Cobb police ticket Alabama man for ‘eating while driving’ (condo, zoned)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by OuiOui

When police stop operating their laptops and walkies while driving, maybe I'll consider changing my habits. I've almost been rear-ended by a cop who was staring at his computer screen while accelerating. Oh, but that's ok?

Of course not, and that's a prefect example of the dangers of distracted driving.

And come on, it's not impossible in the least to pull over for a few minutes to eat and then get back on the road. Sounds like you just don't want to.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

All that said was eating increases reaction time the most. If they're really gonna go after distracted driving, they need to ban phone calls or at least require hands free. I've been in so many cars with people so engrossed in their conversations that they lose track of their speed or start moving back and forth in the lane. My mom's really bad about that. She'll go 65 then over 70 then back down. Changing lanes while driving down the freeway with a phone in one hand up to your head? Good luck.

I would strongly support banning the use of phones while operating a moving vehicle. It's simply unnecessary. Just pull over, make your call and then continue on.

Most people have no idea how much ground they're moving even if they divert their attention for a couple of seconds. As I mentioned above, a vehicle goes half the length of a football field in 1.7 seconds at 60 mph.

Can anyone justify taking their eyes off the road for that distance?

[bigstick]

Police are way too much in our face these days...

[billl]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, if you are hands-free at least you have both arms and hands free to devote to the task at hand, namely, piloting your two tons of metal through a crowded area. Personally I'd be okay with banning all cell phone use while operating a moving vehicle. Until about 15 years ago we got along just fine that way.

I used to eat Wendy's shakes while driving down the road at 60 mph. And that was far longer than 15 years ago. I got along just fine.

I still haven't heard a good reason why cell phones should be banned entirely. Talking on the phone hands-free does not require looking down at a hamburger (or anything else for that matter).

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by billl

Should we also ban conversations with passengers, too? Require all cars to have an isolated sound-proof booth for the driver? How is conversing on a cell phone hands-free different than conversing with someone in the car? It isn't the conversation that's distracting (for most people anyway). It's looking down to find the number and place the call. Or ... worse ... respond to a text message.

There's been some discussion on it. The general idea is that when you actually have someone in the car with you, you are also responsible for their well being and they can give you feedback. It's just different talking to someone over a speaker and talking to someone a few feet away.

Originally Posted by arjay57

I would strongly support banning the use of phones while operating a moving vehicle. It's simply unnecessary. Just pull over, make your call and then continue on.

Most people have no idea how much ground they're moving even if they divert their attention for a couple of seconds. As I mentioned above, a vehicle goes half the length of a football field in 1.7 seconds at 60 mph.

Can anyone justify taking their eyes off the road for that distance?

The only problem I have with that, is that you can typically see a lot farther ahead of you than a football field at a time. Driving down the freeway you can see up to a few miles (depending on where you are, here, often less from hills and trees). I'm not concerned with missing a football field when I can see up to 20 fields ahead of me.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

The only problem I have with that, is that you can typically see a lot farther ahead of you than a football field at a time. Driving down the freeway you can see up to a few miles (depending on where you are, here, often less from hills and trees). I'm not concerned with missing a football field when I can see up to 20 fields ahead of me.

I agree but here's the thing. Suppose you avert your eyes for 1.7 seconds to take a big gobble of your cheeseburger. That means the next 9-10 car lengths (150 feet) are basically a dead zone to you -- anything that happens in that area you won't see it.

Who would claim they can drive safely with the upcoming 10 car lengths blacked out to them?

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I agree but here's the thing. Suppose you avert your eyes for 1.7 seconds to take a big gobble of your cheeseburger. That means the next 9-10 car lengths (150 feet) are basically a dead zone to you -- anything that happens in that area you won't see it.

Who would claim they can drive safely with the upcoming 10 car lengths blacked out to them?

That's three hundredths of a mile. A tiny distance when driving. Signs for lanes ending start showing up anywhere from 1000 to 2000 feet depending on the road. Turn lane decelleration length (page 11) standards are longer for just 30 mph. My point is you can see much further than 150 feet at a time. I was driving down 985 earlier today. Not much traffic and on many stretches I could see a mile or more. There was a car over half a mile away and obviously there were no entrances for other cars. Even if that car suddenly stopped instantly, I would have almost half a minute at 70 mph before I would encounter that car. Not seeing 150 feet really isn't a concern because I am not limited to seeing just 150 feet at a time. I can see much farther than that. Even if something suddenly came up at 200 feet ahead of me, with reaction and braking times I wouldn't have a chance to avoid it. Which is why dense fog is so dangerous, your field of view is limited so greatly. Now on a busy road with cars turning out or a residential area with walkers and cyclists, one can't see as far and the amount of roadway clear up ahead is much smaller. Even at slower speeds it is a lot more dangerous to look down momentarily.

In short, I'm not worried about 150 feet blacked out because I can see much farther down the road by several hundred feet. And if anything does suddenly pop up in 150 feet at high speeds, it would already be too late to stop (say a deer runs out in front of you).

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I agree but here's the thing. Suppose you avert your eyes for 1.7 seconds to take a big gobble of your cheeseburger. That means the next 9-10 car lengths (150 feet) are basically a dead zone to you -- anything that happens in that area you won't see it.

Who would claim they can drive safely with the upcoming 10 car lengths blacked out to them?

1.7 seconds is a very long time to even have your eyes off the road. Very few people stare down their food before taking a bite. Bringing your hand to your mouth once you've located the food can be done with all eyes on the road, that's why that same motion is done as part of a field sobriety test. I'd say the time is much lower, around .4 seconds or so which at your 60mph is about 35 feet.

[LovelySummer]

I think the idea is not that you won't notice and have time to react to a traffic sign. It's more basic than that. The basic idea is that you could run into someone in that time you are looking away. That someone could be in a car that has had to break or otherwise slow down, on a motorcycle, walking down the highway for gas, standing near a stalled vehicle. You've just run into each of these persons at 60 miles an hour. Does that make more sense as to why someone may want people to not look away?

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

That's three hundredths of a mile. A tiny distance when driving. Signs for lanes ending start showing up anywhere from 1000 to 2000 feet depending on the road. Turn lane decelleration length (page 11) standards are longer for just 30 mph.

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by LovelySummer

I think the idea is not that you won't notice and have time to react to a traffic sign. It's more basic than that. The basic idea is that you could run into someone in that time you are looking away. That someone could be in a car that has had to break or otherwise slow down, on a motorcycle, walking down the highway for gas, standing near a stalled vehicle. You've just run into each of these persons at 60 miles an hour. Does that make more sense as to why someone may want people to not look away?

If you hit someone because you looked down for 1.7 seconds, you're following too closely to begin with. If I were in that much traffic I simply wouldn't do it. That's my point, you can see all those things from far away. Much farther than 150 feet. Soon I'll be on 85 driving to work and I wouldn't dare look down for food because I won't be able to see that far down the road and there will be considerable traffic just ahead of me. But on a Sunday afternoon driving down the highway with limited traffic does not have that same issue. I see a tree in the road 750 feet ahead of me. I look down for a second, I'm still 500 feet away. Not a problem. There are school kids that got off a bus 200 feet ahead of me. I'm not gonna look, it's way too close. I'm not endorsing eating a burger driving through downtown in rush hour.