Ban on cell phone use while driving in Chambana?
I almost got hit by a truck walking to work this morning. I was on the corner of 4th and Springfield waiting for the pedestrian light to change. I saw a huge construction truck sitting in the turn lane also waiting for the green light. During the light-change down-time, my eyes met with the driver’s and I thought we communicated that yes, I will be crossing the street when that pedestrian light turns on. The light changes and I’m quarter-way across the intersection when this truck turned and started speeding my way. I jumped back and when the driver realized that I could have been under his tires if I hadn’t moved in time, he mouthed, “I’m sorry” and threw up a hand in apology.
I didn’t mention that between our eye-contact just seconds earlier and the potential hit, the driver received a phone call and was now on a cell phone–which he was holding to his ear with his shoulder.
Could a cell phone distract this guy THAT much that he almost killed an innocent pedestrian? I think so…
I’d like to start a conversation on the blog about any potential for a cell phone-use ban while driving in Champaign-Urbana, or just even campus + campustown where the majority of pedestrians are. I am thinking of something similar to the ban on cell-phones while driving in Chicago. Thoughts? Pros? Cons?
Comment by Brandon Ruiz on 16 July 2008 at 1:26 am:
This is why a lot of states, including California have a hands-free law.
Comment by Joshua on 16 July 2008 at 7:17 am:
I think the hands free rule is silly, people are more distracted by the conversation than the way they are holding the phone.
I would support increased penalties for people who get in an accident while on the phone, but not an outright ban.
It’s very hard to enforce a ban, and how do you deal w/ out of down drivers who don’t know about the silly ass patchwork of cell phone bans?
Glad you’re ok Segen!
Comment by Segen on 16 July 2008 at 7:53 am:
Josh,
How do you prove a driver got in an accident because of a phone? It’s not like there is a breathalyzer test for cell-phone use…
Comment by Brian on 16 July 2008 at 7:57 am:
Related to Josh’s enforcement concern, a cell phone ban – particularly one that includes a ban on hands-free phones, which is maybe why California excludes them – would be another opportunity for the abuse of police power because it’s another reason the police can pull somebody over without a good reason by just saying “I thought I saw him on his cell phone.” That’s a minor concern, since there are ALWAYS going to be excuses for the police to pull you over if they want to (everybody forgets to put on a turn signal from time to time, etc.), but it’s still there.
Still, when compared to the benefits, which is that fewer people die, it’s tough for me to oppose an outright ban. I could imagine that a cell phone ban doesn’t actually do anything to make the roads safer, and if empirical evidence demonstrated as much, then okay, but it seems intuitively correct that a ban on cell phones, even if only non-hands-free phones due to the difficulty of enforcing a hands-free ban, would be an easy way to reduce conversations in cars, which would thereby reduce distractions, which would thereby reduce accidents.
Comment by John Bambenek on 16 July 2008 at 10:06 am:
Why is it that people need to make one bad act 15 seperate violations of the law?
You cause an accident, it doesn’t matter what you were doing, could be talking on a phone, beating your kids, or just beating it… you get dinged. If the accident is severe enough we have vehicular manslaughter, criminal negligence, etc.
There are three problems I have, philosophically, with a cell phone ban:
1) It sets the bar for policy to be the lowest common denominator. Because one idiot is out there, the policy must be set to treat everyone as that idiot.
2) Irrebuttable presumption of guilt. I can walk and chew gum, and just because some idiot can’t doesn’t make me a criminal. There is something profoundly wrong with giving someone who losses all situational awareness because of a phone call, license to drive a 1 ton vehicle. But because we do give him that license, we must simple presume everyone is that stupid and then criminalize the symptom, not the problem.
3) There are plenty of things that cause distracted driving. Why don’t we have a special law about putting makeup on while driving? This focus on cell phones strikes me as part of the “undevelopment” movement. Namely, the idea that mankind would be happier if we went back to chucking spears and living in caves… and they want to write the laws to force it on us.
Comment by Brian on 16 July 2008 at 10:42 am:
John,
Your third point is a really good one, and I don’t really know how to respond to it. But your first two seem to be based on the assumption that being distracted by a conversation when driving is a matter of intelligence. That’s like saying people who don’t operate well when they don’t get enough sleep are just a bunch of idiots. Similarly, saying you’re perfectly equipped to drive while talking on the phone is like you saying you can do just as good a job on 2 hours of sleep as you can on 8. It might FEEL that way, but it’s not. You’re just as susceptible to biology as anybody else, and the distraction caused by talking on a phone, while you might not THINK it’s there, IS THERE. That doesn’t make you either smart or stupid, it makes you human.
Comment by Joshua on 16 July 2008 at 11:29 am:
Yes, BJP, but Bamby, like myself, may have superhuman driving abilities. Even if he is driving while putting his lipstick on and talking on his cell and texting, and trying to convince himself that his wife doesn’t have a thing for me…and so on… Bamby might still be 100x better of a driver than say Billy (who I think drove his girlfriends van into a pole). It would probably make more sense to increase the standards for drivers, if you wanted to reduce accidents, then to keep uberdrivers like myself and bamby from being able to make a call while driving.
Sometimes the phone can help, like for staying awake on a long drive.
If someone wanted to restrict drivers licenses to a smaller subset of better drivers, you would probably claim they were trying to bring back internment camps, and deny the liberty of movement to asian women!
Much like increasing driving standards, adding a law like this is an intrusion of liberty – the souls right to breath…or call its buddies.
Comment by Joshua on 16 July 2008 at 11:34 am:
Segen:
“Could a cell phone distract this guy THAT much that he almost killed an innocent pedestrian? I think so…”
plus
“How do you prove a driver got in an accident because of a phone? It’s not like there is a breathalyzer test for cell-phone use…”
A: you could in theory prove this to a jury the same way you proved it to yourself, if you’re seeking a civil penalty, you’d probably have a lower burden than if seeking a criminal penalty, but a fact based reasonable determination.
The bigger enforcement problem is one of will. Some cars have built in phones that play over the radio w/ speakers you can talk into. How do you have police enforce the rule in a few specific cities if there aren’t clear visible cues someone is on the phone? Those are just expensive ass cars, so should the law only be enforced on the poor? Is it fair to expect anyone who drives from altamont to chicago and passes through champaign to know they have to hang up their phones? Will police really give a fuck about enforcing this law? and if they do, is this really what we want our police doing with their time? do you want to pay more in taxes to hire more cops to enforce your cell phone ban? if not, where should we get the money? <3
Comment by Brian on 16 July 2008 at 12:08 pm:
I’m all for increasing driving standards, particularly among those segments of the population more likely to get into accidents (i.e., the very young and the very old). At the same time, I’m all for requiring drivers who meet those standards to comply with rules that make them and everybody else a lot safer. It is true that some people are just better drivers than others. But it is also true that everybody is a better driver when they are not distracted than when they are.
I agree with the point that causing an accident is against the law no matter what, and that singling out cell phones for additional regulation is a little odd and perhaps unnecessary. Basically, I just want to know whether empirical research supports the proposition that cell phone bans leads to fewer car accidents, and my position is pretty much entirely dependent on that. I would THINK that it would, because I would think that a specific regulation banning cell phone use will cause cell phone use to decrease in a way that general negligent driving laws won’t, and that this decrease will lead to fewer accidents. But that’s little more than a hunch, so I’d kind of like to see numbers.
Comment by Segen on 16 July 2008 at 4:50 pm:
Josh,
I didn’t say I was necessarily for a cell phone ban–I just wanted to flesh out the pros and cons with the Urbanagora folks–which I think we’ve all done a good job at so far.
I like the idea proposed for having stricter driving standards to get a license. I have been in the car with a bunch of horrible drivers lately and their poor driving skills did not relate to cell phones–but rather a complete lack of awareness of life around them. I mean…people backing up without looking or merging on interstates without looking at all…why were they allowed to drive in the first place?!?
A comparison to US driving: In Germany, getting a license is a pretty serious thing. First, you must be over 18 years old. Second, you have to cough up about 2,000 euros in driving lesson fees. Then you have to pass strict driving tests and do this while driving a stick shift (which I think is something everyone should learn how to do). The German drivers on the roads are pretty disciplined–probably because idiots couldn’t get licenses and are therefore not on the road or the ones that forked over the cash to get a license take driving pretty seriously.
The problem with not granting people drivers licenses based on their driving-suckness like in Germany is that American society/infrastructure is totally set up for cars. Public transit is not really a viable thing in the C-U area…or almost any area in the US generally.
So…what do we think about higher driving standards? That you CAN enforce. (If that is the case, should I have called the cops after an almost-hit by this truck?)
Comment by Segen on 16 July 2008 at 4:56 pm:
Oh…and police enforcement…ha!
Last summer in Champaign, I was walking across the street and this car turns and come pummeling my way. I was infuriated and punched the car as it was driving away.
A cop saw this. All.
What does he do?
He pulls ME over. Me, the pedestrian. He turned on his lights and everything–making a scene. I was completely upset and asked him why he pulled me over, when clearly, the perpetrator in this situation was the car’s driver that almost (and illegally) ran me over.
Seems he thought only a drunk person would punch a passing car.
I was 100% sober and 100% infuriated by this situation.
The cop never went after the driver. Who could be just as equally prone to being intoxicated.
This is Champaign law enforcement for you.
Comment by Brian on 16 July 2008 at 5:20 pm:
Segen’s point about public transit is a good one, but it’s a big part of why I’m totally in favor of dramatically increased driving standards. Anything that reduces the amount of driving in this country will help to promote the development of a public transit infrastructure, which is a good idea for any number of reasons. There are obviously some inherent things about America that make it impossible to create the kind of infrastructure that, say, Germany has, but an infrastructure that promotes public transit is by no means out of reach, if we become a little less resistant to urbanization.
Comment by Joshua on 16 July 2008 at 5:30 pm:
Segen – you shouldn't punch cars unless someone actually hits you :) If someone punched captain thunderbolt, I would totally lose my mind. And I almost hit people all the time.
<3<3<3
glad you're ok
Comment by Brian on 16 July 2008 at 6:00 pm:
“And I almost hit people all the time.”
Are those your super-human driving abilities at work? ;)
Comment by Segen on 16 July 2008 at 6:38 pm:
Brian,
I do not drive (hence, walking), but apparently my non-car form of transportation is dangerous. And I abide by the law…
I say, pedestrian should be king. It should be enforced that way by the police, too (regardless of whether or not people are “seemingly drunk” based on behavior in last comment).
I’d like to be able to walk around, alert as usual, and not have to worry about distracted drivers breaking the law to the extent that I do.
I’ll ask my question again: should I have called the police to report my almost hit? Do police need stats on these sorts of things? This would have been a horrible accident if I didn’t lunge out of the way. What if I had a disability and couldn’t move that fast?
Comment by Anonymous on 16 July 2008 at 8:46 pm:
Segen seems like he walks out in front of traffic all the time thinking they should stop for King Pedestrian. Try using cross walks and waiting to see if cars are stopping before walking out in the middle of the street.
From your posts, you are the only person who committed a crime when you punched someone’s car. You obviously should not have called the police because someone almost accidentally hit you with their car. But someone should have called the police if they saw your psychotic attempt to damage someone else’s property.
Comment by Segen on 16 July 2008 at 9:33 pm:
Anon-
I do follow traffic signals…diligently.
I only cross when I have the pedestrian signal.
People in cars are breaking the law when they are driving in the pedestrian zone.
Comment by Anonymous on 16 July 2008 at 11:01 pm:
Lets be clear, when you say “the pedestrian zone” you mean “the fucking street,” right? If you almost get hit by cars this often, you should ask yourself maybe its not everyone else whose doing something wrong, maybe you are the one with the problem. Maybe you assume that the moment you diligently step in the cross walk all others must immediately recognize the great Segen is crossing the street, and do a break check to try to avoid hitting your psychotic, car punching ass.
Lets try to figure this out together.
Maybe you need to amend your traffic crossing practices and make sure there are no cars quickly approaching when you throw yourself out into the street.
Maybe you are wearing too dark of clothes at night. We should get you reflective gear and a helmet.
Maybe you are stepping out into traffic because of some deep seeded depression that you haven’t yet fully come to terms with.
Maybe your whole life is a game constructed by god to amuse himself and test you. Maybe God is jonesing for some throwback Frogger-style fun.
Often when one feels victimized by others not living up to their standards, at the root of the problem is either the individuals painfully unrealistic expectations about their own behavioral standards, and/or the person who feels victimized is really the one with the problem.
Comment by John Bambenek on 16 July 2008 at 11:09 pm:
Brian-
I don’t know if its a matter of biology or not, but when my cell phone rings I don’t yell, “Oh Fuck! Where the hell am I?”
Someone can talk to me without me losing track of what’s around me. There’s a reduced level of awareness and then there is a complete mind wipe when someone hears that janky-ass Britney Spears ring tone.
I believe research has shown, and this was one study which may or may not be worth more than a bowel movement, that talking with a passenger was just as distracting as talking on the phone. It also showed that hands-free didn’t help much. (Unless you’re downloading Britney Spears ring tones).
Comment by Segen on 16 July 2008 at 11:32 pm:
Anon–
I am really perplexed by why you are so upset…and vulgar. Sometimes discussion on Urbanagora gets heated, but your derogatory language towards me is really not warranted.
By pedestrian zone, I mean the area between the white lines on–yes, a street. When the pedestrian has the pedestrian light, he or she has the right of way in terms of traffic…above cars.
Both of the traffic incidents I was talking about happened in daylight. I was not wearing dark clothes and was visible. In the second case, I was walking with a group of three other people which makes our visibility even greater.
And no, I am not throwing myself into traffic.
Why are you afraid to tell the Urbanagora crowd your name, by the way?
Comment by Anonymous on 17 July 2008 at 8:04 am:
Segen – Do you admit that you were wrong to punch the car that almost accidentally hit you? That is unnecessarily destructive, borderline psychotic behavior. Are you able to ever admit fault? You have no right to attempt to damage someone else’s property just because you are angry.
Your honor, I only stabbed him because he made me so mad…
Pedestrians also have some responsibilities, like using common sense and good judgment. Looking both ways, and not stepping out into a cross walk relying solely on their right of way to stop oncoming traffic.
Champaign is very bad about students stepping out into traffic. Drivers in Champaign are mostly accustomed to this, but when these students leave, their dangerous habits as pedestrians can cause big problems when the move to cities like LA, New York, Chicago, and St. Louis.
Whether I post anonymously or not is my business. You post under a pen name, so you have no business to accuse me of being scared to reveal my identity just because I haven’t yet chosen a pen name. That is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever heard, and it wont distract me from trying to make you understand that you need to have some personal responsibility. This blog talks much of the nanny government and increasing regulation, and not enough of personal responsibility.
Can you take enough responsibility to admit you were wrong to punch the car? I doubt you’re capable of admitting you’re wrong, that’s just how you come across in your writing. Please don’t dodge that question. Were you wrong to punch the car?
Comment by Brian on 17 July 2008 at 8:21 am:
Anonymous is a jerkwad.
Comment by Anonymous on 17 July 2008 at 8:26 am:
Brian
What did I say that you disagree with. I am not trying to be uncivil, but I have little tolerance for he who is unwilling to take personal responsibility or to admit when he does something wrong. Don’t you think punching a car because it drove too close to you is wrong? I would bet, from what I’ve observed of Segen the infallible, that he does not think it was wrong?
And the attack about posting anonymously was exceedingly stupid, and he deserved to be ridiculed for it.
Comment by Anonymous on 17 July 2008 at 8:49 pm:
Segen
Given your silence I am assuming you were too proud to admit that you were wrong to punch the car, you’ve surely checked the blog since I posted my comments. I knew I was right about you.
Comment by JayBandit on 20 July 2008 at 3:23 pm:
Anon,
we don’t care if you use a pen name, but just going as anon is annoying because it is hard to distinguish amongst the plethora of possibilities out there.
Anyway, I know exactly what you’re saying with pedestrians walking like goof balls any which way they want in Chambana. However, you’re always told in any driving school that you must always yield the right of way to others, and that most certainly applies to someone walking, who has no protection in the event of a collision.
As far as the cell phone ban goes, I think it is a bit silly. I’ve driven a lot of miles for someone my age, and I always abide by all of the traffic laws (other than speeding on a regular basis…except in construction zones). I see people just as distracted by conversations with others in the car with them, radios, trying to eat, put on makeup, and even asshats reading! So, unless we’re going to demand that everyone drives in solitude with silence, I think cell phones are bogus to ban.