NH drivers will have to put down phones as of July 1

[mcdude]

Wmur..........

concord, n.h. —drivers in new hampshire will have to put down their phones in the car when a new law goes into effect july 1.

related

• click to watch news 9's coverage.

the hands-free law makes it illegal for drivers to use any handheld device that requires data entry -- such as cellphones, gps devices and tablets -- unless voice commands are used.
The department of transportation has been running a yearlong education initiative about the dangers of texting and driving ahead of the implementation of the new law. In a psa, tressa flanders describes the pittsfield accident that left her then-17-year-old son in a wheelchair when he was ejected from a car. The driver, who prosecutors said was reading a text message at the time of the crash, is in prison.
"turn it off," flanders says in the psa. "it's not that important. It's really not. It's a text message. It doesn't matter if you send one text or thousands a day. Turn it off if you're in the car."
state police lt. Mark shapiro said the new capabilities of handheld devices have forced the need for the new law.
"the problem became what we have today when this became a handheld computer," shapiro said. "that's what opened up the avenue to this law."
the law prohibits the use of such devices even when the vehicle is stopped in traffic, such as at a stop sign, red light or traffic jam. It will be illegal to read, view, post or compose an electronic message from a handheld device.
Also banned will be receiving or initiating a phone call, accessing the internet and inputting information into a gps while driving.
The law allows for a "one-touch rule" -- a single press of a button can be made to accept a bluetooth or speaker phone call.

[That Guy]

Well, its a start. #1 reason why I will never get my motorcycle license.

[ITD]

Great law, Massachusetts needs to follow suit.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by That Guy

Well, its a start. #1 reason why I will never get my motorcycle license.

I have to be honest here..As a motorcycle owner / rider I have to agree with you. While this law is a start, there are still serious issues regarding texting and driving. I see it every day on the roads and its only getting worse!

From what I have seen, young girls (late teens early twenties) seem to be the biggest offenders. Now I'm not saying younger men aren't guilty as well, just from my perspective young girls seem to be the biggest offenders by about a 2 to 1 ratio. Not sure why that is but that is what I see.

I have a few friends in their 60's and early 70's who have ridden motorcycles all their life and never ever thought they would stop riding but because mainly of the texting and driving issue they have decided to sell their bikes. I'm on the fence myself unless I see drastic changes on the roadways soon...

Dan

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Great law, Massachusetts needs to follow suit.

Massachusetts already has a similar law.

"Drivers are prohibited from texting while driving. That means that drivers cannot use any mobile telephone or handheld device capable of accessing the Internet to write, send, or read an electronic message including text messages, emails, and instant messages or to access the Internet while operating a vehicle. The law applies even if the vehicle is stopped in traffic."

The Mass law is not as restrictive with cell phone calls. No one touch rule.

[That Guy]

Yep. Love to ditch my not street legal off road buggy for a dual sport, but there's simply too many people in a rush to get nowhere. Paying more attention to their radios and phones.

[Orion]

The law is ineffective in MA and will also be in NH. People feel they can do it without being caught and they're likely correct since there seems to be no real enforcement. It isn't just electronic devices anyway. The guy beside me on I-93 was swerving in his lane and when I passed I noticed he was reading some sort of multi-page stapled document in his left hand......and for quite a while!

Legal ramifications in the event of an accident caused by such behavior need to be very severe to get attention.

The problem is, especially with inexperienced drivers, is that they'll likely get away with it for 99% of the time, as long as nothing happens requiring their instant attention, like a car swerving in their way, running a stop sign, or a deer running across the road.

[Happy Gourmand]

I don't think they will ever be able to eliminate the problem, but after getting caught and having to pay a fine, I hope that others will realize the seriousness of their behavior and just stop doing it. The new law will only make an impact if it is strictly enforced. From what I see as I drive every day, this could be a great revenue generator for the State.

[thinkxingu]

This is classic operant conditioning. Unless the punishment is severe enough, people will continue to text and drive, and, each time they do successfully, will continue to be positively reinforced.

I once had a professor posit that if the first student to forget his/her homework was shot that no one else would forget to do their work.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[Pineedles]

I watched a driver in front of me rear-end a flatbed tractor trailer that had stopped due to exit lane traffic. I watched for nearly 6 seconds as the vehicle made no attempt to brake, and cruised into the right wheel-well area of the truck at over 50 miles per hour. She was lucky it hit the rear wheels of the truck, otherwise.... well you know. I stopped behind and went to the passenger side window, besides a very shaken women, there on the floor was a smart phone. Don't text and drive!

[Blue Thunder]

This NH law isn't just for texting or email. It's a total "hands free" law which includes the use of a cell phone while driving. The Mass law only covers texting.

BT

[Tired of Waiting]

This is one of the reasons I installed a dash cam in our car/truck. You may not avoid a run in with a texter but it will limit your liability should you meet one on the road.

They don't cost much but could be worth a small fortune is you have an accident.


ToW

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting

This is one of the reasons I installed a dash cam in our car/truck. You may not avoid a run in with a texter but it will limit your liability should you meet one on the road.

They don't cost much but could be worth a small fortune is you have an accident.


ToW

I've been looking to purchase one for a few weeks now. I just have no idea what to get. Few guys I know use Chinese knock offs which they swear by. Online I'm reading I should avoid those ones.

Looking for something that can be decently concealed by the rear view mirror or something, easily viewable night-time recording, and preferably <$200.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting

This is one of the reasons I installed a dash cam in our car/truck. You may not avoid a run in with a texter but it will limit your liability should you meet one on the road.

They don't cost much but could be worth a small fortune is you have an accident.


ToW

I'm curious about what you use, and your thoughts on the performance...thx.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Wmur..........

I am selling Jabra Freeways for $25 each. Compare online. Brand new in box. Hands free, voice assist, wireless music. PM me if your interested. Answer calls and make calls without touching your phone. this is the way to go if your car does not already have Bluetooth.

[ITD]

The Massachusetts law is not as comprehensive and tougher to enforce because an offender can say they were dialing the phone. I see people texting and reading ipads all the time. I see someone crossing lines like a drunk at least once each time I am driving because they are reading or texting.

This law is a good start, but I think the real solution is to have these phones automatically disable themselves when they are moving over 10 mph. All the technology is there, it would just take some code. Unfortunately I think many would object to this until something seriously disastrous happens.

[Slickcraft]

Text of the law:

265:79-c Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving; Prohibition. –
I. (a) No person, while driving a moving motor vehicle upon a way or temporarily halted in traffic for a traffic control device or other momentary delay, shall use any hand-held mobile electronic device capable of providing voice or data communication, including but not limited to: reading, composing, viewing, or posting any electronic message; or initiating, receiving, or conducting a conversation; or initiating a command or request to access the Internet; or inputting information into a global positioning system or navigation device; or manually typing data into any other portable electronic device. An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a cellular telephone or other electronic device capable of voice communication in the immediate proximity of his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section.
(b) "Driving,'' for the purposes of this section, shall not include when a person is behind the controls of a vehicle that has pulled to the side of or off the road at a location where it is legal to do so and where the vehicle remains stationary.
II. It shall not be an offense under this section for any person driving a motor vehicle upon a way:
(a) To make use of a cellular telephone or other electronic device capable of voice communication to report an emergency to the enhanced 911 system or directly to a law enforcement agency, fire department, or emergency medical provider.
(b) To use one hand to transmit or receive messages on any non-cellular 2-way radio.
(c) To use a Bluetooth enabled or other hands-free electronic device, or a similar device that is physically or electronically integrated into a motor vehicle, for such a purpose to send or receive information provided the driver does not have to divert his or her attention from the road ahead. As used in this section, "hands-free electronic device'' means a mobile electronic device that has an internal feature or function, or that is equipped with an attachment or addition, whether or not permanently part of such mobile electronic device, by which a user engages in conversation without the use of either hand; provided, however, this definition shall not preclude the use of either hand merely to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the telephone.
III. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be fined $100 plus penalty assessment for a first offense, $250 plus penalty assessment for a second offense, and $500 plus penalty assessment for any subsequent offense within a 24-month period.
IV. No person less than 18 years of age shall use a cellular or mobile telephone or other mobile electronic device, whether hands-free or not, while driving a motor vehicle in motion or temporarily stopped in traffic upon any way, except to report an emergency to the enhanced 911 system or any public safety agency. A person violating this paragraph shall be subject to the fines in paragraph III and license suspension or revocation under RSA 263:14, III.

Source. 2014, 256:1, eff. July 1, 2015.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by ITD

This law is a good start, but I think the real solution is to have these phones automatically disable themselves when they are moving over 10 mph. All the technology is there, it would just take some code. Unfortunately I think many would object to this until something seriously disastrous happens.

Not quite all the tech is there yet. It's missing the 3D sonar to figure out if the person with the phone is located in the driver's seat or is only a passenger.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by depasseg

Not quite all the tech is there yet.

Keep me informed when the invention of a button that I can push on my steering wheel when I see someone texting and driving. When pushed, an arm comes of the the texter's dashboard stabbing them in the eye with a soldering iron.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by That Guy

Keep me informed when the invention of a button that I can push on my steering wheel when I see someone texting and driving. When pushed, an arm comes of the the texter's dashboard stabbing them in the eye with a soldering iron.

It will be sometime soon after the invention of the tractor beam that safely moves cars out of the left lane. :-)

[Nagigator]

Maybe not a soldering iron............how about just a hand to slap the driver into sense? Seriously, I agree with another poster, almost every young girl I see driving has her phone in her hand. Hang up and Drive!

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by depasseg

Not quite all the tech is there yet. It's missing the 3D sonar to figure out if the person with the phone is located in the driver's seat or is only a passenger.

I agree this would be a good solution. But as noted, it would need to somehow tie to the driver. Not allowing the passengers doesn't make sense. In many instances, the passenger is the only one keeping the drivers tempted to text from keeping their eyes on the road.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by depasseg

It will be sometime soon after the invention of the tractor beam that safely moves cars out of the left lane. :-)

As one who commutes back & forth 2 hours every weekend --> TOTALLY AGREE

Shows you how effective Laws are ..... Both NH & Ma have Laws stating "Keep right unless Passing".

I am forever amazed and simply have to shake my head at the number of people who are oblivious to their surroundings.

and always feel queezy as I pass in the (completely) empty right side lane.

So if you ever see a vehicle with MA (Breast cancer) Plates pass you on the inside --- MOVE OVER, I'm trying to get to the Lake !

But in true Forum style -- I digress !


.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by depasseg

Not quite all the tech is there yet. It's missing the 3D sonar to figure out if the person with the phone is located in the driver's seat or is only a passenger.

No need, I think the problem is bad enough that it doesn't matter, if the phone is moving more than 10, maybe 15 mph, it stops working, passenger or driver. A necessary inconvenience caused by people too dim to realize how dangerous they are to others when they drive distracted by these devices, nevermind themselves.

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by ITD

No need, I think the problem is bad enough that it doesn't matter, if the phone is moving more than 10, maybe 15 mph, it stops working, passenger or driver. A necessary inconvenience caused by people too dim to realize how dangerous they are to others when they drive distracted by these devices, nevermind themselves.

Hi, 911! I need help.... (silence). Oops, phone stopped working.

The enforcement is the hard part. We have no texting while driving here in NC. It's nearly impossible to enforce. The driver does not have to surrender the phone for search and it's easy to just say you were trying to find a number or accessing music to play. Our highway patrol uses unmarked Chevy Tahoes to look down into cars. They run projects sometimes and they are the only agency that really enforces it. It's a feel good law at best.

Many would complain of gestapo tactics and the ever popular complaint "Don't the cops have something better to do?" would surely arise if law enforcement tried to do more. We can't win.

It's either hands off all together for any reason (except emergencies) or put up with weak and ineffective laws.

[Billy Bob]

But you still don't need to wear a seat belt or use a helmet on on cycle ?
Is this a bit reactionary

[ITD]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

Hi, 911! I need help.... (silence). Oops, phone stopped working.

The enforcement is the hard part. We have no texting while driving here in NC. It's nearly impossible to enforce. The driver does not have to surrender the phone for search and it's easy to just say you were trying to find a number or accessing music to play. Our highway patrol uses unmarked Chevy Tahoes to look down into cars. They run projects sometimes and they are the only agency that really enforces it. It's a feel good law at best.

Many would complain of gestapo tactics and the ever popular complaint "Don't the cops have something better to do?" would surely arise if law enforcement tried to do more. We can't win.

It's either hands off all together for any reason (except emergencies) or put up with weak and ineffective laws.

With the wonders of modern programming the phone could be set up to make 911 calls and no other while moving.

Trust me, my idea is a win as it would stop the morons who drive distracted by their smart devices from using them while they are moving.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by ITD

With the wonders of modern programming the phone could be set up to make 911 calls and no other while moving.

Trust me, my idea is a win as it would stop the morons who drive distracted by there smart devices from using them while they are moving.

Does your idea also block internet? Are GPS, music, etc. also disabled? Can I use my phone/tablet on a train, bus or plane?
I'm on board with the new law as a motorcycle rider and a witness to countless accidents caused by distracted driving. It's a start.

Yes Billy Bob. NH still proudly allows you to ride without seat belts or helmets when you drive to their two new liquor dispensaries where you can purchase the worlds most dangerous drug. After all, it's the live free or die state.

[That Guy]

Even the hands off thing messes me up. My truck has Sync and just saying the name of people distracts me. I guess it can read texts too, but by the time I say the name right and focus on what it is I say to the person, I notice right away that I'm wandering around the lane. I simply can't do it. Only thing I can really do while driving is hit the "next" button on my iPod in the center console. Usually within the first couple notes I know if I want to skip or leave it.

If its 100% imperative I need to make a call while driving, which sometimes it is, I pull over. But even then, I hate this obsession with phones. I have friends that need to check their phones once every five seconds. They can barely do anything manually because their phone is permanently in their hand.

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by That Guy

They can barely do anything manually because their phone is permanently in their hand.

you mean...such as use their blinker?......heaven forbid

[Pineedles]

Blinkers!! Gawd I love it. Haven't heard that in years. Thanks mcdude.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by mcdude

you mean...such as use their blinker?......heaven forbid

I'm not even talking about driving. Just lending a hand in the shop or something.

We were wheeling once and my rig got hung up. One of the guys the was there for some reason could not let go of his phone. We're in the woods on unlevel ground with stumps everywhere. Guy kept losing his balance because he was more concentrated on looking at his phone than finding his footing and helping out.

We'll have customers come into the office discussing their accounts with us, suddenly they'll whip out their phone and starting thumbing away on it completely mid-sentence. "go ahead, I'm still listening"

[mcdude]

Do they realize how ridiculous they look?

[SAMIAM]

Agree about texting. There should be instant access to the phone by law enforcement and a serious fine but still think that banning cell phone use is a little over the top. Punching in a speed dial is actually less distracting than adjusting your heater or A/C, programming your GPS, messing with your radio or eating lunch at the wheel.
Just my $.02

[lfm]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Agree about texting. There should be instant access to the phone by law enforcement and a serious fine but still think that banning cell phone use is a little over the top. Punching in a speed dial is actually less distracting than adjusting your heater or A/C, programming your GPS, messing with your radio or eating lunch at the wheel.
Just my $.02

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Instant access to my personal effects by law enforcement is a violation of my rights and could lead us further down the slippery slope of losing our liberty.

From the Bill of Rights:
Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[fatlazyless]

....ok....so's why is a bluetooth named a bluetooth?

Answer: It has something to do with Harald Bluetooth, the King of Denmark, who reigned from about 958 to 986.

or you can look at 'Bluetooth definition' in Wikipedia ...... huh....what?

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by lfm

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Instant access to my personal effects by law enforcement is a violation of my rights and could lead us further down the slippery slope of losing our liberty.

From the Bill of Rights:
Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The only way to search a cell phone these days is via consent or a search warrant. Circumstances that are exigent are few if any at all when it comes to cell phones. The 6th amendment has to do with due process rights. It's the 4th amendment that protects us from illegal and unreasonable search and seizure.

As a police officer, I think being able to instantly grab a phone to search it in a texting while driving case is unreasonable. Now, it could be taken for evidence and searched with a search warrant but you would really only see that in a fatal or serious injury crash where texting or phone use was suspected.

Hand off completely is the only real enforceable policy. That means I would only have to testify to seeing you handling the phone, which is much simpler. Again, these are feel good laws with no teeth.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

The only way to search a cell phone these days is via consent or a search warrant.

Yea. Because that law is always followed.

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by That Guy

Yea. Because that law is always followed.

Uh oh. Tinfoil hat time.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

Uh oh. Tinfoil hat time.

Yep. I have plenty if you need to borrow some.

[Misty Blue]

First off, I am not a big phone user. If I meet you at the public dock or the hardware store I will talk your ear off. I have kissed the blarney stone. But with a phone I am very terse. Too many years on the VHF I guess.

I do have some problems with this law. First is an advertisement on the radio where a man who identifies himself as a deputy is warning that using your phone is "not worth a trip in my cruiser to jail". Thank you major Hocksteder!

Another is that we already have a law that covers this, distracted driving. That law covers the gambit from texting to putting on make up at the wheel. I believe that our police officers can use their judgment on the dangers involved.

And if so very many people are doing it is it possible that the majority do not want the law? Remember prohibition?

With so many people using the phone while driving I have to ask myself what is the ratio of how many accidents per "phone road miles"? Is it significant? Maybe it is. I don't know.

Lastly, and I think that this one is valid, is that one of the most dangerous things that you can do in your car is to pull over to the side of the road. Especially at night. This law will encourage drivers to do just that. You don't have a cruiser with flashing blues behind you to warn moving traffic that you have stopped. If it at night, the drunk behind you often will follow the lights in front of him. Your rear end. I believe that a great percentage of police injuries and deaths occur by being hit while at the side of the road.

I am not trying to start an argument but we should be carful of what we ask for.

Misty Blue.

[MAXUM]

So what's the difference between using a phone and using a touch screen in a modern day automobile? In fact the brain box in the dash of these new cars is every bit if not more distracting is it not? Should those be outlawed too?

I agree with Misty on this one, there are laws in place for distracted driving, that in and of itself is sufficient. The only way I can even see a ticket stick is if it can be proven that a phone was in use at the time an accident was caused. By then it's to late. Otherwise it's he said she said.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

First off, I am not a big phone user. If I meet you at the public dock or the hardware store I will talk your ear off. I have kissed the blarney stone. But with a phone I am very terse. Too many years on the VHF I guess.

I do have some problems with this law. First is an advertisement on the radio where a man who identifies himself as a deputy is warning that using your phone is "not worth a trip in my cruiser to jail". Thank you major Hocksteder!

Another is that we already have a law that covers this, distracted driving. That law covers the gambit from texting to putting on make up at the wheel. I believe that our police officers can use their judgment on the dangers involved.

And if so very many people are doing it is it possible that the majority do not want the law? Remember prohibition?

With so many people using the phone while driving I have to ask myself what is the ratio of how many accidents per "phone road miles"? Is it significant? Maybe it is. I don't know.

Lastly, and I think that this one is valid, is that one of the most dangerous things that you can do in your car is to pull over to the side of the road. Especially at night. This law will encourage drivers to do just that. You don't have a cruiser with flashing blues behind you to warn moving traffic that you have stopped. If it at night, the drunk behind you often will follow the lights in front of him. Your rear end. I believe that a great percentage of police injuries and deaths occur by being hit while at the side of the road.

I am not trying to start an argument but we should be carful of what we ask for.

Misty Blue.

Where have we heard these same aruments before about enforcing existing laws? !! Well said, Misty Blue. It's the same nanny state politicians that voted this law in as well. When are we going to wake up and get rid of these people?

[HomeWood]

Cell phone use while driving causes collisions that have killed and injured thousands of people. How about the wishes of those that do not want to get hit by cell phone users or anybody for that matter? I have responded to and take numerous wreck reports caused by distracted driving due to phones and messing with GPS devices.

Alcohol prohibition of the early 1900's and cell phone use while driving today could not be more different. Driving while impaired is illegal and there are speed limits for obvious reasons. We do not want a nanny state, so just abolish those laws and we can all do what we want in our cars. A 5000 pound car hitting you from a drunk driver or a texting driver is the same. Physics does not care what we were doing. Keep in mind that two cars traveling on a two lane road towards each other at 55 mph each causes a collision speed of 110 mph if they should hit.

I guess you have to be personally affected or see the affects of it to really care about the issue.

[ishoot308]

Here are some facts...

Texting While Driving Causes:

1. 1,600,000 accidents per year – National Safety Council
2. 330,000 injuries per year – Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Study
3. 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY – Ins. Institute for Hwy Safety Fatality Facts
4. Nearly 25% of ALL car accidents

Texting While Driving Is:

1. About 6 times more likely to cause an accident than driving intoxicated
2. The same as driving after 4 beers – National Hwy Transportation Safety Admin.
3. The number one driving distraction reported by teen drivers

Texting While Driving:

1. Makes you 23X more likely to crash – National Hwy Transportation Safety Admin.
2. Is the same as driving blind for 5 seconds at a time – VA. Tech Transportation Institute
3. Takes place by 800,000 drivers at any given time across the country
4. Slows your brake reaction speed by 18% – HumanFactors & Ergonomics Society
5. Leads to a 400% increase with eyes off the road

[HomeWood]

Could have been worse.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/03/1...l-booth-crash/

The worst happened.

http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/dri...ndrun/23635360

Tell us more about the "rights" you have to put others in harms way.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Here are some facts...

Texting While Driving Causes:

1. 1,600,000 accidents per year – National Safety Council
2. 330,000 injuries per year – Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Study
3. 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY – Ins. Institute for Hwy Safety Fatality Facts
4. Nearly 25% of ALL car accidents

Texting While Driving Is:

1. About 6 times more likely to cause an accident than driving intoxicated
2. The same as driving after 4 beers – National Hwy Transportation Safety Admin.
3. The number one driving distraction reported by teen drivers

Texting While Driving:

1. Makes you 23X more likely to crash – National Hwy Transportation Safety Admin.
2. Is the same as driving blind for 5 seconds at a time – VA. Tech Transportation Institute
3. Takes place by 800,000 drivers at any given time across the country
4. Slows your brake reaction speed by 18% – HumanFactors & Ergonomics Society
5. Leads to a 400% increase with eyes off the road

So, texting while driving is a perfect example of an infraction of the current distracted driving laws then?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So what's the difference between using a phone and using a touch screen in a modern day automobile? In fact the brain box in the dash of these new cars is every bit if not more distracting is it not? Should those be outlawed too?

I've thought about that as well. Some of these cars also let you dial from the OEM interface, passing the commands to the phone via bluetooth.

It's a very fine-edged argument. It also interesting that some of these laws are being pushed at the very same time pushback is occurring on other laws that essentially allow an officer to pull over a motorist for very thin reasons.

I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but I'm not seeing this as a fully thought-out solution either.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I've thought about that as well. Some of these cars also let you dial from the OEM interface, passing the commands to the phone via bluetooth.

Man. My truck has this. It goes something like:

*find button on steering wheel*
*BLING* Please say a command
Call Wife
*BLING* Calling Mike
*fidget with steering wheel to cancel call*
call cancelled after one ring
*BLING Please say a command
Call W I F E
Calling Wife
Hi hun. How are you? Are you calling from the truck? I can barely understand you.
Yea. Hold on.
Incoming call from, Mike
Sorry, I have Mike calling me. I'll just see you when I get home.
ok.
Hey Mike. Sorry I miss-dialed you.
You calling from your truck? I can't understand you.
*CANCELS ALL CALLS AND WAITS UNTIL NEXT PARKING LOT TO CALL PEOPLE*

I honestly can't see how that process is any less frustrating than holding a phone while driving. Have to make a call or text someone? Need to plug in the address on the GPS? Figure out why you iPod stopped midsong?

Get off the freakin' road and figure it out.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

My apologies for the ApS-style of posting but there were so many posts to comment on, this was the easiest way to do it.

Originally Posted by depasseg

Not quite all the tech is there yet. It's missing the 3D sonar to figure out if the person with the phone is located in the driver's seat or is only a passenger.

They could use a sensor in the seat. They already have them for the seat belt warning light/buzzer if there's a passenger seated and the seat belt isn't buckled.

Actually, I was thinking a cellphone signal jammer installed in cars would be good; it would activate when the engine is started and stays on until the engine is shut off. I'm guessing the hard part is keeping the jamming signal tight, to just the immediate area of the car it's installed in.

Originally Posted by HomeWood

It's a feel good law at best.

When it comes right down to it, aren't they all?

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

After all, it's the live free or die state.

Especially when there's revenue to be had!

Originally Posted by That Guy

We'll have customers come into the office discussing their accounts with us, suddenly they'll whip out their phone and starting thumbing away on it completely mid-sentence. "go ahead, I'm still listening"

That one's easy! When you hear that line, your reply should be, "I'll continue when you put your phone away."

Originally Posted by lfm

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Instant access to my personal effects by law enforcement is a violation of my rights and could lead us further down the slippery slope of losing our liberty.

From the Bill of Rights:
Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So let's do this; currently, the police can stop you for suspicion of DWI, do a field sobriety test and if you fail that, ask you to do a breathalyzer test. As I understand it, IF YOU REFUSE the breathalyzer test, you lose your license automatically for a period of time (I'm not familiar with the specific length of time) even if you beat the DWI stop later on. Why couldn't they do the same thing for a suspicion of DWT (driving while texting)? If you refuse access to the phone, you lose your license automatically for a period of time.

Originally Posted by HomeWood

Hand(s) (sic) off completely is the only real enforceable policy. That means I would only have to testify to seeing you handling the phone, which is much simpler. Again, these are feel good laws with no teeth.

Or we could do this; this is simple and easy.

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

Another is that we already have a law that covers this, distracted driving. That law covers the gambit from texting to putting on make up at the wheel. I believe that our police officers can use their judgment on the dangers involved.

Agreed. I remember when that one was enacted, it was mentioned at the time that they could charge you if you're eating in your car while driving! I would think they could use that one as is or, if necessary, amend it as needed to the situation.

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Where have we heard these same aruments before about enforcing existing laws? !! Well said, Misty Blue. It's the same nanny state politicians that voted this law in as well. When are we going to wake up and get rid of these people?

Simple question then; what's your solution to this problem?

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

Cell phone use while driving causes collisions that have killed and injured thousands of people. How about the wishes of those that do not want to get hit by cell phone users or anybody for that matter? I have responded to and take numerous wreck reports caused by distracted driving due to phones and messing with GPS devices.

Alcohol prohibition of the early 1900's and cell phone use while driving today could not be more different. Driving while impaired is illegal and there are speed limits for obvious reasons. We do not want a nanny state, so just abolish those laws and we can all do what we want in our cars. A 5000 pound car hitting you from a drunk driver or a texting driver is the same. Physics does not care what we were doing. Keep in mind that two cars traveling on a two lane road towards each other at 55 mph each causes a collision speed of 110 mph if they should hit.

I guess you have to be personally affected or see the affects of it to really care about the issue.

I agree with everything except the impact. I know, I'm getting technical here, but two cars traveling at 55 mph and hitting head on is not the equivalent of a 110 mph impact, it's equivalent to hitting a solid wall at 55 mph. Either way, you're dead. Newtonian physics never lie...physics always works!

I was riding my motorcycle on Weirs Blvd. today and watched the woman in front of me screwing with her phone. She drifted across the double yellow and almost hit a truck head on. The truck driver swerved and missed US. Needless to say, she got an earful at the next light.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Needless to say, she got an earful at the next light.

I do this more often that I probably should.

[Merrymeeting]

Remember when we could wait 20 minutes to get to a phone and call? ;-)

Regardless, the only solution to this issue is one I am anxiously anticipating. It's on my bucket list!

I hate driving. A waste of my time. I'd rather be doing something else that is more interesting. So, I'm first in line for the self-driving car. All the naysayers will point to possible accidents, lawsuits, etc. But it is coming. A computer with the right programming and good sensors will react faster and more accurately than a human anytime. I, for one, can't wait, especially as I get older and look forward to NOT giving up my independence when my senses dictate I shouldn't be driving anymore anyway.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/federico...for-insurance/

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

So, texting while driving is a perfect example of an infraction of the current distracted driving laws then?

Yes....BUT, if 25% of all accidents are caused by texting while driving then obviously that law is not working and needs to be modified or it was enacted when texting wasn't an issue....

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that this issue is big and harmful to others. If it only hurt the person who was texting I wouldn't give two sh*#s, as we don't need any more laws to save us from ourselves!

Dan

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Yes....BUT, if 25% of all accidents are caused by texting while driving then obviously that law is not working and needs to be modified or it was enacted when texting wasn't an issue....

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that this issue is big and harmful to others. If it only hurt the person who was texting I wouldn't give two sh*#s, as we don't need any more laws to save us from ourselves!

Dan

Generally speaking we tend to agree. I think the issue is poor enforcement of existing laws (which, IMO, is a common problem) and lack of real penalties/repercussions.

Hell, even without the law most people *know* it's a bad idea. Yet another law with minimal enforcement won't make a big impact (IMO).

[nhcatrider]

I drive for a living. My viewpoint is 9 feet in the air, and you wouldn't believe the distractions I see other drivers involved in. I see texting, eating, makeup, reading, maps, gps programming, dialing phones, fights, and one topic we will call other. I have found that a good whack on the air horn wakes people up as they realize that they are about to do something incredibly stupid in front of something that weighs 40 tons. Personally, I think eating is probably the worst distraction out there. Not only are you looking down but you are putting your hand(s) up to your face to keep stuffing things in.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Simple question then; what's your solution to this problem?

Simple: Enforce laws that are already on the books.

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Simple: Enforce laws that are already on the books.

Here's the problem with that. I'll use my state's law for example. There is no sending or receiving any kind of text message while driving. Everything else is legal to do with a phone while driving. Under 18 is different but let's assume this for 18 and older right now. Here is the statute language:

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislat...20-137.4A.html

Here's the scenario: I spot somebody playing with their phone while we're going down the road side by side or something. It appears they are typing something. I stop that driver and ask what they were doing with the phone. And they reply with anything other than an admission to have been texting. They could say I wasn't texting but I was using the calculator, choosing music, or looking for a phone number. Then I ask to check the phone for any texts within the time I saw the violation. The driver says no, you can't see it, and I never get to search the phone. I'm sure they were texting, so I issue a citation without being able to search the phone and they can explain it to the court they weren't texting.

Months later the case shows up in court. They are pleading not responsible to the charge of texting while driving. I am put on the stand to testify as to what I saw. The only thing I can honestly say is the defendant had their phone in their hand and appeared to be typing something. The attorney argues to the judge that their client was doing some other activity besides texting. The defendant says they weren't texting and I can't say exactly what they were doing with the phone. Verdict: NOT RESPONSIBLE (guilty is for misdemeanors and felonies) This scenario describes an infraction.

Now what?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

The driver says no, you can't see it, and I never get to search the phone. I'm sure they were texting, so I issue a citation without being able to search the phone and they can explain it to the court they weren't texting.

This outlines a completely different problem. Why are you issuing a citation for what is ultimately your opinion? The probability is they were likely texting, however they actually COULD have been doing any of those other things. You have no actual proof or evidence other than an observation (while you're presumably driving as well and needing to pay attention to surroundings).

Maybe the law in your state needs to be updated or amended, but issuing citations in this manner is abusive.

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

This outlines a completely different problem. Why are you issuing a citation for what is ultimately your opinion? The probability is they were likely texting, however they actually COULD have been doing any of those other things. You have no actual proof or evidence other than an observation (while you're presumably driving as well and needing to pay attention to surroundings).

Maybe the law in your state needs to be updated or amended, but issuing citations in this manner is abusive.

Right, that's why I've never charged it. It was a hypothetical. I was trying to show the weakness of such laws as I was discussing previously. Again, feel good laws at best so the politicians can say they did something. Remember, they want your vote next time around.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

Here's the problem with that. I'll use my state's law for example. There is no sending or receiving any kind of text message while driving. Everything else is legal to do with a phone while driving. Under 18 is different but let's assume this for 18 and older right now. Here is the statute language:

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislat...20-137.4A.html

Here's the scenario: I spot somebody playing with their phone while we're going down the road side by side or something. It appears they are typing something. I stop that driver and ask what they were doing with the phone. And they reply with anything other than an admission to have been texting. They could say I wasn't texting but I was using the calculator, choosing music, or looking for a phone number. Then I ask to check the phone for any texts within the time I saw the violation. The driver says no, you can't see it, and I never get to search the phone. I'm sure they were texting, so I issue a citation without being able to search the phone and they can explain it to the court they weren't texting.

Months later the case shows up in court. They are pleading not responsible to the charge of texting while driving. I am put on the stand to testify as to what I saw. The only thing I can honestly say is the defendant had their phone in their hand and appeared to be typing something. The attorney argues to the judge that their client was doing some other activity besides texting. The defendant says they weren't texting and I can't say exactly what they were doing with the phone. Verdict: NOT RESPONSIBLE (guilty is for misdemeanors and felonies) This scenario describes an infraction.

Now what?

I can't speak for your state, but I'm pretty sure NH has a distracted driving law. The "offense" that you speak of would appear to me to be distracted driving, and thus would seem be an enforceable offense. Believe me, I hate seeing these kids doing anything else but having 2 hands on the wheel and focusing on driving. They're going to either kill themselves or someone else. But I'm not convinced that any new laws are going to curtail this activity. There are also laws against motor vehicle speeding in NH. Have they stopped speeding? No, all they have done is to create a revenue stream for the State of NH. As I said before: we have enough laws. Enforce the ones we already have.

[HomeWood]

I was not comparing the two states. I was merely talking about these laws in general and supporting my contention that many are too weak to be really be effective (loopholes, this is ok but not that, etc). Sounds like NH is going hands off all together, except emergency calls and such. That's good to hear because it can be enforced easier than what exists elsewhere. I sincerely hope it saves lives.

Well, I'm out of breath on this one. Thanks for letting me play.

[laketrout]

I don't text and drive but it still seems to be an unfunded mandate unless you get caught or get into an accident. Bigger issue is my car and most new cars come standard with a 5-8" Digital dashboard screen that one can fiddle with while driving, what's the difference? 200 satellite radio channels and your fumbling thru them on the dashboard screen while driving. Using common sense is the issue and something that is lacking.