Cell phone/driving: an officer's view

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
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.


How so? As the driver you don't have to swerve over immediately, you can take your time and pick where you pull off the road, making sure it is safe for both you and others.
 
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
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...


I agree with you here; no need to add laws, simply amend distracted driving laws that are in place to include cellphone use. This has the added advantage of allowing for Officer Discretion, such as in the case of phone use while stopped, that the full ban does not.
 
I see few reasons to be on a handheld phone in a car. Medical emergency,calling a traffic accident. Otherwise pull off. Children were in school before cell phones existed what did we do before cell phones? Somehow we survived. Its funny the mentality of this. I can be in a waiting room or in a car with someone and my phone rings, I don't answer it. Invariably the person I'm with gets visibly nervous and finally asks do you need to take that? they are surprised when i say no, not really. Its a society conditioned response that phones MUST be answered right away.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ColdCanuk
The driver should thank you, next time he/she might kill an innocent person.

I hope you gave the driver the biggest ticket possible.

They should also ban blue tooth and hands free too, still causes distraction.

People are so important today that a second can't go by without them talking or texting, amazing. I wish I was that important.


This x100.

I salute you for pulling this person over, and I'm not surprised at all by their claim that the phone call was important. No phone call is more important than somebody's life. The person could have easily waited and pulled into a parking lot to call them back.


Phone use at a red light IS a safety hazard, especially when the light turns and the driver fails to notice.

I'm not sure why people are making comments about Police talking on the phone. That has nothing to do with this particular officer.
 
Quote:


I'm not sure why people are making comments about Police talking on the phone. That has nothing to do with this particular officer.


True, it's not about the OP, but it's about public perception of law enforcement, and hypocrisy.
 
Originally Posted By: BISCUT


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.


Depends where you are from. My Province was the last in Canada to bring in distracted driving legislation and because of that it is also the most comprehensive. Reading, applying makeup, eating (but not snacking) and the full list below, are out.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/distracteddriving.htm
 
OP, no offence but when you punch in the plates, are you stopped on the side of the road or still driving?
 
On Thursday while I was riding in a coworkers car there was a police cruiser following a van for quite a while with his lights on in the inside lane of oncoming traffic. The van was not pulling over, when we passed the van the driver was on her phone, everyone in the car all laughed.

I cant speak to the element of kids in the car as I don't have any but for me there is a different level of distraction when talking on the phone vs talking to other adults in the car. The other adults (usually) know when they can have your attention and when they don't and shouldn't talk, people on the phone have no feel for that whatsoever.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
OP, no offence but when you punch in the plates, are you stopped on the side of the road or still driving?


While I agree there is a high degree of hypocrisy, all emergency response elements seem to have a degree of entitlement in my area as well there is also a big difference that many here seem to miss. When police are punching in a plate while driving they are performing a protective service for the public, yes some of that is reduced by the increased risk they are creating. When Joe public texts or dials his phone there is no service to the public, just selfish behavior that puts others at risk. I am also sure the day you find yourself in front of a judge for calling 911 to report an emergency, discretion will also be applied in your favor.
 
Originally Posted By: Stelth
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.

Despite my personal intense hatred of distracted drivers, drunk drivers, and so on I have to agree with you here.

It burns me to get a lecture from an officer about "safety" when his or her job is to enforce laws as written, nothing more and nothing less. Let the legislatures make decisions on what the law should be and why.

I have my job, and he his, and let's just focus on doing them and cut the discussions.
 
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D


It burns me to get a lecture from an officer about "safety" when his or her job is to enforce laws as written, nothing more and nothing less. Let the legislatures make decisions on what the law should be and why.


As long as the citation book is put away, I'll take the lecture. Bring out the citation book? "Pardon my interruption but I feel the citation is lecture enough."
 
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
It burns me to get a lecture from an officer about "safety" when his or her job is to enforce laws as written, nothing more and nothing less.

There is far more to the job of a law enforcement officer than simply enforcing the law.

@Vikas: The legislation is generally written to exempt police and other emergency personnel from the cell phone rules. That's not hypocrisy. Would you consider it hypocrisy for a police officer to have to speed to pull over a speeder, or to run a red light to catch the guy who just ran the red light?

A police officer should have the moral fiber to not be texting his wife and kids while driving a patrol car. But, policing has evolved beyond call boxes for a good reason.
 
Originally Posted By: jeremiah2360
Originally Posted By: loyd
Well, you got it half right. It has been proven tht talking on a hands-free device is ALSO distracted driving. Think about it, if you're trying to listen closely to what somedone is telling you AND trying to formulate your reply, how much of your attention is really on the road and what's happening around you ?????????????


So no talking to passengers. Gimme a break with that control freak logic.


There IS a difference that I've observed personally...
1) Your passenger is also in the car, and knows if you are in twisty terrain, takes a breath when someone pulls out on you etc.
2) Unless the other person is driving too, they'll be asking questions (e.g. work) that require much more processing than passenger chatter or listening to the radio.

Not saying I'd ban hands free, but I've had to ask people to let me ring them back because the conversation took too much.

As to the OP, it's illegal in my state for my partner to even handle her phone rummaging through her handbag for a toll...technically, and our Police chief idjit has made that point "lock it in the boot before you move"...

At the same time, they made the law read that police officers can use them hands on, hands free, all day...they must be better trained drunk drivers (if that's the official analogy for not using phones).
 
Originally Posted By: FowVay
As long as those in law enforcement continue to chat with their girlfriends/wives while operating their government provided motor vehicle I can only assume that it truly isnt' that grave of a danger.


THAT! They talk on phones, they text, they poke at data terminals, and they do it while whizzing down the left lane at 90MPH with no seat belt on! It's quite simple: cops are above the law!

Quote:
I would absolutely love to see the phone records of the thousands of cops who chat for hours on end while on duty.

So to answer the question - my view is that you should conduct this survey in the locker room at your place of business.


Yes! But of course, that will NEVER happen!
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D


It burns me to get a lecture from an officer about "safety" when his or her job is to enforce laws as written, nothing more and nothing less. Let the legislatures make decisions on what the law should be and why.


As long as the citation book is put away, I'll take the lecture. Bring out the citation book? "Pardon my interruption but I feel the citation is lecture enough."


That's a good way to get your teeth smashed in and/or meth planted in your car! Contempt of cop is a VERY serious matter!
 
I personally have no problem with people talking on cell phones while driving, especially with all of the voice activated answering and hand free options on most phones these days. I've seen plenty of people just as distracted by talking to their passengers, dealing with kids in the car, changing stations on the radio, messing with the heating/AC controls. I've personally been distracted while driving just by having something on my mind that is bothering me and not really paying attention to my surroundings.

The cell phone ban while driving is just IMO, another governmental control to try and restrict people. It's another case of a few people doing something stupid while talking on a phone while driving, that effects everyone else and causes these laws to be made in the first place. That goes for pretty much every law out there. The mistakes of a few effect the majority. There are plenty of people that can talk and drive at the same time with no issues.
 
Originally Posted By: wtd
The cell phone ban while driving is just IMO, another governmental control to try and restrict people.


The conspiracy theorist in me is heading down the line that smart phones, and photo/video capture are the real targets in the bans, particularly if merely touching the phone is an offence, as it's been brought into my state.

We've had fake roadworks set up on the highway, and a week long blockade with every vehicle and driver checked for a week, while the traffic report states "free flowing"...photos and uploading to social media in real time is not what they would want...
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
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.


Depends on the island. In the VI, you're sure to get a cellphone or seatbelt ticket, but driving drunk or drinking from alcohol containers (all illegal) isn't nearly as enforced.
 
Well, in commercial trucking, the fine against the driver for texting or not being hands free is $2750.00 per offense. For the company that driver works for, it is $11,000.00. that is getting pretty serious.

But, the OP story is interesting. The vehicle was stopped at a red light when the operator was talking on the phone. No indication that this was a threat to the general public's welfare. How is that different than if they were stopped along side the road talking on the cell phone. Oh, they might not be paying attention that the light turns green, but that still would not put people in danger, except maybe from high blood pressure because they let it get the best of them.

Then there is the clear abuse of the laws they seem bent on enforcing by themselves. It is a common occurrence to see laptops open and an LEO keying something, a LEO talking -- non hands free -- on their cell phone. I am a commercial driver and see scores of LEO's each day roaming around. I have yet to ever see one with a Blue Parrot headset or some other device to talk hands free. Yet I have seen a lot of them with the phone up against their head. Ah, but they're professionals! Well, I will cut them some slack when they get over 5 million miles of accident free driving under their belt like I have, and they go thru the series of exams I have to, to get the endorsements for my CDL, and they go thru all 3 levels of Arctic Driving Certification, again like me. Then I will consider them merely equals, not better.
 
Most all of my friends don't cell/text as we realize it's not good. I am in a law enforcement family and feel that cops are just people=some good-some not so much-too many do not set a good example. If I were king, many folks would not be driving-probably about a third-but we know many would still drive without a license/insurance, ect. Maybe the newer technology that can identify the driver can help deal with that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top