Cell phone use while driving

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yet my idiot dispatcher insists on texting me while I'm making deliveries, instead of calling, even though he knows my truck is equipped with Bluetooth, and before that, I had a Bluetooth earpiece.

Sounds like you need to text a foot in his arse until he figures it out lol

 

[1942willys]

Sounds like you need to text a foot in his arse until he figures it out lol

hit him with a taser
MODERN TECH FOR YOU, You POS!

 

[Flamma]

It doesn't take long before wearing your seat belt becomes second nature, and you feel like something's missing if you forget to buckle up.

This is the truth. I never used to wear it. But had I not been wearing a seatbelt on one day, I'd absolutely be dead or close to it. As a result, minor injuries instead.

What got me wearing it was a previous minor accident at low speed. I felt I moved around way too much for my liking. After the major accident, not a day has gone by without it. It's exactly as you say, you feel it when it's missing.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

The incident rate for driving while using a cell phone is roughly the same as driving while intoxicated.

There have been similar studies involving eating while driving, grooming (in particular, brushing your hair), or other distractions. Anything that even very momentarily takes your eyes of the road or distracts your focus on driving, increases the likelihood of a road incident.

Cell phones just happen to be statistical the worst distraction because the driver is often reading emails or texting while driving.

That's a comparison that doesn't necessarily tell the whole story because it makes a huge difference how intoxicated someone is. For most people, impairment occurs somewhere around .12 and .15, and, of course, it goes worse the higher it goes. I was annoyed when California, where I was living at the time, changed their drunken standard from .10 to .08. That was a classic example of feel-good legislation since impairment begins at .12 at the earliest. The older .10 law was already a little too strict. The change to .08 was just about trying to show the public that they're doing something. So, using a cell phone while driving, is that equivalent to point .08? If so that's not genuinely impaired, despite what the law says. If it's .12 or higher, than that's a problem, and it's worse the higher it goes.

 

[Runwildboys]

That's a comparison that doesn't necessarily tell the whole story because it makes a huge difference how intoxicated someone is. For most people, impairment occurs somewhere around .12 and .15, and, of course, it goes worse the higher it goes. I was annoyed when California, where I was living at the time, changed their drunken standard from .10 to .08. That was a classic example of feel-good legislation since impairment begins at .12 at the earliest. The older .10 law was already a little too strict. The change to .08 was just about trying to show the public that they're doing something. So, using a cell phone while driving, is that equivalent to point .08? If so that's not genuinely impaired, despite what the law says. If it's .12 or higher, than that's a problem, and it's worse the higher it goes.

Don't feel bad. As a CDL holder, I'm only allowed .04, even in my personal vehicle.

 

[bigdnlaca]

Can’t talk on actual phone or else get a ticket but cars are making the dash screen bigger and including more technology that gives you access to things while driving.

I think looking and pushing buttons on the screen is more distracting than talking on the phone but anything can wait until you get to a complete stop.

 

[Flamma]

Don't feel bad. As a CDL holder, I'm only allowed .04, even in my personal vehicle.

I don't know where you live, but I'm a CDL holder in the state of New Jersey. It is .04 here too, but not in our personal vehicles. I didn't think that varied from state to state.

Edit: It does vary from state to state. That makes zero sense.

 

[Runwildboys]

I don't know where you live, but I'm a CDL holder in the state of New Jersey. It is .04 here too, but not in our personal vehicles. I didn't think that varied from state to state.

Edit: It does vary from state to state. That makes zero sense.

Why does a Toll Booth Operator need a CDL? Or do you have a side job?

 

[Flamma]

Why does a Toll Booth Operator need a CDL? Or do you have a side job?

I worked tolls from 1997 to 2014. Then I transferred to road maintenance. One of the jobs is plowing snow, among other things that may require you to drive all types of trucks. I transferred back in 2019 as a form of retirement without actually retiring. But you do make a lot more money in Maintenance.

 

[Runwildboys]

I worked tolls from 1997 to 2014. Then I transferred to road maintenance. One of the jobs is plowing snow, among other things that may require you to drive all types of trucks. I transferred back in 2019 as a form of retirement without actually retiring. But you do make a lot more money in Maintenance.

Are you keeping the CDL "just in case", or doesn't Jersey do license renewal every 4 years?

 

[Flamma]

Are you keeping the CDL "just in case", or doesn't Jersey do license renewal every 4 years?

I renew it, because why not? I am exempt from the physical since I work for the turnpike. I need to show them proof of nothing to renew it. But as a result, I have a K restriction. Which means I can only drive a commercial vehicle in the state of NJ.

 

[Runwildboys]

I renew it, because why not? I am exempt from the physical since I work for the turnpike. I need to show them proof of nothing to renew it. But as a result, I have a K restriction. Which means I can only drive a commercial vehicle in the state of NJ.

Exempt from a physical because you work for the tpk? That's weird. Up here, it's $70 for a 4 year CDL renewal and $72 for a non-CDL 6 year renewal. Given the choice, I'd definitely opt for the 6 year.

 

[Flamma]

Exempt from a physical because you work for the tpk? That's weird. Up here, it's $70 for a 4 year CDL renewal and $72 for a non-CDL 6 year renewal. Given the choice, I'd definitely opt for the 6 year.

Yes. I have no idea why. Because the turnpike doesn't give us one. We could get one on our own and avoid the K restriction. They also allow us to plow snow in Pennsylvania under a K restriction. Which makes no sense. On the plus side of me returning to tolls, no more random drug or alcohol tests. I don't do drugs anyway, but they were rare but annoying. So rare that more people failed than passed on any given random test day. You fail that and you're screwed. But not fired.

I still can't get over that you have a .04 restriction in your personal vehicle.

 

[Runwildboys]

Yes. I have no idea why. Because the turnpike doesn't give us one. We could get one on our own and avoid the K restriction. They also allow us to plow snow in Pennsylvania under a K restriction. Which makes no sense. On the plus side of me returning to tolls, no more random drug or alcohol tests. I don't do drugs anyway, but they were rare but annoying. So rare that more people failed than passed on any given random test day. You fail that and you're screwed. But not fired.

I still can't get over that you have a .04 restriction in your personal vehicle.

I never worry about the results of randoms, but it's annoying when you get back to the yard after a 10 or 12 hour day, and they tell you you have to drive to the doctor and pee in a cup. If you already went to the bathroom before they told you, then you might have to sit in the waiting room for a long time, until you can fill the cup enough. If you didn't go already, then you're probably sitting in the waiting room dancing in your chair for half an hour, before they finally call your name.

Our company also has a policy that, if you get in an accident, even if it's not even remotely your fault, and someone has to go to the hospital or a vehicle has to be towed, you have to get tested.

I honestly can't wait to retire. Not only does it seem like everything's stacked against truck drivers, but every day I drive just adds to my misanthropic nature

 

[Flamma]

I never worry about the results of randoms, but it's annoying when you get back to the yard after a 10 or 12 hour day, and they tell you you have to drive to the doctor and pee in a cup. If you already went to the bathroom before they told you, then you might have to sit in the waiting room for a long time, until you can fill the cup enough. If you didn't go already, then you're probably sitting in the waiting room dancing in your chair for half an hour, before they finally call your name.

Our company also has a policy that, if you get in an accident, even if it's not even remotely your fault, and someone has to go to the hospital or a vehicle has to be towed, you have to get tested.

I honestly can't wait to retire. Not only does it seem like everything's stacked against truck drivers, but every day I drive just adds to my misanthropic nature

We have the exact same rule for accidents. We never had to go anywhere to pee in a cup. It was always at the yard. But like you said, if you just went 15 minutes ago, now what? I'm done at 8am, and I was there well past 9am on many occasions for one reason or another. If it's because too many people being tested, you'll get OT. But if it's because of you, it's on your time. Then in 2018 they added GPS devices to every vehicle so that they could nitpick every move.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Don't feel bad. As a CDL holder, I'm only allowed .04, even in my personal vehicle.

They're being unreasonable with you, but jobs and laws often have unreasonable requirements. It doesn't affect me because I don't consume any alcohol at all, but I don't demand that other people do things the way I do. I'm for freedom. Therefore, I'm for reasonable laws and requirements for people who do drink. The science shows that impairment from alcohol is anywhere from .12 to .15, depending on the person. Therefore, if they wanted a margin for error, they could set the requirement at .11 and be fine. Setting it at .04 for anything is ridiculous. It's as absurd as a Colorado law they had when I lived there that you were not allowed to serve non-alcoholic beer to anyone under 21 because that type of beer still contains a minuscule amount of alcohol. It's such a small amount that you could drink an entire case (if that didn't destroy your bladder) and you wouldn't even be at .01. But the State of Colorado had to "get tough" with their alcohol laws and pass that law that did absolutely nothing other than make life difficult for people.

 

[Montanalo]

Without getting into the issue of random testing, most governments approach DUI from a risk-management point of view: that is, what's the likelihood an incident wilp occur and what are the consequences?

In the case of DUI, the likelihood of a vehicle accident is unknown (although it is greater than driving sober) but the consequences are quite severe up to and including multiple fatalities

So, governments often err on the safe side and use an very low threshold for DUI.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like a know-it -all.

One of my last positions before retiring was managing the construction of a multi-billion $$ petrochemical plant. The highest consequence events we really focused on were electrocution, fires and, believe it or not, motor vehicle incidents.

 

[Flamma]

They're being unreasonable with you, but jobs and laws often have unreasonable requirements. It doesn't affect me because I don't consume any alcohol at all, but I don't demand that other people do things the way I do. I'm for freedom. Therefore, I'm for reasonable laws and requirements for people who do drink. The science shows that impairment from alcohol is anywhere from .12 to .15, depending on the person. Therefore, if they wanted a margin for error, they could set the requirement at .11 and be fine. Setting it at .04 for anything is ridiculous. It's as absurd as a Colorado law they had when I lived there that you were not allowed to serve non-alcoholic beer to anyone under 21 because that type of beer still contains a minuscule amount of alcohol. It's such a small amount that you could drink an entire case (if that didn't destroy your bladder) and you wouldn't even be at .01. But the State of Colorado had to "get tough" with their alcohol laws and pass that law that did absolutely nothing other than make life difficult for people.

I agree with you 100%. At .08 you're not impaired. Even at .10 it's not a big deal. I don't consider it drunk driving. As you've already seen, it's .04 for those with a CDL. It's also .025 to ground you for 24 hours in the state of NJ if you're driving a commercial vehicle. It's pretty much to the point where they are telling you to not drink at all and drive. They don't care if you're impaired or not.

Also keep in mind your blood alcohol level is just one piece of evidence. They don't need that to get you for a DUI. They can charge you with a DUI even if you blow a 0.00. Due to other evidence. Try to beat it in court.

 

[Runwildboys]

Okay, I just tried to find out more about the BAC for CDL drivers, and it's really muddy. It says a CDL driver is over the limit at above .04, but it also says he can't have had any alcohol within 4 hours of driving a commercial vehicle. I can't find anything that differentiates between driving a commercial vehicle and a personal vehicle.

I was reading an attorney's webpage that states that even if a driver has a level of .03 or under, any alcohol in his blood is unlawful.

This particular attorney is stating this, not for the driver's sake, but for anyone who wishes to sue the driver, so he may be reaching in his interpretation of the law

Either way, I can't find a concrete answer to whether I can legally have a BAC above .04, while driving my personal vehicle. I think I'd be able to win in court, but I'm not sure.

 

[SlammedZero]

I think as long as people are driving, there will always be error. I totally agree cell phones are probably the worst offender, but I've seen all sort of other crazy things. Girls doing their makeup, guys stuffing double-cheeseburgers in their mouth with fries on the dash, somebody's dog jumping from seat to seat, you name it. I had a friend in the late 90s go to get a CD out of one of those 100 disc CD books (remember those? lol) and it fell off his front seat. While he was fumbling to retrieve it, he hit a parked car on the side of the road. No injuries, but hurt fenders, bumpers, and quarter panels. So, the scenarios are endless.

I'll admit, back in my younger days when cell phones came out, I texted and drove all the time. I remember times looking down at a text, replying, and then looking up and wondering where the last half mile went. It's definitely dangerous and I am fortunate I didn't hurt myself or others. (ugh that makes me feel old. "back in my day sonny, when the technology of cell phones arrived"). They illegalized all cell phone usage in my area, even when sitting at a red light. I still see people on their phone constantly. People just suck, including younger me. The statistics are there, but unfortunately people get caught up in that mentality that "it won't happen to me"...….until it does.