BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I think the best solution would be a "distracted" driving law--that is, if a driver is drinking coffee, smoking, chatting on the phone, arguing with a passenger, or eating a burrito, they can be pulled if it appears to be affecting their driving abilities.

Though I suspect this quote wasn't meant to be advocacy of such a measure, it captures the point:

"Some critical legislators wondered why the state should react to just this one distraction for drivers. Rep. Seth Grove, R-York, said that on his way to the Capitol today, he'd seen a driver drinking coffee, smoking a cigarette and reading a newspaper."

The person who talks on a cell phone and doesn't pay attention to the road while find another distraction if their cell phone is taken away. It seems like we really need better enforcement of existing traffic laws (speed limits, stop signs, etc), but that requires more boots on the ground, and more money from the government coffers, so I'm not hopeful.

i don't think drinking coffee and talking on a cell phone are equal distractions. One could even argue that drinking coffee or smoking will actually help you pay attention to the road. it doesn't take the same thought process as it does to carry a conversation.

when people are driving thru a complex intersection or road, they don't go, hmmm, let me grab that coffee. but if you're on the phone, the chances of saying "hey, it's getting dicey, i'll call you back when i'm through this intersection" are nil.

Hmm. I don't know. Coffee/drinking might be one thing, but I see plenty of people doing stupid things that don't involve a phone. Heck, I've seen people pecking away at their laptops.

I'm not really advocating that talking on the phone while driving is a Good Thing(TM) (I think in general cell phones have become too pervasive, but that's a topic for another day), but I think we need a more general way to promote/enforce good driving habits. The law shouldn't enumerate a bunch of stuff you can't do while driving--it should simply give the police the ability to pull you over if you are doing something stupid (such a law, I assume, already exists).

> but if you're on the phone, the chances of saying

> "hey, it's getting dicey, i'll call you back when

> i'm through this intersection" are nil.

Rare, but not nil. I rarely talk on a cell phone and even rarely use it when driving but, when I do run into issues, I have no problems saying "Hold on. Gotta drive." and putting the phone aside. I make a conscious point of looking around, checking my mirrors and otherwise not allowing my vision to tunnel when I'm on the phone or in a conversation because I know of the dangers of allowing that to happen. In some ways, that distraction triggers a programmed response to be more attentive. It is when the road is boring, nothing is going on and I am alone in the car that I become distracted, complacent, and more prone to make mistakes.

Time for an educational question.

Who in the state legislature could a Pittsburgh bike person contact with some hope of influencing action?

I wanted to write to someone to tell them that with a few "Share the Road" and other signs letting drivers know it is a bike route and with a clean, paved 15-inch shoulder, the PA bike Route A north of I-70 and south of Pittsburgh would be actually ridable.

I would also include the following:

"It's been reported that some people see a tunnel and a light when they have a near-death experience. I ride a bike on Pennsylvania streets. When *I* have a near-death experience, I usually see a driver talking on a cell phone."

Mick

well, here's how the voting went:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/RC/Public/rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2009&sess_ind=0&rc_body=H&rc_nbr=244

i know wheatley is mine and he voted Y

this is bout to go up in oregon as well

http://bikeportland.org/2009/04/23/cell-phone-texting-ban-out-of-committee-set-for-house-vote-next-week/

i jsut heard something on the radio about a channel 11 reporter testing how being on his cell affected his driving. don't know what time but i'd assume its a primetime news segment. may be interesting, may be fluff i dunno

I was living in a very bicycle friendly city in California last summer when the "hands free" cell phone law took effect. Law of unintended consequences took hold within a week or so.

Since it was against the law to drive and talk on a phone (without a hands free device), you either had to stop talking on your phone, or stop driving. I bet a lot of people stopped talking, and that is great, but a significant amount of people decided to stop driving instead. That is, when their phone rang, they blindly pulled over to the side of the road (the bike lane), put their car in park, and sat there chatting away. Idiots.

Mick: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/county_list.cfm?CNTYLIST=ALLEGHENY

FYI John Pippy just rode his bike from DC to PGH

I almost creamed a cell-phone talking pedestrian who stepped out into the street without looking in Oakland yesterday. (shrug)

Be careful out there.

Mick

i just read somewhere that general hospital visits due to cell phone use is really high due to people not paying attention to where they're walking

What exactly is the point to additional legislation that will not or cannot be enforced? Let's work on enforcing our current traffic laws and see how that can go, shall we?

*posts from phone, while speeding in a construction zone, tailgating, with lights off, seat belt off, stickers in the rearwindow and running off-road diesel*

well, alot of it is sometimes (unfortunatly) after an incident. if you hit someone because you're on your celly, there is no legal protection for the victim.

also, i read another report that making it illegal actually does reduce the amount of people talking while driving.

erok, how many accidents that have been reported to this site cited a distracted driver on a phone as the impetus for the accident? If it's the vast majority, then I get your beef.

Currently, if you're in an accident and the cops report that the other person is at fault, then you have recourse for damages in civil court - where you can sue for money, hospital bills, or a Thurman Munson rookie card.

Unless they write the law that the victim receives a new Merlin from the distracted driver, you are no better off than before.

I understand that this may reduce the number of distracted drivers on the roads, but will this reduce the number of drivers who hit bicyclists? I don't believe it will.

also, i read another report that making it illegal actually does reduce the amount of people talking while driving.

I'm sure that's the case for awhile, but like most traffic laws, I'm sure compliance drops as enforcement drops. See speed limits, stop signs, and traffic lights.

It's not that I think people should talk on the phone and drive at the same time, but I wonder if more lives could saved/accidents averted if the state put more effort into enforcing existing laws? Imagine how much safer the roads would be the majority of the cars were traveling at or below the posted speed limit? I get passed everyday (sometimes at close range) by people driving 30-40 mph on Negley Avenue.

the pa house just voted to ban wireless devices for drivers under 18 yesterday

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09118/966003-454.stm

the thing that irks me is that it's saying that when you turn 18, it's all of the sudden ok to drive and text, use your phone, drive with one hand tied up, etc.

i'm sure at one time it was legal to drive drunk as well, and i'm sure people complained about a nanny gov't too.

I'm sure that's the case for awhile, but like most traffic laws, I'm sure compliance drops as enforcement drops.

no doubt, but the law would allow a cop to pull you over if you are seen with your hand attached to a phone preventing you from using your turn signal.

maybe we just need to make all cars stick shifts. i wonder if this is a problem in places that have a higher stick to automatic ratio

nah i used to have a stick car. you can drive and talk on the phone no problem.

what we really need to do is make this as much of an issue as possible so more and more lower end cars come with built in hands free devices (not those stupid little ear things) it's not low end but the one in my prius works great.

Actually, the right combination would be a stick shift and no power steering.

I, for one, am not complaining about a nanny state. I think traffic law enforcement should be greater. I just don't think we need new laws to do it.

Does anyone know how a cell phone ban would affect vehicles equipped with laptops? I'm thinking of police and delivery/repair vehicles.

i wasn't singling you out for the nanny state comment, it's just one of the main criticisms in general.

i def agree that traffic enforcement should be greater. but i also think a blanket statement saying that we don't need new laws is disregarding the fact that times change and new problems that can and have caused the loss of human life arise that previously didn't exist before. maybe we don't need new laws, but better written laws that are able to reflect and/or adapt to changing times.

i think that the new law that i posted a few back is a good thing. it reflects a change in driving habits in that there are more and more teenage drivers, due to everyone having their own car and living in places that they need one to go anywhere. it may not have been a problem several years ago, when not as many young kids were driving, but now it's become the leading cause of teenage death, as well as contributing to the general carnage and destruction on our roadways.

Of course, guys are right about existing traffic laws. If you watch the parking lots in Shadyside empty out at 2:10 AM saturday morning, you'll see that we need enforcement of the basic traffic laws even more than we need drunk driving laws.

Enforcing the speed limits would greatly increase the safety of cycling, IMO (I haven't seen studies about his.)

On the other hand, when I see a driver doing something totally senseless, generally the folks are talking on the phone.

It is usually low speed stuff, so the behavior probably doesn't increase motorist fatalies much. It could easily be fatal to a cyclist, though.

If cell phone driving were illegal? I would shout at drivers in Oakland who violate the laws - pretty much the same way I shout "YO! IT'S A CROSSWALK, DRUNKARD" or "SLOW DOWN, DRUNKARD!" in the appropriate cicumstances.

I use the word "drunkard" instead of "a$$h*le." I encourage you all to do the same.

Gets witnesses and police instantly on your side.

It's as gratifying as any curse word.

"Get off the road!"

"Yo! DRUNKARD! Learn to drive !"

It feels good. It scares a high proportion of aggressive drivers.

You might be wrong sometime.

Maybe.

Mick

check out this video:

http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/04/29/intexticated-2/

it's of a bus driver that was caught on tape getting into a wreck because he was texting and driving.

intexticated

Didn't this happen with a commuter train about a year ago in LA? the train's operator was on the phone or texting and missed a signal to stop or sumthin...

I like the bus drivers reaction; might make it an avatar...

didn't they mention the train incident it in the video? or was that a different one?

I don't know, I didn't have sound when i watched the video you posted.

another reason why this type of legislation is important is because you don't know what the republicans have up their sleeves.

check out the republican's version of a careless driving (covers cell phones) bill, which pretty much legalizes murder. there's word that it passed the house side, but i'm having trouble confirming

life is worth $500

serious bodily injury is worth $250

if you're on a cell phone, they charge you an extra 50 bucks.

whooopsie! did i do that?!!

it's number is HB502

or you can go to this link.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2009&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=0502

Reedshaw and Vulakovich are local democratic reps sponsoring the bill. Reedshaw is a dog lover and funeral parlor owner, Vulakovich was a cop, so infer what you will.

I cant find at pacode.com what the current penalty for death by motor vehicle is? I don't think this makes it any different at $500???

I'd be more worried of this:

In no event shall a violation or alleged violation under subsection (c.1) be: (i) used as evidence in a trial of any civil action, nor shall any jury in a civil action be instructed that any conduct constitutes or may be interpreted by them to constitute a violation under subsection (c.1);

Whereas, c.1 is the Additional penalty for distracted driver.

So they are also disallowing the penalty of driving while on the phone or texting as evidence in suing for pain and personal anguish.

well, i don't know how this would relate to what they could charge, like involuntary manslaughter or something. would something like this supercede that? because involuntary manslaughter could see jail time, probation, etc

they just passed this in oregon

http://bikeportland.org/2009/06/23/by-one-vote-in-the-senate-oregon-finally-gets-a-cell-phone-ban/

OooOooO The Bill makes it a Primary Offense.

That's good news. Still no hands-free ban, though. One step at a time, I guess....