We’re not allowed to touch our phone more than 1 tap when we’re driving in Michigan.
I just got off of a 3 hour drive and realized I probably broke the law 10 times. I hate voice commands. Does anyone have a strategy for not being a total criminal while also staying entertained and/or productive during long communtes and trips?
I totally agree from a safety perspective.
To play devils advocate just a bit–this is objectively reducing folks productivity and quality of life, particularly for folks that aren’t privileged to work from hom, live near work, afford to purchase hands free tech, or be child-free etc… These folks probably already have inequitable quality of live/productivity challenges. Not saying it’s a “bad law” or anything, safety is almost definitely worth it, it’s just annoying that as usual the measure will most negatively effect more vulnerable people.
It would be fun to quantify productivity loss and quality of life loss vs. gains in safety/public health–i’ll look around for statistics.
What the fuck are you doing that is so important that it can’t wait until you can find a parking lot to look at your phone?
There is no devils advocating safety of other people for the sake of your personal entertainment. You owning or not owning a phone does not impact whether or not you need to drive to where you are going. You texting or not texting does not influence the need to drive your car. You killing someone because you couldn’t be bothered to keep your eyes on the road instead of on your phone is not an acceptable trade off, on any world, under any scenario.
Drive the car, stay off your phone.
I am on an on-call schedule for a hospital and i need to be able to answer my phone when it rings, even if I’m driving. If I don’t, it may negatively effect people in a real way. I can pull over, and doing so on the freeway may be more dangerous than simply answering the call. My reason for posting this post is to help understand how folks are using hands free technology and other strategies to stay safe while also doing what they need to do. Entertainment is there too because I, honestly, want to get better at not being distracted while driving, I have terrible ADHD.
I didn’t mean to offend with my response above, pardon me. I was trying to understand how this ties into other equity vs safety vs freedom topics more generally.
I don’t think anyone thinks that folks should be recklessly endangering each other for no benefit but entertainment. People do endanger themselves and others for all kinds of reasons, including entertainment–folks motorcycle in the rain, they drive tall heavy cars, they don’t run their headlights 100% of the time, etc.–should all of these things be illegal too, because they are less safe than convenient alternatives? Is that “reckless endangerment”? Honestly, I would probably say yes–but it’s not like I’m an expert.
If we say “there is 0 tolerance for making our roads less safe”, even for “good” reasons, then why not say men under 24 may not drive, and anyone over 80 can’t drive at all. The safest thing for everyone would be to never drive, and that seems silly to say…not that I wouldn’t love to walk to work, my kids’ preschool, and the grocery.
You can answer your phone in one tap, which is in accordance with the law. All of your arguments come across as deflecting, making excuses and rationalizing why you need to be or have a right to be on your phone more, when the reality is that you don’t.
You don’t need to pull over on the freeway to answer your phone, you can use a ear piece with tap to answer. You don’t even need to look at your phone to do it.
TBH, your arguments remind me of those against seat belts when the seat belt laws first came into effect.
Bluetooth has been standard in cars for almost 20 years depending on the manufacturer, you don’t need extra equipment to handle calls that are actually emergencies. I’m not a fan of the law for different reasons, but people need to stop using phones while driving, you don’t need to try and up productivity that aggressively.
deleted by creator