New law effective Sept 12 (safer, car, radio)

[People-of-the-North]

Forest, I agree; I see "line-drifters" a great deal since moving to the Bangor vicinity.
In some cases I lay the blame on the lane-lines being faded into near invisibility. Why do the painted road lines seem to last no more than a single season 'round here? The snow-plows? Cheap paint? Careless painting?

Anyway...I just can't imagine what these people are gabbing about on their cells which they think is more important than risking mangled death and vehicular homicide in a head-on collision at 40 or 50mph ( times two ).

That being said, it's going to be an outrage if this new law is used to persecute a competent driver [ me! ] for taking a sip of coffee while on the road.

I read a statistic a few years back that on a Friday or Saturday, 1 in 3 drivers a person might encounter on a secondary road, after midnight, is legally drunk....but that's another topic.

[starwalker]

Originally Posted by Acadianlion

I think people should shut up and drive when they are in the car.

AMEN!! I holler this (loudly, but apparently not loudly enough to be heard over their conversations and closed windows ) at many drivers each time I venture more than a few miles from home.

[Maineah]

Originally Posted by Acadianlion

Oh, come on! Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. It is not a "freedom", but a privilege granted by the state to someone who supposedly is trained to use a vehicle safely.

Using a cell phone in a car is a distraction, whether hands free or not. IF a cell phone is in use and causes an accident then the person using the phone should be cited and punished.

If memory serves me correctly, not long ago there was a considerable loss of life involving a train operator who was texting or yakking on the cellphone when the train blew through a warning light? Well, how would it be if someone is using a cell phone and misses the flashing lights on a school bus?

I think people should shut up and drive when they are in the car.

If the law was targeted to cell phone use I'd agree with you . If the law specifically said no hand held cell phone use period, no reading, no video, no computers or Blackberries, no headphones or ear buds, I'd say fine. If you're going to write a law give it some teeth. Adding an offense of "distracted driving" on an accident or traffic offense is pretty lame. No one will be pulled over for talking on a hand held device unless the drift over the line, roll a stop sign or fail to signal. If the goal is to out law hand held cell phone use then make it illegal! It's simple ,straightforward and there is no room for interpretation. Pull over to use the phone!

[Acadianlion]

Originally Posted by Maineah

If the law was targeted to cell phone use I'd agree with you . It's the shotgun approach here I do not like. Eating a hamburger with one hand or drinking a soda through a straw is not inherently dangerous. With this law changing the radio station could be considered dangerous. Even playing the radio loudly could be considered a distraction. How about looking at your GPS screen...another distraction? The law is too broad and again gives too much authority to the police. If the law specifically said no hand held cell phone use period, no reading, no video, no computers or Blackberries, no headphones or ear buds, I'd say fine. Beyond that I think it gets a bit nit picky as the actual number of people knitting is probably pretty low!

\

Well disagree as you wish. The simple fact is that driving should involve all of one's focus. The shotgun approach to driving dicipline is the only one that works because a momentary distraction can turn the car into a literal shotgun with killing propensities that are greater than ANY shotgun.

In the 1980's there were several insurance companies in Maine that gave a five per cent discount to people who would certify that they were a non-smoker. The reason was that the insurance industry had done extensive researching about driving and smoking, and the reasearch had given very strong statistical evidence regarding the number of people who smoked with those who were involved in property damage and bodily injury accidents.

In much of the research done, the statistic showed that smokers were more often distracted by the physical acts involved in smoking at critical moments and that smoking was often the final factor in vehicle accidents.

So also is drinking out of a slurpy cup, eating a hamburger, combing your hair, putting on eye makeup, or smacking your kid in the back seat. All of those activities are distraction to driving, and I believe should be illegal.

The obvious solution is to STOP THE CAR, and attend to those details. Fix the radio to the music you like before you put the car into gear; get the kid comfy before closing the doors; get set to drive...get ready to wield a lethal weapon...before you head onto the road, or take aim to shoot. You want a hamburger, stop and get one. You want to drink out of a slurpy cup, stop and do it. THEN drive the car as though your life and someone else's depends on it, because it does.

Now if all of these "distractions" were codified into law, the next question is, would that law be enforceable? The simple answer is, NO. The police have far too many things to do than to insure that drivers are driving using common sense...or have any common sense to begin with.

So what is going to happen is that sooner or later someone will cause a horrendous accident driving something and be absolutely convicted of negligent homicide as a result. Perhaps that person will wander across the line and the big SUV will severely punch a school bus in the nose, causing the death of the school bus driver and the death or permanent disability of a bunch of fifth graders. Whatever the case, the backlash will be one of significant fury, and the police will then be empowered to go after anyone seen holding a cell phone while driving.

It will once again prove that the only thing we ever seem to learn from history is that we never learn from history.

Official disclaimer: I own a cell phone. I only turn it on when I want to make a call out, and I do not receive calls coming in when the phone is on. Most of the time, I forget to carry the thing with me, and it sits, discharged on my desk at home. I like to drive. My issue is not begin distracted because when I am totally focussed on driving. I had better be because I like high powered cars and like to drive fast.

[Maineah]

Originally Posted by Acadianlion

\

Well disagree as you wish. The simple fact is that driving should involve all of one's focus. The shotgun approach to driving dicipline is the only one that works because a momentary distraction can turn the car into a literal shotgun with killing propensities that are greater than ANY shotgun.

In the 1980's there were several insurance companies in Maine that gave a five per cent discount to people who would certify that they were a non-smoker. The reason was that the insurance industry had done extensive researching about driving and smoking, and the reasearch had given very strong statistical evidence regarding the number of people who smoked with those who were involved in property damage and bodily injury accidents.

In much of the research done, the statistic showed that smokers were more often distracted by the physical acts involved in smoking at critical moments and that smoking was often the final factor in vehicle accidents.

So also is drinking out of a slurpy cup, eating a hamburger, combing your hair, putting on eye makeup, or smacking your kid in the back seat. All of those activities are distraction to driving, and I believe should be illegal.

The obvious solution is to STOP THE CAR, and attend to those details. Fix the radio to the music you like before you put the car into gear; get the kid comfy before closing the doors; get set to drive...get ready to wield a lethal weapon...before you head onto the road, or take aim to shoot. You want a hamburger, stop and get one. You want to drink out of a slurpy cup, stop and do it. THEN drive the car as though your life and someone else's depends on it, because it does.

Now if all of these "distractions" were codified into law, the next question is, would that law be enforceable? The simple answer is, NO. The police have far too many things to do than to insure that drivers are driving using common sense...or have any common sense to begin with.

So what is going to happen is that sooner or later someone will cause a horrendous accident driving something and be absolutely convicted of negligent homicide as a result. Perhaps that person will wander across the line and the big SUV will severely punch a school bus in the nose, causing the death of the school bus driver and the death or permanent disability of a bunch of fifth graders. Whatever the case, the backlash will be one of significant fury, and the police will then be empowered to go after anyone seen holding a cell phone while driving.
It will once again prove that the only thing we ever seem to learn from history is that we never learn from history.

Official disclaimer: I own a cell phone. I only turn it on when I want to make a call out, and I do not receive calls coming in when the phone is on. Most of the time, I forget to carry the thing with me, and it sits, discharged on my desk at home. I like to drive. My issue is not begin distracted because when I am totally focussed on driving. I had better be because I like high powered cars and like to drive fast.

Which is why the law is pointless. After-the-fact added offenses will do nothing to stop the general public from distracted driving. Yes all of the things you mentioned make up, hair fixing etc.are distracting. The problem is not these infrequent distractions the problem is cell phone use and black berries. It seems to me if you want to do something to improve the safety of everyone on the road out law hand held devices and allow cops to pull people over who are using them. There are states where radar detectors are illegal and a cop can pull you over and write you a ticket for having it in the car. Why not the same law with hand held devices?
It's typical woosie legislation from the wimps in Augusta . The same people who mandate seat belt use and car seats for kids yet will not pass a helmet law for motorcyclists.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

Kids don't vote. Motorcycle riders do.

[Acadianlion]

Originally Posted by Maineah

Which is why the law is pointless.

I quite agree. But this is a process, and as the citizenry demonstrates that it cannot regulate itself, and its acts routinely damage others, the laws will get more and more stringent.

Remember the laws are advanced by the legislators and bureaucrats who are reflecting those who elect them.

[Maineah]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

Kids don't vote. Motorcycle riders do.

I doubt they are afraid of voters. They're scared the United Bikers of Maine will rally at the Capitol again like they did when they tried to pass a helmet law several years ago.
The legislature has no problem passing laws on those who cannot or will not stand up for themselves but will crawl under their rock when faced with loud objections.The lack of logic in NOT passing a helmet law when seatbelts and car seats are mandatory just proves the point. The legislature is intimidated and spineless.

[dubthang]

I hope you all realize that it is not the phone itself, but the conversation. There have been multiple studies done that prove it's the act of thinking and talking that cause the distraction. That means you shouldn't talk to your passengers either.

I find the law to be pretty simple. NH has a similar one. It just makes it easier to find guilt.

[Syngar99]

i see it like this- police are not suddenly going to crack down on anyone they see using a phone, this law however DOES give them latitude to punish drivers they deem to be driving in an affected manner.
if my experience with androscoggin sheriffs are any indication they'd rather notr stop you at all. if however u drive past one with a cell phone in hand and make wobbly turns, expect to be talked to.