By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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.