All I'm going to add is the first thing the cops did in my sister's car wreck yesterday was confiscate the cell phones. It has been termed "an ongoing investigation".
So.
I got in an accident 3 years ago and the bastards WOULD NOT look at the other guy's phone. I told them that I saw him on his phone as he barreled into us, and, nope, they wouldn't do it. My only guess was that because there were no serious injuries they wouldn't take the extra step. But that asshole totaled two cars, plus whatever damage he did to his own.
I'm not upset at all. There's simply nothing to source. Also, it's not really a question of being wrong.
I am sure that I sound defensive largely because I was being asked to defend a point that I am not making. The internet does not always convey tone well. I'll debate but I am not upset over this. I am upset about many things that are happening in this world right now but not this.
Tempest in a teacup ...
Yes, it is a question of being wrong. You assert that checking your phone at a light is perfectly fine. That there is nothing wrong with doing so. Ok, so what do you have other than your own personal experiences that are not clouded by the fact that you do not want to stop doing that action?
Downplaying the argument because you cannot find sources to back you up isn't helping your case. So again I ask, source?
I'm not asserting that there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to be put in the position of defending people who text and drive. I'm not producing a source about a throwaway comment that I made. I feel no need to defend my first comment but I did feel a need to correct the implication that I support texting and driving (ie: operating a moving vehicle and a device simultaneously). We could debate the definition of driving, if you like? The dictionary provides many. Personally, I don't see the point of such a debate. As I've said, I feel no desire to defend driving while using a cellphone. This is why I am not interested in providing a source. If I thought it were necessary or relevant, then I certainly would.
As for the question about personal experiences, I could answer it but I don't see the relevancy. I think that the attempt is being made to accuse me of a point that I do not want to make. If you'd like to debate me on something, I suggest you pick another topic.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that a source is required in order to have any thought whatsoever. I have no interest in arguing for anti-empiricism, but come on now? I will happily defend the right to independent thinking. Anyway, this has certainly livened up the day. Thanks for that.
Yes, it is a question of being wrong. You assert that checking your phone at a light is perfectly fine. That there is nothing wrong with doing so. Ok, so what do you have other than your own personal experiences that are not clouded by the fact that you do not want to stop doing that action?
Downplaying the argument because you cannot find sources to back you up isn't helping your case. So again I ask, source?
I'm not asserting that there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to be put in the position of defending people who text and drive. I'm not producing a source about a throwaway comment that I made. I feel no need to defend my first comment but I did feel a need to correct the implication that I support texting and driving (ie: operating a moving vehicle and a device simultaneously). We could debate the definition of driving, if you like? The dictionary provides many. Personally, I don't see the point of such a debate. As I've said, I feel no desire to defend driving while using a cellphone. This is why I am not interested in providing a source. If I thought it were necessary or relevant, then I certainly would.
As for the question about personal experiences, I could answer it but I don't see the relevancy. I think that the attempt is being made to accuse me of a point that I do not want to make. If you'd like to debate me on something, I suggest you pick another topic.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that a source is required in order to have any thought whatsoever. I have no interest in arguing for anti-empiricism, but come on now? I will happily defend the right to independent thinking. Anyway, this has certainly livened up the day. Thanks for that.
So people that get on their phones at a stop light shift into park each and every time? Because that is the only way that someone cannot be really operating a vehicle. Otherwise, a foot could move, you could think the light changes but it doesn't and you go forward. I have seen so many accidents where a protected left turn gets a green arrow and people in the straight lane move. Someone on their phone also won't be as aware of pedestrians and cyclists as someone who isn't on their phone.
All I'm going to add is the first thing the cops did in my sister's car wreck yesterday was confiscate the cell phones. It has been termed "an ongoing investigation".
So.
Wait - what?!? Was she arrested? I missed the story, sorry. Police need a warrant to search phones.
No, she wasn't. I don't think the other woman was either.
All I know is the police have her phone. It is illegal to be texting and driving in WI and the accident was such that they're looking into whether there was cause of distracted driving or intoxication.
Yes, it is a question of being wrong. You assert that checking your phone at a light is perfectly fine. That there is nothing wrong with doing so. Ok, so what do you have other than your own personal experiences that are not clouded by the fact that you do not want to stop doing that action?
Downplaying the argument because you cannot find sources to back you up isn't helping your case. So again I ask, source?
I'm not asserting that there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to be put in the position of defending people who text and drive. I'm not producing a source about a throwaway comment that I made. I feel no need to defend my first comment but I did feel a need to correct the implication that I support texting and driving (ie: operating a moving vehicle and a device simultaneously). We could debate the definition of driving, if you like? The dictionary provides many. Personally, I don't see the point of such a debate. As I've said, I feel no desire to defend driving while using a cellphone. This is why I am not interested in providing a source. If I thought it were necessary or relevant, then I certainly would.
As for the question about personal experiences, I could answer it but I don't see the relevancy. I think that the attempt is being made to accuse me of a point that I do not want to make. If you'd like to debate me on something, I suggest you pick another topic.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that a source is required in order to have any thought whatsoever. I have no interest in arguing for anti-empiricism, but come on now? I will happily defend the right to independent thinking. Anyway, this has certainly livened up the day. Thanks for that.
Since you're a circular argument/bury them with words type of person, let me remind you of what you are supposed to be sourcing. "I think it should be ok to use a phone briefly when you are waiting at a red light or stuck in extremely congested (not moving) traffic. "
Your simple task is to provide sources on why this is safe. If you'd stop trying to bury me with words, MAYBE we'd get somewhere. (FYI, the bury with words tactic is SBP's and she might get you for trademark infringement.)
Wait - what?!? Was she arrested? I missed the story, sorry. Police need a warrant to search phones.
Arguably, there's a distinction between confiscating the phone and actively searching the contents of the phone without a warrant. The phone itself could be a piece of evidence, but three police would need to submit a warrant affidavit before searching call history, etc. The Riley decision even specifically mentions turning the phone off or putting it into a particular type of evidence bag while awaiting a warrant as a counterpoint to the state's "destruction of evidence" argument.
Also, the exigent circumstances exception can still apply based on the facts of individual cases.
So it's probably smart to have an unlock code on your phone in this instance, huh? Just wondering - I don't use an unlock code so anyone can see anything on my phone if they picked it up.
I said that stopping people who use a cellphone while stopped at a red light is IMO hardly a priority. All I've said is that if I am stuck at a light, I might dash out a, "Be there in 10 mins," or, "Stuck in traffic but coming," text and then the phone goes away. That doesn't require a source, it isn't an opinion. I'm not suggesting that it's something that everyone should do either. By the way, I keep an eye on the light or car in front if sending such a message and I live in a congested area where people sit at stoplights a lot. There are plenty of stats about how congested my area is.
Did you miss the study cited earlier in the thread that says THIS IS DANGEROUS?
I said that stopping people who use a cellphone while stopped at a red light is IMO hardly a priority. All I've said is that if I am stuck at a light, I might dash out a, "Be there in 10 mins," or, "Stuck in traffic but coming," text and then the phone goes away. That doesn't require a source, it isn't an opinion. I'm not suggesting that it's something that everyone should do either. By the way, I keep an eye on the light or car in front if sending such a message and I live in a congested area where people sit at stoplights a lot. There are plenty of stats about how congested my area is.
Did you miss the study cited earlier in the thread that says THIS IS DANGEROUS?
pffft... It's not a priority to her, so why would she want to read the actual research on this? She'd rather spend her time writing super big words to confuse the peons with her intelligence.
Like I said, I'm done with most arguments on this. Obviously the people who continue to think this (as in any cell phone use in the car unless it is completely stopped and out of traffic) is safe are not reading the articles posted. Making them actually find the research to prove their claims (of which there is none out there), will maybe get them actually read the literature.
Post by penguingrrl on Jul 31, 2014 14:21:19 GMT -5
I absolutely think that unless your car is in park and out of the way of traffic the driver has absolutely no business touching their phone. If you need to change the navigation app, check a text, make a call, etc. you need to pull over and park to do so. But I can't get behind making it impossible for passengers to use their phones. I would wholly support far stricter punishments for using a phone while driving, more in line with drinking and driving than with speeding, to reduce the number of people using phones while driving.
Wait - what?!? Was she arrested? I missed the story, sorry. Police need a warrant to search phones.
Arguably, there's a distinction between confiscating the phone and actively searching the contents of the phone without a warrant. The phone itself could be a piece of evidence, but three police would need to submit a warrant affidavit before searching call history, etc. The Riley decision even specifically mentions turning the phone off or putting it into a particular type of evidence bag while awaiting a warrant as a counterpoint to the state's "destruction of evidence" argument.
Also, the exigent circumstances exception can still apply based on the facts of individual cases.
I absolutely think that unless your car is in park and out of the way of traffic the driver has absolutely no business touching their phone. If you need to change the navigation app, check a text, make a call, etc. you need to pull over and park to do so. But I can't get behind making it impossible for passengers to use their phones. I would wholly support far stricter punishments for using a phone while driving, more in line with drinking and driving than with speeding, to reduce the number of people using phones while driving.
There's a cell use in the car commercial that I wish I could find. It's about a girl who is driving, and one of her friends holds her phone out to show her something, and then they run into a truck.
There is just too much temptation and, "but it's just" for people to be responsible about any use of a phone in the car. I think we've proven that over and over again.
I'm not asserting that there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to be put in the position of defending people who text and drive. I'm not producing a source about a throwaway comment that I made. I feel no need to defend my first comment but I did feel a need to correct the implication that I support texting and driving (ie: operating a moving vehicle and a device simultaneously). We could debate the definition of driving, if you like? The dictionary provides many. Personally, I don't see the point of such a debate. As I've said, I feel no desire to defend driving while using a cellphone. This is why I am not interested in providing a source. If I thought it were necessary or relevant, then I certainly would.
As for the question about personal experiences, I could answer it but I don't see the relevancy. I think that the attempt is being made to accuse me of a point that I do not want to make. If you'd like to debate me on something, I suggest you pick another topic.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that a source is required in order to have any thought whatsoever. I have no interest in arguing for anti-empiricism, but come on now? I will happily defend the right to independent thinking. Anyway, this has certainly livened up the day. Thanks for that.
So people that get on their phones at a stop light shift into park each and every time? Because that is the only way that someone cannot be really operating a vehicle. Otherwise, a foot could move, you could think the light changes but it doesn't and you go forward. I have seen so many accidents where a protected left turn gets a green arrow and people in the straight lane move. Someone on their phone also won't be as aware of pedestrians and cyclists as someone who isn't on their phone.
Many things can cause theoretical risks. Can you honestly say that you live your life so that you avoid ever being exposed to any risk? It would be possible to come up with a lot of other examples but I won't. In the case of being stopped at a red light, do you put up the brake any time that you sip a coffee, change the radio, or check something in your car while stopped at a light because in theory your foot could slip? Do you not make a reasonable estimation based on experience of how long the light will be red and then keep an eye on it while doing these things? Do you not do them towards the beginning of when you are stopped and then resume the position as the light changes or watch the flow of the rest of traffic to determine where in its rotation the light is?
I absolutely think that unless your car is in park and out of the way of traffic the driver has absolutely no business touching their phone. If you need to change the navigation app, check a text, make a call, etc. you need to pull over and park to do so. But I can't get behind making it impossible for passengers to use their phones. I would wholly support far stricter punishments for using a phone while driving, more in line with drinking and driving than with speeding, to reduce the number of people using phones while driving.
There's a cell use in the car commercial that I wish I could find. It's about a girl who is driving, and one of her friends holds her phone out to show her something, and then they run into a truck.
There is just too much temptation and, "but it's just" for people to be responsible about any use of a phone in the car. I think we've proven that over and over again.
****stuck in the box****
Alright, you have a point on that. Idiots really do ruin everything. I was thinking about the amount of time DH spends working during long car rides (I'm always our driver) to visit people because that means he's not sneaking off to check on work stuff while we're visiting (which is what he did before he got a smartphone this year), but if that's the only way to make people realize they need to watch the road and wait to see the funny picture until they pull over then I do support it.
So people that get on their phones at a stop light shift into park each and every time? Because that is the only way that someone cannot be really operating a vehicle. Otherwise, a foot could move, you could think the light changes but it doesn't and you go forward. I have seen so many accidents where a protected left turn gets a green arrow and people in the straight lane move. Someone on their phone also won't be as aware of pedestrians and cyclists as someone who isn't on their phone.
Many things can cause theoretical risks. Can you honestly say that you live your life so that you avoid ever being exposed to any risk? It would be possible to come up with a lot of other examples but I won't. In the case of being stopped at a red light, do you put up the brake any time that you sip a coffee, change the radio, or check something in your car while stopped at a light because in theory your foot could slip? Do you not make a reasonable estimation based on experience of how long the light will be red and then keep an eye on it while doing these things? Do you not do them towards the beginning of when you are stopped and then resume the position as the light changes or watch the flow of the rest of traffic to determine where in its rotation the light is?
HEY! ::waves arms:: We have the sources to prove you're wrong. Actual legitimate studies that say you are 100% wrong. Where are yours?
Arguably, there's a distinction between confiscating the phone and actively searching the contents of the phone without a warrant. The phone itself could be a piece of evidence, but three police would need to submit a warrant affidavit before searching call history, etc. The Riley decision even specifically mentions turning the phone off or putting it into a particular type of evidence bag while awaiting a warrant as a counterpoint to the state's "destruction of evidence" argument.
Also, the exigent circumstances exception can still apply based on the facts of individual cases.
I'm going to go with probably this.
Here is a description of the accident. I will hide in spoilers and will DD later. I know spoilers tags can't hide it on phones/app so skip past now if you want...
So people that get on their phones at a stop light shift into park each and every time? Because that is the only way that someone cannot be really operating a vehicle. Otherwise, a foot could move, you could think the light changes but it doesn't and you go forward. I have seen so many accidents where a protected left turn gets a green arrow and people in the straight lane move. Someone on their phone also won't be as aware of pedestrians and cyclists as someone who isn't on their phone.
Many things can cause theoretical risks. Can you honestly say that you live your life so that you avoid ever being exposed to any risk? It would be possible to come up with a lot of other examples but I won't. In the case of being stopped at a red light, do you put up the brake any time that you sip a coffee, change the radio, or check something in your car while stopped at a light because in theory your foot could slip? Do you not make a reasonable estimation based on experience of how long the light will be red and then keep an eye on it while doing these things? Do you not do them towards the beginning of when you are stopped and then resume the position as the light changes or watch the flow of the rest of traffic to determine where in its rotation the light is?
You are being purposely obtuse here. Several other posters have provided FACTS with how different and how much more someone is distracted by using their cellphone while operating a vehicle. You are blatantly choosing to ignore those facts in order to favor your own opinion that it is harmless.
By your logic, let's just all stop wearing seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcycle. Because wearing a helmet or a seatbelt doesn't negate every single theoretical risk, so what is the point right?
ETA because this topic always makes me rage: Not everyone HAS the experience yet to be able to figure things out, and the whole human error thing. You really want to say it is OK for a teenager to be on their phone when they by default don't have the experience? What about the oldz, there are cases where they can have issues as well, but HEY LETS ALL CHECK OUR PHONES! And you know what, sometimes lights do weird things. I've been at lights where it completely skips a cycle when it isn't supposed to. And yes, as I will reiterate, let's just start going forward when your neighbor starts moving, except OOPS your neighbor is turning left and you've just side-swiped a car turning left in front of you. But at least you could send that text message.
Post by quickstepstar on Jul 31, 2014 14:43:45 GMT -5
I will fully own that I was completely wrong with my previous assertion of having a conversation with a passenger is the same as having a phone conversation. I had not previously seen any studies to suggest the contrary. The studies on how it impacts the brain are very interesting.
My other question still stands: do people think that listening to audio books is the same as listening to the radio, or more akin to having a conversation?
I absolutely think that unless your car is in park and out of the way of traffic the driver has absolutely no business touching their phone. If you need to change the navigation app, check a text, make a call, etc. you need to pull over and park to do so. But I can't get behind making it impossible for passengers to use their phones. I would wholly support far stricter punishments for using a phone while driving, more in line with drinking and driving than with speeding, to reduce the number of people using phones while driving.
In my ideal world, we would have the technology that isolates the drivers seat area and blocks out all cell features/doesn't allow changes to be made while the vehicle is in motion.
All I'm going to add is the first thing the cops did in my sister's car wreck yesterday was confiscate the cell phones. It has been termed "an ongoing investigation".
So.
That doesn't surprise me. The first thing the State Patrolman asked me when I regained consciousness from my wreck was "were you texting?" And that was five years ago.
I'm not asserting that there's nothing wrong with it. I don't want to be put in the position of defending people who text and drive. I'm not producing a source about a throwaway comment that I made. I feel no need to defend my first comment but I did feel a need to correct the implication that I support texting and driving (ie: operating a moving vehicle and a device simultaneously). We could debate the definition of driving, if you like? The dictionary provides many. Personally, I don't see the point of such a debate. As I've said, I feel no desire to defend driving while using a cellphone. This is why I am not interested in providing a source. If I thought it were necessary or relevant, then I certainly would.
As for the question about personal experiences, I could answer it but I don't see the relevancy. I think that the attempt is being made to accuse me of a point that I do not want to make. If you'd like to debate me on something, I suggest you pick another topic.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that a source is required in order to have any thought whatsoever. I have no interest in arguing for anti-empiricism, but come on now? I will happily defend the right to independent thinking. Anyway, this has certainly livened up the day. Thanks for that.
So people that get on their phones at a stop light shift into park each and every time? Because that is the only way that someone cannot be really operating a vehicle. Otherwise, a foot could move, you could think the light changes but it doesn't and you go forward. I have seen so many accidents where a protected left turn gets a green arrow and people in the straight lane move. Someone on their phone also won't be as aware of pedestrians and cyclists as someone who isn't on their phone.
Yes. I don't really text, but I'll futz with my music on my phone (skip a song or two, change playlists, etc.) which I imagine is roughly the same thing. If my face is in a screen I shift into park.
So people that get on their phones at a stop light shift into park each and every time? Because that is the only way that someone cannot be really operating a vehicle. Otherwise, a foot could move, you could think the light changes but it doesn't and you go forward. I have seen so many accidents where a protected left turn gets a green arrow and people in the straight lane move. Someone on their phone also won't be as aware of pedestrians and cyclists as someone who isn't on their phone.
Yes. I don't really text, but I'll futz with my music on my phone (skip a song or two, change playlists, etc.) which I imagine is roughly the same thing. If my face is in a screen I shift into park.
Yes. I don't really text, but I'll futz with my music on my phone (skip a song or two, change playlists, etc.) which I imagine is roughly the same thing. If my face is in a screen I shift into park.
You're in park while in a drive lane/traffic?
Stoplight. There are two or three long ones in our area, and I will admit that if I get there right when the light changes, I've grabbed my phone to change the song or whatever.
Stoplight. There are two or three long ones in our area, and I will admit that if I get there right when the light changes, I've grabbed my phone to change the song or whatever.
Please don't put your car in park while in traffic.
I will fully own that I was completely wrong with my previous assertion of having a conversation with a passenger is the same as having a phone conversation. I had not previously seen any studies to suggest the contrary. The studies on how it impacts the brain are very interesting.
My other question still stands: do people think that listening to audio books is the same as listening to the radio, or more akin to having a conversation?
I have no idea, but I know that I personally can't listen to an audio book while I'm driving. I zone out into lala imagination land.
Post by karinothing on Jul 31, 2014 15:11:48 GMT -5
This is one of the benefits to not having a smartphone! I can't do most of this stuff while driving
I also refuse to use the phone if DS is in the car and since I basically have no life he is pretty much in the car with me 99% of the time. So it is easy for me not to use the phone.
Many things can cause theoretical risks. Can you honestly say that you live your life so that you avoid ever being exposed to any risk? It would be possible to come up with a lot of other examples but I won't. In the case of being stopped at a red light, do you put up the brake any time that you sip a coffee, change the radio, or check something in your car while stopped at a light because in theory your foot could slip? Do you not make a reasonable estimation based on experience of how long the light will be red and then keep an eye on it while doing these things? Do you not do them towards the beginning of when you are stopped and then resume the position as the light changes or watch the flow of the rest of traffic to determine where in its rotation the light is?
You are being purposely obtuse here. Several other posters have provided FACTS with how different and how much more someone is distracted by using their cellphone while operating a vehicle. You are blatantly choosing to ignore those facts in order to favor your own opinion that it is harmless.
By your logic, let's just all stop wearing seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcycle. Because wearing a helmet or a seatbelt doesn't negate every single theoretical risk, so what is the point right?
ETA because this topic always makes me rage: Not everyone HAS the experience yet to be able to figure things out, and the whole human error thing. You really want to say it is OK for a teenager to be on their phone when they by default don't have the experience? What about the oldz, there are cases where they can have issues as well, but HEY LETS ALL CHECK OUR PHONES! And you know what, sometimes lights do weird things. I've been at lights where it completely skips a cycle when it isn't supposed to. And yes, as I will reiterate, let's just start going forward when your neighbor starts moving, except OOPS your neighbor is turning left and you've just side-swiped a car turning left in front of you. But at least you could send that text message.
Ok, I've clearly said multiple times that I have no interest in defending cellphone use while driving. People are trying to drag me into a debate that I do not want to have and repeatedly have said that I do not want to have. That is the reason that I haven't dragged out sources.
I will fully own that I was completely wrong with my previous assertion of having a conversation with a passenger is the same as having a phone conversation. I had not previously seen any studies to suggest the contrary. The studies on how it impacts the brain are very interesting.
My other question still stands: do people think that listening to audio books is the same as listening to the radio, or more akin to having a conversation?
I have no idea, but I know that I personally can't listen to an audio book while I'm driving. I zone out into lala imagination land.
You are being purposely obtuse here. Several other posters have provided FACTS with how different and how much more someone is distracted by using their cellphone while operating a vehicle. You are blatantly choosing to ignore those facts in order to favor your own opinion that it is harmless.
By your logic, let's just all stop wearing seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcycle. Because wearing a helmet or a seatbelt doesn't negate every single theoretical risk, so what is the point right?
ETA because this topic always makes me rage: Not everyone HAS the experience yet to be able to figure things out, and the whole human error thing. You really want to say it is OK for a teenager to be on their phone when they by default don't have the experience? What about the oldz, there are cases where they can have issues as well, but HEY LETS ALL CHECK OUR PHONES! And you know what, sometimes lights do weird things. I've been at lights where it completely skips a cycle when it isn't supposed to. And yes, as I will reiterate, let's just start going forward when your neighbor starts moving, except OOPS your neighbor is turning left and you've just side-swiped a car turning left in front of you. But at least you could send that text message.
Ok, I've clearly said multiple times that I have no interest in defending cellphone use while driving. People are trying to drag me into a debate that I do not want to have and repeatedly have said that I do not want to have. That is the reason that I haven't dragged out sources.
I don't see the point in saying anything else.
No. We're asking about your data for cell phone use while stopped at a light. I even reminded you of this several posts back.