Yapping motorists found to make long commutes longer

....Which underlines the assertion that if one is on the phone, one is not concentrating on the most important task, that of driving safely!

The State rests.

I can totally agree with this article. I don't know how many times I have been in the passing lane and not been able to go anywhere, because the person in front of me is on the phone cruising at the exact same speed as the guy beside him. That is the most frustrating thing on the road.

The UK have just upped the penalty for Talk-driving to include custodial sentences, if you are convicted of dangerous driving as a result. That's as opposed to careless driving, which carries a penalty of a fine and points on your license (both these also apply to dangerous driving).

To be convicted of dangerous driving is a rarity anyway, they always take the option of careless driving as it's easier to prove in law. So why bother?

I think they go for DD if there's a death or serious injury involved.

The headlines that day were rather extreme: "Those using mobiles whilst driving face prison sentences of up to two years". A little disingenuous.

Why bother? Cos it looks good: Tough on crime and the causes of crime. It's not us, it's them. Yet another cynical marketing exercise by those who think we owe them a living. _{oops. Did I say that out loud?}

I don't think the phone yappers care as they are otherwise occupied with their conversation, so who cares if the drive takes another ten minutes? I know plenty of people who use driving time to work the phone for business.

I'm not sure that there has been a good study done of the effects of mobile usage on accident rates, commute times, etc. There is certainly a lot of frustration regarding phone usage by non-phone users, including myself. But I'm not convinced that the laws and penalties involved are not just a knee-jerk reaction to the frustration rather than the facts. The facts seem to be rather limited.

I don't think the laws and increased penalties are any deterrent as most people live by the "it can't happen to me" rule. But I guess it makes the politicians feel important rather than impotent.

Oops, my cynic is back on....

Since when has stats got anything to do with it? A guy over here was busted for eating a bar of chocolate while sitting at traffic lights.

Personally, I'm convinced they are a danger when mixed with driving.

Hello PlbMak,

A bar of chocolate, with what crime? "Charging Mars".

The UK was once the bright spot in the World, filled with sensible people, who stood up for their rights.

Now the trendy lefties and fellow-travellers are in power, all rights go out the window, we see.

Kind Regards....

Fact is, that anything that takes your attention away from driving is dangerous. Before the advent of cell phones, many accidents were caused by people fooling with the radio. Or eating. I have been guilty of getting involved in serious (or at least intense) conversations or meditating on a work problem and running stop signs or lights.

Most of us see the fallacy of trying to run a power tool or chain saw while talking on the phone. Why not apply the same to automobiles?

Well that is true. I once drove right through a red light whilst watching the derriers of two skimply clad co-eds. Looked up halfway through the intersection and had one of those oh @_)#%!! moments. Fortunately I wasn't hit or ticketed - this was before gatsos.

In my personal opinion ONLY, people who converse on the phone and drive at the same time are not likely to do either activity well enough to bother. There have been studies done (in New York, if memory serves) that showed cell phone usage impaired driving ability to a greater extent than being over the legal blood/alcohol limit. Now visualize that cell phone in the hands of a driver who's in his cups! (How's that for a Briticism, eh?)

Especially if it's the Mother-in-law doing the yapping.

Some are like a chihuahua, and just keep rabbiting on, and on, and on.

All the evidence proves that use of a cellphone causes brain damage.

The more the cellphone is used, close to the head, which resonates internally in the grey matter area, the more neurons are scrambled.

It was common knowledge over 50 years ago, that radio amateur operators (hams) had 7 times the normal number of brain tumours as the average person.

Those studies were carried out in about 50 countries, results the same.

So...drive while talking or listening on the cellphone, and you cannot concentrate properly.

As stated in a Law TV programme years ago....you end up with......a skull full of mush...

As far as Mother's in Law go, mine has passed to her eternal reward or otherwise, so I don't have that problem.

Kind Regards....

I just found this, which I find amazing! Whats the message here? It's recognized that a phone is a distraction enough so that bus drivers and novices cant use them, but everyone else is OK? And what's a jurisdictional ban?

I suspect it defers lawmaking to local jurisdictions - cities or counties may make the call, but the state has not. As someone else pointed out, most of us are capable of recognizing the fallacy of operating power tools or chain saws while using the cell phone, so why are automobiles such a different breed? Personally, if I haven't my Bluetooth Jawbone along, I won't make or accept any calls while driving. And even then, I limit the time and topics I will discuss. To me, driving is a full-time occupation of my skills and senses. And I've never yet had a fatal accident...

Good reference, PibMak! Thanks for pointing it out.

As EnviroMan indicates, "jurisdictional" means that local governments (city or county) have enacted restrictions more severe than the state wide law. While the site does not indicate this, there could also be instances of local governments not enforcing state-wide laws. For instance, I grew up in a town in northern Louisiana. There is (or was) a state wide ban on making right turns at a red light, but the town I lived in chose not to enforce this. So, while there was no law on the books permitting right turn on red, you could do it. The obvious drawback for this is that the local government can chose to start enforcing the law at any time.

The other interesting thing about the Jalopnik site is the instances of primary and secondary enforcement. Primary enforcement meaning that you can be pulled over and cited for violating the law, but in secondary enforcement, you have to do something else wrong -- like run a stop sign -- before you can be pulled over. Then you get two citations! Lovely.