"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!"
I don't expect you to see my point, as I don't see your point that cell phones are safe
I never claimed that phones were "safe".
My point throughout this forum has been that phones don't seem to make any difference, either way, and that highway safety is largely a function of driver attitudes and how they behave behind the wheel. Most drivers can function reasonably well, with or without a phone -- they may not be Mario Andretti, but they can generally avoid colliding into one another -- while there are a few who can barely function. I want to focus on the latter group, who are responsible for most of what goes wrong on our highways.
"My point throughout this forum has been that phones don't seem to make any difference, either way,"
I understand your point. But it is not based in fact. It is based on some conjecture about some statistics. That's okay because you are right the statistics aren't granular and don't address this specific issue and thus there is no way of knowing unless more information is collected. Having a cell phone ban on the books will allow more information to be collected.
I don't claim to be right, I only claim there are studies that support the fact talking on hand held cell phones while driving cause a loss of driver concentration. Given these studies, I support laws that ban hand held cell phones while driving. YMMV.
I'll make a deal with you. You focus on the latter group and I'll focus on the ban. Fair enough?
"I don't claim to be right, I only claim there are studies that support the fact talking on hand held cell phones while driving cause a loss of driver concentration. Given these studies, I support laws that ban hand held cell phones while driving."
I'm not sure it's just hand-held cell phones. I think it's all cell phones. It doesn't take much effort or concentration to hold something to your ear. It's the concentration needed to listen to what is being said and to reply that is distracting. This seems to be enforced by the same study you reference where only 21% of the respondents said that hands free technology is sufficient to address safety concerns related to cell phone use while driving.
If you ban cell phones while driving - it should be all cell phones.
Again, the default position in a democracy is to have no law, unless there is a good reason why we should have a law.
You keep referring to the USA as a Democracy. In fact it is a Republic. We elect people that make the laws. In CA those elected folks decided that there was enough proof to ban hand held cell phone calls while driving. We don't get to have a vote on it. It is law, signed sealed and delivered. Too bad we have to wait so long for it to take affect.
"I'm not sure it's just hand-held cell phones. I think it's all cell phones."
In NY and NJ a hands-free device is allowed. The law is you cannot take your hands off the steering wheel to make or answer a call. But you can use your cell phone, you just can't hold it to your ear.
One more thing: Intellectually I agree with your post. But holding one hand to your ear, while the other hand is steering seems to be an issue not only with motor vehicle control, but also driver concentration. While at times I do drive with one hand, my other hand is "at the ready" if you will, waiting to be placed on the steering wheel if needed.
With cell phones the other hand is never: "at the ready". In fact, the brain is attempting to do two different things at exactly the same time. With the left hand, drive the car, look in the mirrors, keep an eye on traffic. With the right hand, hold the phone to your ear and be able to concentrate on the person on the end.
While a total ban on cell phone usage will never happen and I've never advocated that (I've advocated a ban on hand held cell phone usage, not hands-free cell phone usage), and could never be enforced, a hands-free law to me is a reasonable compromise. At least two hands will be on the wheel during a conversation. I think the act of talking and holding the phone is much more detrimental to driving than the act of just talking via a hands-free kit. This seems to be what studies have found also.
While a total ban on cell phone usage will never happen
I assume you mean while driving. Never is a long time. I think you will see legislation in many states banning the use of cell phones while the car is moving. It is the smart way to do it and not very hard to implement technically. The NHTSA is behind a total ban as well.
I worked under those restrictions for the last several years before retirement. It was nice not to mess with the phone in the truck while driving. We had to stop and call with the familiar words "Can You Hear Me Now?".
Obviously this thread has missed your other points that it is NOT only cell phones causing this "inattention" to the cars & roads. As you stated in you original post I have witnessed women applying makeup, eating, reading (maps, books,newspapers), fiddling with dropped items or radios/cd's/ipods, eating & drinking, kids (NOT in seatbelts, parents trying to corral all while still driving, cigaretes (lighting, smoling, dropping, flicking their still smoldering butts out of windows to possibly land in the car next to them) and let's not forget those wonderful dogs that people allow to roam the car, sit in their laps, or push their way across the driver so they can have stick their head out of the window. Let's stop crying foul over cell phone usage in the vehicle, handsfree makes alot of sense I agree, but lets not make another insane law that while impossible to try to police is not the only thing wrong with drivers today. :mad:
Cellphone use is distracting. Trying to bring up all kinds of other things in cars doesn't reduce the BIG distraction that cellphone usage is to 99% of drivers. It's the same for hands free as well as handheld models. Talking on the phone takes up a lot of concentration ability of most people's brains. Just watch.
They don't talk to their dog and forget to "go" when it's their turn at a 4-way stop, for example!
I agree. There are some here that would throw up a smokescreen of all the distractions we see while driving. Evidently Cell phone use is WAY out ahead or it would not have drawn such major attention. When you figure the millions that Cingular, Verizon, Sprint and others have spent on mis-information campaigns to stop this trend toward cell phone bans, it is no wonder you have a lot of ill informed folks trying to discount the facts. Cell phone use in cars while driving IS a big distraction. Not saying there are not other distractions. They just pale in comparison. I cannot remember the last time I saw someone eating and not taking their turn at the stop sign. I just saw another cell phone blocker miss two turns yesterday. It is a menace to all of us that would like to keep traffic flowing smoothly. That does not show up on the fatality list. I have never heard of a cop giving someone a ticket for not taking their turn at a stop sign.
So we need laws because it is irritating? If we need laws to enforce distractions shouldn't we attack the major distractions. the study I posted earlier,
Shows that eating in the car is a greater distraction. It meets the criteria the KD has mentioned. using the free hand and not being able to easily use that hand because it was full of food. Drinking coffee would hold the same problems. Dealing with passengers was a far greater distraction. So what have we proved? That we can pass a law to limit a distraction that is credited as being a distraction 1.5 percent of the time? But we will ignore the other distractions that are reported more than nine times more than cell phone use?
It isn't even the targeting as much as the method and reasoning. I agree we should allow the political process to work its way out. I am sure we can look forward to the political process that will restore cell phone use in the future. After all it is big business and sooner or later they will outspend the concerned citizens and we all know our politicians can't resist a buck. There is no profit in making an across the board ban on cell phone use. Other wise they wouldn't have left the hands free loop hole. I just say a small device that plugs into my cigarette lighter and broadcasts through my radio. I can use my hand held unit on my dash and not even have to have an ear piece. I wonder if the habitual cell phone users have seen this? (Sorry, that was just my humor coming out.) After all it is hard to take such a simple to defeat law very serious.
The cell phone legistlation already enacted and pending will answer some of nippononlys' questions. I'm of the opinion, given the studies, these laws are reasonable. If you know crocodiles are dangerous you don't go into croc infested waters. You don't need to study crocs first to know you can get killed if trespassing on their territory.
I agree with the other posters, cell phones appears to constitute a bigger distraction than other driver behaviors. Let's not throw up a smokescreen and minimize this issue, because drivers do other things.
As far as the point in post 1 about text messaging, it's already covered in most legistlation. Use of hand held phones is prohibited, except via a hands-free device. That would make text messaging a ticketable offense.
That information is way out of date to be any use. The landscape has changed considerably in 5 years. There have been many cell phone studies in the last couple of years, which would put the data at a different perspective.
If you really think that this 5 year old study is useful that doesn't even mention cell phones circa 2006, check yourself into a hospital and have them apply 2001 medical standards to your care instead of 2006 standards. My bet is you won't opt for that.
I come from a relatively small town (40,000)in the midwest, from where I sit in my car there are alot of distractions and I'm not throwing up a smoke screen. I have witnessed near-miss accidents or other traffic infractions from all of the items I mentioned before and yes I have seen those with cell phones do the same. I also feel very strongly about having mandatory re-testing as drivers license are issued because I feel there are many out there who have just plain forgotten the rules of the road. (ie: what a stop sign is for, what the white line at an intersection is for and that speed limit signs are not just a suggestion.) I include in this re-testing the motor skills and reaction time as we age, just because you are going 10 - 15 miles an hour under the speed limit because that is where you feel safe, does NOT mean you are a safe driver or not about to cause someone else injury. I just feel cell phones are being targeted for statistics. I would like to have some other statistics for other distractions, but who would honestly say, my kids were not in their seatbelts and I was distracted my them, since there are laws out there for seatbelt usage or I was busy lighting a cigarrete.
I didn't read the link but the study is probably sponsored by the cellphone industry.
I can give a real world example. I was driving back from Indianapolis at 7 pm. Trying to call kid from car and text message to find out what the band's busses were doing in re return to school in Ohio for pickup. The phone took enough of my concentration that my wife took the steering wheel because I was moving around in the lane so much.
Same thing happened later when another parent called from their car to tell us about arrangements for parade.
I have driven many years without accident. Since traffic was light I was trying to handle the cellphone and drive. It doesn't work. It is TOO much distraction to listen, think, synthesize response, and then communicate.
Oh and as for eating, I had just finished a single with everything no cheese as I drove with no problem. Chewing and swallowing are not as distracting to the brain. Neither is talking to the dog, swatting the kids who are fighting in the back seat, and waving at the other mom in the driveway to the school.
Cellphone use is distracting. Trying to bring up all kinds of other things in cars doesn't reduce the BIG distraction that cellphone usage is to 99% of drivers. It's the same for hands free as well as handheld models.
Would agree that it does not matter whether hands-free or regular cell phone, it is the "attention" the driver gives to the conversation that diminishes his/her driving ability. Those who bring up hamburgers, makeup, reading maps, etc. are diverting attention and obfuscating the issue which is cell phones.
Some amount of brain processing that should be devoted exclusively to driving is instead frittered away for personal convenience of the driver. In a way, one could say that this is very selfish behaviour, akin to "I am a very important person and it is critical that my phone calls have to be made while driving. I cannot stop my car in a safe and legal place to make my critical call because my time is so valuable."
Except for emergencies such as reporting a recent or witnessed accident while driving, just what is so important that cannot wait. And even then, one can usually pull over and make the call. Why can't calls such as grocery lists, chatter/gossip, conducting business, etc. wait until vehicle is safely stopped or one is at home, office, destination, etc? Is there a certain amount of immaturity or lack of discipline in those who just "have" to make the call and cannot wait? Maybe someone like Dr Phil could do some studies on these "using while driving" folks. What's their problem?
If we ever get to a total U.S. ban, perhaps with enough publicity and responsible commercials by the wireless providers, the message will get through to the driving public similarly to drunken driving (DUI). There will be a stigma attached to driving and using the cell phone - Driving on Phone (DOP).
We will all see how this plays out in legislatures and in the media. Will the wireless providers step up and have TV commercials asking people to not use phone while driving? Can the wireless industry prove that it is just as responsible as the beer industry with their "designated driver" TV ads on beer commercials?
In years to come, no doubt there will be new technology, new gadgets introduced that drivers will buy and want to use in their cars. They will say they have a right to use them in the car. Those who oppose these new gadgets on grounds of safety will be accused to trying to take away the "freedoms" of the driver.
Funny, and you suppose the laws get passed in a matter of a few months and they aren't using this very study or the NHTSA data from about the same period of time? Don't you remember from school how long it takes a law to get through the process? Still, with the technology available today I don't believe cell phone users have much to worry about. It will all blow over as more and more people get hands free and in car units. The industry is simply too big to let this stop them. There simply is no way to put the genie back into the bottle. As they say, where there is a will there is a way. And where profit is to be made there is a lobbiests to help the companies make it.
Don't you think there is a huge disconnect somewhere, when most states are adopting bans against the use of hand held cell phones while driving, and this study does not even mention cell phones as a distraction?
Wouldn't a reasonable person ask a question, instead of blindly quoting some study that today has nothing to do with reality?
Have you read any of the studies to understand the severity of the loss of concentration? Or do you feel since a driver is always going to be distracted, it's useless to have a law banning one single distraction?
In 2006 cell phone distraction appears to be an issue on the road. It's just one huge distraction adding to a number of smaller distractions.
The industry is simply too big to let this stop them. There simply is no way to put the genie back into the bottle.
So, we are all beholden to big industries?
Beer, liquor, tavern, restaurant industry is also very big, but there has been greatly increased emphasis in all of U.S. over last decade+ on reining in drunk driving. Seems like someone, some groups should be leaning on the "big" wireless industry to show some responsibility in providing guidance in the use of cell phones.
Perhaps someday we will see a high visibility court case of a family sueing a wireless provider in the case of the loss of a family member in an accident where the guilty (other) driver was on the cell phone while driving. I can imagine the judge asking the provider if they had done anything such as TV commercials or messages in phone bills to tell people to not use phones while driving. A finding against the provider, and similar cases to follow no doubt, will change people's attitudes and behaviour. Then maybe, wireless providers start to tell drivers not to use phone while driving. "Big" industries have had to change their ways in the past such as in cigarette label warnings and hot coffee warnings.
I have read studies of various types and it appears that not all studies agree that cell phone usage is the TOP distraction so yes, since drivers are always going to be distracted by a variety of other things it is useless to ban one and blow off all the others. It may be more important to educate the population including revising some of our drivers education classes that don't seem to be helping teenage drivers rather than pass laws that would be very difficult to enforce. According to posting #974 by imadozol97 cell phone usage either hands-free or not should be in the area of a DUI, well I feel there is a complete difference in distraction and impairment such as driving under the influence.
"I feel there is a complete difference in distraction and impairment such as driving under the influence."
I've read a bunch of them as well. I feel the lawmakers are doing the appropriate job, given the data. I also have anecdotal stories to back up the fact the people "black out" while using the cell phones. So given all of this I support the current direction of the ban on holding the phone to your head. I agree we can't legisislate good driving behavior, but we can make it so expensive to cause a preventible fatality maybe drivers will think twice.
I guess the most we can do is wait and see what effect this will have on cell phone use. I personally doubt if it will have a big effect. Just too easy to ignore and to hard to patrol. They can't watch 95 percent of the drivers that are speeding down the highway now and there will be no new offercers added to the force to watch for cell phones use. we all know if the people that already are doing these things feel they have a reason to do them they will simply do it when no police are in view. or like i said before simply use their speaker phone. I have found the speaker phone on my cell works within three feet of my mouth and that would be easy to do so below the window of my car. And why do I know this, because it is more comfortable to do than holding the phone to my ear. The other option I like is the mic clipped to my visor. I don't think this will be missed by people that talk far more often than I do. What would you estimate the chances are of someone getting caught using the cell half as much as they do speeding?
Maybe the better question is, why do you feel people use the cell phone while driving? What makes people feel they can do two things at once? Do manufacturers believe people will be doing things other than driving while driving? (How many cup holders does you car have.) Do you believe people even give it a second thought? Do you believe the number of people eating fast food or any food or drink is decreasing? If not why not? Just how expensive is it to not get caught?
kdshapiro: I am starting from exactly the right place. You are not looking at the situation properly.
Sorry, but no. You have provided no proof that cell phone usage has led to increased accidents and fatalities.
We are not going to ban a practice just because some people don't like it, or it it annoys them.
Which is why you try to get out of the need to offer proof of increased accidents and fatalities by continuing with this paragraph:
kdshapiro: I don't have to offer any proof at all regarding hand held phone usage. As a voter and a tax payer I can effect the legislative process accordingly.
Which I take as a white flag that no proof will be forthcoming.
Of course you can ask you legislator to "do something." I handle those requests all the time. That doesn't mean that the legislature should act upon it.
You are confusing your rights as a citizen with proof of the correctness of your position.
Interesting that I've been gone for four days and the most the cell phone ban advocates can come up with is we should ban them..."because I said so," or "The accident rate might have gone even lower if we had."
On a grading scale, I give the anti-cell phone ban posters a "B+," primarily because the opposition is so weak.
The pro side, meanwhile, was in "C-" territory when I left, and is rapidly sliding to the land of "D-."
imidazol97: 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.
And when you find solid proof of this, please inform us.
Until then, your post will be filed under "conjecture" as opposed to "facts."
We are not going to ban a practice just because some people don't like it, or it it annoys them.
Which is why you try to get out of the need to offer proof of increased accidents and fatalities by continuing with this paragraph:
Actually in spite of the opinion expressed in your post we have already started to do this. California is on board as of 2008.
Of course you can ask you legislator to "do something." I handle those requests all the time. That doesn't mean that the legislature should act upon it.
You are confusing your rights as a citizen with proof of the correctness of your position.
Actually a number of legislatures have already acted upon this issue. According to you the baby was thrown out with bath water. According to them, it's a done deal. Because you don't believe the ban is the correct thing to do, doesn't mean my position is incorrect. It means you don't agree.
Interesting that I've been gone for four days and the most the cell phone ban advocates can come up with is we should ban them..."because I said so," or "The accident rate might have gone even lower if we had.
You're whole premise is incorrect as this has already started to happen. While I support the ban, I didn't make the final vote in every state that has the ban. Somebody other than you had to see the value in this legislation. I give the lawmakers an A+ for their efforts.
i applaud the fact the these legislatures are will to act to protect the public at large from a growing issue. You can file this post anywhere you desire, but this is not a theoretical conversation. With the NHTSA avocating complete cell phone bans one can see where this is going.
Is there a certain amount of immaturity or lack of discipline in those who just "have" to make the call and cannot wait?
If you look at the demographics of heavy cell phone use it is by young inexperienced drivers. They are invulnerable in their immature minds. They can do many tasks without losing concentration. Or at least they think they can, until they destroy their lives and others in the process.
The industry is simply too big to let this stop them
That is what some people thought about the tobacco industry. You get enough lawsuits going against Cingular and Verizon and they will jump on the cell phone (BAN)d-wagon. It would be a simple task to lock the phone into the cell where the call originated. That would stop all calls from moving vehicles.
Hey, today they replied to an email I sent them last week. Maybe there's hope. It's certainly more probable than a cellphone ban having any real world benefit...
>And when you find solid proof of this, please inform us.
Until then, your post will be filed under "conjecture" as opposed to "facts."
You used that line earlier somewhere else. You need a new line.
I'll leave it to those with all the expertise to prove cellphones are not a distraction that studies have found them to be and personal experience of my own has found them to be...
I got rear ended by a cell phone user several years ago, long before they became mainstream. Since then, I keep a mental tally when I see erratic driving. My anecdotal evidence is that more than 50% of erratic driving and disconnect to the driver's environment (in California) is caused by cell-phone usage.
Some people can multi-task easily, some cannot. My wife gets amazed by the fact that I can clean both of my ears with cotton-tips, simultaneously...
When she's on the road and talking on the phone at the same time, she's a severe hazard. I may be able to handle that at ease, but I'd rather not take chances, and rarely pick up the cell while driving. I don't dial, while driving, except if I am basically the only person on the road, on a very safe stretch - else I pull over...
But I don't really have to use my phone in the car, at all. So I am all for legislation that prevents it, and/or sets strict limits on how it is done.
Allhorizon- if you go a few posts up, there is a link to an NHTSA poll that echos your sentiment, and my sentiment and some others. That is, people are a danger to their fellow drivers while using hand held cell phones while driving, but some refuse to believe it.
The only "hair" I want to split in your post is people, multi-tasking vs multi-processing. Not that we are computers, but studies have found we can do multiple things at the same time, albiet with some loss of clarity to each of the tasks, depending on what we're doing. But we can't multi-process, that is having our brain devoted exclusively to multiple tasks that require 100% brain power. An example of this might be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while mentally computing Pi to the 10th decimal place. Essentially driving and concentrating on the conversation is along the same lines, one wins, one loses.
It might be more accurate to say, we don't believe the fault lies with the cell phone. We believe the fault is with the person or driver. Just like we don't believe the fast food, CD player, or passengers are the other faults of the accident. There is no reason someone driving down I ten at 2:30 in the morning with no one in sight for miles should not be able to use the phone. Exception or not that is a reasonable use of a cell phone. If someone gets a call, answers it and hangs up that is a reasonable use. All are acts of personal responsibility. We know there are other distraction that people are responsible for and the law assigns fault based in not paying attention. Your foot slips off of the brake at a stop light and you hit the car in front of you; you are assigned blame. You pull into the other lane and side swipe another car you are assigned blame even if you are not on the cell phone. In both cases you can be cited, it is already a law. No special law required. It seems hard to believe that if Cell phone use is so distraction to everyone that they would allow hands free units in the car because you are doing the very same multi-processing as you are with a hand held. But maybe some people are not able to use two tools at the same time? Sure, people do stupid things while on the cell phone. Yesterday a driver in front of me took forever to get started when the light turned green. I followed her for a while and saw she had a cell phone. Quick thought was, ahh, she was distracted by the phone. Next light she sat half way through the light and so I pulled into the other lane assuming it was the phone again. Nope, she was digging through her purse either to put the phone away or get something out. Should my reaction be, ban purses, women drivers, or whatever else might come to mind? No, that driver simply wasn't going to pay attention no matter what ban I was pulling for.
We believe the fault is with the person or driver.
I totally agree with that position. Would you say that we should do away with drunk driving laws because a few abuse drinking then try to drive? My experience being associated with a bar business was the crackdown on drunk drivers in San Diego had a positive affect on those that might have had one too many drinks then jumped in the car. I would be all for a law that gives a cop the right to stop anyone that is distracted while driving for any reason. For those that do not see the burgeoning problem with people talking on the phone and losing track of what they are doing while driving, just does not make sense. I do not know how you can go out on the streets and not see the problem. It is so much more prevalent than all the other distractions combined.
Maybe it is hard to see others abusing the cell phone when making a call on your own phone.
Very good point. Glad you mentioned it. Is drinking and driving against the law? Is there a ban against drinking and driving? No there is no drinking and driving law there is a driving while under the influence or a drunk driving law. The drunk driving law has a standard. Can you drink and drive? Yes you can. It isn't banned in total is it? Why the heck not? Why should anyone with any alcohol in their system be allowed to drive? We know absolutely that alcohol causes a slower reaction time so it is a perfect example of this very idea. People are responsible for how much they drink. So do you ban alcohol or do you set standards? If you set standards how did you determine what was abusive use and what was not? Is all cell phone use abusive? I don't think so. It can not be worse than drinking and driving because we "know from years of study" how that effects our ability to drive. Yet even with that knowledge we allow .07 to continue to drive down the street and passed our schools but we will not allow someone twenty seconds of phone call? What is reasonable here? Tell me this isn't knee jerk? If it was such a obvious problem would they allow thirty minutes or and hour of hands free conversation and not two or three minutes of hand held? Where is the logic and reasoning in that?
Just so you know, I have over 4500 minutes of carry over time on my cell. I hardly ever use it while driving and when I do if it is a long conversation I will pull over. But I have been known to talk for up to five minutes on the way to Stateline or coming back just to get caught up or maybe to talk with my son during one of the few times we can talk from Iraq. So I have plenty of time to observe people going 90 in a 70. I have seen people doing 70 in a 70 with a spare temporary spare on their car. I have watched as they leave a bar and jump in their cars to get on the freeway, knowing that unless they get pulled over the second they hit the street that might not blow more than .07. I get to see people eating Pizza and trying to avoid the cheese as it falls towards their shirt. I have watched as men shave and women put on makeup and I have yet to see a law passed against such an activity. Nor do I believe we need one. Is it just me or does this ban sound just a bit like, "everyone has to stay after school because Billy was passing notes."?
It would be a simple task to lock the phone into the cell where the call originated. That would stop all calls from moving vehicles.
That would do it. Not sure though if it would be that simple, needing changes in hardware/software at all cell sites and mobile switching centers. Of course a total U.S. ban would be needed and then subsequent court hearings about legality of ban challenged by wireless providers. Who would win? Maybe it won't come to that.
The scientists/engineers who designed cell systems were ingenious to invent a technology to be able to "pass" off calls to next cell when travelling. This was heralded as a blessing back around 1980 rather than the scourge that it turned out to be. Bell Labs among others apparently did not research drivers' thought/attention processes and the effects on driving ability of cell phone conversation.
I think it is also. Since it is difficult to tell if someone is drunk without stopping and testing we stop anyone that we might suspect is drunk. That is the crux of the cell phone ban. There is no good way to know if someone is abusing the cell phone while driving unless you see them doing something stupid. That to me would be the way it should be enforced. I would include the pizza and shaving in the law. I doubt Pizza Hut or Gillette would spend any money fighting the law.
In 1980 only the wealth could afford them. I think an analogy would be in 1940 we wouldn't be worried about North Korea and Iran experimenting with nuclear weapons in 2006.
>Is drinking and driving against the law? Is there a ban against drinking and driving? No there is no drinking and driving law
Since we seem to be splitting hairs, the "drinking and driving" laws do exist. Try having an open container or a drink in your car when stopped in most states.
But to get back to the root of the problem, if you stand on a street corner and observe drivers on the cell phone, one understands what the issue is. Unlike drunk driving where it is impossible to escape from the effects of the alcohol, a drivers attention is restored the nanosecond the phone goes down.
And unlike other posters have suggested, we should not have to wait for needless fatalities before this issue is addressed.
I have no problem in putting down the cell phone while driving, why should you? A hands-free kit can be used and still be within the law. I do not see what the issue is.
Is there a ban against drinking and driving? No there is no drinking and driving law there is a driving while under the influence or a drunk driving law. The drunk driving law has a standard. Can you drink and drive? Yes you can. It isn't banned in total is it? Why the heck not? Why should anyone with any alcohol in their system be allowed to drive?
You make excellent points. Some European countries have a zero level of alcohol in blood for drivers. And, if caught with any alcohol level then severe consequences.
Seems like a good direction for U.S. Total ban of talking on cell phone (hands free or otherwise) while driver AND a zero level of blood alcohol for all drivers. A great twofer. But, as others pointing out, will be huge resistance by wireless providers and restaurant/bar industry.
And unlike other posters have suggested, we should not have to wait for needless fatalities before this issue is addressed.
We've already had phones for years, yet the world still spins on its axis and fatality rates continue to fall.
If you can't illustrate any problems based upon years of experience with these phones, then why should we pass laws on the basis of something that might happen?
If disaster was looming, it would have happened already.
Comments
Thank goodness. I was beginning to lose all hope!
I never claimed that phones were "safe".
My point throughout this forum has been that phones don't seem to make any difference, either way, and that highway safety is largely a function of driver attitudes and how they behave behind the wheel. Most drivers can function reasonably well, with or without a phone -- they may not be Mario Andretti, but they can generally avoid colliding into one another -- while there are a few who can barely function. I want to focus on the latter group, who are responsible for most of what goes wrong on our highways.
I understand your point. But it is not based in fact. It is based on some conjecture about some statistics. That's okay because you are right the statistics aren't granular and don't address this specific issue and thus there is no way of knowing unless more information is collected. Having a cell phone ban on the books will allow more information to be collected.
I don't claim to be right, I only claim there are studies that support the fact talking on hand held cell phones while driving cause a loss of driver concentration. Given these studies, I support laws that ban hand held cell phones while driving. YMMV.
I'll make a deal with you. You focus on the latter group and I'll focus on the ban. Fair enough?
I'm not sure it's just hand-held cell phones. I think it's all cell phones. It doesn't take much effort or concentration to hold something to your ear. It's the concentration needed to listen to what is being said and to reply that is distracting. This seems to be enforced by the same study you reference where only 21% of the respondents said that hands free technology is sufficient to address safety concerns related to cell phone use while driving.
If you ban cell phones while driving - it should be all cell phones.
2025 Forester Limited, 2024 Subaru Legacy Sport
You keep referring to the USA as a Democracy. In fact it is a Republic. We elect people that make the laws. In CA those elected folks decided that there was enough proof to ban hand held cell phone calls while driving. We don't get to have a vote on it. It is law, signed sealed and delivered. Too bad we have to wait so long for it to take affect.
In NY and NJ a hands-free device is allowed. The law is you cannot take your hands off the steering wheel to make or answer a call. But you can use your cell phone, you just can't hold it to your ear.
With cell phones the other hand is never: "at the ready". In fact, the brain is attempting to do two different things at exactly the same time. With the left hand, drive the car, look in the mirrors, keep an eye on traffic. With the right hand, hold the phone to your ear and be able to concentrate on the person on the end.
While a total ban on cell phone usage will never happen and I've never advocated that (I've advocated a ban on hand held cell phone usage, not hands-free cell phone usage), and could never be enforced, a hands-free law to me is a reasonable compromise. At least two hands will be on the wheel during a conversation. I think the act of talking and holding the phone is much more detrimental to driving than the act of just talking via a hands-free kit. This seems to be what studies have found also.
I assume you mean while driving. Never is a long time. I think you will see legislation in many states banning the use of cell phones while the car is moving. It is the smart way to do it and not very hard to implement technically. The NHTSA is behind a total ban as well.
I worked under those restrictions for the last several years before retirement. It was nice not to mess with the phone in the truck while driving. We had to stop and call with the familiar words "Can You Hear Me Now?".
They don't talk to their dog and forget to "go" when it's their turn at a 4-way stop, for example!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/news_room/2001-05-08_distracted_drivers.cfm
Shows that eating in the car is a greater distraction. It meets the criteria the KD has mentioned. using the free hand and not being able to easily use that hand because it was full of food. Drinking coffee would hold the same problems. Dealing with passengers was a far greater distraction. So what have we proved? That we can pass a law to limit a distraction that is credited as being a distraction 1.5 percent of the time? But we will ignore the other distractions that are reported more than nine times more than cell phone use?
It isn't even the targeting as much as the method and reasoning. I agree we should allow the political process to work its way out. I am sure we can look forward to the political process that will restore cell phone use in the future. After all it is big business and sooner or later they will outspend the concerned citizens and we all know our politicians can't resist a buck. There is no profit in making an across the board ban on cell phone use. Other wise they wouldn't have left the hands free loop hole. I just say a small device that plugs into my cigarette lighter and broadcasts through my radio. I can use my hand held unit on my dash and not even have to have an ear piece. I wonder if the habitual cell phone users have seen this? (Sorry, that was just my humor coming out.)
I agree with the other posters, cell phones appears to constitute a bigger distraction than other driver behaviors. Let's not throw up a smokescreen and minimize this issue, because drivers do other things.
As far as the point in post 1 about text messaging, it's already covered in most legistlation. Use of hand held phones is prohibited, except via a hands-free device. That would make text messaging a ticketable offense.
If you really think that this 5 year old study is useful that doesn't even mention cell phones circa 2006, check yourself into a hospital and have them apply 2001 medical standards to your care instead of 2006 standards. My bet is you won't opt for that.
I can give a real world example. I was driving back from Indianapolis at 7 pm. Trying to call kid from car and text message to find out what the band's busses were doing in re return to school in Ohio for pickup. The phone took enough of my concentration that my wife took the steering wheel because I was moving around in the lane so much.
Same thing happened later when another parent called from their car to tell us about arrangements for parade.
I have driven many years without accident. Since traffic was light I was trying to handle the cellphone and drive. It doesn't work. It is TOO much distraction to listen, think, synthesize response, and then communicate.
Oh and as for eating, I had just finished a single with everything no cheese as I drove with no problem. Chewing and swallowing are not as distracting to the brain. Neither is talking to the dog, swatting the kids who are fighting in the back seat, and waving at the other mom in the driveway to the school.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Would agree that it does not matter whether hands-free or regular cell phone, it is the "attention" the driver gives to the conversation that diminishes his/her driving ability. Those who bring up hamburgers, makeup, reading maps, etc. are diverting attention and obfuscating the issue which is cell phones.
Some amount of brain processing that should be devoted exclusively to driving is instead frittered away for personal convenience of the driver. In a way, one could say that this is very selfish behaviour, akin to "I am a very important person and it is critical that my phone calls have to be made while driving. I cannot stop my car in a safe and legal place to make my critical call because my time is so valuable."
Except for emergencies such as reporting a recent or witnessed accident while driving, just what is so important that cannot wait. And even then, one can usually pull over and make the call. Why can't calls such as grocery lists, chatter/gossip, conducting business, etc. wait until vehicle is safely stopped or one is at home, office, destination, etc? Is there a certain amount of immaturity or lack of discipline in those who just "have" to make the call and cannot wait? Maybe someone like Dr Phil could do some studies on these "using while driving" folks. What's their problem?
If we ever get to a total U.S. ban, perhaps with enough publicity and responsible commercials by the wireless providers, the message will get through to the driving public similarly to drunken driving (DUI). There will be a stigma attached to driving and using the cell phone - Driving on Phone (DOP).
We will all see how this plays out in legislatures and in the media. Will the wireless providers step up and have TV commercials asking people to not use phone while driving? Can the wireless industry prove that it is just as responsible as the beer industry with their "designated driver" TV ads on beer commercials?
In years to come, no doubt there will be new technology, new gadgets introduced that drivers will buy and want to use in their cars. They will say they have a right to use them in the car. Those who oppose these new gadgets on grounds of safety will be accused to trying to take away the "freedoms" of the driver.
Wouldn't a reasonable person ask a question, instead of blindly quoting some study that today has nothing to do with reality?
In 2006 cell phone distraction appears to be an issue on the road. It's just one huge distraction adding to a number of smaller distractions.
So, we are all beholden to big industries?
Beer, liquor, tavern, restaurant industry is also very big, but there has been greatly increased emphasis in all of U.S. over last decade+ on reining in drunk driving. Seems like someone, some groups should be leaning on the "big" wireless industry to show some responsibility in providing guidance in the use of cell phones.
Perhaps someday we will see a high visibility court case of a family sueing a wireless provider in the case of the loss of a family member in an accident where the guilty (other) driver was on the cell phone while driving. I can imagine the judge asking the provider if they had done anything such as TV commercials or messages in phone bills to tell people to not use phones while driving. A finding against the provider, and similar cases to follow no doubt, will change people's attitudes and behaviour. Then maybe, wireless providers start to tell drivers not to use phone while driving. "Big" industries have had to change their ways in the past such as in cigarette label warnings and hot coffee warnings.
I've read a bunch of them as well. I feel the lawmakers are doing the appropriate job, given the data. I also have anecdotal stories to back up the fact the people "black out" while using the cell phones. So given all of this I support the current direction of the ban on holding the phone to your head. I agree we can't legisislate good driving behavior, but we can make it so expensive to cause a preventible fatality maybe drivers will think twice.
Maybe the better question is, why do you feel people use the cell phone while driving? What makes people feel they can do two things at once? Do manufacturers believe people will be doing things other than driving while driving? (How many cup holders does you car have.) Do you believe people even give it a second thought? Do you believe the number of people eating fast food or any food or drink is decreasing? If not why not? Just how expensive is it to not get caught?
Sorry, but no. You have provided no proof that cell phone usage has led to increased accidents and fatalities.
We are not going to ban a practice just because some people don't like it, or it it annoys them.
Which is why you try to get out of the need to offer proof of increased accidents and fatalities by continuing with this paragraph:
kdshapiro: I don't have to offer any proof at all regarding hand held phone usage. As a voter and a tax payer I can effect the legislative process accordingly.
Which I take as a white flag that no proof will be forthcoming.
Of course you can ask you legislator to "do something." I handle those requests all the time. That doesn't mean that the legislature should act upon it.
You are confusing your rights as a citizen with proof of the correctness of your position.
Interesting that I've been gone for four days and the most the cell phone ban advocates can come up with is we should ban them..."because I said so," or "The accident rate might have gone even lower if we had."
On a grading scale, I give the anti-cell phone ban posters a "B+," primarily because the opposition is so weak.
The pro side, meanwhile, was in "C-" territory when I left, and is rapidly sliding to the land of "D-."
And when you find solid proof of this, please inform us.
Until then, your post will be filed under "conjecture" as opposed to "facts."
Until then, your post will be filed under "conjecture" as opposed to "facts."
So you agree that more people have to die before you are willing to take action? Hopefully no one close to me.
Which is why you try to get out of the need to offer proof of increased accidents and fatalities by continuing with this paragraph:
Actually in spite of the opinion expressed in your post we have already started to do this. California is on board as of 2008.
Of course you can ask you legislator to "do something." I handle those requests all the time. That doesn't mean that the legislature should act upon it.
You are confusing your rights as a citizen with proof of the correctness of your position.
Actually a number of legislatures have already acted upon this issue. According to you the baby was thrown out with bath water. According to them, it's a done deal. Because you don't believe the ban is the correct thing to do, doesn't mean my position is incorrect. It means you don't agree.
Interesting that I've been gone for four days and the most the cell phone ban advocates can come up with is we should ban them..."because I said so," or "The accident rate might have gone even lower if we had.
You're whole premise is incorrect as this has already started to happen. While I support the ban, I didn't make the final vote in every state that has the ban. Somebody other than you had to see the value in this legislation. I give the lawmakers an A+ for their efforts.
If you look at the demographics of heavy cell phone use it is by young inexperienced drivers. They are invulnerable in their immature minds. They can do many tasks without losing concentration. Or at least they think they can, until they destroy their lives and others in the process.
That is what some people thought about the tobacco industry. You get enough lawsuits going against Cingular and Verizon and they will jump on the cell phone (BAN)d-wagon. It would be a simple task to lock the phone into the cell where the call originated. That would stop all calls from moving vehicles.
Until then, your post will be filed under "conjecture" as opposed to "facts."
You used that line earlier somewhere else. You need a new line.
I'll leave it to those with all the expertise to prove cellphones are not a distraction that studies have found them to be and personal experience of my own has found them to be...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I got rear ended by a cell phone user several years ago, long before they became mainstream. Since then, I keep a mental tally when I see erratic driving. My anecdotal evidence is that more than 50% of erratic driving and disconnect to the driver's environment (in California) is caused by cell-phone usage.
Some people can multi-task easily, some cannot. My wife gets amazed by the fact that I can clean both of my ears with cotton-tips, simultaneously...
When she's on the road and talking on the phone at the same time, she's a severe hazard. I may be able to handle that at ease, but I'd rather not take chances, and rarely pick up the cell while driving. I don't dial, while driving, except if I am basically the only person on the road, on a very safe stretch - else I pull over...
But I don't really have to use my phone in the car, at all. So I am all for legislation that prevents it, and/or sets strict limits on how it is done.
The only "hair" I want to split in your post is people, multi-tasking vs multi-processing. Not that we are computers, but studies have found we can do multiple things at the same time, albiet with some loss of clarity to each of the tasks, depending on what we're doing. But we can't multi-process, that is having our brain devoted exclusively to multiple tasks that require 100% brain power. An example of this might be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while mentally computing Pi to the 10th decimal place. Essentially driving and concentrating on the conversation is along the same lines, one wins, one loses.
I totally agree with that position. Would you say that we should do away with drunk driving laws because a few abuse drinking then try to drive? My experience being associated with a bar business was the crackdown on drunk drivers in San Diego had a positive affect on those that might have had one too many drinks then jumped in the car. I would be all for a law that gives a cop the right to stop anyone that is distracted while driving for any reason. For those that do not see the burgeoning problem with people talking on the phone and losing track of what they are doing while driving, just does not make sense. I do not know how you can go out on the streets and not see the problem. It is so much more prevalent than all the other distractions combined.
Maybe it is hard to see others abusing the cell phone when making a call on your own phone.
Just so you know, I have over 4500 minutes of carry over time on my cell. I hardly ever use it while driving and when I do if it is a long conversation I will pull over. But I have been known to talk for up to five minutes on the way to Stateline or coming back just to get caught up or maybe to talk with my son during one of the few times we can talk from Iraq. So I have plenty of time to observe people going 90 in a 70. I have seen people doing 70 in a 70 with a spare temporary spare on their car. I have watched as they leave a bar and jump in their cars to get on the freeway, knowing that unless they get pulled over the second they hit the street that might not blow more than .07. I get to see people eating Pizza and trying to avoid the cheese as it falls towards their shirt. I have watched as men shave and women put on makeup and I have yet to see a law passed against such an activity. Nor do I believe we need one. Is it just me or does this ban sound just a bit like, "everyone has to stay after school because Billy was passing notes."?
That would do it. Not sure though if it would be that simple, needing changes in hardware/software at all cell sites and mobile switching centers. Of course a total U.S. ban would be needed and then subsequent court hearings about legality of ban challenged by wireless providers. Who would win? Maybe it won't come to that.
The scientists/engineers who designed cell systems were ingenious to invent a technology to be able to "pass" off calls to next cell when travelling. This was heralded as a blessing back around 1980 rather than the scourge that it turned out to be. Bell Labs among others apparently did not research drivers' thought/attention processes and the effects on driving ability of cell phone conversation.
I think it is also. Since it is difficult to tell if someone is drunk without stopping and testing we stop anyone that we might suspect is drunk. That is the crux of the cell phone ban. There is no good way to know if someone is abusing the cell phone while driving unless you see them doing something stupid. That to me would be the way it should be enforced. I would include the pizza and shaving in the law. I doubt Pizza Hut or Gillette would spend any money fighting the law.
Since we seem to be splitting hairs, the "drinking and driving" laws do exist. Try having an open container or a drink in your car when stopped in most states.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But to get back to the root of the problem, if you stand on a street corner and observe drivers on the cell phone, one understands what the issue is. Unlike drunk driving where it is impossible to escape from the effects of the alcohol, a drivers attention is restored the nanosecond the phone goes down.
And unlike other posters have suggested, we should not have to wait for needless fatalities before this issue is addressed.
I have no problem in putting down the cell phone while driving, why should you? A hands-free kit can be used and still be within the law. I do not see what the issue is.
You make excellent points. Some European countries have a zero level of alcohol in blood for drivers. And, if caught with any alcohol level then severe consequences.
Seems like a good direction for U.S. Total ban of talking on cell phone (hands free or otherwise) while driver AND a zero level of blood alcohol for all drivers. A great twofer. But, as others pointing out, will be huge resistance by wireless providers and restaurant/bar industry.
Believe they were being field-trialed by engineers/developers in 1979-1981 time frame. First general availability in U.S. perhaps about 1982?
We've already had phones for years, yet the world still spins on its axis and fatality rates continue to fall.
If you can't illustrate any problems based upon years of experience with these phones, then why should we pass laws on the basis of something that might happen?
If disaster was looming, it would have happened already.