How dangerous is it to take five seconds to read a text message while stopped at a red light?

I just want clarification whether they have defined what "texting" actually envelops.

^

Just don't whip out the phone at a stop light. What are you going to tell the cop when he pulls you over? You're grasping at straws.

If you have the phone in your hand... you qualify for a ticket.

If they see you holding it up to the side of your head... I think it's safe to assume that you're talking on the phone, so you wouldn't get a texting ticket. If you're holding the phone out in front of your face though... reading the screen, or using the buttons to type stuff... I think that would net you the texting fine, which is the additional three points. Or instant death penalty, if you're a "N"ew driver.

But that's just me and common sense speaking. ;)

I love how cell phone users compare their use of cell phones while driving to the useage of mp3 players and touch screen head units.
Ignorant is how I see it.
A cell phone requires longterm mental and physical interaction that NO other devise requires. A quick scroll through an mp3 menu lasts 5 seconds albiet mildly distracting but only a 5 or so second one. A touch screen head unit is no different.
A cell phone on the other hand requires so much more. Everyone is different but I'm sure the average cell phone interaction is much longer then 5 seconds even something as simple as a text.
Now factor the laws of probability
You spend a few random seconds flipin through an mp3 during a 20 minute drive or you spend a few minutes gabbing on your cell phone to your pissed off girlfriend during a 20 minute drive.
What idiot has the higher probability of causing an accident?

Couple hints for the retards.
1) the mp3 isn't yelling at you.
2) the mp3 requires half your driving attention for a few seconds.
3) your phone is screaming in your ear.
4) your phone is requiring half your attention for minutes.
5) your phone is rotfl at your ass as you crashed into the old lady in front of you, driving to slow but you didnt notice cus for the past 5 minutes you were begging your girlfriend to forgive you for watching internet porn on your Iphone while driving.

Thats my argument but the tech addicts will argue the legalities and unfairness just like a heroin addict will argue that his drug of choice is no differnt then beer.

Besides if you talk to your better half all the way home then what do you have to talk about when you get home.

One simple Google got this. In summary, the mental distraction is the problem.

Hands Free Mobile Phone Conversations Add Five Meters To Drivers' Braking Distances
ScienceDaily (Dec. 3, 2008) — Research led by psychology researchers at the University of Warwick reveals that mobile telephone conversations impair drivers' visual attention to such a degree that it can add over 5 metres to the braking distance of a car travelling at 60 miles per hour and causes almost twice as many errors as drivers driving without the distraction of a mobile phone conversation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr Melina Kunar, from the University of Warwick’s Department of Psychology, and Dr Todd Horowitz, from Harvard Medical School, ran a number of experiments in which the participants had to pay attention and respond (by pressing one of two keys on a keyboard) to a series of discs moving around a computer screen.

Some of the participants carried out the task with no distraction. Others carried out the task while also using speaker phones to simultaneously engage in a normal phone conversation, discussing things such as their hobbies and interests. The researchers found that on average the reaction times of those engaging in the hands free telephone conversation were 212 milliseconds slower than those who undertook the task without the simultaneous telephone conversation. A car travelling at 60 miles an hour would travel 5.7 metres (18.7 feet) in that time so the distracting conversation would obviously increase any braking distance at that speed by the same amount. The test participants who were distracted by a phone conversation also made 83% more errors in the task than those not in phone conversations.

The researchers also looked at the effect the hands free telephone conversations had on visual attention if the phone conversation was skewed to a more passively orientated task. To do so they asked the test participants to listen over the speaker phones to a series of words and to repeat each word in turn. The research team also looked at the effect of a much more complicated conversational task in which the test participants had to listen to a series of words and after each word then think of and say a new word which began with the last letter of the word they had just heard.

For the more passive speaking condition, in which words were simply heard and repeated, they found that performance of test participants in this condition was the same as when they took the task without any distraction. However, they found the more complicated conversation in which the test participants were required to create and respond with a new word dramatically worsened the participants’ response times which were on average 480 milliseconds slower than those who undertook the task without any form of distracting telephone conversation. This suggests that hands free telephone conversations which require people to carefully consider the information they hear and then to make complex cognitive choices based on that information (a business decision for instance) have a particularly significant negative impact on a driver’s ability to process and act on the visual information that is critical to their driving performance.

Interestingly the researchers also examined what the effect would be of simply listening to a story while carrying out the task – an experience not unlike listening to speech radio while driving. To test this some of the participants in the experiment tried to complete the task while listening to the first chapter of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. They were also told they would have to answer questions on the story after the task was finished. The researchers found that in fact this activity made very little difference to the test participants response times or accuracy

The lead researcher in the project, Dr Melina Kunar from the University of Warwick’s Department of Psychology, said: “Our research shows that simply using phones hands free is not enough to eliminate significant impacts on a driver’s visual attention. Generating responses for a conversation competes for the brain’s resources with other activities which simply cannot run in parallel. This leads to a cognitive “bottleneck” developing in the brain, particularly with the more complicated task of word generation.”

^^All good points, but remember too, your average MP3 player or other such car electronics require you to look away from the road to operate them, even if for a few seconds. Talking on the phone, whether with handsfree or not, can be done with eyes still focused on the old lady in front of you. Being distracted but still able to see the road is always > not being able to see the road at all.

The blind can drive too
Mythbusters did it with no problems. Its not an issue of visual distraction we are surrounded by those. Look out for that bird!! Its mental distraction thats the issue that is further compounded by visual and physical distraction.

hey guys. if you're reading a text message while driving does that warrant a ticket?

0.212sec does not look like a HUGE difference.

Stopping from 60miles/Hr increased by a car length is not that obvious either.

Someone should conduct a research with more profound result.

:facepalm:
YES.

how many MM in front disc brakes does one need to upgrade to counter the 212ms lag of texting? Im thinking 8 pot 355mm is an order.

Car A with stock brakes takes 125ft to stop from 60 to 0

Car B with a tommy texter has upgraded 8 pot Brembos, he does take a .212 second delayed reaction to stop, but still manages to stop at 87 ft. While getting rear ended by the idiot talking on his cell phone who never even started braking..

If Tommy is texting he won't have even seen the car in front has stopped. Now those shiny brakes are in a wrecking yard waiting to be scooped up by some lucky SOB.

And the rest of the study showed..

The test participants who were distracted by a phone conversation also made 83% more errors in the task than those not in phone conversations.
..........
. This suggests that hands free telephone conversations which require people to carefully consider the information they hear and then to make complex cognitive choices based on that information (a business decision for instance) have a particularly significant negative impact on a driver’s ability to process and act on the visual information that is critical to their driving performance.

this law is gay, those who never got into accident before means they are capable of driving (with 10 years + experience). Seriously if u know/can drive u can drive, doesnt matter what u are doing. As long as ur eyes are on the road. I still answer calls occasionally and check emails when im stop at a light

I understand the rule for interacting with devices, like texting, emails and social sites or games, but cell phone calls are alot less distracting imho. The Laws are far behind the advancement with technology so this step is in the right direction, and if it works in other countries then it probably will work here.


I do look around at traffic lights and see a cell phone in 50% of peoples hands of the cars around me even as of last night. So I dont know how enforced this law is besides what media has told us.

I do know that it will be a tough habit to break since I do not like the bluetooth (look-a-like schizophrenic) stuck in my ear...

And not every car I own has Hands free yet...

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/2555049...or_driving.jpg

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

ok i have a question regarding this new law in BC, but not about cell phones in particular

i checked the link @ icbc which brings up a list of things prohibited

http://www.drivecellsafe.com/docs/ba...teddevices.pdf

to my understanding, i thought the ban was on all electronic devices,
the particular device i am interested in is a radar detector,

in the aforementioned PDF file, it says bans are on "hand-held" devices only, but it's only an informative PDF rather than "the law"
so are radar detectors regulated? (ie. will i get a ticket if i press the mute button with a class 7 license)

this is of no concern to class-5 people because it is ONE TOUCH to mute, but i have a class 7 driver's license.

Sort of a loophole if it works.
I carry around a broken phone!
If i get pulled over, show him the broken phone and say some excuse like i was on my way to a cell phone repair shop.

if your holding a broken phone, is it still subjectable to a ticket? if u carry a bag that contains a gun that was broken into 1000 pieces, is it still considered carrying a firearm?

why on earth would you need to hold it if it's broken? expecting a call from Jesus on that thing? If you get a ticket it's cause they saw you staring at the thing, had it in your hand or had it up to your head. Why would you hold a busted phone to your head?

im not talking about the soundness of carrying a broken phone but the technical aspect.
and its not like cops have telescopic vison, although some use binoculars to catch people.
can the cop still give a ticket? have rights to search the car in suspicion of carrying another phone?lol
is broken phone = still a phone or pieces of plastic?
bottle of mace split into half = still carrying mace? or an empty can?

hey guys i dont want to make a new thread about this but.... can i still use my ipod or no? i connect it to my deck and like the sounds of it better then stupid cds plus cds are a waste and also a waste of space... if i cannot use ipods, well am i allowed to turn on the ipod in park and stash it in the cd holder and listen to the ipod threw the deck? but never touching the ipod while driving?

if you care controlling it TRHOUGH THE DECK i think its ok
u jsut can't mess wth the ipod itself
think of it this way:
u put in a music cd filled with mp3's, same idea, the ipod then just becomes a storage device from which the deck grabs data from

on the contrary, even if you were just using aux plug in, you are allowed to have it there, but you just can't touch it/adjust it/ play with it while you are not parked

cool so i can jus use the ipod switch tracks and put it in the cd holder and they'll never know huh.. unless a cop saw me using the ipod? sounds good to me.

Because they don't want to obey the law, so they try to find a stupid way around it.

It's like putting the front plate on the dash, instead of on the front of the car. Why bother? Because someone out there is stupid enough to try it.

Someone has to pay the fines... glad it's idiots like that guy with the broken phone to his head.

Just out of curiosity, what techniques do emergency vehicle operators use to ensure that they aren't a danger to other drivers while using a phone or two-way radio?

Also, I'd like to know why this law doesn't apply to cyclists.

Interesting but not unexpected observation: an increase in the number of people stopping at the side of the road in "no stopping" zones, pulling into the shoulder lane on a freeway.. eating burgers..