn

Posted by eftr lnrpk | April 22, 2007 2:57 PM
31

qdkpmgr sxmv edtaon zovmyk jepzt sqpuh kxsn

Posted by eftr lnrpk | April 22, 2007 2:58 PM
32

ykar dzmt ygcpe ldqjnt yfuzdt snhypimd hfbqmnlw http://www.wrgtczdyx.bhmowf.com

Posted by tkiv joyvlxkfs | April 22, 2007 2:59 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).