Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

snakeweasel

I get those yahoos all the time and most are doing something else than using a cell phone.

nippononly

don't forget, a cell phone to the ear is one of the few distractions you could observe as you drive by. Many distractions would be below the window line, and you wouldn't be able to see them.

And as for the Mythbusters, they should do the same test, only force the non-drunk driver to eat a full Big Mac combo, taking care not to drip on the upholstery.

Or drive in an unfamiliar area, and find his destination on a paper map, or use his car's navigation system without voice commands, while driving. All things I regularly see people do. I bet we would find that many of them would be as impaired as a drunk person too.

phinneas519

Generally, they only depart from using the scientific method when a myth is busted and they want to see "what it would take" to get a particular result. I would like to add that there is nothing refined, scientific or methodical about distractions with cellular technology (or drinking for that matter) causing drivers to collide with pedestrians and other motorists.

tpe

You can't convince me it's a mere coincidence that improvements in airbag technology coincide with an increase in multitasking drivers

Airbags may save lives but they don't prevent accidents. The accident rate per 100 million vehicle mile travelled has continued to decrease during the cell phone age. Would the rate have gone down further? Maybe.

snakeweasel

They deviate from the scientific method quite often, even when they "prove" a myth.

Kirstie_H

I see Mythbusters often and didn't see that episode...

I highly recommend the box set. Lots of stuff gets set on fire or blown up.

It seems like cell phone usage is just the target-du-jour. I wonder if significantly fewer people are now dying in car accidents since most states passed seat belt laws... the hot issue some 5 years ago.

xrunner2

It seems like cell phone usage is just the target-du-jour. I wonder if significantly fewer people are now dying in car accidents since most states passed seat belt laws... the hot issue some 5 years ago.

Would agree that seat belt laws have helped. But, consider a whole range of things that have improved over last 5-10 years: vehicle structures to help protect occupants, emt response times, hospital procedures and doctors, vehicle dynamics (tires/susp/steering), numerous air bags (front, side, etc), highway design/lighting/signage/traffic controls/etc, attention focussed on drunk driving by MADD and others and so on.

In one way, cell phone usage has probably also helped cut down on accident deaths because most motorists probably have cell phones and they can call 911 when they observe or encounter an accident. The emts can get to the accident quicker than they would have back in pre-cell phone days. This can save lives. Think about how it was 20+ years ago. If you saw an accident happen, had to find a nearby house, store, gas station, phone booth to call emt/911.

xrunner2

I'm still not convinced that cell phones do not cause physical problems. Too many technician friends that worked on microwave and other radio equipment died at an early age. Many by cancer thought to be caused by too much radiation.

I have heard about this and too wonder about this matter. Don't think there has been anything in the media about this for a couple of years. Cell phone is good when away from home or office for many situations. But, I try to get the vast majority of my calls made the old-fashioned way through hard-wire land lines connected to an end office. Land lines are most always available in a power outage as long as you use old fashioned subsets that don't require connection to AC. Cell phones are vulnerable to limited power reserve at cell tower sites.

eltonron

I'll also stand up and proudly proclaim my geekdom status by saying that I saw that particular episode of Mythbusters as well (by the way kirstie_h, there ARE 12-step programs for our kind). While their scientific methods may be called into question, the results from the Mythbusters experiment were pretty startling, nevertheless. The mental focus required by drivers to answer even the simplest of questions obviously detracted from their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

Talking on a cell phone is bad enough. But what about those yahoos you pass who are apparently thumb-typing text messages on their Treos while driving?!? Madness!

Eltonron
Host- Automotive News & Views

gagrice

With Internet access through Cell providers, I am waiting to see someone driving down the road with their Dell laptop strapped to the steering wheel.

Just think we could be driving around keeping up with the threads here at Edmunds.

snakeweasel

Just think we could be driving around keeping up with the threads here at Edmunds.

Funny thing is I used to post here using a cell phone. Now thats geekdom.

imidazol97

Mythbusters duo were to "speak" at OSU same day Science Olympiad had state contests last year. I was amazed how many adults wanted to skip the events to go to the lecture by those folks. How do they build up such a following?

I am relieved they agreed that cellphoneusagewhiledriving is a problem because of the distraction needed.

I have been able to enter text message on cell phone whiledriving so kid would know where I would pick him up. Four years ago I would have swore never on your life would I use a cellphone while driving>

saabgirl

Airbags may save lives but they don't prevent accidents. The accident rate per 100 million vehicle mile travelled has continued to decrease during the cell phone age. Would the rate have gone down further? Maybe.

Some of us can remember a pre-cell phone period of automotive history in which cars didn't come equipped with belts, airbags, crumple zones nor other safety devices intended to protect us. Highways have also been designed to be less retributive to errant motorists.

In short, it's easier to make vehicles and highways safer than it is to educate drivers. On the other hand, drivers are ingenious in finding edgy new ways to test safety technology, including the absurdist notion that drivers can multitask because built in safety devices are so effective.

gagrice

Maybe the DMV needs a simulator for testing drivers. Have them answer questions on a cell phone call while driving the simulator. If they pass the multitasking test they get a sticker for their car similar to the HOV sticker. It would say it is legal for them to be talking on the phone while driving. talking with No sticker you get a big fat fine.

tpe

In short, it's easier to make vehicles and highways safer than it is to educate drivers.

What's your point? The objection to cell phones and driving seems to be the additional danger they bring to the roadways. If this can be overcome with technology as opposed to anti-cell phone laws what does it matter? The fact is that these safety features you mention primarily make accidents more survivable but do little to prevent them. So why isn't the accident, not fatality, rate going up? Look at page 17 of this report and see if you can find a trend that supports cell phones adding danger? What's interesting is that of the 4 categories of vehicles (passenger, light truck, large truck, and motorcycles) the only category not showing a decline in accident rates is motorcycles. Probably the only group not using cell phones.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf

gagrice

I don't think accidents are the only issue with cell phone usage. It is Inattentiveness that slows traffic flow. If the green arrow is short and the yahoo in front is too busy talking on the phone to respond quickly, the people behind are stuck. Same at 4 way stops. That would be my biggest gripe. Cell phone use is rude and could be another cause for road rage. People have enough stress, why add someone talking on a cell call holding up traffic? I don't think using hands free will help in those situations.

If it can be proven the average person's reaction time is impaired when talking on a cell phone the punishment should be the same as for drunk driving.

snakeweasel

It is Inattentiveness that slows traffic flow. If the green arrow is short and the yahoo in front is too busy talking on the phone to respond quickly, the people behind are stuck. Same at 4 way stops. That would be my biggest gripe. Cell phone use is rude and could be another cause for road rage.

But the same can be said of many other activities that people do at stop lights. People reading maps, reading directions, changing radio stations or CD's, talking to a passenger, looking for something in the back seat, yelling at kids..... the list goes on and on.

I will admit that I have been guilty of this myself. I stop for a light then try to do something and the light turns green sooner than expected. We all have done this and if you have driven enough and are honest enough you would admit that you have too.

My point is its not the cell phone its the inconsiderate lugnut behind the wheel.

tpe

There are driving situations and environments that don't require our full attention. I know that some will disagree and say that 100% focus is always necessary. Maybe I'm gifted in this regard because I can assure you that when I'm driving down a highway with no cross traffic, minimal congestion and an artificially low speed limit it definitely does not require 100% of my attention. IMO, there is nothing wrong with using a cell phone in these situations. Unfortunately that requires judgement, which is a foreign concept to our legislators.

snakeweasel

Well spoken, well said.

gagrice

I don't disagree with either of you. It is the person driving that should be responsible for what ever distraction they allow themselves to fall victim to. And as was pointed out WE ALL have held up traffic by some distraction or another from time to time.

It is just my observation that cell phone use is far higher in its distractiveness than any other single distraction. I know I am not alone in this opinion. If that was the case this thread and the 39 states with laws against cell phone use while driving would not have been enacted.

I just do not understand defending a practice that is so openly abused.

PS
distractiveness: is my new word meaning a high level of distraction

tpe

You definitely are not alone, in fact, your views represent the majority. Laws are being enacted in this country on the premise that people posess zero common sense or intelligence. Using this rational we are heading towards a society where more and more of our everday activities have rules attached to them. Here's a couple examples that comes to mind. I saw a story a few years ago about how two young kids in Florida got hold of a parent's loaded handgun that was on the nightstand. Tragically a child was shot and killed resulting in a law that states it is illegal to have an unlocked loaded gun that children can access. When I fly and go through the security checkpoint I can't help but be amused by the sign of prohibited items. They use pictures to accomodate those that can't read. There is a picture of a pair of scissors, a knife, a handgun and a lit bomb. I want to ask one of the TSA guys if it would be okay for me to take my bomb onboard as long as I extinguished it first. Of course it would be illegal for me to say that.

snakeweasel

If that was the case this thread and the 39 states with laws against cell phone use while driving would not have been enacted.

No its just that its the flavor of the month. Instead of actually dealing with the root of the problem they slap on a flintstones bandaid onto the sucking chest wound then strut around pounding their chest saying "see, I fixed the problem" when in fact they did no such thing.

I just do not understand defending a practice that is so openly abused.

Its not a defense of any practice, it is a realistic look at an issue and questioning a "solution" that doesn't really address the root problem.

snakeweasel

Using this rational we are heading towards a society where more and more of our everday activities have rules attached to them.

Thats why we have hair dryers with warnings not to use in the shower. Or why my iron came with a warning not to iron my cloths when they were on my body (makes me wonder if its ok to iron them if they are on someone elses body). And my favorite which I found on a bag of peanuts "This item contains peanuts, do not consume if you are allergic to peanuts".

I truely rear for the republic.

wideglide

Look at page 17 of this report and see if you can find a trend that supports cell phones adding danger? What's interesting is that of the 4 categories of vehicles (passenger, light truck, large truck, and motorcycles) the only category not showing a decline in accident rates is motorcycles. Probably the only group not using cell phones.

Indeed. Like my friend who got a broken leg and lots of other injuries on his bike when a 19 year old girl made a left turn right into his path..... while talking on her cell phone. Face it, the only reason people are defending cell phone usage while driving, is because THEY DO IT. And those claiming superior driving and multitasking skills, just remember; it only takes a second or two of inattention. Would you still be able to rationalize it away if you just took your eyes off the road for a couple seconds to answer a call, and ran over a six year old kid chasing a ball into the street? If you get a call, pull over. It's not that hard to do. If you can't, call them back at the next exit you get off. It can wait five minutes. 10 or 12 years ago, there were no cell phones, and we somehow managed to survive!

wideglide

The death toll from crashes caused by drivers talking on their wireless phones appears to be rising significantly as the devices become must-have accessories for many Americans.

A study released today by Harvard University's Center for Risk Analysis estimates a rate of 2,600 deaths a year in such crashes, compared with the same researchers' estimate of 1,000 two years ago.

The study also estimated that 570,000 injuries a year and 1.5 million crashes resulting in property damage can be blamed on wireless phone use.

That seems pretty compelling. :surprise:

gagrice

questioning a "solution" that doesn't really address the root problem.

I've done that most of my life. Very few laws are of any value if not enforced. Face it most are not. I believe forcing seatbelt and helmet laws on us is much more a violation of civil liberties than stopping people from using a cell phone that could cause others harm.

rockylee

I'm not sure if I quite believe those figures. :surprise:

Rocky

fintail

Which liberties are violated with seatbelt and helmet laws?

If you don't buckle up, you're stupid...it's an easy equation.

grbeck

They are estimates, and nothing more.

I estimate that in 2007 there will 1,000 more crashes caused by drivers thinking about their next post on Edmunds.com. For the calendar year 2006, I estimated that there would only be 500 more crashes caused by this.

Obviously, crashes caused by distracted Edmunds.com posters are increasingly dramatically.

Wow, I should apply for a job at Harvard...

rockylee

ROTFLMAO I have no doubt you'd make a great professor.

Rocky

xrunner2

There are driving situations and environments that don't require our full attention. I know that some will disagree and say that 100% focus is always necessary. Maybe I'm gifted in this regard because I can assure you that when I'm driving down a highway with no cross traffic, minimal congestion and an artificially low speed limit it definitely does not require 100% of my attention.

I have made cell phone calls on interstates in the past. One was for viewing a single vehichle rollover accident in front of me (maybe 300-400 ft ahead) at 60-65 mph (dry road, daylight) and having to slow down and move around to avoid wreckage loose parts being dispersed over road surface. Many other times for encountering debris in road (truck tire carcasses, lumber pieces, etc.). The calls were to *99 emergency. I always get over to the right lane first and get to slower but not obstructing speed. I can sense that my attention is being diverted in order to compose my thoughts, communicate, give location, etc and can feel a little incapacitated. I would guess that a greater amount of my attention is being diverted from driving for these situations then if I were idley chatting (which I don't do) on the interstate with a friend about last night's playoff game.

I would like to know how one can determine what part of the 100 percent attention can be diverted to a cell call and then how to actually apply. Can one control the percent of attention (5, 10, 50, etc) that will be applied to a cell call and the rest to driving? Does some one know how to do that? When someone is making a cell call, can any test instruments actually measure what amount of brain is directed to driving and what amount to the call? If there is such a device, would it not be interesting if it were found that vast amount of "attention" and brain were involved in the call and a lesser amount to driving.

xrunner2

I believe forcing seatbelt and helmet laws on us is much more a violation of civil liberties than stopping people from using a cell phone that could cause others harm.

Wonder if all those who are concerned with this matter would agree to an optional fee on their auto insurance premium. You could pay the standard amount or you could pay it plus an optional additional fee to cover medical fees for all those folks who don't wear belts/helmets for their "extra" injuries that could have been prevented. This optional amount could also help cover those injured in accidents caused by cell phone users.

tpe

What about buckling up AND wearing a helmet? You know, like the race car drivers. I'm guessing that would have to save at least a couple hundred lives a year. It seems like common sense to me but I see very few people wearing helmets while they drive. If you don't buckle up AND wear a helmet, you're stupid... it's an easy equation.

fintail

I have no problem with it...even though it is a ridiculous comparison

I don't expect a straight answer about which liberties are being violated.

snakeweasel

Indeed. Like my friend who got a broken leg and lots of other injuries on his bike when a 19 year old girl made a left turn right into his path.....

Indeed just like when I had a walk signal and almost got hit by a young girl making a right turn. Was she on a cell phone? NO. Was she applying makeup? NO. was she reading a book? NO. What was she doing? Just driving and nothing else including paying attention. I saw nothing that was distracting this driver as she came within a foot of me as she made a right turn but I seriously doubt she saw me, or realized where I was.

just remember; it only takes a second or two of inattention.

Yep it just takes a second or two which can be taken up by changing radio stations (BTW when radios first appeared in cars people were all outraged saying it would distract drivers), checking directions, looking at your Nav system (hey if cell phones are outlawed they should get rid of nav systems too), reading a sign alongside a road, and on and on.

Hey I almost got into trouble a few months ago when I took my eyes off the road and someone came out onto the street when my eyes were not focused on the road ahead of me. What was I doing you ask? I was looking to see if the lane next to me was clear in order to make a lane change.

tpe

Indeed. Like my friend who got a broken leg and lots of other injuries on his bike when a 19 year old girl made a left turn right into his path..... while talking on her cell phone

According to the NHTSA pedestrian and pedacyclist fatalities have declined by 30% since 1975. Injuries have declined by 40%. And that is total number not some rate per miles driven or registered vehicle. I realize that is not going to impress anyone as much as their anecdotal evidence of something they've witnessed.

10 or 12 years ago, there were no cell phones, and we somehow managed to survive!

100 years ago there were no cars and we also managed to survive. How many of the over 40k traffic fatalities per year are a result of driving?

rockylee

Hey I almost got into trouble a few months ago when I took my eyes off the road and someone came out onto the street when my eyes were not focused on the road ahead of me. What was I doing you ask? I was looking to see if the lane next to me was clear in order to make a lane change.

That is why you need BLISS. Speaking of changing radio stations or CD's, climate setting, etc, that is why a Voice Recognition System should be safety standards.

Rocky

snakeweasel

What about buckling up AND wearing a helmet?

Better yet after that wrap yourself up in bubble wrap, then fill the car with some soft compress able material (like those shipping peanuts) hang tires all around your car (like a tugboat) and drive less than 20 MPH.

snakeweasel

I don't expect a straight answer about which liberties are being violated.

Personal choice regarding something that just effects yourself.

snakeweasel

That is why you need BLISS. Speaking of changing radio stations or CD's, climate setting, etc, that is why a Voice Recognition System should be safety standards.

What about those people where a voice recognition system will not work?

rockylee

What about those people where a voice recognition system will not work?

What are you talking about pal? Can you be a lil' more specific. :confuse:

Thanx

Rocky

tpe

I wonder how many people who are so adamently opposed to cell phones routinely drive over the speed limit? It must be nice to be the self appointed safety czar who knows which laws should be adhered to and which ones can be blown off. Hey, I drive over the speed limit and I can tell you why. Two reasons actually. The convenience of getting to my destination quicker and it somewhat alleviates the boredom. The boredom results from performing a task that requires no where near 100% of my skill or attention. But hey, that's me. If driving does max out your capabilities then by all means, stick to the speed limit. Remember, "speed kills".

wideglide

just remember; it only takes a second or two of inattention.

Yep it just takes a second or two which can be taken up by changing radio stations (BTW when radios first appeared in cars people were all outraged saying it would distract drivers), checking directions, looking at your Nav system (hey if cell phones are outlawed they should get rid of nav systems too), reading a sign alongside a road, and on and on.

I hear this type of arguement logic almost daily.... I have an eight year old. "Yeah I was talking in class, but Johnny was running in the hall!" :confuse: Not trying to be demeaning here, but that's like me saying it's okay to rob banks, because people rob gas stations and grocery stores, too. Or it's okay to punch people in the face, because people also rape and kidnap others. They are ALL WRONG. None of them are okay. As for nav systems, if they are shown to cause accidents... You wouldn't have to outlaw them, just have an interlock that would prevent it from operating unless the car is stopped. A couple years ago, I was paying too much attention to finding a radio station, and bumped someone from behind. Guess what... it was MY FAULT. I paid for their damage.

rockylee

Gadgetology: Marketing or Useful Advance

Post 40 of 40.

The fix all solution.

Rocky

snakeweasel

I wonder how many people who are so adamently opposed to cell phones routinely drive over the speed limit?

I would say about the same number who don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or who go through the yellow light when they really should have stopped, or who make that right turn on red when traffic was just a little to close to the intersection, or the number who have followed a little to close, or the number who block driveways at lights, or...... Awe you get my drift.

fintail

But it doesn't just affect yourself. Who pays for the injuries when lazy/stupid unbelted people get splattered on their dashboards? Not the injured.

snakeweasel

Who pays for the injuries

Well first I have to ask who caused the accident? Thats who really should pay.

fintail

Questions aren't answered with questions.

Those who don't buckle up or use helmets get what they deserve. The stupid deserve no sympathy nor respect.

tpe

But it doesn't just affect yourself. Who pays for the injuries when lazy/stupid unbelted people get splattered on their dashboards? Not the injured.

What do you think that insurance is for? I guess you could argue that it places a burden on our health care system that gets spread out amongst all of us. Okay, the same can be said for obesity. Let's make that illegal. Pretty easy to identify the offenders, baggy close can only hide so much. Oh and something like 6,000 people die each year from skin cancer. Better make laying out at the beach or pool illegal.

For a society that prides itself on freedom we have an inordinate fascination with laws.

fintail

Insurance comes from somewhere - higher rates paid by all.

Still no answer about those liberties...