Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
And guess what an experienced driver won't crash if they are on a cell phone.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
*cough,cough,cough*
^--- Me choking on all the words being crammed down my throat
How about listening to me this time? I think a lot of accidents have multiple compounding factors. So when someone who is tailgating and on the cell phone rear-ends the person in front of them, the cell phone is a contributing factor as well as the tailgating. If they weren't on the cell phone, then they may not have crashed. So if they may not have crashed, but we aren't sure, then you have to mark down cell phone use as a contributing factor.
Here, put it this way: If the person using the cell phone wasn't tailgating and they crashed (happens) then what would you blame it on? You'd blame it on the driver being distracted, and the cause of the distraction is the cell phone. So why suddenly eliminate the cell phone if the driver is tailgating? Makes no sense. None.
Or another way: We'll exchange the cell phone for speeding. Let's say we're traveling 75 MPH and I am following you at the absolute minimum distance for 45 MPH. You slam on your brakes and I rear-end you. Speed is then a factor in this accident (i.e. speed was not reasonable and prudent for the cirumstances) as well as tailgating.
Then you are arguing that experienced drivers will never make a mistake.
Okay, I'll agree but all that means is that when on a cell phone don't tailgate and maybe leave a little extra buffer than usual. That alleviates the problem of a increased reaction time, which all these studies claim is the only significant impairment. And what about the unexpected situation of a pedestrian unexpectedly running in front of you? Then it would be good judgement not to use your cell phone where this could potentially happen. That still leaves a lot of times where a cell phone can be safely operated. You don't place a general ban on the use of an apparatus based on its misuse. Just about every product we have today could potentially be used in a reckless or irresponsible manner resulting in a dangerous situation.
-Loren
The difference though is potential versus reality. It's daily now that I encounter some nut on the cell phone doing dangerous stuff. I think the misuse has become mainstream.
-Loren
No just drawing the obvious conclusion from your tailgating statement.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No, the logical and obvious conclusion is that an experienced driver won't automatically crash when on a cell phone (which I agree with) not that the experienced driver won't crash (notice the difference? your statement is an absolute) while on a cell phone. Your conclusion here is as illogical as saying that the fault of a crash where a driver was tailgating is solely because of the tailgating.
A serious inquiry will always unravel that the "victim" of an crash could have done something to avoid the accident (go slower, don't tailgate, observe their surroundings better, etc). Cell phones eat into the things that "could have been done" to avoid accidents (in addition to blatant causative factors). I believe Gagrice said it best. There is no valid justification for cell phone usage while driving. Radio usage and GPS systems may have been grandfathered into the mainstream car. Their usage in no way justifies cell phone usage while driving and if someone is perturbed, then see your congressman about abolishing all distracting items.
I agree with your other point about accidents being very rare. There is almost always a human factor that causes a "crash". If cell phones represent an additional significant human factor that has appeared in the last 15 years why aren't there more crashes. I find real world data more compelling than simulator studies.
That's a 10/4 good buddy. They did not carry on long conversations. It was still restricted by the FCC. How many do you see being used today? It was a fad. The cell phone is hardly a fad. There are 219.4 million people walking around with a cell phone. I would be surprised if CB ever reached 1% of the population. 72% of the US population own a cell phone. there was 857 billion minutes of use the first half of 2006. That was a 27% increase over the same time period last year. It will only continue to get busier. That means more talking and less paying attention to the road when driving.
CTIA
And yet the accident/fatality rate won't increase. It's a paradox.
I don't think anyone has claimed that talking on a cell phone makes you a better driver.
The safest drivers in the country are in the 40-50 age group. These drivers don't have the reaction time that they had when they were 20 so how do you explain this? Pretty simple. It turns out judgement can compensate for a lot of things, among them being the extra 1-2 tenths of a second that it might take you to react when you are using a cell phone.
Its pretty obvious that neither side is going to change their position on this matter. Here's a question that has nothing to do with the danger involved. Do you think these laws are enforceable? I don't.
Anyway... someone was riding my bumper last night and when they finally passed I saw they had a blue tooth ear thing. Then I saw this same moron tailgating someone else when the other lane was free.
Up ahead, later there was a construction truck with a flashing arrow blocking one out of three lanes.
Bluetooth moron man kept driving towards contsruction truck with flashing arrow until he was about to hit it and then changed lanes all the while the other two lanes next to him were empty.
One night I saw a man in a LandRover almost crash into a parked car and then I realized he was talking hands-free.
The difference between talking on a cel and with people in the car is that you can tell people in the car to shut up... or they realize you are trying to concentrate and they shut up.
When you are on a cel, the person you are talking too doesn't know or care what's going on and most drivers are reluctant to stop talking while concentrating because they don't want to appear rude.
...Many good reasons have been posted.
Honestly, I don't see how 13/100ths of a second (try saying "one-thousand-one", and you'll have burned many multiples of 13/100ths of a second during that time alone) creates so much drama and worry.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct, and that there is a proven causality between phone usage and delayed reaction times. Based on that, I'd like to see some evidence that this 13/100ths of a second is such a critical matter of life and death on our roads. So far, I see a lot of speculation, but no proof.
If this was such a serious matter, then the accident and fatality rates should be skyrocketing, yet they aren't. There don't seem to be any real world outcomes to support all of these fears about phones, and the death and destruction that they are supposed to rain down upon us.
If you have something that can show it, I'd like to see it. But your personal dislike of phones is, by itself, not proof that the phones pose a bona fide safety hazard.
"Tailgating" refers to driving at such a distance that the offender isn't allowing for sufficient braking distance with the car ahead. For two vehicles traveling at the same speed, that necessary space is equivalent to the reaction time needed to react to a panic stop, plus a margin of error so that you don't hit the other car.
That's all there is to it. If you are driving in such a fashion that you are able to stop, then you **aren't** tailgating.
In this scenario, assuming this average delayed reaction time thing applies, then the simple solution is to leave the appropriate distance, and then add 13/100ths of a second to it in order to allow for the phone usage. It's the equivalent of a semi-truck driving at a lower speed than would a passenger car in order to compensate for its longer braking distances. (At this pace, we're going need to ban heavy vehicles, whose sheer mass create impacts far greater than 13/100ths of a second.)
-Loren
But you fail in one regard: to imagine how this technology will advance in two years! Imagine the cell phones of 2008, when this antiquated and totally ineffective law will go into effect (ineffective because it won't be enforced, and probably will be roundly ignored, like much of the pointless drivel pouring out of the state legislature year after year), what if they will project holographic images of text messages and send texts by voice command by then? Or a couple of years later? Hey, then I can do something which will be perfectly legal and a whole heck of a lot more dangerous than talking on a handheld, as I will also have to look away from the road to use that feature!
That's before we even START to talk about other technologies that will be available in cars in a few short years, that have immense potential to be distracting to the driver. Good thing we singled out the handheld cell phone user with this new law. :lemon:
Me, I suppose if I pay any attention to the law at all, I will start using the speakerphone on my cell, which will still be perfectly legal, and then instead of having the phone held securely to my ear, it will be sitting on the center console or the passenger seat where it can become a dangerous projectile if I should get hit! :sick:
And I will continue my current habit of talking only when it is prudent to do so, and keeping it to a minimum, and never making outgoing calls, or pulling over to a safe parking spot (NEVER on the highway - what were people thinking with that line of thought??) if I have to break one of these self-imposed rules.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A companion question to this is: What other enforcement is going to have to be sacrificed for the sake of this law?
There are only so many police resources to go around, it's not as if we're going to hire thousands of cops to go on Phone Patrol. Instead, a cop who spends his time citing phone users will not be spending his time doing some other work.
I'm not sure about everyone else, but personally, I'd rather have the cops spend their time hunting down drunk drivers, murderers, armed robbers and the like than I would have them chasing down people for Phone Crimes. Not a good use of my tax money, especially if other more important problems are slipping through the cracks.
Let me introduce a new term: Road comfort level. We hear all the time how the accident rate is decreasing so our roads must be getting safer, right? Well, my driving comfort level is dropping rapidly. People here are breaking the law en masse, by using cell phones and then just drifting across the highway. People pulling out of businesses and driveways without looking or even a hint of stopping.
Just because the accident rate is going down doesn't mean that we're doing something right.
If you have something that can show it, I'd like to see it. But your personal dislike of phones is, by itself, not proof that the phones pose a bona fide safety hazard.
The study was posted by me not that long ago! Being on the phone makes you at least as bad as a drunk driver. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, you'd be hard pressed to say that we aren't dealing with a society that is increasingly:
- Me first and to hell with you
- Get outta my way
- You have no right to tell me that I can't ignore the world around me while I work on this business deal in my 5 MPG, lifted to the sky, black-smoke belching diesel truck
It's in our TV, music, media and it's coming out in our driving. I think the inability to hang up and drive is just a manifestation of that.
What does everyone else think?
That's all there is to it. If you are driving in such a fashion that you are able to stop, then you **aren't** tailgating.
Wow! So when the car that was 10-20 feet in front of me panic stopped and I didn't crash, I wasn't tailgating?
There are only so many police resources to go around, it's not as if we're going to hire thousands of cops to go on Phone Patrol. Instead, a cop who spends his time citing phone users will not be spending his time doing some other work.
Why should it be any drain? Just issue another ticket while your handing out the:
- Speeding
- Failure to yield
- Running the red light
- Etc.
Now if you mean separate enforcement, then it doesn't seem like a good use of tax dollars.
Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, you'd be hard pressed to say that we aren't dealing with a society that is increasingly:
- Me first and to hell with you
- Get outta my way
- You have no right to tell me that I can't ignore the world around me while I work on this business deal in my 5 MPG, lifted to the sky, black-smoke belching diesel truck
I think that this is the problem with this line of debate. Instead of dealing with automotive safety, and which issues are most relevant to make driving safer, the anti-phone argument seems to be a proxy for discussing some broader social issues that I just don't share.
The folks who seem most amped up about the phones seem to fall into one or more of these camps:
-The world is going to hell in a handbasket.
-The world is a dangerous place.
-Technology is scary.
-The old days were better.
If anyone wants to believe that, that's your business, but none of that proves that phones are a safety hazard while driving.
Again, I'd like to see someone show us how this fraction-of-a-second shown in the studies translates into real danger. I am personally willing to be persuaded by a well-supported fact-based argument, but the math formula of 0.13 Seconds = Drunk Driver just doesn't add up.
Because that cop who was standing by the side of the road writing up a ticket for Phone Crimes could have spent his/her time patrolling a gang-infested neighborhood, keeping a playground clear of sex offenders or investigating a felony crime that could result in getting a criminal off the street.
Life is a matter of priorities. Unless you hire more cops, adding a law on the books will, er, distract the cop from pursuing other responsibilities. If the severe tailgater (read: accident waiting to happen) gets ignored while the phone user who is safely driving gets stopped, you've actually made the roads more dangerous by letting that yahoo continue to drive badly, while turning an innocent person into a fine-paying criminal. There's no justice in any of that.
If the driver ahead of you slams on his brakes and you respond by slamming yours, and you managed to avoid colliding with him while both of you continue in a straight line, then no, you weren't tailgating, because you had enough distance to stop.
Remember, you don't need to keep a distance equal to your braking distance, but only equivalent to your reaction time (with consideration to the amount of braking occurring in front of you and any speed differential between your vehicles.)
For example, if you are both traveling at 30 mph, and he locks his brakes, then each of you needs approximately the same amount of distance to stop, all things being equal. To avoid tailgating, you need to leave enough distance so that you have time to respond to his actions, but the braking distance itself is a wash. This is why police recommend the "two second rule" in following a car, because two seconds is generally more than enough time to see the hazard ahead and respond to it. The actual distance that this two seconds translates into is going to obviously increase as you drive more quickly.
The cops that will be performing phone patrol will be part of the already existing revenue task force. Have you ever noticed that speed traps are not set up where a lot of accidents occur. In fact its the opposite. They are typically set up on stretches of road that are so safe almost everyone feels comfortable exceeding the limit. If cops actually existed to serve the public this is not where you'd locate a speed trap. But as a revenue generator it makes perfect sense.
I think comparing the cell phone user to a drunk driver was just a good sound bite. They may very well have similar reaction time deficits and that is all they took into consideration. The reality is that it doesn't stop there for the drunk. His vision, judgement, motor skills, perception or time, speed, and distance are also impaired. These factors are far from trivial. But hey, it made a good sound bite.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct, and that there is a proven causality between phone usage and delayed reaction times. Based on that, I'd like to see some evidence that this 13/100ths of a second is such a critical matter of life and death on our roads. So far, I see a lot of speculation, but no proof.
13/100ths is an AVERAGE TIME (mean). That means there are some people that showed no degradation in response time at all, and it means some people took considerably longer. Just pointing it out. In my personal opinion I would probably be more interested in the median time.
I'd guess that the median time would probably be less. When you're talking about a number this small its a lot easier to skew the average on the high side of the median.
I always like it when people latch onto a statistic and consider it permanent gospel. If anyone else here believe that the type of distracted by cellphone driver we're talking about is distracted by only 0.13 sec, please raise your hands.
I don't see any.
I watched a minivan lady talking on her handheld sit for about 3 seconds before she realized it was way past her time to go at a busy 4-way stop sign just off the interstate exit at 5 pm.
I drove to Cinci yesterday and will repeat that interstate trip on 3 lanes. I watched lots of drivers with handhelds, ear pieces, and some talking to themselves probably hands free users. The tailgating is present on the part of these people or they tend to stay way back and go slower than the lane's nominal speed. They make last minute lane changes.
>not proof that the phones pose a bona fide safety hazard.
Bring on the proof that they are not a hazard. Merely saying someone else needs to prove they are doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact anecdotal (circumstantial) evidence clearly shows the drivers using them are a hazard.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think you are as big a skeptic as I am about the donut munchers on our payroll.
I do think the law will be good. In the cases where an accident is attributed to a person talking on a cell phone there will be a law in place to give a citation. It can also be used in court to prove who was responsible for the accident. Remembering there are no laws against being stupid.
Using Washington DC as an example. They wrote 6018 tickets the first full year after the law went into affect. CA with 34 million residents compared to DC with half a million. At a $100 a ticket that would be about $35.000,000 the first year. How many Krispy Kremes will that buy?
There are ways to detect cell phone usage that would not cost anymore to equip a cop car with than radar. It should be easier to see if a person has a cell phone stuck in their ear than if they are wearing a seat belt.
That is MY biggest complaint with cell phone drivers. They are too engrossed in their conversation to pay any attention to what is going on around them. They think the stop sign means they can sit and talk. Same with left turn arrows.
I think the pro talkers know it is a distraction. Just not enough for them to give it up. The 130ms figure is so arbitrary no two studies would come up with the same figure. It is irrelevant. Either talking on the cell phone is a distraction or it isn't. I think your 3 second figure is closer to reality. I have had to honk after 4-5 seconds to bring a cell talker back to the task at hand.
For example 75 in a 65 would be $120, but on a cell phone it adds $50 to that fine.
The used to do seat belt violations that way until it became primary enforcement.
You are asking for someone to prove a negative. That's a lot harder than proving a positive. Saying that you saw a women hold up traffic for 3 seconds at an intersection has zero to do with reaction time. I suspect that even the non-cellphone users have at some point gotten the reminder horn from the driver behind them that the light had turned green. Again, nothing to do with reaction time.
DC is not a good example to cite if you are trying to establish the benefits of these types of laws in terms of increased safety. They are one of the few areas that consistently show an increase in accidents and fatalities. However, as a "using cops to generate revenue" business model they set the standard for excellence.
That's right, it has to do with distraction TIME. Most people I see walking around talking on their cell phone are in their own little world. No idea what is going on around them. That is why they do not belong behind the wheel of a car.
If the states feel compelled to enact this type of legislation I would hope that they would consider this a secondary enforcement rule. For instance, if a person is detected using a cell phone but in no way driving erratically he is not guilty of any infraction and should be left alone.
For some reason you want to relate this to being a safety issue. That is only part of it. My experience tells me it is more of a traffic flow issue. Holding up traffic, causing stress for other drivers. Adding to the road rage problem. It is more of a driving etiquette problem than safety. You can discount the studies that show that a person on a cell phone is about as apt to have an accident as someone driving while drunk. That still leaves the FACT that many people using a cell phone while driving are thoughtless and rude.
It took a law to stop that behavior in CA. Sadly people are not cognizant of the feelings of those around them. If we did not have laws against it, people would still spit or pee on the sidewalk.
??? I just told you -- it's based upon average reaction time. I even cited the "two second rule" to help provide you with a guideline to avoid tailgating (although if you are on your game, you can cut it a bit close, and get away with slightly less than two seconds.) This is a basic guideline that all of us were taught in our driver's education courses.
By the way, this is not my definition, this is simply what the definition of tailgating happens to be. I didn't make it up myself.