Reminder - NH - Hands free device while driving law in effect

[peakbagger]

As of today only hands free electronic devices are allowed while driving, including while stopped at an intersection. The state police plan to be aggressively enforcing the new law this weekend.

 

[Ignomer]

Even if you're pulled over in the breakdown lane, I think. I saw something that said if the keys were in the ignition, car running or not. They'll be looking hard for a while, too, just to 'raise awareness'.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Here is a video explanation. IANAL. YMMV



Tim

 

[cooperhill]

I don't think this is the case.

Even if you're pulled over in the breakdown lane, I think. I saw something that said if the keys were in the ignition, car running or not. They'll be looking hard for a while, too, just to 'raise awareness'.

(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.

 

[alexmtn]

As of today only hands free electronic devices are allowed while driving, including while stopped at an intersection. The state police plan to be aggressively enforcing the new law this weekend.

Thanks all, for the reminder and associated clarifications - I'd completely forgotten about this.

 

[NHClimber]

I understand that there are folks out there planning on holding pop tarts up to their ear and when they get pulled over will simply eat the "device" (while knee driving of course) - all legal!

 

[peakbagger]

Actually NH already has a driving while distracted law which has been applied to egregious cases of folks eating while driving (usually after they have run off the road or into someone) . First thing one learns about NH state troopers is if they think you are messing with them they will pull you over and they will figure out a way of writing a ticket.

 

[TCD]

I agree. I think that no matter where you are, deliberately messing with the police is a stupid idea. (Not to mention a waste of public resources...)

 

[TJsName]

My car has built-in bluetooth technology and I love it. It's way safer and should be standard in all cars. I'm surprised I don't get an insurance discount for it. Same with the back-up camera. I'm a big fan of making it easier to be safe, so hopefully these features will go the way of seat belts, airbags, and ABS.

 

[TEO]

My car has built-in bluetooth technology and I love it. It's way safer and should be standard in all cars. I'm surprised I don't get an insurance discount for it. Same with the back-up camera. I'm a big fan of making it easier to be safe, so hopefully these features will go the way of seat belts, airbags, and ABS.

Sorry, but that's just not true. This is a lame law that doesn't actually make the roads safer. Studies have shown that hands-free cell phone usage is just as dangerous as when holding the phone in the hand.

http://www.nsc.org/NewsDocuments/2014-Press-Release-Archive/4-1-2014-DDAM-opinion-poll-results.pdf

 

[TJsName]

Sorry, but that's just not true. This is a lame law that doesn't actually make the roads safer. Studies have shown that hands-free cell phone usage is just as dangerous as when holding the phone in the hand.

http://www.nsc.org/NewsDocuments/2014-Press-Release-Archive/4-1-2014-DDAM-opinion-poll-results.pdf

Perhaps I am a special case. I am very cognizant of my surrounds while driving, constantly turning my head and checking mirrors, which is far easier when I am not holding a phone. I have done driving simulation studies, and can tell you that it measures more of what's in front of you than around you (it was still pretty interesting though!).

I do get your point - the law won't make bad drivers any safer. I would much rather see better driver education standards, personally.

 

[Becca M]

I find the WAZE app on my phone very helpful for finding hazards in the road - and alerting others! Probably doesn't comply with the law but in this nanny state I am willing to risk a ticket for using it!!! (PLUS it often shows where police are!!!)

 

[TEO]

Perhaps I am a special case. I am very cognizant of my surrounds while driving, constantly turning my head and checking mirrors, which is far easier when I am not holding a phone. I have done driving simulation studies, and can tell you that it measures more of what's in front of you than around you (it was still pretty interesting though!).

I do get your point - the law won't make bad drivers any safer. I would much rather see better driver education standards, personally.

That's not my point. It's not about good drivers vs. bad drivers. The fact of the matter is, if you are talking on the phone you are mentally distracted--regardless of your skill as a driver, regardless of how much you're turning your head & checking your mirrors--which is increases the risk of an accident. Using a hands-free phone does *not* reduce the mental distraction, & thus is not safer. Therefore this is a stupid law.

 

[Amicus]

When car radios were introduced in the '20s, they provoked widespread protests as distracting and therefore dangerous, and perhaps with some justice. In 1930, Massachusetts considered a bill to ban them but it didn't pass. A few small municipalities did adopt such ordinances but that was it. The moral? I'm not sure, but perhaps the spirit of freedom, even at the price of a little risk, was stronger then.

 

[DougPaul]

That's not my point. It's not about good drivers vs. bad drivers. The fact of the matter is, if you are talking on the phone you are mentally distracted--regardless of your skill as a driver, regardless of how much you're turning your head & checking your mirrors--which is increases the risk of an accident. Using a hands-free phone does *not* reduce the mental distraction, & thus is not safer.

This is correct. Even having a conversation with a passenger in the car can be distracting. (Unlike someone at the other end of a phone, a passenger can detect that the driver needs to focus all of his attention on driving at times and shut up.) The brain can only handle so much conscious workload at a time and a conversation takes up part--or all--of this capacity.

Cellphone and portable device manufacturers have incentive to convince people and legislators that hands-free makes it safe and obviously have had some success at it. Another "smoking doesn't cause cancer"...

Doug

 

[jrbren]

That's not my point. It's not about good drivers vs. bad drivers. The fact of the matter is, if you are talking on the phone you are mentally distracted--regardless of your skill as a driver, regardless of how much you're turning your head & checking your mirrors--which is increases the risk of an accident. Using a hands-free phone does *not* reduce the mental distraction, & thus is not safer. Therefore this is a stupid law.

So along that train of thought talking to anyone in the car or listening to the radio should also be illegal ? Needless to say I disagree with this post. I think one can carry on a conversation, be it with a live person in the car or via a blue tooth device without reduced reaction time to what is happening on the road. It has everything to do with good drivers vs bad drivers. Bad drivers here being those not paying attention to the road.

Hopefully this "crack down" does not effect anyone here. Just don't use your phone in the car if you have to look away from the road to dial, etc ...

 

[jrbren]

Sorry, but that's just not true. This is a lame law that doesn't actually make the roads safer. Studies have shown that hands-free cell phone usage is just as dangerous as when holding the phone in the hand.

http://www.nsc.org/NewsDocuments/2014-Press-Release-Archive/4-1-2014-DDAM-opinion-poll-results.pdf

There are many studies that simply do not agree with the real world. I drop a CD on the floor, or pick up my hand held cell phone and dial a number or pick a number out of a menu, I am horribly distracted. If I have to push a button on my steering wheel to answer a phone call its no different then turning on/off my windshield wipers or cruise control. These are not even close to the same level of distraction.

As far as I know, GPS devices in cars mounted on the dash board are legal. I tried that once, I found it horribly distracting.

 

[jrbren]

(Unlike someone at the other end of a phone, a passenger can detect that the driver needs to focus all of his attention on driving at times and shut up.)

Doug

Not true. Many accidents or events requiring immediate reaction by the driver do not allow enough time for a passenger to cease the conversation so the driver can react. Conversations of any kind, or music are going to provide some level of distraction. The question is is what level can the driver still respond quickly enough to avoid mayhem. Are those on this forum trying to say there is no talking in their vehicles and they do not listen to music or the radio ? And even if there were no low level audio distractions, I would argue (at least for me) I am more likely to "space out" or even fall asleep at the wheel. How about books on CD ? If you fear those, you may want to panic if you see my car coming ;-).

 

[DougPaul]

Not true. Many accidents or events requiring immediate reaction by the driver do not allow enough time for a passenger to cease the conversation so the driver can react. Conversations of any kind, or music are going to provide some level of distraction.

Some passengers will stop talking if they perceive that the driver needs all of his attention directed toward driving. Others (including people on the other end of the phone) are oblivious...

In practice, the driver will stop hearing the other person or the radio if he reaches overload on the driving task. (The brain can only handle so much at a time and often doesn't perceive additional inputs beyond the overload level.) The radio is easier to ignore than a passenger is easier to ignore than someone on the phone.

The question is is what level can the driver still respond quickly enough to avoid mayhem. Are those on this forum trying to say there is no talking in their vehicles and they do not listen to music or the radio ? And even if there were no low level audio distractions, I would argue (at least for me) I am more likely to "space out" or even fall asleep at the wheel. How about books on CD ? If you fear those, you may want to panic if you see my car coming ;-).

It is not a black-and-white situation. Once the driver perceives an emergency in progress, he will ignore the extraneous inputs (noise...). However, the extraneous inputs may delay the perception of the emergency or interfere with the relevant inputs.

The radio is a double-edged sword. It is (usually) an easily ignorable sound source and while it can distract, it can also reduce fatigue on longer drives and help to keep the driver alert. Loud music, IMO, is dangerous.

The content is an issue for books on CDs (as well as radio programs and conversations). If it requires deep thinking then it would be more distracting than something that does not require deep thinking (eg music). The CD also has the advantage that one can replay sections that have been missed.

One problem with the phone is that when it rings (hands-free or not), it creates a minor emergency ("answer me NOW"). One can delay fiddling with the radio until the workload and the chance of an accident are low.

There is also the issue of sensory interference. Anything that requires one to take one's eyes off the road is a potential distraction. (This includes looking at the instrument panel... Aircraft have a standard layout of the primary instruments and pilots develop a quick scan pattern to minimize the distraction.) Similarly loud talking or music can cover external sounds (other cars, horns, or sirens) that can delay recognition of dangerous situations.

<personal anecdote>
When I was back in high school, a friend and I (temporarily) put a loud music system in our car. We found that the music took over and we drove to its rhythm... It didn't take long for us to realize how dangerous it was and removed the system. Other than during this event, I have always kept the radio soft enough that I can hear both my car and what is happening nearby.
</personal anecdote>

FWIW, one of my tasks at work was the development of speech recognition systems for the fighter aircraft cockpit in the hope that they might reduce the pilot's workload (much like what is now available in some cars*). (The pilot's "office" may be moving at 500-1000 mph and he may be dodging bullets and missiles while the drivers "office" may only be moving at 65mph and he is generally only dodging other drivers.) The magnitudes may differ, but issues of overload and distraction are similar...
* Such systems may or may not reduce the workload depending upon the details...

Doug

 

[jrbren]

Doug, many good points. I agree on loud music that makes it difficult to hear what is outside is very bad. Reminds me how I especially hate radio programs (usually commercials) that have sirens in them. I also can understand the "minor emergency" when the phone rings, even with blue tooth. I still claim as driver I can prioritize said emergency if the response is to either press a button or not answer. However with a hand held phone I would need to look away to find the phone, then hit the correct button(s) in sequence to answer (assuming I do not drop the phone on the floor or worse yet between the seats). Perhaps the hand held is thus safer since my answer would always be to not answer ?