Legislate me: drivers favor ban on distractions
A recent study by Response Insurance, a national car insurer, says that cell phones aren't the only driver distractions people want banned. Reading, grooming, and even listening to MP3 players or iPods were on the list with significant support.A few interesting results of the survey is that more Blackberry users favor government legislation banning their use behind the wheel than non-Blackberry users (65 to 58 percent, respectively), and 28 percent of the population says that even hands-free cell phone devices should be banned.
It's no surprise that a whopping 79 percent of people favor banning reading behind the wheel, 72 percent favor banning texting, and 68 percent favor banning grooming, but a surprising number of people are also all for banning eating, smoking and listening to iPods or MP3 players (36, 34 and 28 percent, respectively).
Thanks to Jamie for the tip.
[Source: Response Insurance via Yahoo! Finance]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
stephie 2:55PM (9/25/2008)
wow so if the punishment is 1 year probation and $1000 fine for driving w/ out a license..what happens if you get caught doing this w/ kids inside the car? i have a friend who drives w/ only a permit w/ her kids in the car. she's 32 years old.
Reply
drolds1 7:22PM (8/16/2006)
I'd like to speak with the 21% who DON'T favor a ban on reading while driving.
Reply
Anne Cohen 5:06PM (6/12/2007)
Basically... I like to see everything banned as long as the car is in motion. I only find it acceptable if one has to make a cell phone call as long as someone is sitting in a parking lot and explain to the person as long as you are on the freeway, you will not be intercepting phone calls until you get home. And better yet, turn that cell phone OFF before and after you drive. Also, eating your lunch or dinner is acceptable as long you are in a parking lot with your engine off and your keys out of the ignition.
Keep only one or two cd on the seat next to you if you want to listen to cds instead of the radio. Also, when driving with children... keep any offensive visual off even if children want to see movies in the car.... you can get distracted even to loud and sudden sounds from the dvd. Also not many people groom or apply makeup in the cars anyway so banning them isn't anything much to worry about. Also people don't usually eat while driving either.
nezromatron 7:26PM (8/16/2006)
I'm guessing the MP3 player thing refers to people wearing headphones. Which I believe is against the law in most states anyway.
Reply
fizzandpop 7:30PM (8/16/2006)
#1 you beat me to it. I don't think they are pro-reading behind the wheel, just not that bothered, or something equally stupid. I want to see a complete ban on lap dogs licking old/fat lady drivers' faces when they're attempting to leave a four-way stop.
Reply
naggs 7:33PM (8/16/2006)
this is rediculous, if we made everything illegal that gets morons into trouble what would be legal?
Reply
David 7:56PM (8/16/2006)
What? I can't even access the web on my Blackberry and read Autoblog while I drive!? Next you'll want me to stop doing crossword puzzles and playing Texas Hold 'em with my carpool buddies on the Autobahn!
Reply
Ryan 8:06PM (8/16/2006)
Do we really think EACH and EVERY law that has passed over that past couple hundred years are 100% enforced and effectivatly enforced in the USA?!
-Let's work on that first.
Reply
bgdc 10:07PM (8/16/2006)
Brilliant. Ban simple things rather than legislating decent driving skills. Want to help everybody? Mandate bi-annual driving tests that are difficult.
Make drivers pay for the test - $200 (that will cover the overhead easily and may even be profitable).
People who score say 88% to 75% must take a test the next year. And do so yearly as long as they don't go over 89% (then they get a one year pass - so test again in 2 years) or go below 75%. Drop below 75% and one can take the test again within a month at the same cost. Score below 75% again and they lose their license and test rights for 1 year.
Score below 60% and you automatically lose your license for 1 year - driver's training courses accepted while accompanied by a licensed passenger for 2 months prior to test ($50 for that permit). Score below 60% in two consecutive years and lose your license for 2 years. Score below 60% for 3 attempts and lose your license for 5 years.
Quite simply if one is caught driving without a license or international driver's license (which requires proof of a driver's license in another country), one gets 1 year probation and a $1000 fine. Essentially, make it harsh like a DUI. Caught twice in one year - bump it to $2500 and 500 hours community service. Three times = mandatory jail time and a felony conviction.
Legislate the morons out of driving.
Reply
Howard Kerr 10:11PM (8/16/2006)
This is another one of those " I think something should be banned, just don't ever ticket me for doing the things you've banned "....ideas/polls? Or do as I say, not as I want to do.
If so many folks say they are against something, why do we still see idiots doing these things?
I work on a small U.S. Navy base, HUGE signs at the gate, and again inside the base, tell you NOT to use a cell phone while driving. Yet, just this week I've seen 2 different women (driving big SUVs) talking on cell phones moments after entering this base.
Reply
Poopy Head 11:32PM (8/16/2006)
Just what I need, more big brother in my life. The radio can be just as much of a distraction. Should we ban those? Should they make it so that you have to pull over to change channels?
Just because it is against the law doesn't mean people will do it. It's would just be another reason law enforcement could pull money out of your wallet.
Reply
shiznannigan 11:39PM (8/16/2006)
bgdc, it sounds more like that would legislate poor people out of driving. You know, the people that NEED to drive (to work, etc) to make a living?
The trouble with current drivers tests is that they're flawed. I recently had to take a written/behind the wheel test (my previous license expired), and it amazed me how little of the test related to driving. Over half of the written portion was questions about fines... one question was even "What is the maximum fine for a NON-DRIVING RELATED alcohol offence by a minor?" Why was this on a driving test??
The behind-the-wheel test spent very little time on populated roads, and I got 10% knocked off for not moving my head when looking at stopped cross-traffic at intersections. Yeah.
The problem isn't in the quantity of testing. It's the quality that counts.
Reply
piglet 12:20AM (8/17/2006)
...er, the 21% were too busy reading to comment.
Reply
Elliott 8:19AM (8/17/2006)
I think people should be able to smoke while driving, but why do they always toss their butts out the window? I think all cars have an ashtray in them and while I know there is absolutely no chance that it's going to hit my car and cause it to explode, I can't help but have a brief moment of panic when I see that little fire bounce towards my car.
And I know most people don't walk along highways to enjoy the scenery, but cigarette butts are by far the most common form of litter. I just don't get it.
Reply
Brandon 8:22AM (8/17/2006)
34% want to ban smoking in the car!?! Ok lemme explain this, I can't smoke in my home (I have a no smoking lease), I can't smoke in the office, and I can't smoke within 15 feet of any door. So about the only place I have left to smoke is in my car. Maybe the rest of you aren't talented enough to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time but that doesn't all of us are handicap. However, I do realize it has nothing to do with the above reasons. You all just want the government to step into yet another place it has no business and then complain tomorrow how you are excessively taxed and how bloated the government is. Freedom was gone a long time ago, let's just not become Communist please?
Reply
Howard Kerr 8:32AM (8/17/2006)
" Maybe the rest of you aren't talented enough to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time BUT THAT DOESN'T ALL OF US ARE HANDICAP ".
Brandon........apparently YOU can't sit and type, much less chew bubble gum and walk. Don't you mean to say:
"....but that doesn't MEAN all of us are HANDICAPPED." ?
Reply
MikeW 9:05AM (8/17/2006)
We are trying to build a fault tolerant system here.
Adding more laws does not help that out. There are some people who drive their whole lives without accident. There are some people who get into an accident before actually getting their license (under permit)
Make the laws structured so that those who can drive, do. Make it known that the greatest responsibility while driving is to the road (greater good).
ie, don't be a left lane bandit, slowing down the throughput of the road network.
You can't legislate morons out of driving, but can try to educated morons out of driving.
Reply
Steve C. 9:25AM (8/17/2006)
I don't see that the banning of "multi-tasking" while driving is anywhere in the same league as "becoming Communists". If that were the case, you'd be riding a bicycle.
I fully support the "freedom" of a motorcyclist who doesn't want to wear a helmet. He or she is only putting themself at risk of injury. However, for you morons who choose to drive on a high-speed highway while talking on your mobile, reading, lighting a cigarette, applying makeup, e-mailing/text messenging, watching a DVD, etc., etc., I have only one comment:
Get the f*** off the road.
Every recent study by safety groups has shown that doing any of those activities while driving is virtually identical, risk-wise, to driving while intoxicated. And the younger the driver, the higher the risk.
Yeah, yeah, I know . . . you're a really cool dude/dudette who can listen to your iPod, text message your peeps and light up a smoke while whizzing along at 75-80 in the left lane of the 405 headed to the Valley. But if you really think that, your ego has hijacked your judgment and you are putting yourself and the rest of us at risk.
Reply
Jscro 10:07AM (8/17/2006)
Can we just get it over with and ban stupid people from living?
All these laws, don't do a bit of good when our drivers are totally ignorant of how to drive properly anyways.
Reply
jamie 10:51AM (8/17/2006)
Question:
Does this mean that GM will have to recall all their vehicles equipped with OnStar equipped to have them removed? :(
Reply