Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th October 2007, 15:48   #31
BHPian
 
thefreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 362
Thanked: 3 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sahil View Post
Thank god you arent part of the law making body in India !

The point i was trying to make is that when you put your phone on speaker and keep it on the seat next to you or on the dashboard it is as good as you talking to a fellow passenger... both your hands are free to be on the wheel and your eyes are on the road (infact this is safer than talkin to a passanger as there is no need for eye contact during the conv :P )
Well not exactly. I find talking on the phone more distracting that talking to a co-passenger. Two reasons that I can think of.. There is a chance that the co-passenger can see the traffic conditions and shut up and let you drive. Second - if you are talking to someone important you tend to pay much more attention to the call because you cannot ask the person on the other side to repeat something ten times. They are not aware of the traffic situation and can get irritated and you try to avoid that. So the chance of concentration wavering is higher.
thefreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2007, 21:56   #32
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 680
Thanked: 6 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carboy View Post
Then even better is that the moment you start driving, you call a relative
& remain connected through the drive, just in case you have an accident
during the drive - that may save even more seconds - you won't even
have to spend time dialling.
What if your relative is in an emergency and you need to be contacted? Or say your wife is in labor, your home got burgled and you need to be contacted? In case you are worried that taking an emergency call you are going to lose concentration, you can always pull over and take the call. No?

Does anyone have statistics on how many accidents happened due to cell phones and how many accidents happen due to bad driving (RTO's issuing licenses to undeserving people by taking bribes)?

So many people complain about politicians and Cops being stupid, but this forum proves that every harebrained idea has its share of supporters. We Indians love knee jerk reactions to problems. Instead of coming up with solutions that target the root cause, we try to come up with populist schemes that only cause more inconvenience than solve anything.
Mayavi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th October 2007, 22:08   #33
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 680
Thanked: 6 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreak View Post
Well not exactly. I find talking on the phone more distracting that talking to a co-passenger.
Unfortunately we cannot rely on gut feeling but need to do scientific studies to come to a conclusion that cell phones affect driving. Even if it is proven that cell phones are harmful, I do not support banning them. The reason being that our roads are unsafe in many ways, mainly lack of driver skills, unsafe vehicles, lack of lane discipline and lack of traffic rule enforcement. Without addressing these issues first, banning cell phones is like applying band-aid to a bruise on hand while a bullet is lodged in the head.
Mayavi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 05:22   #34
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 1,446
Thanked: 281 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreak View Post
Great point carboy! Two catches. One there is a way to prove otherwise. Call Records. The service provider would have it too. Second - the cops there are kinda less into money making than the ones here. Gives them a great handle. IMHO.
Too difficult to enforce the law if every enforcement requires call records
from the provider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayavi View Post
What if your relative is in an emergency and you need to be contacted? Or say your wife is in labor, your home got burgled and you need to be contacted?
Such questions can be posed for any law? What if your headlight is not
working & all the mirrors are broken. In a situation like this, if your wife
is in labour & you need to take her to the hospital. Hence the govt should
remove that law that you need working headlights & mirrors in your
car.

About burglaries, another point is that unless, you are like Batman or some other crime fighter extraordinary, I don't see what a law should be based
on this. Maybe they can add the Batman corrollary to the law. i.e. the
cell-phone law doesn't apply to Batman & others like him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayavi View Post
Does anyone have statistics on how many accidents happened due to cell phones and how many accidents happen due to bad driving (RTO's issuing licenses to undeserving people by taking bribes)?
This argument can be used to fight any law. i.e. more accidents happen
due to RTO's issuing licenses to undeserving people than because of
people jumping signals - hence jumping signals shouldn't be a crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayavi View Post
Unfortunately we cannot rely on gut feeling but need to do scientific studies to come to a conclusion that cell phones affect driving.
That's exactly what I meant when I wrote that if there are studies showing that talking to co-passengers causes a significant increase in
accidents just like talking on cell-phone, then go ahead & ban that also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sahil View Post
About hiring a driver, not everyone is in a position to afford a driver.
There is always public transport. If you are buying car, you are essentially doing a calculation,
that you will be able to fulfill all legally required expenses. So if you want to use the car &
also use your cellphone at the same time, then essentially a driver becomes a reqd expense.
In such a case, if you can't afford a driver, either chuck the car or the cellphone.
If affordability was an excuse, people may not change non-working headlights, broken mirrors,
non-working brakes etc.

Last edited by carboy : 9th October 2007 at 05:33.
carboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 05:45   #35
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 680
Thanked: 6 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carboy View Post
Such questions can be posed for any law? What if your headlight is not working & all the mirrors are broken. In a situation like this, if your wife is in labour & you need to take her to the hospital. Hence the govt should remove that law that you need working headlights & mirrors in your car.
Yes Genius, you can still drive without a headlight and mirrors, but you cannot drive without a engine, can you? Got my drift? Your wife may not be in labor every day but there can be other emergency issues where I may have to be contacted by my friends/family/boss. I need to have the cell phone on so that I see an incoming call and pull over. If you are so scared of people with cell phone crashing into you, may be you need to stay home rather than restrict other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carboy View Post
This argument can be used to fight any law. i.e. more accidents happen due to RTO's issuing licenses to undeserving people than because of people jumping signals - hence jumping signals shouldn't be a crime.
How about a law where all children are arrested as soon as they are born because there is good chance one of them is bound to grow up become a criminal?



Quote:
Originally Posted by carboy View Post
That's exactly what I meant when I wrote that if there are studies showing that talking to co-passengers causes a significant increase in
accidents just like talking on cell-phone, then go ahead & ban that also.
Please do show us the study which proved that cell phones cause accidents. Since you are an ardent supported of the law, you must have seen a study like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carboy View Post
There is always public transport. If you are buying car, you are essentially doing a calculation,
that you will be able to fulfill all legally required expenses. So if you want to use the car & also use your cellphone at the same time, then essentially a driver becomes a reqd expense.
In such a case, if you can't afford a driver, either chuck the car or the cellphone.
If affordability was an excuse, people may not change non-working headlights, broken mirrors,
non-working brakes etc.
Does sponsoring brain surgery to some of the law makers and their supporters count in those expense calculations?
Mayavi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 06:33   #36
Ram
Senior - BHPian
 
Ram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore, Mumbai, Nagpur
Posts: 2,164
Thanked: 139 Times
Default

Now they're arresting people for just having a cellphone.

Man wrongly arrested for using cellphone gets justice-India-The Times of India

What legal recourse do you have against a policeman who doesn't know the law?

In the ruffian north, would the police use physical violence as well?
Ram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 07:14   #37
Team-BHP Support
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 7,007
Thanked: 21,586 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ram View Post
Now they're arresting people for just having a cellphone.

What legal recourse do you have against a policeman who doesn't know the law?
Read the article.
I hope the court takes note of such "mistakes" by the police. A stern warning must be issued to them for misuse of power.
Aditya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 08:24   #38
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 139
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayavi View Post
Unfortunately we cannot rely on gut feeling but need to do scientific studies to come to a conclusion that cell phones affect driving. Even if it is proven that cell phones are harmful, I do not support banning them. The reason being that our roads are unsafe in many ways, mainly lack of driver skills, unsafe vehicles, lack of lane discipline and lack of traffic rule enforcement. Without addressing these issues first, banning cell phones is like applying band-aid to a bruise on hand while a bullet is lodged in the head.
Actually studies have found that talking on a cell phone without a handsfree while driving results in reflexes slower than even drunken driving. While using a handsfree is safer its still worse than talking to co passengers. Dont know why and have never been able to understand this.

Here are two references

III - Cell Phones and Driving
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety - Resources

Last edited by kumar2007 : 9th October 2007 at 08:27.
kumar2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 09:02   #39
BHPian
 
thefreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 362
Thanked: 3 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayavi View Post
Unfortunately we cannot rely on gut feeling but need to do scientific studies to come to a conclusion that cell phones affect driving. Even if it is proven that cell phones are harmful, I do not support banning them. The reason being that our roads are unsafe in many ways, mainly lack of driver skills, unsafe vehicles, lack of lane discipline and lack of traffic rule enforcement. Without addressing these issues first, banning cell phones is like applying band-aid to a bruise on hand while a bullet is lodged in the head.
It is not a gut feeling.. it is an observation. I have observed that I feel more distracted when talking on the phone rather then when talking to a co-passenger. Others can pour in their thoughts.
thefreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 09:09   #40
BHPian
 
thefreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 362
Thanked: 3 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carboy View Post

There is always public transport. If you are buying car, you are essentially doing a calculation,
that you will be able to fulfill all legally required expenses. So if you want to use the car &
also use your cellphone at the same time, then essentially a driver becomes a reqd expense.
In such a case, if you can't afford a driver, either chuck the car or the cellphone.
If affordability was an excuse, people may not change non-working headlights, broken mirrors,
non-working brakes etc.
Public transpor! . Read the papers mate.. The blue lines (public transport) kill far more people per day that mobile yapping drivers do in a month. Mayavi hit the nail on the head. If there is an emergency then I can pull over and recieve a call. That is why I need a cell phone on. Further at your point of trying to check call records.. if checking everycar to see if a person has a cellphone on is easy then by jove it wouldn't be much harder to check on the mobile call records (first in the phone and then if the officer is so sure that the offender was actually able to delete the calls) then with the service provider.

Tell me... If driving after drinking is so dangerous then we should also be banning all the parking lots in the bars/pubs etc. Chances are that people would be tipsy when they drive after the drinks. So we go ahead with this too? Ditto for all the hotels that serve alcohol.

THe point is that there has to be a law and there has to be a limit. Are the lawmakers hitting the right balance? I doubt it.

Last edited by thefreak : 9th October 2007 at 09:10.
thefreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 11:05   #41
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 680
Thanked: 6 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumar2007 View Post
Actually studies have found that talking on a cell phone without a handsfree while driving results in reflexes slower than even drunken driving.

III - Cell Phones and Driving
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety - Resources
Kumar, here is an excerpt from the first link you posted

Quote:
However, cell-phone use is far less likely to be the cause of a crash or near-miss than other distractions, according to the study. For example, while reaching for a moving object such as a falling cup increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times, talking or listening on a hand-held cell phone only increased the risk by 1.3 times

These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers.
Now there is no conclusive proof. These are studies done in Australia and US. Was any done in India? US and Australia would not use Indian studies to make laws in their country. Why then should we use their studies? We are different from them, we have more population density, different driving habits, different roads, different side of road, different speeds, different (or is it indifferent) cops... everything is different. How then can we use their study to formulate our laws?

Last edited by Mayavi : 9th October 2007 at 11:07.
Mayavi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 13:32   #42
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 3,079
Thanked: 251 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayavi View Post
How then can we use their study to formulate our laws?
Because we NEVER have our own study for ANYTHING!
And we MUST pass judgement. Got to base it on SOMETHING! May as well be their study!
anupmathur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 14:52   #43
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 139
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefreak View Post
It is not a gut feeling.. it is an observation. I have observed that I feel more distracted when talking on the phone rather then when talking to a co-passenger. Others can pour in their thoughts.
I agree with you a 100%. I feel much more distracted on a mobiole than talking to co passengers.
kumar2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 14:58   #44
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 1,446
Thanked: 281 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumar2007 View Post
Actually studies have found that talking on a cell phone without a handsfree while driving results in reflexes slower than even drunken driving. While using a handsfree is safer its still worse than talking to co passengers. Dont know why and have never been able to understand this.

Here are two references

III - Cell Phones and Driving
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety - Resources

The AAA cellphone study is a very controversial one - one of the
reasons is that AAA sells cell phones & has a vested interest.
USATODAY.com - AAA faces a fork in the road
carboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 9th October 2007, 15:50   #45
BHPian
 
kartikkumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bangalore...not Bengaluru
Posts: 214
Thanked: Once
Default

I've been following this thread for a while to get a measure of people's reactions to the enforcement of a law. It seems our natural instinct veers towards disobedience and questioning without ever making an attempt to follow the law. Logical or not, diffcult or not, the fact of the matter is that a law exists and it is our duty to obey that law. The proper recourse for one aggreived by a law is to challenge its validity in the courts and not to openly flout it on the grounds that it is inconvenient or illogical.

Parallel arguments of emergencies, business calls, etc, are just that...arguments that one uses to justify one's actions. What is the comfort one seeks? To be reachable at all times or to engage in conversations with anyone who cares to call at any time such person calls, irrespective of circumstances? If it is the former, would one accept an option on a phone that disables the phone's ability to make and receive calls but merely flashes the name and number of the person trying to contact you?

Bottom line is that we refuse to make the effort to follow a rule/law if we find it "inconvenient" or ill-suited for our immediate needs. Let me extend this logic to illogical levels to demonstrate its failiing. Suppose I were to stop paying taxes because I found it difficult to fill forms and don't feel like giving my money to the government and I feel the rates of tax are too high? Suppose I refuse to take off my footwear in temples because I think it is silly and my feet get dirty? Would that be acceptable?

Think about it guys. Its not just about mobile phones and driving, it is about learning to respect the law and follow it, moving towards a more orderly society.

Cheers!
kartikkumar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Emergency Driving - 'While' Driving dhanushs Street Experiences 47 1st July 2011 04:44
Cop mis-using authority / Do I really deserve this for driving safe all this while? Furebo Street Experiences 43 2nd May 2011 21:46
Using a mobile while driving - booked - what's going to happen? issigonis Street Experiences 62 15th January 2010 13:48
An Appeal !! - Safeguarding the interest of motorists ac 427 Shifting gears 0 9th April 2007 12:32


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 10:18.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks