Cell phone/driving: an officer's view

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually like the police chief's attitude on this video. The mayor, however, just seems like a typical government-knows-best politician.
 
I agree with you!
I see very near misses all the time...
I also wonder how many accidents with or with out fatalities are cell phone related.
 
Do you ticket all the do-gooders Wyatt Earp's of the world out their calling dispatch to rat out others while they're on the cell phone "making the world a better place".
 
Originally Posted By: Stelth

I am so glad you brought this up. There is so much baloney going around about cell phones, distracted driving, blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of hooey.

Now, as a patrol officer, it's your job to enforce the law, so this is not a direct criticism of you. Someone breaks the law, you are supposed to intervene. Fine.

However, it's not possible to legislate or regulate all danger out of existence. There are poor drivers who can be distracted by almost anything, or who drive poorly whether distracted or not. As long as they are given licenses, they will cause accidents. Sure, I've missed an exit because I was talking on the phone. I've also missed exits because I was listening to something on the radio, or simply deep in thought. Am I a distracted driver? Sometimes, so's everybody.

If you want to get rid of distracted driving, sure, ban phones, ban radios, ban kids in the car (talk about a distraction!), ban coffee, sodas, food, cigarettes, any sort of cargo (groceries) that can shift, ban discussion with others in the car (I've heard this one proposed), and so on. I bet if you did all of those things, the accident rate wouldn't dip very much.

Distracted driving is already illegal, regardless of the cause. If you're swerving around the freeway, or otherwise driving erratically, you should expect to attract the attention of the local gendarmes. Somewhere, there should be a line between force and personal responsibility.

Having said all that, one doesn't get to choose which laws one obeys. That's why I already have a couple of bluetooth devices, and I'm still looking for one that really works in the environments where I need one.

And yes, I see cops all the time talking on cell phones while driving patrol cars.


I agree. Bad drivers are just that. Doesn't matter what else they are doing while driving... If anything.
 
Originally Posted By: Stelth


I actually like the police chief's attitude on this video. The mayor, however, just seems like a typical government-knows-best politician.


Yep! That's my hometown.

Mayor Dr Cluck can be a little offputting and arrogant. Arlington is a weird city. It has a bigger population than St Louis, MO or Cincinnati, OH but if you aren't an MLB or NFL fan, you have never heard of it. It's a suburb that is not a suburb.

The police are their own interesting bunch. The department requires a 4-year degree from applicants. There are very professional and dedicated cops and then there are a bunch that have a 4 year degree in "underwater basket weaving" that are just doing the job because there were no jobs in the "underwater basket weaving" field. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground there. I bet most of the distracted cop drivers were the latter.
 
Some people can handle multi tasking, some cannot. Most drivers are quite bad at just driving, and all the technology manufactures keep jamming into cars is not going to help this.

OTOH this is the kind of nanny state nonsense that you don't see in other countries. In the islands you can do pretty much what you want when you drive and if you kill yourself your just a moron.
 
haha,, this is classic. They require a 4 year degree yet the officer doesn't know the correct use of 'too' in his report. Amazing!
 
Originally Posted By: dernp
I did not start this thread for Bitoger's to tell me I should have warned the driver. I would like to hear views from other drivers about why they text/talk while driving. Is the call or text that important?

I don't understand the allure, either. There's a reason I don't have a cell phone. I'd yank my home phone if I could get away with it, too
wink.gif
 
My truck is my office so yes, I couldn't run my business without my cell phone. Or at least it would be extremely challenging.
 
Originally Posted By: FowVay
haha,, this is classic. They require a 4 year degree yet the officer doesn't know the correct use of 'too' in his report. Amazing!


I don't know about Arlington in particular, but in CA if a city cop is involved in a collision the CHP investigates and writes the report. It has to do with conflict of interest.


Yeah, I use the cellphone for a food to-go order, the conversation lasts about 20 seconds because I always order the same thing. If it's another type of call, either I don't answer or pull off to the side of the road. I can't concentrate enough on troubleshooting a problem over the phone if I'm driving. I tried once and realized within a few seconds that I couldn't do both.

As an aside, I'd like to be able to take a call on the train, but the inside noise level is frequently 85dB and every few minutes goes to 95dB for the autostop announcements. That isn't a good enough environment to hold a conversation.
 
I despise cell phone use while driving....for me personally, as well as seeing others do it.
I drive to work daily on an interstate. Five lanes....full of traffic...many days raining terribly (low visibility). And THIS is a fact.....I see at least three to four vehicles weaving left and right and/or not signaling when changing lanes. And what are they doing when I look into the vehicle? Texting or talking on a STUPID phone. And this is an even more concerning observation....MANY OF THOSE SWERVING left and right are using cells phones while driving SEMI- TRUCKS!! How can people be so brain dead?
GET OFF THE PHONE while driving BEFORE you kill an innocent person.
s far as officers of the law doing this while driving? I don't notice if they do....but pointing fingers at a few policeman is a distraction of the main issue.
 
Every state already has distracted driving laws on the books, why do we need another for using the phone? Everything is a potential distraction; passengers, eating, drinking coffee, billboards, an accident in the oncoming lane, a nice looking woman walking down the street...

I lived near a DQ that had a drive through, and I would always get some bozo that would pull out in front of me and do half the speed limit while swerving all over the place because he was too occupied stuffing his face with an ice cream cone to worry about driving.

I text while stopped at red lights but not while moving, and have Bluetooth in both my cars so I am never holding the phone while moving.
 
Ok this thread has gone four pages and no one has asked so I will....OP did you ask him what oil and OCI he was running while writing the ticket??? Inquiring minds want to know....just sayin...
grin2.gif
crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dernp
Background: I am currently a patrol officer with 30 yrs experience.


Thank you for your service. Yours is often a thankless job and you usually see the worst of humanity. Most citizens have no idea what a difficult job it can be.

Originally Posted By: dernp
I feel that cell phone use while driving is an epidemic and clearly constitutes distracted driving.


I couldn't agree more. I've never used the phone while driving. While I do have a cell phone, it's often turned off while I'm in the car. If it is turned on and happens to ring, I simply ignore it until such time as I'm at my destination. I'll then listen to the voice mail, and return the call if needed. There's nothing so important that it can't wait until I'm safely parked.

As someone who operates a motor vehicle I've agreed to abide by the rules and regulations regarding their safe operation. I also have an obligation to operate that vehicle in the safest possible manner; not only for myself but for other motorists. It's what I agreed to do when I first received my license and I have always tried to uphold my end of the bargain.

While I may not always agree with every rule or regulation, the way to change them is from within, not by being a scofflaw.


Originally Posted By: FowVay
haha,, this is classic. They require a 4 year degree yet the officer doesn't know the correct use of 'too' in his report. Amazing!


Coming from one who failed to start his sentence with a capital letter, used two commas after the first incorrect word in the sentence, and somehow managed to start a sentence with "haha" (hint-it isn't a real word), your comment rings rather hollow.
 
First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.
 
It's a huge bone of contention here in NY where I work (Westchester). Cops don't really wan't to give these tix out (for the most part) but it's crammed down our throats by Cuomo and his I wanna be president initiatives and the heavy backing from Ins. lobby (cell tix are points!!).

Cops are different in that most of us are veeery well accustomed to the wife on phone #1, girlfriend on line 2, running the rover to a call and hitting lights (and once in a great while, siren). AND like seat belt laws; often LE are exempt. Now, before the whole tirade about cops getting away with things; I'll have you know that for the most part the old blue wall of silence is GONE! We are whining babies who feel under appreciated and that the world owes us at minimum a deputy chief spot with a take home car. New erra of ME is in our ranks as well as everywhere else.

IMHO operating a cell and driving is most definitely a distraction but no where near what texting involves. That said these tasks are singled out and soooon enough nanny will strike again and you won't be able to eat and drive, put on make up (lets face it, lots of beauties out there need the makeup), heck lets take talk radio outa the car as well....makes my head think of the topic at hand not the road.

Guess I'm a little jaded here but the thrust behind most of these initiatives is revenue generation pure and simple. I'm an admin guy for over a decade and when dealing with town supervisor, city manager, various elected officials the first question is always: Do you wan't compliance or revenue? Think of speed zones when were the studies done to determine safe speeds? What vehicle technology was used? Has that maybe changed since then?
 
I will answer an incoming call while driving, as all it requires is picking up the phone, same as any other object in the vehicle.

To make a call however, I pull over and stop. I have read a text once - ONCE - and the level of distraction clearly illustrated why it should be illegal to do so.

It is all directly related to how much attention is required. Most/many drivers cannot make this judgement for themselves so a law was passed making it safer for all.

Op did the right thing, it should be a black and white decision on the streets.
 
Originally Posted By: Gabe
First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.


Op clearly stated that the law says even stopped at a light, so the driver was in violation.

Taking 15 seconds to pull over and call the child back would not strand the child.
 
Originally Posted By: Gabe
First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.


Gabe, You bring to light a VERY important fact most just don't get. We really do not need new laws; we have plenty of laws currently on the books covering just about every possible human action. What we need is consistent enforcement of the laws without the push toward revenue. If gov't really wanted compliance not revenue penalties would not be monetary but more in line with 10 over speed limit license suspended for 5 days, etc...
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: Gabe
First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.


Op clearly stated that the law says even stopped at a light, so the driver was in violation.

Taking 15 seconds to pull over and call the child back would not strand the child.



Pulling over is another whole issue with inherent dangers far eclipsing that of picking up the incoming call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top