Indiana BMV now adds points to records under state’s hands-free driving law

[Tanfodude]

I'm sorry about your passenger. It's not my concern. I don't care if they are entertained or not. I do care about my son or daughter doing the right thing getting T-boned by some dim wit taking a selfie to post on face book.

Then take a bus or public transit if you're that scared of daily risks. .

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You're attacking this whole thing from the wrong angle. Ban automatic transmissions and power steering. Then see how many cell phones are in hands.

If you also ban power brakes, driving becomes a full body workout. It should help with the obesity crisis as well.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You're attacking this whole thing from the wrong angle. Ban automatic transmissions and power steering. Then see how many cell phones are in hands.

If you also ban power brakes, driving becomes a full body workout. It should help with the obesity crisis as well.

I drove a truck with a 5 speed and without power steering. Normally it wasn’t bad, but stuck in traffic or town/city driving was a workout. Definitely no time to mess with a phone.

 

[KLB]

I don't think you understand, there is no screen that has to be held up, with the radio adapter all you have to do is hit a pre tuned station on the radio.
Use your phones ability to awnser hands free with Google, Siri or the supplied app.

With a blue tooth headset, all you have to do is tap the button on the headset.

No need to take you eyes off the road.

I have not had a phone in my hand while driving for over 8 years, I used a Blue Parrot headset in the Big truck I drove and my personal vehicle until I bought my current SUV and put a Bluetooth enable stereo in it when I bought is almost 4 years ago.

Talking on a phone is also a distraction. There is not much difference between holding the phone and not when talking in how much you are distracted.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Talking on a phone is also a distraction. There is not much difference between holding the phone and not when talking in how much you are distracted.

I beg to disagree, it is no different than carrying on a conversation with another person in the vehicle

I ran thousands of miles between Indy and Chicago Columbus, OH. and London Ky. All while having a headset on my head, knowing that there is a time to talk and a time to say hold on.
That is where people fail and accidents happen.

 

[BigRed]

Does this law apply to law enforcement officers working on their laptops while driving?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

it is no different than carrying on a conversation with another person in the vehicle

There are some people that shouldn't even be allowed to do that. I've seen a lot of people that insist on turning and facing the passenger when they're talking. I'm like, c'mon. You're literally 2 feet from the person next to you. Do you really think they won't hear you if you face forward with your eyes on the road while you talk??

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I beg to disagree, it is no different than carrying on a conversation with another person in the vehicle

This is incorrect. Talking to someone who isn't physically present actually takes more brain power then talking to someone who's present, as evidenced by both brain scan studies and by things like measuring the normalcy of your gait. The short of it is you are having to split your attention in more ways, which humans suck at, and you're having to "fill in the blanks" that would normally be provided by body language, gestures, facial expressions, etc.

Your computing power is limited. It's why you turn off the radio to see better, now you have one less thing to process and can process visual input more effectively. Cell phone use, hands free or not, takes up more of that computing power then talking to someone in person, leaving you less for looking for hazards, etc.

DoggyDaddy
There are some people that shouldn't even be allowed to do that. I've seen a lot of people that insist on turning and facing the passenger when they're talking. I'm like, c'mon. You're literally 2 feet from the person next to you. Do you really think they won't hear you if you face forward with your eyes on the road while you talk??

Same issue. It's not about hearing, it's about communicating. Communication is more then verbal/auditory. It's much easier to have misunderstandings in text then in speech, after all.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Same issue. It's not about hearing, it's about communicating. Communication is more then verbal/auditory. It's much easier to have misunderstandings in text then in speech, after all.

Well, in the case of driver to passenger communication, I'd still rather have the driver keeping their eyes forward instead of staring at the passenger. I don't see how not looking at the road at all for 10, 15 or 20 seconds is safer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

All while having a headset on my head, knowing that there is a time to talk and a time to say hold on.
That is where people fail and accidents happen.

The difference is right there. It is a matter of thinking, not requiring trinkets

 

[IndyBeerman]

There are some people that shouldn't even be allowed to do that. I've seen a lot of people that insist on turning and facing the passenger when they're talking. I'm like, c'mon. You're literally 2 feet from the person next to you. Do you really think they won't hear you if you face forward with your eyes on the road while you talk??

Unfortunately there are idiots that walk amongst us, breathing the air and drinking the very water we need to survive and the level of education they have does not mean that they are any less of a idiot.

 

[IndyBeerman]

This is incorrect. Talking to someone who isn't physically present actually takes more brain power then talking to someone who's present, as evidenced by both brain scan studies and by things like measuring the normalcy of your gait. The short of it is you are having to split your attention in more ways, which humans suck at, and you're having to "fill in the blanks" that would normally be provided by body language, gestures, facial expressions, etc.

Your computing power is limited. It's why you turn off the radio to see better, now you have one less thing to process and can process visual input more effectively. Cell phone use, hands free or not, takes up more of that computing power then talking to someone in person, leaving you less for looking for hazards, etc.

Studies are just that, a study, they never report about the people who do not fit the agenda they are narrating. They only seek and publish info they want.

If so, law enforcement should not be allowed to key a mic to respond to a call without pulling over, be able to gaze at the screen of the laptop in their vehicle while moving.

Or are we going to play the game that LEO's are superior beings and must be allowed because they are superior individuals?

 

[DadSmith]

Indiana BMV now adds points to records under state's hands-free driving law

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles on Thursday started adding points to records under the state’s hands-free driving law. The law took effect July 1, 2020, and makes it illegal for drivers to have cellphones in their hands while driving. Since the law went into effect...

www.wishtv.com

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles on Thursday started adding points to records under the state’s hands-free driving law.

The law took effect July 1, 2020, and makes it illegal for drivers to have cellphones in their hands while driving.

Since the law went into effect, more than 5,400 citations and 10,000 warnings have been issued.

According to the state government’s Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, distracted driving associated with cellphones factored into more than 1,200 crashes in 2019.

Officials say it’s going to take everyone working together to put an end to distracted driving.

Devon McDonald, executive director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, said Thursday, “A person wouldn’t get into th7e car with an impaired driver just like they wouldn’t drive impaired themselves. We need to think the same way from a cultural perspective with the hands-free law.”

The federal National Transportation Safety Board says states with hands-free driving laws have seen a nearly 20% decrease in traffic deaths within two years of passing the law.

Indiana marks one year anniversary of Hands Free Driving Law - WBIW

INDIANA – The Indiana Department of Transportation is marking the one year anniversary of the Hands Free Driving Law going into effect. On July 1, 2020,...

www.wbiw.com

I still see State troopers and Sheriffs deputies driving and talking on there cellphone. Does this law not apply to them?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Studies are just that, a study, they never report about the people who do not fit the agenda they are narrating. They only seek and publish info they want.

If so, law enforcement should not be allowed to key a mic to respond to a call without pulling over, be able to gaze at the screen of the laptop in their vehicle while moving.

Or are we going to play the game that LEO's are superior beings and must be allowed because they are superior individuals?

Since I'm sure you haven't bothered to read any of them or do any research, I won't bother with your "nuh-uh studies are dumb" rebuttal. If you have any specific issues, or just want to ignore pretty common sense things like people walk out into traffic on their phones much more often then they do while talking to their friends we can address those.

So let's understand "distracted/not distracted" is not a binary state. It's a sliding scale. Talking to someone in person is a pretty minor distraction. So is listening to music on the radio (and music is easier to tune out and not process any longer, there's no social pressure to "listen" vs "hear" like in a conversation. Everyone who's married knows the difference between listening and hearing and how much attention each takes....)

As far as the police radio, it's not the same as a phone conversation. We pretty quickly learn to ignore traffic that isn't for us and when you respond, particularly with brevity codes, it's a second or two of air time. "Radio ear" is the common parlance. I hear but don't process the vast majority of traffic on my channel, but my subconscious pokes me to direct my attention to it when I hear key words. That is not to say there is no cognitive load, especially for rookies who haven't developed their radio ear yet. Sometimes it's just a competing harms doctrine. As a profession we recognize the cognitive load of using the radio and mitigate the risk as best we can. If you are the only car in a pursuit you will have to use your radio because if you don't nobody will know where you are. As soon as a second car joins, that officer takes over the radio so the lead car can concentrate on watching the suspect vehicle, driving, etc. If humans didn't have a finite cognitive ability, there would be no reason the lead car couldn't do everything.


As far as the laptop, nope, you're completely correct in that it presents a very real hazard. We spend a lot of time telling rookies to keep their head out of the **** laptop. I learned real quick how stupid it was. I was a rookie cop patrolling Castleton at night, was messaging on the laptop, and looked up just in time to realize I was running a red light. It was about 4am on a weekday, I was the only car in sight, but it still puckered me up pretty good. Cops certainly aren't immune to distracted driving, and the laptop is a prime distraction. It's a useful tool, like a cell phone, but similarly there's a time for it and a time to leave it be. I didn't even run license plates while rolling even when I did real police work, which I don't do much of any longer.

 

[NHT3]

There was a time that I could operate the controls on my radio or turn my defroster on without my eyes leaving the road. With everything in the "radio pod" this has become impossible. Some feel they are much too important to miss a call or not respond immediately to a text. Most feel they can't go for a walk or even to the bathroom without their phone present. It's sad but the reality we are living in.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Since I'm sure you haven't bothered to read any of them or do any research, I won't bother with your "nuh-uh studies are dumb" rebuttal. If you have any specific issues, or just want to ignore pretty common sense things like people walk out into traffic on their phones much more often then they do while talking to their friends we can address those.

So let's understand "distracted/not distracted" is not a binary state. It's a sliding scale. Talking to someone in person is a pretty minor distraction. So is listening to music on the radio (and music is easier to tune out and not process any longer, there's no social pressure to "listen" vs "hear" like in a conversation. Everyone who's married knows the difference between listening and hearing and how much attention each takes....)

But there's a difference between distracted driving holding a device in your hands than no device in your hands talking on a bluetooth, HUGE difference. I haven't held a phone in my hands since my old beer company enacted a no PDA or Cell phone in your hands while operating company vehicles. Been using bluetooth ever since.

As far as talking to a person, or on the bluetooth, my primary awareness was doing my job. That meant keeping it between the lines and driving defensively and paying attention to my surroundings. I had no problem telling a trainee we'll talk more later or ending a phone call because I felt it was needed.

I piloted a 80,000 pound missle, I did not want to run over a car/minivan full of a mother and kids.

But I can tell you this, I have told very few people about this, I do know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a person distracted because of texting. They are lucky to be alive. I was slowing to a stop because of road construction north of Lafayette on 65 Northbound when I had a 18 year old girl drive under the DOT bumper of my trailer. She's lucky to be alive. The only reason she's alive is that I had a heavy load and my tandems was back further than normal. Because of that, her steering wheel stopped even with my DOT bumper.

When I got out, I thought she was dead, until I heard her frantic screaming and ran back only to see than she has cuts from broken glass. AT least she had her seat belt on.
I had dreams about that for months.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But there's a difference between distracted driving holding a device in your hands than no device in your hands talking on a bluetooth, HUGE difference.

As far as cognitive load, there isn't. You can reasonably argue that having one hand on the wheel and having to drop the phone (and reluctance to do so) will increase reaction times for almost everyone, but that's the more minor issue comparatively speaking. I've went very deep down this rabbit hole of how the brain receives, processes, then acts on information in my study of how people make decisions under stress. I was primarily interested in deadly force encounters, but it's a pretty wide ranging topic. I'll not go deep dive, so you can either trust me or not.

Now there is a difference in using voice vs using a touch screen, both in terms of cognitive load and in terms of what I'd just sum up as "eyes off the road time". Voice being better, of course. Hands free laws address that. To oversimplify, hands free laws address "eye issues" better than "brain issues".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, in the case of driver to passenger communication, I'd still rather have the driver keeping their eyes forward instead of staring at the passenger. I don't see how not looking at the road at all for 10, 15 or 20 seconds is safer.

It isn't safer, I was just explaining why people do it. It's not that they think the person won't hear them, it's that (usually at a subconscious level) they are thinking they will not effectively communicate with the person without the other components. Facial expression, body language, etc.

You ever see people gesturing while talking on the phone? Of course, we all do when we get really into the conversation. We all know logically that the person can't see us, but we gesture anyway because that's how we communicate. We aren't consciously deciding to do it, and if our attention is drawn to it we'll stop.

 

[idkfa]

This is incorrect. Talking to someone who isn't physically present actually takes more brain power then talking to someone who's present, as evidenced by both brain scan studies and by things like measuring the normalcy of your gait. The short of it is you are having to split your attention in more ways, which humans suck at, and you're having to "fill in the blanks" that would normally be provided by body language, gestures, facial expressions, etc.

Your computing power is limited. It's why you turn off the radio to see better, now you have one less thing to process and can process visual input more effectively. Cell phone use, hands free or not, takes up more of that computing power then talking to someone in person, leaving you less for looking for hazards, etc.



Same issue. It's not about hearing, it's about communicating. Communication is more then verbal/auditory. It's much easier to have misunderstandings in text then in speech, after all.

@BehindBlueI, could you please provide specific references?
This is fascinating stuff, and I'm genuinely curious.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

@BehindBlueI, could you please provide specific references?
This is fascinating stuff, and I'm genuinely curious.

If you want something that's pretty accessible, I'd start with Daniel Kahneman's books. "Thinking Fast & Slow" comes to mind. Gary Klein's "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions" is another pretty good primer. If you want something less technical and more fun, "Idiot Brain" by Dean Burnett is a great place to start.

From there if you really want to drill down, you'll need to start picking up some textbooks and academic journals. Force Science Institute has some good stuff free online, like this article on weapon confusion: https://www.forcescience.org/2021/04/unintended-a-theory-of-taser-weapon-confusion/

That'll set you up to learn enough to know what you don't yet know. If you want to go deeper in the rabbit hole, you'll want to read up on behavioral economics, heuristics, cognitive load theory, and biological reaction to stress. It's actually a very valuable knowledge base to have as it makes you more self-aware in your own decision making and can reduce your ability to be manipulated. Simultaneously, it's useful if you want to influence others. (Note the word choice, manipulation has negative connotations, note which I applied which to, we'd never manipulate someone, would we? No, we just influence, only bad guys manipulate...)

Dr. Steven Rhoads has some good lectures on the subconscious and decision making focused largely on interview/interrogation skills and danger cue detection. On a personal level, I didn't like him. Well, that's an understatement. I think we'd likely fist fight if we tried to eat lunch together. I still recommend his lectures, so that gives you an idea of how useful I found his material. To the best of my knowledge, it's not available online or for free anywhere and I'm not sure if he does open enrollment or even teaches any longer.

I did most of this research over a period starting roughly 10 years ago until about 3 years ago. If you want more, I can go look at the bookshelf and see more titles, plus I still have a few articles published that I think I have original source material for on my old computer.