Because society had to pay the price of a person's poor decisions.
If that's a reasonable justification for a law then it represents a very slippery slope. Again, why are motorcycles legal? If I took the time I'm sure I could come up with 100's of examples of lifestyle choices that people make that have an adverse effect on overall health care costs for society. I'm sure you can easily think of some yourself. By your rational the government would be within its authority to regulate these. That's not a society that I find appealing.
As a former Paramedic, having worked in NYC I take offense at your remark. I got hurt in the back of an ambulance due to bad roads and a driver trying to run a STOP sign. I have seen many drivers run stop signs, run red lights and wonder all over the road on the cell phone. AS for your remark about using the radio in the vehicle. If you were victim of trauma you have a "Golden Hour" and the nearer the hour the better survival. If I picked you up in very bad shape we would call in a notification so you get tot he front of the line. You are saying we should hot call notifications because we become "bad drivers". Not true, as a professional we slow down and become more aware when using the radio or working the siren box etc. People on phones that I have seen are so into he call they feel they are at home or in the office, taking both hands off the wheel to make a point [never done by PD, FD or EMS]. Driving skill is important but Physics takes over in tailgating. A 3000# car going 60 miles per hour takes so long to stop even if things are perfect. This equation does not change with drinking or cell phone it merely takes longer for the response time [not a physics property]. So take the Physics amount of time and add time for not paying attention and you have a rearender. As for laws yes some states have them and yours may too. In New York it is the "Distracted Driver "Statute. This is for distracted driver for any reason reading a newspaper [I have seen it too many times] putting on makeup, eating or drinking and yes cell phones. If necessary you can get not using hands free phone and distracted driving. Even with hands free cells if you are talking and a Police Officer see it and you are not paying attention or are in an accident then you still can get cited for Distracted Driving.
While cell phones may be relatively new I suspect that their use is no longer growing significantly.
I consider 27% increase in MOU the first 6 months of this year over the first 6 months of 2005 very significant. How many of those minutes were accumulated while driving. That is when they will have a chance to wreak havoc on an innocent person.
I do agree that if eating is the number one cause of accidents it should be made illegal and enforced. I cannot imagine anyone that is a car enthusiast allowing some one to eat in their car anyway. It would give me nightmares of all that goo from a Carl's burger dribbling onto my leather seats. YUCK! I never allowed my kids to eat in the car even when I drove a junky Honda.
In the 60s GM developed a radar system that would brake a car to a stop if too close to another. An engineer walked out in front of a 50 MPH car and it stopped inches away from him. MB has put a version of this into cruise controll to keep proper braking distance so the rear ender is out but what of the side swipe or others. Rear ending a car is common in distraction cases so this is a definite plus but ont he other side of the coin I don't like ABS and all ther est of that ilk of things to make driving fool proof. I still like controlling the car and being the "DRIVER". You can put traction controll, ABS and all the rest into a car but what of the guy who runs a light or stop sign while talking. People find more ways to occupy time than ever before and most they do while driving are dangerous. Look at radios now showing the station name, number, song title and artist on the dial. When your favorite song comes on you can read it and know all the info while smashing intot he car in front. I remember the days of Point ignition, AM only radio ...then the fancy AM FM and finally the "8 Track or Cassette. In the old days you had 6 pre sets so you could change the radio without looking now with all the electronics you have 30 presets and need to look to see where you are again a distraction.
We see you have now avoided the subject entirely as well as your original statement that superior skill, which you seem to feel you somehow possess, can affect a closed equation of factors in tailgating accidents.
Er, where did you get that point? I actually refuted that point earlier in the thread when RedMaxx made this claim. I never said this.
So I'll repeat -- I pointed out that the driving skill that is important in this situation is not the reaction time, because reaction time won't help if you are following too closely. (By defintion, tailgating means that your reaction time is inadequate for conditions. This is true whether you have a phone, two kids, donut, large coffee, fruit basket or a combination of the above.)
What does help is the decision making process that the skilled driver uses to ensure that s/he doesn't tailgate in the first place. The skill that helps the driver to avoid the accident is the skill of making better driving choices.
Like youth, reaction time is wasted on the young. They have the best reaction time of everyone, yet they fail to use it to their advantage, as is evidenced by their higher accident rates.
I'll restate -- good driving in the real world is largely a matter of attitude, not technical skill. It's not like driving on a test track, where extremely high speeds put a premium on car control skills, and in which the level of professionalism ensures that the other drivers are reasonably safe most of the time.
On the streets and highways, it's more about managing with the flow of traffic, not doing anything stupid, and reading others so that their mistakes don't harm you. A good driver gives himself enough reaction time, and deals with his limitations, regardless of where those limitations are coming from.
"The thing that disturbs me is that we have states and local municipalities making rules that basically give hands-free phones a free pass as being safe," says Jeffrey Runge, NHTSA's administrator. "That's not good policy."
A sizable body of research concludes that headsets and speaker-phones don't improve safety because it's the mental distraction of talking on the phone, not holding it, that causes the danger while driving. And recent research suggests the devices could actually increase risk by encouraging people to spend more time on their cellphones and drive faster while doing so.
What's more, according to a new study by NHTSA that has been reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, people spent more time on the distracting task of dialing when they use headsets and voice-activated dialing systems. The new voice-activated dialing method took nearly twice as long as punching the buttons on the phone the old-fashioned way, according to the study.
Reflecting such concerns, NHTSA officials last year drafted a letter to be sent to all 50 U.S. governors. It said laws prohibiting hand-held cellphones while giving the green light to using headsets "will not address the problem" and "may erroneously imply that hands-free phones are safe to use while driving." It recommended that drivers not use cellphones at all, except in an emergency
Talking on the cell phone while driving is an accident looking for a place to happen!
While riding a motorcycle is legal, in many states riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not legal. The theory behind this is that it will reduce head injuries. This may or may not be the case but its an example of how the risk is mitigated through legislation. Alternatively, un-helmeted motor cycle riders are important because they provide much needed donor organs to transplant patients.
I have seen many drivers run stop signs, run red lights and wonder all over the road on the cell phone.
Are you trying to say that drivers don't run stop signs, run red lights and wander all over the road without the phone?
If we believe the studies, then it appears that not many accidents even include a phone as a contributing factor, let alone a sole cause. Why not address the cause of accidents, instead of fixating on something that's easy to pick on, but apparently doesn't actually do much of anything?
I consider 27% increase in MOU the first 6 months of this year over the first 6 months of 2005 very significant
Yes 27% is significant and I'm a little surprised by that number. Some of that may be due to people abandoning their landlines and using their cell as their only phone.
I actually got leather seats specifically because they were so much easier to clean than cloth.
A good driver gives himself enough reaction time, and deals with his limitations, regardless of where those limitations are coming from.
That is called "Defensive Driving" a course taught to all Pac Bell employees back in the late 1950s & 60s. What do you propose we do when confronted with a person talking on the phone and not taking their turn at a 4 way stop. Should we all buy Hummers with big bumpers and push them out of the way?
You seem fixated on people following too close. That is only one of dozens of annoying driving infractions. If you commuted on a CA freeway you have tailgated. There is no way to get home if you do not. You leave room for a car and some [non-permissible content removed] slides in. You will be going backward trying to follow at the prescribed distance. If you happen to be talking on the phone that just shortens your chance of stopping when the whole freeway slams on their brakes in unison. When the guy on the helicoptor says bumper to bumper he is not kidding. And much of the time it is bumper to bumper at 70+ MPH.
I see tailgating as a non issue in the scope of this thread. Should we stop cell phone use by drivers? I vote YES. Put it on the ballot. It will win by an overwhelming majority. If only 6% of drivers are on the cell phone that means the 94% will vote to take it away. I would guess it is more like 20%, still not enough to win a vote.
The theory behind this is that it will reduce head injuries. This may or may not be the case but its an example of how the risk is mitigated through legislation.
So in your opinion increased risk of head injury is not an adequate deterrent? For a "free society" we sure do love our laws.
Not particularly. I mentioned tailgating because (a) it happened to be part of my phone anecdote earlier in the thread, and (b) a lot of accidents are caused by people following too closely.
The whole point is to avoid overdriving your reaction time, whatever it is. If your reaction time is compromised because you have a bad leg, you're 90 years old, you enjoy your coffee, your kids are obnoxious or you have a phone call, then you are supposed to adjust.
The answer to all of this is not a baby-with-the-bathwater kill-'em-all argument, but with making sure that drivers make better choices, and punishing those who refuse to. If you are going to drive with the phone, and you can do so with mimimal compromise, then the answer is to adjust your driving to match your abilities while on the phone, and to manage your phone usage so that it doesn't interfere signficantly with your driving.
Getting out the surface-to-surface missiles at the sight of a Motorola is not really going to fix anything. It might feel good, but it won't do any good.
Am I correct in assuming that you believe legislation is an effective tool for controlling behavior?
My first choice would be education. Teaching a mental model of processing behavior would help a great deal. Younger drivers also lack some of the driving skills like scanning behavior and other semi-automated habits that older drivers have. They are a special case.
I think if teaching people about human capabilities (which has proven difficult, as I have learned from discussions like these), I would lean towards legislation. I think legislation acts as a deterrent.
In legal safety speak, once legislation has passed, a person is taking a risk as opposed to running a risk. When I speed, I know I am violating the law, and I know I am (arguably) increasing the risk involved with driving. I am taking a risk. I might be persecuted. I typically pay more attention when I am speeding, both to traffic around me and for enforcement. This is how I mediate the risk.
Incidentally, when driving under low workload conditions while talking on the phone, I tend to be in the slow lane with the cruise control on. Again, shedding workload (speed maintenance tasks, some diligence in scanning behavior, lower speeds) I am mitigating the risk. Legislation could help people realize they need to mitigate their risk.
I am not necessarily proposing banning cell phones, and I am pretty sure the hands free laws are a ploy to sell more bluetooth hands free units and what not, but I think a secondary enforcement rule would be helpful (If I was speeding and get pulled over and law enforcement sees me on the phone, that would be an additional fine). If someone had been paying enough attention and not on the phone, they probably would have seen the police or noticed everyone else's brake lights passing his location anyway.
It does not surprise me. I put the first cell sites into the Arctic in 1995. We were overloaded from the start. Continually expanding sites and capacity. With all the free minute plans folks think that they have to talk to someone day and night 24/7. 4.68 billion minutes a day the first six months of this year. I was a digital switching tech/engineer since the first digital switches were built in the 1970s. It boggles my mind that kind of usage. I think many folks have gotten rid of their home phones as the cell is so much more convenient. I just wish they would cut back on usage when driving. Or learn to pay attention to the road first and the person on the other end second.
I typically pay more attention when I am speeding, both to traffic around me and for enforcement. This is how I mediate the risk.
That's interesting. It states that you have spare attention to apply to the task of driving. You choose to apply this spare attention capacity to the demands of speeding while others might choose to apply it to the task of talking on a cell phone.
think that can be taught more effectively than it can be legislated.
I guess I need to set up a class at the 4 way stop at the bottom of my hill. Worst part is it is usually my wife's step daughter in her LX470 or the 2 grand daughters in their Denali's that are the culprits.
I typically pay more attention when I am speeding, both to traffic around me and for enforcement. This is how I mediate the risk.
That's interesting. It implies, no actually it states, that you have spare attention to apply to the task of driving. You choose to apply this spare attention capacity to the demands of speeding while others might choose to apply it to the task of talking on a cell phone.
I think I said that.. Incidentally, when driving under low workload conditions while talking on the phone, I tend to be in the slow lane with the cruise control on. Again, shedding workload (speed maintenance tasks, some diligence in scanning behavior, lower speeds) I am mitigating the risk. Legislation could help people realize they need to mitigate their risk.
I definitely think there are times when workload is low enough that there is enough additional processing power to have a low level conversation on phone while driving. The issue is I don't trust other drivers to make that decision.
I definitely think there are times when workload is low enough that there is enough additional processing power to have a low level conversation on phone while driving. The issue is I don't trust other drivers to make that decision.
Why not just ban back seats and cup holders? You could eliminate quite a few distraction sources just by doing that. (Although I don't know if the jails have enough space to hold all of the criminals who would buy after-market cupholders in the auto parts black market...)
I'll just say this. Target all distractions, and do it in a way that includes both justifiable and economically feasible punishments. Phones should be targeted just as much as smokers and eaters/drinkers etc. Going after one and not the others, as our quota/productivity obsessed traffic enforcement professionals apparently support according to some here, is hard to defend. Then again, some people really never have to defend anything.
Why not just ban back seats and cup holders? You could eliminate quite a few distraction sources just by doing that.
Were you or your kids vaccinated? Hmm there are so many diseases out there, why bother to vaccinate against polio or measles? The argument that there are so many other bad things out there so therefore no attempt should be made to control any of them is a logical fallacy.
Legislation could help people realize they need to mitigate their risk
If you ban cell phones there is no longer this perceived risk. So there is no need to mitigate anything. So what type of legislation are you suggesting?
The sad thing is that I think governments actually feel that they are attempting to save lives by implementing laws regarding ANYTHING that seems to take them away. My question to you: If a live human being is in your passenger seat, do you not look at them periodically while talking to them? You don't have that distraction with a cell phone. Add to it children trying to get your attention, let alone SCREAMING at the top of their lungs. I don't see the government making laws that would prohibit children and passengers from "distracting" the driver. Get real. The argument against cell phones is so feebly thought out. It lacks intelligence.
Legislation could help people realize they need to mitigate their risk
If you ban cell phones there is no longer this perceived risk. So there is no need to mitigate anything. So what type of legislation are you suggesting?
Please go back and read the sentence after the one you quoted.
Oh wait, I have it handy, I said, "I am not necessarily proposing banning cell phones," which I also said previously in post 391.
I am leaning more towards the secondary enforcement I have mentioned in post #569 & 487. If you make resonsible decisions and manage your phone use, I am not concerned with you. If you have an infraction and your on the phone, thats double trouble and one should be fined accordingly. If someone is at fault when involved in a collision and it can be determined they are using a cell phone (black boxes are starting to be able to monitor these things and are in most newer cars), then they get burned at the stake or stoned or some other very public display. This will provide the necessary deterrent.
The sad thing is that I think governments actually feel that they are attempting to save lives by implementing laws regarding ANYTHING that seems to take them away. My question to you: If a live human being is in your passenger seat, do you not look at them periodically while talking to them? You don't have that distraction with a cell phone. Add to it children trying to get your attention, let alone SCREAMING at the top of their lungs. I don't see the government making laws that would prohibit children and passengers from "distracting" the driver. Get real. The argument against cell phones is so feebly thought out. It lacks intelligence.
If you are going to join the debate late, you have to come up with agruments that haven't already been adressed.
I posted what I thought was a good law from Connecticut. They include ticketing for the other distractions you mentioned.
As far as being distracted as much by a passenger as a cell phone call. Studies do not share your opinion. Eating I believe was the number ONE distraction, then Cell phone calls. You left out the part where your passengers scream to lookout for that bus.
I don't think you will find that the bulk of the World's population agree with you and the few here that love their cell phones. The US is not the only place passing laws to try and curb the cell phone distraction. As with most things automotive we are behind the rest of the world.
Newfoundland and Labrador passed a similar law in 2003 that bans the use of hand-held cellphones by all drivers. At least 14 countries have banned drivers from using cellphones, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Chile, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Africa and Spain.
As far as being distracted as much by a passenger as a cell phone call. Studies do not share your opinion. Eating I believe was the number ONE distraction, then Cell phone calls. You left out the part where your passengers scream to lookout for that bus.
The eating thing is again what makes me concerned for the masses. It is much easier to eat the 2 cheeseburger meal from golden arches while traveling than a big mac. The cheeseburgers dont fall apart and require fewer bites. Soft Tacos from the boarder are also much easier to eat while under way than the hard shell counterparts. Common sense is amazingly uncommon.
It is much easier to eat the 2 cheeseburger meal from golden arches while traveling than a big mac.
You would think MCD being my favorite stock that I would have tried that. I cannot remember the last time I ate in McDonald's. I do remember liking their french fries the best. With 10,000 Mexican food places, I usually eat in one of those. Much better tasting and less expensive. I do like to sit down and eat though. Only takes a few minutes more and you can wash your hands so Jack's Secret Sauce does not mess up your leather steering wheel and shift lever.
I don't know why the phone is such a critical item for you. If someone is tailgating, cutting people off, etc., I don't really care whether or not they were on the phone, I just want them stopped.
The phone is so critical because it happens so often that the phone user zoned out to the world around them. I see souped up low riders with music blaring, but the music isn't as much of a distraction to that person as the phone is to the person who almost hits me. Daily, I am the target of zombie drivers on cell phones, so much that it feels like there is a target painted on my car.
Your example is a bit like telling a bank president that he can leave the bank's money out in the open and what we'll do is, the first time someone robs him, we'll make the guy do X, then the second time the guy robs him, we'll make him do Y and then the third time we'll do Z.
Sure the real problem is the accidents. But putting stiff penalties in place to deter people from using cell phones should help. If it doesn't then we might as well repeal the drunk driving laws.
LOL yeah I concur. I haven't had MickyDs in ages. When I was in college I was 300 miles from my significant other so I spent a lot of time on the road. The 101/Kannan Rd exit was my dinning stop and I knew there were 2 cheeseburgers waitin for me.
I am leaning more towards the secondary enforcement I have mentioned in post #569 & 487. If you make resonsible decisions and manage your phone use, I am not concerned with you
Okay, that seems reasonable. I'm sure I read that post at some point but mixed you up with another poster. The problem with laws in general is that they are the most effective at changing the behavior of the most responsible. The people that weren't really the problem to begin with.
I am leaning more towards the secondary enforcement I have mentioned in post #569 & 487. If you make resonsible decisions and manage your phone use, I am not concerned with you
Okay, that seems reasonable. I'm sure I read that post at some point but mixed you up with another poster. The problem with laws in general is that they are the most effective at changing the behavior of the most responsible. The people that weren't really the problem to begin with.
I agree, and there will always be outliers, but I think societal pressures and some level of deterrent would be a step in the right direction. I don't like the idea of limiting personal freedoms unnecessarily, but at the same time, someone's personal freedoms end when it puts me at risk. If someone is a responsible driver, the likelihood they will have a self inflicted issue is relatively slim and they shouldn't be penalized but if they cross the line, I don't have a lot of forgiveness.
The next big thing from the OEM side is the workload manager. Basically, one possible application is if the car thinks you are working too hard (there are a bunch of ways to measure workload) it will root your call to voicemail and the phone won't even ring.
The next big thing from the OEM side is the workload manager. Basically, one possible application is if the car thinks you are working too hard (there are a bunch of ways to measure workload) it will root your call to voicemail and the phone won't even ring.
And if this system determines that you aren't handling your workload adequately it can conclude that you are impaired in some way and shut the car down, with some warning. I actually like this approach even though it might bring back memories of HAL from 2001 A Space Odyssey.
And if this system determines that you aren't handling your workload adequately it can conclude that you are impaired in some way and shut the car down, with some warning. I actually like this approach even though it might bring back memories of HAL from 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Very much a possibility. Steering inputs make it reasonably easy to tell if someone is impaired or distracted. This can be coupled with lane departure warnings and information to decide if someone should be behind the wheel or not. The new Mercedes diesel will disable itself if it runs out of cat pee for the emissions system, so the car stopping itself because the driver is impaired isn't so far fetched.
Steering inputs make it reasonably easy to tell if someone is impaired or distracted.
Or driving on a windy day. I drive a highway every day that gets windy frequently and it requires a lot of steering input to keep the car going straight.
Steering inputs make it reasonably easy to tell if someone is impaired or distracted.
Or driving on a windy day. I drive a highway every day that gets windy frequently and it requires a lot of steering input to keep the car going straight.
Driving produces a high frequency of relatively low amplitude corrections. A strong crosswind would be picked up by the car's dynamic stability control so it would understand a particular swerve. Very low frequency high amplitude variations in steering input point to an issue with the driver.
If they came out with something like this, I wouldn't buy it for at least the first five generations. Probably too buggy. Its already happening in Japan. In the US, it will take a while to trinkle down to the CamCord level from the Q45/LS430 level. Other than that, take good care of your car so it will last a good long time.
go hands free and there is nothing they can do about it. If you get pulled over say you were talking to yourself. The burden of proof is on them not you. If you have a hand unit put it on speaker. They have to see you to cite you.
I'll restate -- good driving in the real world is largely a matter of attitude, not technical skill. It's not like driving on a test track, where extremely high speeds put a premium on car control skills, and in which the level of professionalism ensures that the other drivers are reasonably safe most of the time.
You have managed to "massage" your position but not to escape it entirely. You have now substituted attitude for "skill?" in knowing not to tailgate in contrast to attitude versus "skill?" in avoiding accidents while tailgating - completely different situations.
As someone who has sustained significant physical damage, which has now resulted in my complete work disability, through being rear-ended in car accidents six times in the last several years, (no panic stops involved, at rest for several seconds)- your tortured attempt to lay it on the lack of the appropriate "driving attitude" of those damaged in accidents caused by others is ignoble at best. No one can account for, or defend against the dangerous drivers out there except to stay off of the highways and resign them to the cell-phone and other distracted and diminished drivers -a kind of Mad Man Max philosophy of driving.
On that note, I once had a friend, now long disconnected, who as a trucker facing the insanity of daily driving on the interstate, carried both a 12 Gauge shot gun and a 357 Magnum and began shooting out the tires of other truckers (harder than it might appear) who did not give a damn about their unsafe driving. This was from a very civil, mild mannered family man who would always stop at accidents to give assistance and to call for help. I am not suggesting that this is a good solution and think it is a bad idea overall, but many people feel themselves at a total disadvantage against what is becoming a predatory society where those who are the victims of unsafe drivers, including cell-phone types, are regarded, as you have stated, as the perpetrators for not having the appropriate "driving attitude" and seeing it coming and planning accordingly.
Query; Do you you drive? Have you had members of your family injured, maimed, or killed in auto accidents? Would you be incensed if it was at the hands of a cell phone engaged driver? Would you blame your family member for having a poor "driving attitude"?
go hands free and there is nothing they can do about it. If you get pulled over say you were talking to yourself. The burden of proof is on them not you. If you have a hand unit put it on speaker. They have to see you to cite you.
Is there any lawlessness you will not encourage and condone?
If a group from this cite came to your house say, just to, uh, look around; is that OK with you? After all they only came to, uh, say Hi, right.
While sitting at my desk at work which looked on a very busy intersection, I watched as a cell-phone Zombie blew through the signal T-boning another car. She never missed a beat and continued on the cell phone for another several seconds and then actually attempted to drive away!
After being "blocked" by others and accosted for being on the cell-phone she immediately maintained that she was not on the cell phone and that the light was green. There were several other witnesses to the event, so that argument did not hold up very well.
Yes, other distracted drivers also create accidents; but can anyone imagine someone finishing their sandwich, or their cigarette, and then attempting to drive away from an accident they caused?
Would on the spot executions be a deterrent to this type of behavior? (Not a recommendation!)
"Only takes a few minutes more and you can wash your hands so Jack's Secret Sauce does not mess up your leather steering wheel and shift lever."
Not to mention avoiding having the dog in the car trying to lick one's fingers, while driving a stick shift, on the cell-phone, call waiting, shaving, in traffic, it's raining, and your late!
go hands free and there is nothing they can do about it.
Would you like me to cite a few cases where cell phone records were used to win in court? I can tell you to the second every one of your calls on a cell phone with a simple court order. No one is above the technology available. Remember Newt Gingrich.? Wasn't it a recorded cell call that brought down his empire? Of course the CA law is lame in the fact they are not blocking all cell calls while driving.
IMHO, the existing law is correct: not having complete control of the vehicle is a citable offense. The enforcement should be against losing control of vehicle, not any particular behavior that may or may not cause any particular person to lose control of their vehicles. There are so many different reasons: talking (to a person or to a phone), listening (to a person, to a phone, to the radio or whatever else), day dreaming, not having enough sleep the night before, getting at an itch under the butt, etc. There are so many different things (things that we may not even think of) that it would be a tremendous waste of time and money to enumerate specific fines or penalties for each in the legislative process.
However, the timing of the accident itself is not accurate to the second.
I just find some the studies so far proferred by cellphobes rather self-contradictory: e.g. if there is no difference in hand-held vs. hands-free, then there should be no difference between talking on the cellphone vs. talking with a person . . . at least I never try to look in the eyes of the phone when I talk on the phone whereas people usually try to at least take glances at their fellow conversationalists. If that is the case, then how come having conversation is not cited as the leading reason for accidents? Because the data point for having conversation, adjusting radio, etc. are not picked up in the accident statistics . . . there is no physical evidence to go by. So we are stuck with eating and cellphone use. I say, from har d physical evidence, automobile accidents correlate the best with having a driver behind the wheel :-) Nearly 100% car accidents involve drivers . . . let's ban drivers :-)
So how many points/hits have you collected this year? I was rear-ended by a car a couple months ago, and she was not using cellphone at all. Bad drivers exist. Shall I advocate the banning of all woman drivers or banning cars so cheap that less than perfectly responsible people can afford them? Her beater Chevy Cavalier had a bumper sticker that reads: if you don't get ticketed you are not driving fast enough . . . go figure.
Comments
If that's a reasonable justification for a law then it represents a very slippery slope. Again, why are motorcycles legal? If I took the time I'm sure I could come up with 100's of examples of lifestyle choices that people make that have an adverse effect on overall health care costs for society. I'm sure you can easily think of some yourself. By your rational the government would be within its authority to regulate these. That's not a society that I find appealing.
I have seen many drivers run stop signs, run red lights and wonder all over the road on the cell phone.
AS for your remark about using the radio in the vehicle. If you were victim of trauma you have a "Golden Hour" and the nearer the hour the better survival. If I picked you up in very bad shape we would call in a notification so you get tot he front of the line. You are saying we should hot call notifications because we become "bad drivers". Not true, as a professional we slow down and become more aware when using the radio or working the siren box etc. People on phones that I have seen are so into he call they feel they are at home or in the office, taking both hands off the wheel to make a point [never done by PD, FD or EMS].
Driving skill is important but Physics takes over in tailgating. A 3000# car going 60 miles per hour takes so long to stop even if things are perfect. This equation does not change with drinking or cell phone it merely takes longer for the response time [not a physics property]. So take the Physics amount of time and add time for not paying attention and you have a rearender.
As for laws yes some states have them and yours may too. In New York it is the "Distracted Driver "Statute. This is for distracted driver for any reason reading a newspaper [I have seen it too many times] putting on makeup, eating or drinking and yes cell phones. If necessary you can get not using hands free phone and distracted driving. Even with hands free cells if you are talking and a Police Officer see it and you are not paying attention or are in an accident then you still can get cited for Distracted Driving.
Am I correct in assuming that you believe legislation is an effective tool for controlling behavior?
I consider 27% increase in MOU the first 6 months of this year over the first 6 months of 2005 very significant. How many of those minutes were accumulated while driving. That is when they will have a chance to wreak havoc on an innocent person.
I do agree that if eating is the number one cause of accidents it should be made illegal and enforced. I cannot imagine anyone that is a car enthusiast allowing some one to eat in their car anyway. It would give me nightmares of all that goo from a Carl's burger dribbling onto my leather seats. YUCK! I never allowed my kids to eat in the car even when I drove a junky Honda.
You can put traction controll, ABS and all the rest into a car but what of the guy who runs a light or stop sign while talking. People find more ways to occupy time than ever before and most they do while driving are dangerous. Look at radios now showing the station name, number, song title and artist on the dial. When your favorite song comes on you can read it and know all the info while smashing intot he car in front.
I remember the days of Point ignition, AM only radio ...then the fancy AM FM and finally the "8 Track or Cassette. In the old days you had 6 pre sets so you could change the radio without looking now with all the electronics you have 30 presets and need to look to see where you are again a distraction.
Er, where did you get that point? I actually refuted that point earlier in the thread when RedMaxx made this claim. I never said this.
So I'll repeat -- I pointed out that the driving skill that is important in this situation is not the reaction time, because reaction time won't help if you are following too closely. (By defintion, tailgating means that your reaction time is inadequate for conditions. This is true whether you have a phone, two kids, donut, large coffee, fruit basket or a combination of the above.)
What does help is the decision making process that the skilled driver uses to ensure that s/he doesn't tailgate in the first place. The skill that helps the driver to avoid the accident is the skill of making better driving choices.
Like youth, reaction time is wasted on the young. They have the best reaction time of everyone, yet they fail to use it to their advantage, as is evidenced by their higher accident rates.
I'll restate -- good driving in the real world is largely a matter of attitude, not technical skill. It's not like driving on a test track, where extremely high speeds put a premium on car control skills, and in which the level of professionalism ensures that the other drivers are reasonably safe most of the time.
On the streets and highways, it's more about managing with the flow of traffic, not doing anything stupid, and reading others so that their mistakes don't harm you. A good driver gives himself enough reaction time, and deals with his limitations, regardless of where those limitations are coming from.
A sizable body of research concludes that headsets and speaker-phones don't improve safety because it's the mental distraction of talking on the phone, not holding it, that causes the danger while driving. And recent research suggests the devices could actually increase risk by encouraging people to spend more time on their cellphones and drive faster while doing so.
What's more, according to a new study by NHTSA that has been reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, people spent more time on the distracting task of dialing when they use headsets and voice-activated dialing systems. The new voice-activated dialing method took nearly twice as long as punching the buttons on the phone the old-fashioned way, according to the study.
Reflecting such concerns, NHTSA officials last year drafted a letter to be sent to all 50 U.S. governors. It said laws prohibiting hand-held cellphones while giving the green light to using headsets "will not address the problem" and "may erroneously imply that hands-free phones are safe to use while driving." It recommended that drivers not use cellphones at all, except in an emergency
Talking on the cell phone while driving is an accident looking for a place to happen!
http://www.morganlee.org/junglegymflyerpoliticians.doc
Alternatively, un-helmeted motor cycle riders are important because they provide much needed donor organs to transplant patients.
Are you trying to say that drivers don't run stop signs, run red lights and wander all over the road without the phone?
If we believe the studies, then it appears that not many accidents even include a phone as a contributing factor, let alone a sole cause. Why not address the cause of accidents, instead of fixating on something that's easy to pick on, but apparently doesn't actually do much of anything?
Yes 27% is significant and I'm a little surprised by that number. Some of that may be due to people abandoning their landlines and using their cell as their only phone.
I actually got leather seats specifically because they were so much easier to clean than cloth.
That is called "Defensive Driving" a course taught to all Pac Bell employees back in the late 1950s & 60s. What do you propose we do when confronted with a person talking on the phone and not taking their turn at a 4 way stop. Should we all buy Hummers with big bumpers and push them out of the way?
You seem fixated on people following too close. That is only one of dozens of annoying driving infractions. If you commuted on a CA freeway you have tailgated. There is no way to get home if you do not. You leave room for a car and some [non-permissible content removed] slides in. You will be going backward trying to follow at the prescribed distance. If you happen to be talking on the phone that just shortens your chance of stopping when the whole freeway slams on their brakes in unison. When the guy on the helicoptor says bumper to bumper he is not kidding. And much of the time it is bumper to bumper at 70+ MPH.
I see tailgating as a non issue in the scope of this thread. Should we stop cell phone use by drivers? I vote YES. Put it on the ballot. It will win by an overwhelming majority. If only 6% of drivers are on the cell phone that means the 94% will vote to take it away. I would guess it is more like 20%, still not enough to win a vote.
So in your opinion increased risk of head injury is not an adequate deterrent? For a "free society" we sure do love our laws.
Not particularly. I mentioned tailgating because (a) it happened to be part of my phone anecdote earlier in the thread, and (b) a lot of accidents are caused by people following too closely.
The whole point is to avoid overdriving your reaction time, whatever it is. If your reaction time is compromised because you have a bad leg, you're 90 years old, you enjoy your coffee, your kids are obnoxious or you have a phone call, then you are supposed to adjust.
The answer to all of this is not a baby-with-the-bathwater kill-'em-all argument, but with making sure that drivers make better choices, and punishing those who refuse to. If you are going to drive with the phone, and you can do so with mimimal compromise, then the answer is to adjust your driving to match your abilities while on the phone, and to manage your phone usage so that it doesn't interfere signficantly with your driving.
Getting out the surface-to-surface missiles at the sight of a Motorola is not really going to fix anything. It might feel good, but it won't do any good.
Am I correct in assuming that you believe legislation is an effective tool for controlling behavior?
My first choice would be education. Teaching a mental model of processing behavior would help a great deal. Younger drivers also lack some of the driving skills like scanning behavior and other semi-automated habits that older drivers have. They are a special case.
I think if teaching people about human capabilities (which has proven difficult, as I have learned from discussions like these), I would lean towards legislation. I think legislation acts as a deterrent.
In legal safety speak, once legislation has passed, a person is taking a risk as opposed to running a risk. When I speed, I know I am violating the law, and I know I am (arguably) increasing the risk involved with driving. I am taking a risk. I might be persecuted. I typically pay more attention when I am speeding, both to traffic around me and for enforcement. This is how I mediate the risk.
Incidentally, when driving under low workload conditions while talking on the phone, I tend to be in the slow lane with the cruise control on. Again, shedding workload (speed maintenance tasks, some diligence in scanning behavior, lower speeds) I am mitigating the risk. Legislation could help people realize they need to mitigate their risk.
I am not necessarily proposing banning cell phones, and I am pretty sure the hands free laws are a ploy to sell more bluetooth hands free units and what not, but I think a secondary enforcement rule would be helpful (If I was speeding and get pulled over and law enforcement sees me on the phone, that would be an additional fine). If someone had been paying enough attention and not on the phone, they probably would have seen the police or noticed everyone else's brake lights passing his location anyway.
Is this perfect? No. Is it a start?
That's interesting. It states that you have spare attention to apply to the task of driving. You choose to apply this spare attention capacity to the demands of speeding while others might choose to apply it to the task of talking on a cell phone.
I think that can be taught more effectively than it can be legislated.
Why else would Verizon & Cingular jump on the bandwagon to ban handheld phones while driving? Money seems to creep into every bit of legislation.
I guess I need to set up a class at the 4 way stop at the bottom of my hill. Worst part is it is usually my wife's step daughter in her LX470 or the 2 grand daughters in their Denali's that are the culprits.
That's interesting. It implies, no actually it states, that you have spare attention to apply to the task of driving. You choose to apply this spare attention capacity to the demands of speeding while others might choose to apply it to the task of talking on a cell phone.
I think I said that..
Incidentally, when driving under low workload conditions while talking on the phone, I tend to be in the slow lane with the cruise control on. Again, shedding workload (speed maintenance tasks, some diligence in scanning behavior, lower speeds) I am mitigating the risk. Legislation could help people realize they need to mitigate their risk.
I definitely think there are times when workload is low enough that there is enough additional processing power to have a low level conversation on phone while driving. The issue is I don't trust other drivers to make that decision.
Why not just ban back seats and cup holders? You could eliminate quite a few distraction sources just by doing that. (Although I don't know if the jails have enough space to hold all of the criminals who would buy after-market cupholders in the auto parts black market...)
Were you or your kids vaccinated? Hmm there are so many diseases out there, why bother to vaccinate against polio or measles?
The argument that there are so many other bad things out there so therefore no attempt should be made to control any of them is a logical fallacy.
If you ban cell phones there is no longer this perceived risk. So there is no need to mitigate anything. So what type of legislation are you suggesting?
My question to you: If a live human being is in your passenger seat, do you not look at them periodically while talking to them? You don't have that distraction with a cell phone.
Add to it children trying to get your attention, let alone SCREAMING at the top of their lungs.
I don't see the government making laws that would prohibit children and passengers from "distracting" the driver.
Get real. The argument against cell phones is so feebly thought out. It lacks intelligence.
If you ban cell phones there is no longer this perceived risk. So there is no need to mitigate anything. So what type of legislation are you suggesting?
Please go back and read the sentence after the one you quoted.
Oh wait, I have it handy, I said,
"I am not necessarily proposing banning cell phones,"
which I also said previously in post 391.
I am leaning more towards the secondary enforcement I have mentioned in post #569 & 487. If you make resonsible decisions and manage your phone use, I am not concerned with you. If you have an infraction and your on the phone, thats double trouble and one should be fined accordingly. If someone is at fault when involved in a collision and it can be determined they are using a cell phone (black boxes are starting to be able to monitor these things and are in most newer cars), then they get burned at the stake or stoned or some other very public display. This will provide the necessary deterrent.
My question to you: If a live human being is in your passenger seat, do you not look at them periodically while talking to them? You don't have that distraction with a cell phone.
Add to it children trying to get your attention, let alone SCREAMING at the top of their lungs.
I don't see the government making laws that would prohibit children and passengers from "distracting" the driver.
Get real. The argument against cell phones is so feebly thought out. It lacks intelligence.
If you are going to join the debate late, you have to come up with agruments that haven't already been adressed.
I posted what I thought was a good law from Connecticut. They include ticketing for the other distractions you mentioned.
As far as being distracted as much by a passenger as a cell phone call. Studies do not share your opinion. Eating I believe was the number ONE distraction, then Cell phone calls. You left out the part where your passengers scream to lookout for that bus.
I don't think you will find that the bulk of the World's population agree with you and the few here that love their cell phones. The US is not the only place passing laws to try and curb the cell phone distraction. As with most things automotive we are behind the rest of the world.
Newfoundland and Labrador passed a similar law in 2003 that bans the use of hand-held cellphones by all drivers.
At least 14 countries have banned drivers from using cellphones, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Chile, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Africa and Spain.
Ban Cell Phones
The eating thing is again what makes me concerned for the masses. It is much easier to eat the 2 cheeseburger meal from golden arches while traveling than a big mac. The cheeseburgers dont fall apart and require fewer bites. Soft Tacos from the boarder are also much easier to eat while under way than the hard shell counterparts.
Common sense is amazingly uncommon.
You would think MCD being my favorite stock that I would have tried that. I cannot remember the last time I ate in McDonald's. I do remember liking their french fries the best. With 10,000 Mexican food places, I usually eat in one of those. Much better tasting and less expensive. I do like to sit down and eat though. Only takes a few minutes more and you can wash your hands so Jack's Secret Sauce does not mess up your leather steering wheel and shift lever.
The phone is so critical because it happens so often that the phone user zoned out to the world around them. I see souped up low riders with music blaring, but the music isn't as much of a distraction to that person as the phone is to the person who almost hits me. Daily, I am the target of zombie drivers on cell phones, so much that it feels like there is a target painted on my car.
Your example is a bit like telling a bank president that he can leave the bank's money out in the open and what we'll do is, the first time someone robs him, we'll make the guy do X, then the second time the guy robs him, we'll make him do Y and then the third time we'll do Z.
Sure the real problem is the accidents. But putting stiff penalties in place to deter people from using cell phones should help. If it doesn't then we might as well repeal the drunk driving laws.
I am leaning more towards the secondary enforcement I have mentioned in post #569 & 487. If you make resonsible decisions and manage your phone use, I am not concerned with you
Okay, that seems reasonable. I'm sure I read that post at some point but mixed you up with another poster. The problem with laws in general is that they are the most effective at changing the behavior of the most responsible. The people that weren't really the problem to begin with.
Okay, that seems reasonable. I'm sure I read that post at some point but mixed you up with another poster. The problem with laws in general is that they are the most effective at changing the behavior of the most responsible. The people that weren't really the problem to begin with.
I agree, and there will always be outliers, but I think societal pressures and some level of deterrent would be a step in the right direction.
I don't like the idea of limiting personal freedoms unnecessarily, but at the same time, someone's personal freedoms end when it puts me at risk. If someone is a responsible driver, the likelihood they will have a self inflicted issue is relatively slim and they shouldn't be penalized but if they cross the line, I don't have a lot of forgiveness.
The next big thing from the OEM side is the workload manager. Basically, one possible application is if the car thinks you are working too hard (there are a bunch of ways to measure workload) it will root your call to voicemail and the phone won't even ring.
And if this system determines that you aren't handling your workload adequately it can conclude that you are impaired in some way and shut the car down, with some warning. I actually like this approach even though it might bring back memories of HAL from 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Very much a possibility. Steering inputs make it reasonably easy to tell if someone is impaired or distracted. This can be coupled with lane departure warnings and information to decide if someone should be behind the wheel or not. The new Mercedes diesel will disable itself if it runs out of cat pee for the emissions system, so the car stopping itself because the driver is impaired isn't so far fetched.
Or driving on a windy day. I drive a highway every day that gets windy frequently and it requires a lot of steering input to keep the car going straight.
Or driving on a windy day. I drive a highway every day that gets windy frequently and it requires a lot of steering input to keep the car going straight.
Driving produces a high frequency of relatively low amplitude corrections. A strong crosswind would be picked up by the car's dynamic stability control so it would understand a particular swerve. Very low frequency high amplitude variations in steering input point to an issue with the driver.
Its already happening in Japan. In the US, it will take a while to trinkle down to the CamCord level from the Q45/LS430 level. Other than that, take good care of your car so it will last a good long time.
I'll restate -- good driving in the real world is largely a matter of attitude, not technical skill. It's not like driving on a test track, where extremely high speeds put a premium on car control skills, and in which the level of professionalism ensures that the other drivers are reasonably safe most of the time.
You have managed to "massage" your position but not to escape it entirely. You have now substituted attitude for "skill?" in knowing not to tailgate in contrast to attitude versus "skill?" in avoiding accidents while tailgating - completely different situations.
As someone who has sustained significant physical damage, which has now resulted in my complete work disability, through being rear-ended in car accidents six times in the last several years, (no panic stops involved, at rest for several seconds)- your tortured attempt to lay it on the lack of the appropriate "driving attitude" of those damaged in accidents caused by others is ignoble at best. No one can account for, or defend against the dangerous drivers out there except to stay off of the highways and resign them to the cell-phone and other distracted and diminished drivers -a kind of Mad Man Max philosophy of driving.
On that note, I once had a friend, now long disconnected, who as a trucker facing the insanity of daily driving on the interstate, carried both a 12 Gauge shot gun and a 357 Magnum and began shooting out the tires of other truckers (harder than it might appear) who did not give a damn about their unsafe driving. This was from a very civil, mild mannered family man who would always stop at accidents to give assistance and to call for help. I am not suggesting that this is a good solution and think it is a bad idea overall, but many people feel themselves at a total disadvantage against what is becoming a predatory society where those who are the victims of unsafe drivers, including cell-phone types, are regarded, as you have stated, as the perpetrators for not having the appropriate "driving attitude" and seeing it coming and planning accordingly.
Query; Do you you drive? Have you had members of your family injured, maimed, or killed in auto accidents? Would you be incensed if it was at the hands of a cell phone engaged driver? Would you blame your family member for having a poor "driving attitude"?
go hands free and there is nothing they can do about it. If you get pulled over say you were talking to yourself. The burden of proof is on them not you. If you have a hand unit put it on speaker. They have to see you to cite you.
Is there any lawlessness you will not encourage and condone?
If a group from this cite came to your house say, just to, uh, look around; is that OK with you? After all they only came to, uh, say Hi, right.
While sitting at my desk at work which looked on a very busy intersection, I watched as a cell-phone Zombie blew through the signal T-boning another car. She never missed a beat and continued on the cell phone for another several seconds and then actually attempted to drive away!
After being "blocked" by others and accosted for being on the cell-phone she immediately maintained that she was not on the cell phone and that the light was green. There were several other witnesses to the event, so that argument did not hold up very well.
Yes, other distracted drivers also create accidents; but can anyone imagine someone finishing their sandwich, or their cigarette, and then attempting to drive away from an accident they caused?
Would on the spot executions be a deterrent to this type of behavior? (Not a recommendation!)
Not to mention avoiding having the dog in the car trying to lick one's fingers, while driving a stick shift, on the cell-phone, call waiting, shaving, in traffic, it's raining, and your late!
Would you like me to cite a few cases where cell phone records were used to win in court? I can tell you to the second every one of your calls on a cell phone with a simple court order. No one is above the technology available. Remember Newt Gingrich.? Wasn't it a recorded cell call that brought down his empire? Of course the CA law is lame in the fact they are not blocking all cell calls while driving.
I just find some the studies so far proferred by cellphobes rather self-contradictory: e.g. if there is no difference in hand-held vs. hands-free, then there should be no difference between talking on the cellphone vs. talking with a person . . . at least I never try to look in the eyes of the phone when I talk on the phone whereas people usually try to at least take glances at their fellow conversationalists. If that is the case, then how come having conversation is not cited as the leading reason for accidents? Because the data point for having conversation, adjusting radio, etc. are not picked up in the accident statistics . . . there is no physical evidence to go by. So we are stuck with eating and cellphone use. I say, from har d physical evidence, automobile accidents correlate the best with having a driver behind the wheel :-) Nearly 100% car accidents involve drivers . . . let's ban drivers :-)