Okay, so it's your opinion the studies are invalid.
No, I'm saying that the studies don't prove your point.
The studies don't prove that drivers who are causing accidents would stop causing them if they didn't have phones. The fact that most accidents are caused by a minority of people should tell you that accidents are caused largely by poor drivers, not by devices and objects.
The fact that accident rates keep falling, with or without phones, should tell you that taking phones away from accident prone drivers won't make them less accident prone. Bad drivers will always find ways to drive badly, no matter what they are driving, where they are driving, or what they have in their cars while they are driving. Taking my phone won't make them drive any better.
"The fact that accident rates keep falling, with or without phones"
Again, you don't know if accident rates or even fatalities due to phones are rising because there is no comprehensive statistical study, even as the rate at which fatalities occur might be declining, maybe due to better crumple zones.
So I'm still of the opinion an ounce of prevention...
"Taking my phone won't make them drive any better."
No, but it just might make you alert enough to stay out of the morgue.
You don't know if accident rates or even fatalities due to phones are rising because there is no comprehensive statistical study
Sure we know this. If the phones were a problem, the trends would be affected. The fact that the trends stay the same is a good indicator that the phones don't make a difference, otherwise we'd see a change in the trend.
You're trying to tell us that the patient has a fever, even though his temperature hasn't changed. It doesn't make sense to claim that the sky is falling when the sky looks the same as it always has...
An accident is a statistical anomaly. What you are discussing is a CRASH. A CRASH has a cause, an ACCIDENT is a matter of chance. The topic being discussed is not a matter of chance.
So if a law is so pointless, secondary enforcement might be a good way to go, no? Talk responsibly on the cell phone, no problem. Talk and run over a bus stop of kids, be stoned to death in the public square.
Actually the pro cell phone group like quoting the NHTSA when it seems advantageous to their position. When the NHTSA studies are stating that cell phones are a detriment to drivers they like to dismiss the study. Leaving their opinions with no basis in fact. They don't like these NHTSA studies.
A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), breaks new ground. (Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30 percent of crashes.) The new study found that the most common distraction is the use of cell phones, followed by drowsiness. Motorists who use cell phones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves.
Researchers must keep in mind that police crash reports are law enforcement documents. Generally, police officers are tasked with three primary duties at a crash site: tend to the injured, restore traffic flow, and issue citations for violations of the law. The identification and evaluation of specific pre-crash circumstances may be very difficult for factors such as cellular telephone use which are not in violation of the law.
Without a cell ban law no citation can be written for driving while impaired by using a cell phone.
If you need to know whether or not cell phones diminish one's driving performance. I invite you to compete at the race track while caring on a conversation. Or play a computer game, golf, or anything else that requires focus.
And, it doesn't matter whether hands free, or not.
Of course we knew about this before cell phones. Some of the older school buses still have the signs, "Do not talk to the driver".
That is easy, I have been a spotter at Irwindale. The driver talks and listens while racing. But then so do air line pilots, Police officers and other emergency personnel. Unless there is a contention they aren't involved in the conversations? Many moons ago I operated a Tractor trailer and managed to log something like 750,000 miles, accident free and believe me I talked on my CB each and every day. But that isn't the point is it? We already know that even if a ticket isn't issued fault can be assigned because someone is almost always declared at fault. But we already know cell phones are only the tip of the technological iceberg. Voice activated GPS is becoming very common, even as after market for cars without it. Tom Tom, On Star, Megellan, Gruman all are doing quite well. And you have to interact with these devices to use them.
The real question is and has been should cell phone users be singled out? There are other causes for people not paying attention and they have been with us a lot longer than cell phones. No one here has yet to even suggest that coffee drinking, food eating, child scolding or spouse conversations be Banned. Why not, we might ask to the even if it saves one life people? To those that indicate the not paying attention because someone was using will result in a ticket thus making it easier to sure for damages does that negate your right to try and collect if the person hitting you was not using a cell phone? No, because we already have accident reports assigning blame. We hardly were in desperate need of another law.
Interesting discussion. Once again those who would like the government to solve a problem always try to begin by taking the low hanging fruit; they wouldn't dare try to ban talking to a fellow passenger in the car because too many people do it. The core issue is inattention and anything that causes it. Politicians love writing feel good legislation because it makes it appear they are doing something. Forty thousand people die in auto accidents every year so should we ban cars? Writing unenforceable laws merely makes a policeman's job tougher than it already is.
Citing cb, police radio, or airline pilot communications as the equivalent of a hand held cell phone conversation where you are fighting with your spouse or trying to finalize a multi-billion dollar take-over is pure bunk.
It's the intensity, the volume and the concentration that is totally different. I used a cb radio at one time and it never was as distracting as cell phone usage. Maybe because I listened more than I talked. Same with police communications most listen not talk. No so with cell phone conversations.
As studies have continually pointed out there is a detrimental effect on driving while using hand held cell phones.
Ahh, so if I am not closing a multi-billion dollar deal or fighting with my spouse the phone is not a problem? Or might it be training? Of course no one does those same things in a car while driving without a cell phone. People without cell phones are always paying attention and so they never have accidents. Attention and intensity? Ever watch WRC rally racing? Lets talk about talking and intensity. Oh wait that is another exception.
Is it the contention that accident rates are going down while cell phone use is going up not significant? Are people saying that without cell phones accident rates would drop even further? Are we also saying cell phone use is the number one cause for people not paying attention while driving? For many in my state this isn't going to be a problem till 2008. After that hands free units, with conversations equally intense and with yelling spouses and business deals being made will still be legal and if cell phone conversations are the number one contributing factor in accidents then nothing will have been done. The law was passed and no one was saved and no one was cited. So just why was this an effective law in California? Maybe the law makers weren't concerned with studies and simply wanted to make a statement? Somehow I just don't see this changing peoples driving habits much do you?
But that wasn't the question or the challenge was it? Just maybe the problem is the person using the phone and not the phone itself? It is so easy to find a fix when we don't have to be responsible for our own actions.
Actually the pro cell phone group like quoting the NHTSA when it seems advantageous to their position. When the NHTSA studies are stating that cell phones are a detriment to drivers they like to dismiss the study.
I think it's fair to use NHTSA's data (it is a good recordkeeper), not so fair to use NHTSA's spin on things to reach conclusions of how we should move forward.
Let's all remember that it was NHTSA that gave us this sky-is-falling rhetoric about eliminating the 55 mph speed limit, and then again when the 65 mph maximum was also lifted. In both cases, they kept predicting carnage and bloodletting on the highways, and of course, history shows us that this didn't happen. When it is counting up accidents, it's the definitive source, but I wouldn't rely on NHTSA for its policy recommendations, when it obviously can't use its data to effectively analyze the results.
Citing cb, police radio, or airline pilot communications as the equivalent of a hand held cell phone conversation where you are fighting with your spouse or trying to finalize a multi-billion dollar take-over is pure bunk. It's the intensity, the volume and the concentration that is totally different.
I see absolutely no evidence for this statement, and I frankly can't see how the intensity of discussing truck stops and speed traps on a CB radio is any different than discussing where to meet your friends for dinner on a phone.
I suspect that you just like CB radios, and you don't like phones, so you see what you want to see. But we aren't supposed to turn our hunches and prejudices into law.
"Lets talk about talking and intensity. Oh wait that is another exception."
Your post is a great example of why I support the ban on the use of hand held phones while driving.
Since this is not a theoretical question and municipalities and states already have a ban in place, they (the lawmakers) must see something in the studies and/or statistics that you maybe have missed.
"I see absolutely no evidence for this statement, and I frankly can't see how the intensity of discussing truck stops and speed traps on a CB radio is any different than discussing where to meet your friends for dinner on a phone."
I only have my own observations to using a CB. I have no evidence to prove or disprove cb=cell phone. There is not currently any juristriction that I know of that has a cb ban. Maybe that says something in and of itself.
Ever watch WRC rally racing? Lets talk about talking and intensity. Oh wait that is another exception.
HMM you mean providing information to UNLOAD the driver from workload? The co-driver (get it, the extra driver's helper) is telling the driver where to go so he doesn't have to try to remember the map in his head and can concentrate on driving conditions. This is making it easier for the driver.
"Let's all remember that it was NHTSA that gave us this sky-is-falling rhetoric about eliminating the 55 mph speed limit, and then again when the 65 mph maximum was also lifted"
Actually in my state the number of fatalities shot up dramatically within a short period of time after the speed limit was raised. The only thing that happened 55 to 65.
Trying to compare flying and airplane, being a police officer and a WRC rally are ludicrous in terms of using communication devices.
Just like there are DUI laws in place and the law doesn't care if you are drunk, because your life is falling apart, you're getting married, you're favorite team won..over the limit, you are DUI no excuses.
Same with cell phones. There doesn't have to be a reason as to why. Hand held cell phone usage while driving studies have shown reduces the effectiveness of the driver.
That's the problem here, you are overconfident in your powers of observation and wisdom.
It's the "I said so" school of argument that parents use on their kids, which might work in your house, but doesn't work among strangers on the internet. I'm a citizen in a democracy, and I expect something more convincing than "KD Shapiro thinks it's true, so it must be."
And that is different from, 'Ring...hello? Honey you might want to avoid the 10 freeway this afternoon. There has been a accident and traffic is stopped."? Of all the people using cell phones does anyone believe that "most" of them are not simply getting small pieces of information and then hanging up? But still is hand held units more distracting than hands free? Are hands free units distracting. So we have singled out cell phone use simply because not everyone does it? And GPS units aren't distracting? Idrive in BMWs that require you to touch a screen, go through a menu and select the function like heat or air you want to adjust aren't distracting?
Still by the time they get around to enforcing the first law on cell phones in my state the law will be obsolete and not worth the paper it was written on. A waste of tax payer money. But I am sure it made someone feel good.
"That's the problem here, you are overconfident in your powers of observation and wisdom."
I am not overconfident as you put it. I adhere to the law with regard to the use of hand held phones while driving, in the states that have these statues. I have no problem adhering to the law.
"It's the "I said so" school of argument that parents use on their kids, which might work in your house, but doesn't work among strangers on the internet. I'm a citizen in a democracy, and I expect something more convincing than "KD Shapiro thinks it's true, so it must be."
I also need more proof then pch101 says it's so. You haven't shown anyone anything of substance other than an emotional and illogical: "this is the way you run your household, not mine". I would like to see studies that show it's safe. You only attempt to create a conclusion from some data that has no statistical relevance to the question at hand.
Garbage in garbage out is my opinion. Your conclusions are meaningless to me, I would like to see multiple authorities or certified bodies on the subject all agree.
Until then I stand by my opinion, the law is a reasonable and prudent law.
You wish to do more than that -- you want to criminalize behavior just because you'd like it to be illegal.
Again, the default position in a democracy is to have no law, unless there is a good reason why we should have a law. So I expect to see some good reasons why the laws need to be imposed where none have been imposed before.
If you don't address the mentality behind those who have accidents, we will simply have more accidents. The fact that 1/7th of the people are involved in a majority of the accidents over the course of a year, while 2/3rds can avoid them entirely, should tell you that not all drivers are created equal.
Treating everyone as the lowest common denominator is a great way to ensure that resources are misdirected and that good people are treated unfairly. That might not matter to you, but it does matter to me.
For those that have consistently said we should be concerned with how cell phones distract us how does this quote from this study set?
"The study found that drivers were most often distracted by something outside their vehicle (29.4 percent) followed by adjusting a radio or CD player (11.4 percent). Other distractions included talking with other occupants (10.9 percent), adjusting vehicle or climate controls (2.8 percent), eating or drinking (1.7 percent), cell-phone use (1.5 percent) and smoking (0.9 percent)." who in here is pushing for a CD player ban?
I have heard it said if it saves even one life it is worth it more than once in here. But even using one of the NHTA studies we see such statements as; "The new technologies have safety benefits. Cell phone users place over 98,000 emergency calls each day, many from their motor vehicles. Studies have shown that cell phones often reduce emergency response times and actually save lives. In many respects these new technologies may make it easier for people to drive more safely."
It is inconsistent to be so concerned with Cell phones and not other more important or extream distractions. If as some have said the law makers aren't grand standing and are doing their home work. Remember talking with other occupants was nine times more likely to be a distraction according to the first study posted and that study was presented to congress. where is the outcry to ban passengers?
The study found that drivers were most often distracted by something outside their vehicle (29.4 percent)
That's good info, we could save a lot of lives simply by eliminating distractions outside of our vehicles. We could ban short skirts, attractive cars, billboards, road signs, midriff tops...all kinds of things (the list would be neverending), and all in the name of public safety!
That wouldn't bother me. I wouldn't look good in a short skirt anyway. :P However where can I sign up to ban billboards?
But what is disturbing is the fervor for a distraction that is far less than changing or adjusting your CD player.
The other interesting fact of the study was the number of emergency calls placed by cell phone users. I wish they had a number for the people that didn't have a cell phone and pulled over at the first available phone to place a call, but then five or ten isn't a very impressive number. Do you suppose it was anywhere close to the number that called on their cell phones? And if saving one life was the criteria that makes it worth it wouldn't all those cell calls qualify? :confuse:
"You wish to do more than that -- you want to criminalize behavior just because you'd like it to be illegal."
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have not criminalized anything.
"Again, the default position in a democracy is to have no law, unless there is a good reason why we should have a law."
Flat out wrong.
"If you don't address the mentality behind those who have accidents, we will simply have more accidents. The fact that 1/7th of the people are involved in a majority of the accidents over the course of a year, while 2/3rds can avoid them entirely, should tell you that not all drivers are created equal."
Again bad conclusions based on a lack of data.
"Treating everyone as the lowest common denominator is a great way to ensure that resources are misdirected and that good people are treated unfairly. That might not matter to you, but it does matter to me."
Again, I didn't do anything. All I do is support laws that I believe can have a positive effect on the driver experience. I respect your right to disagree.
But what is disturbing is the fervor for a distraction that is far less than changing or adjusting your CD player.
The thing is that for whatever reason, CD players aren't such an emotional issue, so nobody talks about them.
Let's face it, many in our society are less concerned about results than they are about rationalizing their feelings and defending their positions, no matter what.
If someone could demonstrate that eliminating phones would produce all of these fantastic results, then I could support it, as I have no desire to see more bad driving. But I suspect that this will be like all of the other magic bullet promises that politicians on both sides of the aisle like to make -- all sizzle and no steak. If the would-be phone user spends more "quality time" with his Ipod and hits me anyway, am I supposed to blame the user or his technology?
How am I doing this? I thought that you wanted more laws outlawing phone usage. If this isn't your position, then I misunderstood and I apologize, but you have made this argument throughout the forum to many people here.
"Again, the default position in a democracy is to have no law, unless there is a good reason why we should have a law."
Flat out wrong.
If you live in the US, this is absolutely correct, per the Constitution. If you live elsewhere, then this might not be true where you live.
"If you don't address the mentality behind those who have accidents, we will simply have more accidents. The fact that 1/7th of the people are involved in a majority of the accidents over the course of a year, while 2/3rds can avoid them entirely, should tell you that not all drivers are created equal."
Again bad conclusions based on a lack of data.
Sorry, but no. These are the conclusions of a study released this year conducted by Virginia Tech University for NHTSA, based upon a study of 109 drivers observed with cameras and measuring equipment for a year. I'm just reporting the results, and this is what they reported.
All I do is support laws that I believe can have a positive effect on the driver experience.
So how is the "driver experience" improved with these laws? I look at the numbers, and I don't see any improvement. New laws might actually make the situation worse, if the police waste valuable time and resources enforcing bad law when there better laws that might actually save some lives.
And there you have it. Personal responsibility. People must be responsible for their actions and make a determination when it is safe to play with their CD player and when it is not. If they can't do that how can they be expected to not rubber neck at an accident and hit your car? What will keep them from holding the wheel with their knees while they open the plastic box the CD comes in and with a six disk changer that can take a while. To believe you are addressing their way of thinking by passing a close to obsolete law is a stretch at the very least. That is just like saying, "if it saves even one life it is worth it." Then ignoring the NHTSA saying cell phones have or at least may have saved lives but that doesn't matter. The reasoning is simply not consistent. But if someone admits they support the law simply because they don't like cell phone users, or because it makes some law makers feel better, that is understandable. My sister in law is constantly on her cell phone. It bothers my wife to no end. Sometimes when we are on vacation she has asked her sister to please refrain from talking on the phone for one hour. But we would never support a law saying she shouldn't be allowed the use of her phone in a public place. Common manners shouldn't have to be legislated. And one group shouldn't be cherry picked to represent a problem that they are such a small part of.
"How am I doing this? I thought that you wanted more laws outlawing phone usage."
I'm not advocating more laws outlawing hand held cell phone usage, I'm advocating laws outlawing the same. I'm not criminalizing the behavior. Drunk driving is a criminal offense. One gets a ticket and points for hand held cell phone usage, not jail time.
"Sorry, but no. These are the conclusions of a study released this year conducted by Virginia Tech University for NHTSA, based upon a study of 109 drivers observed with cameras and measuring equipment for a year. I'm just reporting the results, and this is what they reported."
I guess the above quote from gagrice was just ignored then.
"So how is the "driver experience" improved with these laws?"
If you are better able to concentrate on the road, fewer accidents, fewer anti-social driving behaviors. Police wouldn't have to stop people who commit petty traffic infractions, or worse because they would be concentrating on driving instead of talking. It seems like a win-win situation to me.
1. DUI 2. Passing in the left lane only, keep right except to pass 3. Yielding to oncoming traffic 4. Stop signs, traffic lights
We could take all these laws off the books because people should be personally responsible for their behavior on the road. The reason these laws exist for some behaviors are for who refuse to take this personal responsibility seriously and now can be held accountable for their actions under the law. Without these laws, there would be no way to hold these people responsible. That is the way of a democratic society.
I believe the lawmakers are taking stock of a growing risk to the driving public safety at large. No matter what the overwhelming evidence, some people would refuse to believe there is an issue.
People must be responsible for their actions and make a determination when it is safe to play with their CD player and when it is not. If they can't do that how can they be expected to not rubber neck at an accident and hit your car?
Which brings us back to the earlier question -- what will the bad phone user do when s/he doesn't have a phone?
The "naturalistic" study that I referenced above has a margin of error built into it, given the sample size (109 subjects is decent, but a larger study would be more helpful). But if we can still accept the basic premise that most "accidents" involve very few people (the old 80/20 rule at work), then we can pretty safely assume that the phone users aren't going to start driving like Jackie Stewart just because their phones are taken away. These types of people were bad drivers long before these phones even existed, and they will have no problem finding other excuses so that they can keep driving badly.
If you are better able to concentrate on the road, fewer accidents, fewer anti-social driving behaviors.
This is the point that you keep missing. The bad drivers among us will keep driving badly, no matter what you do, because their inattentiveness is due to their poor attention spans.
These drivers will have no problem finding distractions, no matter what. If it isn't a phone, it will be something else. That's how so few people can be responsible for wreaking so much havoc on our highways, while the majority of us can drive for years at a time without issue.
If avoiding accidents were the motive for the law and if as you say the law makers were doing their homework why did they avoid passing a law on CD use? or Passenger distraction. Both were at least nine times more likely to be the reason for distractions than cell phones. You said, "if it saves even one life it is worth it", so the NHTSA says cell phones have saved lives and that doesn't matter? I posted the quote for that already. Couldn't we save nine times more lives than cell phones by addressing CD players and talking passengers? You said the studies will change people's behavior but even you admitted to simply switching to hands free phones. I don't mind because it seems as if I am safer next to a person on a cell phone than I am next to a kid with a CD player or a family man with his wife and kids. And heaven help me if they are pulling out of a Mickey Ds because only someone with a cell phone will be able to call for help when the people that are nine times more likely to hit me do and I need an emergency vehicle. Remember the study only attributed cell phone use to 1.5 percent of the distractions we face. CD, Talking to passengers and eating were all above cell phones in the study percentage wise.
"This is the point that you keep missing. The bad drivers among us will keep driving badly, no matter what you do, because their inattentiveness is due to their poor attention spans."
I'm not missing any points. You keep quoting a study that does not talk specifically about cell phone usage. All it talks about are bad drivers making up x% of the driving population.
It doesn't talk about what happens to good drivers using a cell phone. There is no conclusive evidence to prove that using hand held cell phones are safe, and plenty of evidence to conclude they are a problematic distraction.
"If avoiding accidents were the motive for the law and if as you say the law makers were doing their homework why did they avoid passing a law on CD use?"
You're mixing and matching incongrous items to prove a point. The fact that I can call 911 to save a life has little to do with the way hand held cell phones are used. Most people using hand held cell phones are not calling 911. When I drive in traffic and see 5 drivers around me using cell phones and no accidents and no stopped cars and no emergencies, I can safely assume 911 is not being called to save a life.
You keep citing instances of driver distractions that last milliseconds vs minutes or even hours on a cell phone. Twiddling with my radio takes all of a second. While it is true that during that second something can happen, it's basically a reflex action. Talking on a hand held cell phone is not a reflex action. It takes thought and concentration that studies have shown conclusively to take away from drivers' concentation on the road. Some studies even suggest a cell phone user has a mental capacity of a legal drunk. That in my opinion is a huge difference between twiddling with the radio and talking on a cell phone. It are these studies that have me supporting the ban on hand held cell phones.
We will never be able to legislate good driving behaviors. By the use of laws, however, we will be able to hold accountable those that abuse the privilege to drive and cause anti-social behaviors on the road.
I'm not missing any points. You keep quoting a study that does not talk specifically about cell phone usage. All it talks about are bad drivers making up x% of the driving population.
Are you saying that studies have to an anti-phone bias built into them in order to be useful? Studies are supposed to be neutral!
I'm simply reporting an outcome of the Virginia Tech study. It's useful to know that when a pool of drivers is studied over an extended period that a lot of them are OK, and that a few of them are horrible, because it gives you a glimpse of how driving works in the real world. That is a lot more useful than a biased study that makes sweeping generalizations based upon conjecture that, when put to the test, turns out to have nothing to do with reality.
Frankly, it should be a relief to anyone that by getting the very worst drivers off of the road that you could create a lot of benefit. Now if only someone had the courage to actually do it...
"Are you saying that studies have to an anti-phone bias built into them in order to be useful? Studies are supposed to be neutral!"
No I'm saying studies have to targeted to be useful. This one has nothing to do with cell phones.
I frankly care about 80% of the good drivers that are distracted using cell phones as well as all of the bad drivers. Cell phone usage can turn 80% of the good drivers into bad drivers.
No I'm saying studies have to targeted to be useful.
In other words, you want studies that have "phones are bad" as a working hypothesis before you will consider them. Nevermind the studies that put phones into a real-world context...why let the real world interfere with our conclusions?
"In other words, you want studies that have "phones are bad" as a working hypothesis before you will consider them."
No I want studies that have the hypothesis: "What are the effects of cell phone usage on driver concentration and driver behavior" before I will re-consider my position.
Oh wait. There a number that already have been done. Have you looked at any of them? What information might you want to derive from those studies? What facts would you give to refute some of the conclusions from those studies?
What facts would you give to refute some of the conclusions from those studies?
We've gone over this many times already: There's an abundance of information that shows that overall accident and fatality rates haven't changed.
Again, if phones are as bad as you claim, then the overall trends should be degrading or reversing, but they aren't. That lack of correlation shows a lack of cause-and-effect, which is the whole point of this discussion.
Just because phones create a slightly delayed reaction time does not mean that anything results from that delayed reaction time. It's not enough to show a slight loss of reaction time in a lab -- you need to also show that this makes a difference that impact real-world events. If it doesn't make a difference, then why worry about it?
Again, you need to address the reality that most accidents are caused by a minority of people. This essential point shows how erroneous it is to assume that bad driving can be fixed simply by passing a law that outlaws a device, when most drivers can function just fine in a world full of such devices.
The most effective way to create marginal safety gains is to improve safety equipment. The most effective way to create significant gains is to target the very worst drivers and to get them off the roads. The 4% of drivers who cause 25% of the accidents are the very worst among us, and getting them to take the bus should be our first priority.
You're not understanding how much accidents and injuries would ahve gone down if it weren't for the increasing usage of cell phones. Safety equipment has improved; roads have improved; injuries and fatalities would have decreased.
"We've gone over this many times already: There's an abundance of information that shows that overall accident and fatality rates haven't changed"
No you've gone over it. And you keep avoiding the basic questions I'm asking and you didn't respond to the NHTSA link posted, either. The reason you keep avoiding it, IMO, is the evidence is incontrovertable. Hand held cell phone usage is a detriment to driver concentration, potentially causing unwanted issues on the road.
To me fatalities and accidents go down as cars improve and roads improve and drivers improve. These stats say nothing about for the fatalities and accidents that occur, what percentage could be attributed to hand held phone usage. Maybe this figure would go down even more if people didn't talk on their cell phones.
You're not understanding how much accidents and injuries would ahve gone down if it weren't for the increasing usage of cell phones.
Actually, I am specifically addressing this point.
I agree that the gradual reduction in fatalities is most likely due to a combination of improved safety equipment, both active and passive. (I certainly don't think that driving skills are improving.) Increased seat belt usage, ABS, anti-skid systems, better tires and brakes, etc., and shifting traffic to divided controlled access highways (expressways, freeways, etc.) all help to gradually increase our safety.
But if the phones are as evil as some of these studies imply, then the resulting carnage should be utterly overwhelming the benefits of the improvements in safety equipment, and significantly reversing these downward trends. However, they aren't.
You're making an assumption. There is no statistical base to validate your point. I believe one reason the fatality rates are going down due to the ban on hand held phone usage. I believe the law is working as designed. To me more legistlation would be even better. Can you prove me wrong?
There is no statistical base to validate your point.
Sure there is, we have the NHTSA FARS database that shows the falling rates. No serious turn of events since phones arrived on the scene. (Sorry to disappoint you.)
It might be added that the law isn't in effect in my state and the accident rates are dropping even with hand held phone usage still legal. Maybe the anticipation of the law going into effect is so powerful people started driving safer in 2001 when the study was published? No, that is too hard to believe.
The rates have been dropping for a while. But I believe there is a contribution due to the ban on cell phone use. My state and neighboring states have the ban. (Sorry to disappoint you).
I don't expect you to see my point, as I don't see your point that cell phones are safe, or perhaps even look at the studies to date. Giving the last poll from the NHTSA, here I think it's clear at least about respondents thought. While I believe you think your personal rights are being taken away, I think these laws are for the greater public good.
It might be added that the law isn't in effect in my state and the accident rates are dropping even with hand held phone usage still legal.
That can't be true. It is my understanding that cell phones are responsible for 473% of the accidents each year. Scientists have extrapolated that over 400 million Americans die every year from cell-related fatalities!
Comments
No, I'm saying that the studies don't prove your point.
The studies don't prove that drivers who are causing accidents would stop causing them if they didn't have phones. The fact that most accidents are caused by a minority of people should tell you that accidents are caused largely by poor drivers, not by devices and objects.
The fact that accident rates keep falling, with or without phones, should tell you that taking phones away from accident prone drivers won't make them less accident prone. Bad drivers will always find ways to drive badly, no matter what they are driving, where they are driving, or what they have in their cars while they are driving. Taking my phone won't make them drive any better.
Again, you don't know if accident rates or even fatalities due to phones are rising because there is no comprehensive statistical study, even as the rate at which fatalities occur might be declining, maybe due to better crumple zones.
So I'm still of the opinion an ounce of prevention...
"Taking my phone won't make them drive any better."
No, but it just might make you alert enough to stay out of the morgue.
Sure we know this. If the phones were a problem, the trends would be affected. The fact that the trends stay the same is a good indicator that the phones don't make a difference, otherwise we'd see a change in the trend.
You're trying to tell us that the patient has a fever, even though his temperature hasn't changed. It doesn't make sense to claim that the sky is falling when the sky looks the same as it always has...
Talk responsibly on the cell phone, no problem. Talk and run over a bus stop of kids, be stoned to death in the public square.
A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), breaks new ground. (Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30 percent of crashes.) The new study found that the most common distraction is the use of cell phones, followed by drowsiness. Motorists who use cell phones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves.
Researchers must keep in mind that police crash reports are law enforcement documents. Generally, police officers are tasked with three primary duties at a crash site: tend to the injured, restore traffic flow, and issue citations for violations of the law. The identification and evaluation of specific pre-crash circumstances may be very difficult for factors such as cellular telephone use which are not in violation of the law.
Without a cell ban law no citation can be written for driving while impaired by using a cell phone.
And, it doesn't matter whether hands free, or not.
Of course we knew about this before cell phones. Some of the older school buses still have the signs, "Do not talk to the driver".
The real question is and has been should cell phone users be singled out? There are other causes for people not paying attention and they have been with us a lot longer than cell phones. No one here has yet to even suggest that coffee drinking, food eating, child scolding or spouse conversations be Banned. Why not, we might ask to the even if it saves one life people? To those that indicate the not paying attention because someone was using will result in a ticket thus making it easier to sure for damages does that negate your right to try and collect if the person hitting you was not using a cell phone? No, because we already have accident reports assigning blame. We hardly were in desperate need of another law.
It's the intensity, the volume and the concentration that is totally different. I used a cb radio at one time and it never was as distracting as cell phone usage. Maybe because I listened more than I talked. Same with police communications most listen not talk. No so with cell phone conversations.
As studies have continually pointed out there is a detrimental effect on driving while using hand held cell phones.
Is it the contention that accident rates are going down while cell phone use is going up not significant? Are people saying that without cell phones accident rates would drop even further? Are we also saying cell phone use is the number one cause for people not paying attention while driving? For many in my state this isn't going to be a problem till 2008. After that hands free units, with conversations equally intense and with yelling spouses and business deals being made will still be legal and if cell phone conversations are the number one contributing factor in accidents then nothing will have been done. The law was passed and no one was saved and no one was cited. So just why was this an effective law in California? Maybe the law makers weren't concerned with studies and simply wanted to make a statement? Somehow I just don't see this changing peoples driving habits much do you?
But that wasn't the question or the challenge was it? Just maybe the problem is the person using the phone and not the phone itself? It is so easy to find a fix when we don't have to be responsible for our own actions.
I think it's fair to use NHTSA's data (it is a good recordkeeper), not so fair to use NHTSA's spin on things to reach conclusions of how we should move forward.
Let's all remember that it was NHTSA that gave us this sky-is-falling rhetoric about eliminating the 55 mph speed limit, and then again when the 65 mph maximum was also lifted. In both cases, they kept predicting carnage and bloodletting on the highways, and of course, history shows us that this didn't happen. When it is counting up accidents, it's the definitive source, but I wouldn't rely on NHTSA for its policy recommendations, when it obviously can't use its data to effectively analyze the results.
I see absolutely no evidence for this statement, and I frankly can't see how the intensity of discussing truck stops and speed traps on a CB radio is any different than discussing where to meet your friends for dinner on a phone.
I suspect that you just like CB radios, and you don't like phones, so you see what you want to see. But we aren't supposed to turn our hunches and prejudices into law.
Your post is a great example of why I support the ban on the use of hand held phones while driving.
Since this is not a theoretical question and municipalities and states already have a ban in place, they (the lawmakers) must see something in the studies and/or statistics that you maybe have missed.
I only have my own observations to using a CB. I have no evidence to prove or disprove cb=cell phone. There is not currently any juristriction that I know of that has a cb ban. Maybe that says something in and of itself.
HMM you mean providing information to UNLOAD the driver from workload? The co-driver (get it, the extra driver's helper) is telling the driver where to go so he doesn't have to try to remember the map in his head and can concentrate on driving conditions. This is making it easier for the driver.
Actually in my state the number of fatalities shot up dramatically within a short period of time after the speed limit was raised. The only thing that happened 55 to 65.
So yes the NHTSA concerns were justified.
Just like there are DUI laws in place and the law doesn't care if you are drunk, because your life is falling apart, you're getting married, you're favorite team won..over the limit, you are DUI no excuses.
Same with cell phones. There doesn't have to be a reason as to why. Hand held cell phone usage while driving studies have shown reduces the effectiveness of the driver.
That's the problem here, you are overconfident in your powers of observation and wisdom.
It's the "I said so" school of argument that parents use on their kids, which might work in your house, but doesn't work among strangers on the internet. I'm a citizen in a democracy, and I expect something more convincing than "KD Shapiro thinks it's true, so it must be."
Still by the time they get around to enforcing the first law on cell phones in my state the law will be obsolete and not worth the paper it was written on. A waste of tax payer money. But I am sure it made someone feel good.
I am not overconfident as you put it. I adhere to the law with regard to the use of hand held phones while driving, in the states that have these statues. I have no problem adhering to the law.
"It's the "I said so" school of argument that parents use on their kids, which might work in your house, but doesn't work among strangers on the internet. I'm a citizen in a democracy, and I expect something more convincing than "KD Shapiro thinks it's true, so it must be."
I also need more proof then pch101 says it's so. You haven't shown anyone anything of substance other than an emotional and illogical: "this is the way you run your household, not mine". I would like to see studies that show it's safe. You only attempt to create a conclusion from some data that has no statistical relevance to the question at hand.
Garbage in garbage out is my opinion. Your conclusions are meaningless to me, I would like to see multiple authorities or certified bodies on the subject all agree.
Until then I stand by my opinion, the law is a reasonable and prudent law.
You wish to do more than that -- you want to criminalize behavior just because you'd like it to be illegal.
Again, the default position in a democracy is to have no law, unless there is a good reason why we should have a law. So I expect to see some good reasons why the laws need to be imposed where none have been imposed before.
If you don't address the mentality behind those who have accidents, we will simply have more accidents. The fact that 1/7th of the people are involved in a majority of the accidents over the course of a year, while 2/3rds can avoid them entirely, should tell you that not all drivers are created equal.
Treating everyone as the lowest common denominator is a great way to ensure that resources are misdirected and that good people are treated unfairly. That might not matter to you, but it does matter to me.
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/news_room/2001-05-08_distracted_drivers.cfm
For those that have consistently said we should be concerned with how cell phones distract us how does this quote from this study set?
"The study found that drivers were most often distracted by something outside their vehicle (29.4 percent) followed by adjusting a radio or CD player (11.4 percent). Other distractions included talking with other occupants (10.9 percent), adjusting vehicle or climate controls (2.8 percent), eating or drinking (1.7 percent), cell-phone use (1.5 percent) and smoking (0.9 percent)." who in here is pushing for a CD player ban?
I have heard it said if it saves even one life it is worth it more than once in here. But even using one of the NHTA studies we see such statements as; "The new technologies have safety benefits. Cell phone users place over 98,000 emergency calls each day, many from their motor vehicles. Studies have shown that cell phones often reduce emergency response times and actually save lives. In many respects these new technologies may make it easier for people to drive more safely."
It is inconsistent to be so concerned with Cell phones and not other more important or extream distractions. If as some have said the law makers aren't grand standing and are doing their home work. Remember talking with other occupants was nine times more likely to be a distraction according to the first study posted and that study was presented to congress. where is the outcry to ban passengers?
That's good info, we could save a lot of lives simply by eliminating distractions outside of our vehicles. We could ban short skirts, attractive cars, billboards, road signs, midriff tops...all kinds of things (the list would be neverending), and all in the name of public safety!
But what is disturbing is the fervor for a distraction that is far less than changing or adjusting your CD player.
The other interesting fact of the study was the number of emergency calls placed by cell phone users. I wish they had a number for the people that didn't have a cell phone and pulled over at the first available phone to place a call, but then five or ten isn't a very impressive number.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have not criminalized anything.
"Again, the default position in a democracy is to have no law, unless there is a good reason why we should have a law."
Flat out wrong.
"If you don't address the mentality behind those who have accidents, we will simply have more accidents. The fact that 1/7th of the people are involved in a majority of the accidents over the course of a year, while 2/3rds can avoid them entirely, should tell you that not all drivers are created equal."
Again bad conclusions based on a lack of data.
"Treating everyone as the lowest common denominator is a great way to ensure that resources are misdirected and that good people are treated unfairly. That might not matter to you, but it does matter to me."
Again, I didn't do anything. All I do is support laws that I believe can have a positive effect on the driver experience. I respect your right to disagree.
The thing is that for whatever reason, CD players aren't such an emotional issue, so nobody talks about them.
Let's face it, many in our society are less concerned about results than they are about rationalizing their feelings and defending their positions, no matter what.
If someone could demonstrate that eliminating phones would produce all of these fantastic results, then I could support it, as I have no desire to see more bad driving. But I suspect that this will be like all of the other magic bullet promises that politicians on both sides of the aisle like to make -- all sizzle and no steak. If the would-be phone user spends more "quality time" with his Ipod and hits me anyway, am I supposed to blame the user or his technology?
How am I doing this? I thought that you wanted more laws outlawing phone usage. If this isn't your position, then I misunderstood and I apologize, but you have made this argument throughout the forum to many people here.
"Again, the default position in a democracy is to have no law, unless there is a good reason why we should have a law."
Flat out wrong.
If you live in the US, this is absolutely correct, per the Constitution. If you live elsewhere, then this might not be true where you live.
"If you don't address the mentality behind those who have accidents, we will simply have more accidents. The fact that 1/7th of the people are involved in a majority of the accidents over the course of a year, while 2/3rds can avoid them entirely, should tell you that not all drivers are created equal."
Again bad conclusions based on a lack of data.
Sorry, but no. These are the conclusions of a study released this year conducted by Virginia Tech University for NHTSA, based upon a study of 109 drivers observed with cameras and measuring equipment for a year. I'm just reporting the results, and this is what they reported.
All I do is support laws that I believe can have a positive effect on the driver experience.
So how is the "driver experience" improved with these laws? I look at the numbers, and I don't see any improvement. New laws might actually make the situation worse, if the police waste valuable time and resources enforcing bad law when there better laws that might actually save some lives.
I'm not advocating more laws outlawing hand held cell phone usage, I'm advocating laws outlawing the same. I'm not criminalizing the behavior. Drunk driving is a criminal offense. One gets a ticket and points for hand held cell phone usage, not jail time.
"Sorry, but no. These are the conclusions of a study released this year conducted by Virginia Tech University for NHTSA, based upon a study of 109 drivers observed with cameras and measuring equipment for a year. I'm just reporting the results, and this is what they reported."
I guess the above quote from gagrice was just ignored then.
"So how is the "driver experience" improved with these laws?"
If you are better able to concentrate on the road, fewer accidents, fewer anti-social driving behaviors. Police wouldn't have to stop people who commit petty traffic infractions, or worse because they would be concentrating on driving instead of talking. It seems like a win-win situation to me.
I agree 100%. But then why do need laws such as:
1. DUI
2. Passing in the left lane only, keep right except to pass
3. Yielding to oncoming traffic
4. Stop signs, traffic lights
We could take all these laws off the books because people should be personally responsible for their behavior on the road. The reason these laws exist for some behaviors are for who refuse to take this personal responsibility seriously and now can be held accountable for their actions under the law. Without these laws, there would be no way to hold these people responsible. That is the way of a democratic society.
I believe the lawmakers are taking stock of a growing risk to the driving public safety at large. No matter what the overwhelming evidence, some people would refuse to believe there is an issue.
Which brings us back to the earlier question -- what will the bad phone user do when s/he doesn't have a phone?
The "naturalistic" study that I referenced above has a margin of error built into it, given the sample size (109 subjects is decent, but a larger study would be more helpful). But if we can still accept the basic premise that most "accidents" involve very few people (the old 80/20 rule at work), then we can pretty safely assume that the phone users aren't going to start driving like Jackie Stewart just because their phones are taken away. These types of people were bad drivers long before these phones even existed, and they will have no problem finding other excuses so that they can keep driving badly.
This is the point that you keep missing. The bad drivers among us will keep driving badly, no matter what you do, because their inattentiveness is due to their poor attention spans.
These drivers will have no problem finding distractions, no matter what. If it isn't a phone, it will be something else. That's how so few people can be responsible for wreaking so much havoc on our highways, while the majority of us can drive for years at a time without issue.
I'm not missing any points. You keep quoting a study that does not talk specifically about cell phone usage. All it talks about are bad drivers making up x% of the driving population.
It doesn't talk about what happens to good drivers using a cell phone. There is no conclusive evidence to prove that using hand held cell phones are safe, and plenty of evidence to conclude they are a problematic distraction.
You're mixing and matching incongrous items to prove a point. The fact that I can call 911 to save a life has little to do with the way hand held cell phones are used. Most people using hand held cell phones are not calling 911. When I drive in traffic and see 5 drivers around me using cell phones and no accidents and no stopped cars and no emergencies, I can safely assume 911 is not being called to save a life.
You keep citing instances of driver distractions that last milliseconds vs minutes or even hours on a cell phone. Twiddling with my radio takes all of a second. While it is true that during that second something can happen, it's basically a reflex action. Talking on a hand held cell phone is not a reflex action. It takes thought and concentration that studies have shown conclusively to take away from drivers' concentation on the road. Some studies even suggest a cell phone user has a mental capacity of a legal drunk. That in my opinion is a huge difference between twiddling with the radio and talking on a cell phone. It are these studies that have me supporting the ban on hand held cell phones.
We will never be able to legislate good driving behaviors. By the use of laws, however, we will be able to hold accountable those that abuse the privilege to drive and cause anti-social behaviors on the road.
Are you saying that studies have to an anti-phone bias built into them in order to be useful? Studies are supposed to be neutral!
I'm simply reporting an outcome of the Virginia Tech study. It's useful to know that when a pool of drivers is studied over an extended period that a lot of them are OK, and that a few of them are horrible, because it gives you a glimpse of how driving works in the real world. That is a lot more useful than a biased study that makes sweeping generalizations based upon conjecture that, when put to the test, turns out to have nothing to do with reality.
Frankly, it should be a relief to anyone that by getting the very worst drivers off of the road that you could create a lot of benefit. Now if only someone had the courage to actually do it...
No I'm saying studies have to targeted to be useful. This one has nothing to do with cell phones.
I frankly care about 80% of the good drivers that are distracted using cell phones as well as all of the bad drivers. Cell phone usage can turn 80% of the good drivers into bad drivers.
In other words, you want studies that have "phones are bad" as a working hypothesis before you will consider them. Nevermind the studies that put phones into a real-world context...why let the real world interfere with our conclusions?
No I want studies that have the hypothesis: "What are the effects of cell phone usage on driver concentration and driver behavior" before I will re-consider my position.
Oh wait. There a number that already have been done. Have you looked at any of them? What information might you want to derive from those studies? What facts would you give to refute some of the conclusions from those studies?
Here is an interesting link from the NHTSA site:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driver-distraction/Polls.htm#A49-
Seems like the poll agrees with the sentiment hand held cell phones are a distraction.
We've gone over this many times already: There's an abundance of information that shows that overall accident and fatality rates haven't changed.
Again, if phones are as bad as you claim, then the overall trends should be degrading or reversing, but they aren't. That lack of correlation shows a lack of cause-and-effect, which is the whole point of this discussion.
Just because phones create a slightly delayed reaction time does not mean that anything results from that delayed reaction time. It's not enough to show a slight loss of reaction time in a lab -- you need to also show that this makes a difference that impact real-world events. If it doesn't make a difference, then why worry about it?
Again, you need to address the reality that most accidents are caused by a minority of people. This essential point shows how erroneous it is to assume that bad driving can be fixed simply by passing a law that outlaws a device, when most drivers can function just fine in a world full of such devices.
The most effective way to create marginal safety gains is to improve safety equipment. The most effective way to create significant gains is to target the very worst drivers and to get them off the roads. The 4% of drivers who cause 25% of the accidents are the very worst among us, and getting them to take the bus should be our first priority.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No you've gone over it. And you keep avoiding the basic questions I'm asking and you didn't respond to the NHTSA link posted, either. The reason you keep avoiding it, IMO, is the evidence is incontrovertable. Hand held cell phone usage is a detriment to driver concentration, potentially causing unwanted issues on the road.
To me fatalities and accidents go down as cars improve and roads improve and drivers improve. These stats say nothing about for the fatalities and accidents that occur, what percentage could be attributed to hand held phone usage. Maybe this figure would go down even more if people didn't talk on their cell phones.
Actually, I am specifically addressing this point.
I agree that the gradual reduction in fatalities is most likely due to a combination of improved safety equipment, both active and passive. (I certainly don't think that driving skills are improving.) Increased seat belt usage, ABS, anti-skid systems, better tires and brakes, etc., and shifting traffic to divided controlled access highways (expressways, freeways, etc.) all help to gradually increase our safety.
But if the phones are as evil as some of these studies imply, then the resulting carnage should be utterly overwhelming the benefits of the improvements in safety equipment, and significantly reversing these downward trends. However, they aren't.
You're making an assumption. There is no statistical base to validate your point. I believe one reason the fatality rates are going down due to the ban on hand held phone usage. I believe the law is working as designed. To me more legistlation would be even better. Can you prove me wrong?
Sure there is, we have the NHTSA FARS database that shows the falling rates. No serious turn of events since phones arrived on the scene. (Sorry to disappoint you.)
I don't expect you to see my point, as I don't see your point that cell phones are safe, or perhaps even look at the studies to date. Giving the last poll from the NHTSA, here I think it's clear at least about respondents thought. While I believe you think your personal rights are being taken away, I think these laws are for the greater public good.
That can't be true. It is my understanding that cell phones are responsible for 473% of the accidents each year. Scientists have extrapolated that over 400 million Americans die every year from cell-related fatalities!