Makes you want to cry doesn't it? The passion to save a life, the pleading to believe the studies, if only the parts that support banning hand helds and simply deciding that to use hands free even if they are lumped in with hand helds in the study.
It is hard to understand how if someone is so concerned with the saving of even one life even to the point or being overly cautious and yet they themselves would continue to use the distracting device that has cause such concern in the first place.
If this isn't simply an emotional issue how can we debate someone that feels we need a law to stem rudeness and someone that believes a study showing cell phone use, both hand held and hands free, is distracting and claims they cause accidents; But will continue to use a hands free unit themselves?
The sides have simply drawn a line in the sand. Some of us believe that moderate use of the cell phone should be permitted. Some would punish everyone for the behavior of others. That to me is just like keeping everyone after school because Johnny was talking during a test. It doesn't make everyone hate Johnny it only makes the students made at the teacher. Punishing responsible people for the actions of irresponsible people is at the core of socialistic insanity. As the saying goes, if you give up freedom for security you have neither.
"Some of us believe that moderate use of the cell phone should be permitted. Some would punish everyone for the behavior of others."
1. Why are drunk driving laws in place? Why not just allow one drunk to drive without getting arrested? 2. Why are we screened for guns and other stuff before getting on aircraft? Why not allow good people with honest intentions the ability to carry firepower on aircraft?
"As the saying goes, if you give up freedom for security you have neither."
As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with people who believe they should be the exception.
You know what you just asked don't you? That very law supports my point. I do not drink and driver at all ever. If we applied cell phone laws like we do drunk driving laws I could use a hand held unit for a specified period of time. In the case of Alcohol I can consume enough to raise my blood level to .07 and still drive if I drank. However I do not now support a law banning drinking all together. And if they ever passed such a law it wouldn't effect me at all. Because some people do drive drunk they did not pass a law saying no one who has had a drink of alcohol can drive. They only limited it to the abusive people. It is that way in every state by the way.
And while they do no allow us to go packing on a plane neither do they allow my Pilot to have anything to drink something like 12 hours before he flies a commercial aircraft. Should we apply that ban to all types of transportation, even private?
If we applied the same standards to every distraction as some are saying we should to cell phones one of the studies you quoted said cell useage slows a 20 year olds reaction time to that of a 60 year old, maybe it was a 70 year old. Whatever the case if that reaction was so important shouldn't we ban 70 year old drivers? But we didn't because that was acceptable. Because the same quick reaction time 20 year olds were involved in more accidents than 30 year olds quick reaction time or not. From studies we could decrease deaths and accident by 25 percent simply by doing away with drivers under 25. But we don't. Because we can be reasonable with our laws at times. Drunk driving laws have a bit of reason to them. A total ban against a distraction does not if that distraction is not the number one cause of accidents.
Because some people do drive drunk they did not pass a law saying no one who has had a drink of alcohol can drive. They only limited it to the abusive people. It is that way in every state by the way.
And the abusive people continue to drive drunk. With the lowering of the BAC limits the responsible people that used to comply with the old limit now drink less or not at all. Someone willing to ignore a .10 limit is still going to ignore a .08 or .05 as many people propose lowering it to. I'm not saying DUI laws are bad because at least they address a very real and statistically identifiable problem, unlike cell phone laws. However DUI or drug laws in general are a good example of the limited effectiveness of many of our laws.
The analogy that was made about carrying firearms on an aircraft is ludicrous. That only represents an inconvenience to the person that planned on using his gun during the flight and most people would agree that represents a far more dangerous situation than using a cell phone while driving. Not to mention that law is actually enforceable, which is another criteria that a law should meet before being enacted. Now a ban on guns entirely would have been a better example. There are clearly some responsible gun owners and others that use guns in a reckless or criminal manner. Should the responsible gun owner be penalized for the actions of the criminal? Some would say yes but I'd disagree.
"I plan on obeying the law to the same extent that most cell phone opponents obey the speed limits."
This statement is ludicrous. I personally don't care if you obey the law or not and I hope you are not the victim in an car crash of a "safe" cell phone driver... one who was just being told by his girlfriend to pick up milk.
"I plan on obeying the law to the same extent that most cell phone opponents obey the speed limits."
This statement is ludicrous.
No it's not ludicrous. There are people adamently opposed to cell phone usage that feel comfortable in their ability to determine when it is safe to exceed the speed limit. I agree, and there are also people that can recognize when it is safe to use a cell phone. I've read all of your posts but I'd appreciate some clarification. Is it your position that it is never safe to use a cell phone while driving?
"No it's not ludicrous. There are people adamently opposed to cell phone usage that feel comfortable in their ability to determine when it is safe to exceed the speed limit. I agree, and there are also people that can recognize when it is safe to use a cell phone."
Okay, so I'll bite. Yes it is a matter of degree. However, most of the time cell phone usage is totally inappropriate to the driving situation. Here's a for instance. Driving at 65, guy next to me is tailgating the car in front of him at 1/2 car length, yakking on the cell phone. Fatality waiting to happen. I think for that type of stupidity is a matter of time.
Going 10 mph down an empty stree, probably always ok to use a cell phone. Disclaimer: It's just my opinion and not a reflection of local law. I am still going to obey the cell phone laws as I do the speed limits.
BTW. the number cited in the NEJM could place up to 12% of the accidents attributable to cell phone use. That's a staggering percentage.
This is precisely the sort of soundbite that should tell you that these factoids are completely bogus.
If the 12% figure had any basis in reality whatsoever, then we should have seen New York's fatality rate fall through the floor after enacting its law. Obviously, that didn't even come close to happening.
It's obvious why it didn't -- because people cause crashes, objects don't. You can pass all the laws you like, but unless you take keys away from bad drivers, they will keep driving and keep causing wrecks. If you want to reduce crash rates, you need to target the 1/7th of drivers who are involved in 2/3rds of the crashes, not the 2/3rd's who aren't.
"This is precisely the sort of soundbite that should tell you that these factoids are completely bogus."
The number of fatalities went up from 2004 and 2005. Even as some contend, it's the motorcycles, there is no way to understand the root cause of most of the accidents, even the motorcyles. Speed related could mean cell phone related.
The study did not say, cell phones would cause 12% more accidents, they said 12% of the accident base could be attributable to cell phones.
So out of the 6 million accidents and 40 thousand deaths, you don't know how many were caused by cell phone inattention. You may never know.
As these bans take effect and people stop dying on the highways due cell phone usage, you'll keep saying: "Why do we need these laws..nobody's dying?"
Yes. Nobody drives like that in a death defying manuever unless they are out of it.
So you are actually claiming that tailgating is attributed solely to phone usage? I could have sworn that tailgating had been around a lot longer than cell phones!
"So you are actually claiming that tailgating is attributed solely to phone usage? I could have sworn that tailgating had been around a lot longer than cell phones!"
Yes, in this instance I am claiming the cell phone user was focusing on the phone conversation, not the driving.
"I could have sworn that tailgating had been around a lot longer than cell phones!"
Wow, druken behavior has also been around a lot longer than cars. So what?
You believe cell phones are safe and the studies and statistics support that assumption. I believe that is a very myopic view. We are at an impasse and therefore it is not worth continuing this line of conversation. You are extrapolating data that doesn't exist into a conclusion. I have made my point, you disagree. You have made your point, I disagree. We agree to disagree or we disagree to disagree. Either way, I'm not continuing this line of discussion.
You believe cell phones are safe and the studies and statistics support that assumption.
This is NOT what I'm saying. We can't have a discussion if you're going to misunderstand the argument.
The broader point is that "accidents" are rooted in behaviors, that tend to be exceptionally bad in a minority of drivers, and are not caused by devices.
Tailgating is unsafe, whether or not you're on the phone. There's no reason to ASSUME that aggressive drivers become Mother Teresa after phone laws are enacted. Tailgating existed long before anyone even thought of inventing the cell phone.
"Tailgating existed long before anyone even thought of inventing the cell phone."
Ok, so I won't talk about the numbers, let's talk about driver behaviors. Tailgating, swerving into the other lane, erratic driving behaviors, failures to yield all existed before cell phones. Ever see a driver behind you on the cell phone, erratic behaviors and inablity to keep a car moving straight down the road. If anything else, that is driver distraction caused by cell phone use. Driver distraction is bad, but this behavior can keep on for minutes not seconds.
If anything else, that is driver distraction caused by cell phone use.
Right. And the studies indicate that the average distraction time is minimal -- 13/100ths of second. So we're back to turning molehills into mountains again!
This debate seems to be winding down. The positions have been expressed and the studies have been posted and still we can't see eye to eye. I just don't know how they settled on Cell phones as the spearhead target. In the forums here at edmunds there are over 700 post describing Navigation and GPS systems being offered in cars today. Listening to the positive responses by the consumers of these devices seems at odds with the objections so many have over cell phones. People are debating 3 inch screens verses 7 inch screens and having backup GPS devices for when they happen to change cars. I am old school compared to these people because I use a Lap top with a 13 inch screen and map program that covers the whole us. But the key thing is they are all using this device while driving and it has to take more than 13/100th of a second to use one or read it or follow its directions. I know I can get a GPS unit to plug into my lap top to get a moving street by street map of my location but you have to wonder how we can use these devices and not be distracted? It might be because some of us can decide to use these things when distractions are not as much of a problem but I am just as sure there are people that believe we should ban these devices as well.
Most of the nav devices cannot be fiddled with unless the car is in park. In addition, when they are turned on there are disclaimers about liability. Once a nav device is set, you shouldn't have to look at it again, the voice directions should guide you. My $10 phone app VZ Nav does, why wouldn't a $3000 nav setup?
Let's say we disagree about the use of numbers to prove a point. Other studies have suggested a hand held cell phone operator has the driving capacity of a drunk driver while using the phone. That is not 13/1000ths of a second.
Other studies have suggested a hand held cell phone operator has the driving capacity of a drunk driver while using the phone.
And we should all know how absurd that is, being that the real world results don't correlate with that soundbite.
Let's say for the sake of argument that phones can be blamed for an average distraction of 13/100ths of a second, as the studies indicate. What happens at the end of the 13/100ths of a second? The sober driver on the phone now goes into reaction mode, as would any other sober driver.
In contrast, let's say a drunk driver not on the phone now has to react to a situation, and for the sake of argument, we'll pretend that the reaction time for the drunk driver is exactly the same. Guess what happens in this case -- the drunk driver cannot respond as would a sober driver because his motor skills remain impaired from the alcohol. Not only is the reaction time different, but the actual quality of the reaction also differs because of the intoxication. You don't get double vision from using a phone.
It is simply absurd to compare the loss of reaction time attributed to driver inattention and the actions of a drunk driver who continues to have diminished motor skills after the reaction time has begun. It's a great soundbite, but apply a bit of basic analysis to it and the statement completely falls apart.
I watch, every day, someone trying to carry on a cell phone conversation that can't keep it between the white lines. Hang it up. Pull it over to the side of the road before you kill someone.
"And we should all know how absurd that is, being that the real world results don't correlate with that soundbite."
Ok, here we go again. You don't know what the real world results are. The NEJM in its' study says that up to 12% of car crashes could be attributable to cell phone users. So I'm going to take that 12% and say that 720,000 accidents a year are attributable to cell phone users. The problem is this conjecture is mostly theoretical, since it can't be proven or disproven with todays methods and data collection.
So theoretically we can eliminate 720K accidents a year and save maybe a billion dollars, if people would put down their cell phones. Seems like a win/win to me.
So I'm going to take that 12% and say that 720,000 accidents a year are attributable to cell phone users.
So why can't you name a single example of accident rates falling to match these figures once these laws are enacted?
If phones are the problem that you claim, then this should be a piece of cake. The fact that you can't claim any such thing shows you how ridiculous this claim is.
"So why can't you name a single example of accident rates falling to match these figures once these laws are enacted?"
You're right. Based on an extremely small sample from one state for a short period of of, I can't prove they have fallen, but I can prove the fatality rate rose between 2004 and 2006. The fact the accident rate rate fell however, may have something to do with the ban even though data collection is nill.Until there is a national tracking system, we will not be able to prove or disprove anything.
That is why these laws make sense, at some level this can now be tracked.
But I still estimate at least 720,000 accidents a year could be attributable to cell phone usage.
That's disingenuous, and you know it. Three years of data from a state with 19 million people is not a small sample, by any stretch of the imagination.
And what about the other countries that also enacted such laws? They also haven't had these stellar results that you claim.
You have 40+ examples to choose from, yet you can't find one that proves your point. That kind of batting average doesn't win any games.
Well, let's face the facts....If it it were not for kdshapiro and pch101....we could probably ELIMINATE this forum. For EVERY kdshapiro statement... pch101 has a rebuttal and vice versa!!!!
"That's disingenuous, and you know it. Three years of data from a state with 19 million people is not a small sample, by any stretch of the imagination."
Went over this point previously.
Here is an recap of some of the information to date about cell phones. Please choose the study that most closely matches your position.
"Well, let's face the facts....If it it were not for kdshapiro and pch101....we could probably ELIMINATE this forum. For EVERY kdshapiro statement... pch101 has a rebuttal and vice versa!!!!"
I may not have all of the answers, but the lawmakers still see something pch101 misses. I wonder what information they have that we don't. They obviously aren't analysing NHTSAs information correctly. Or using the information (or lack thereof) coming from NY as guide. I wonder what information they are reviewing?
I notice more and more that people in stores are on the phone and oblivious to where they're going. I have people at the UDF act like I did something wrong when I show up next to them when they almost walk into me. I just give them my blank look of "Duhhhhh."
As far as I'm concerned cell phone usage while driving should be against the law.
Very few conversations are that important.
So is that the criteria for prohibiting a behavior, that it's not that important? By that rational you could ban just about everything. If talking on a cell phone while driving can be done safely then whether or not the conversation is important is irrelevant.
I hear these examples of people seeing drivers swerve all over the place while on their cell phone. So is that proof of how dangerous an activity this is? I've seen plenty of drivers on cell phones that were driving just fine. Is that proof of its safety? The answer is that neither is proof of anything, to draw a conclusion is purely anecdotal. There is no data to support how dangerous these studies claim cell phone usage is. So the question becomes, should laws be based upon studies or real world data?
I have no doubt that using a cell phone while driving creates a level of distraction, which reduces reaction time. So why isn't this causing more accidents? It is certainly a paradox much like the fatality/accident rate going down when speed limits are raised or in the temporary case of Montana eliminated completely. The authors of these studies should be trying to figure out why their conclusions aren't supported by the numbers. There is clearly something going on that is mitigating the distracting effects of the cell phone.
"So is that the criteria for prohibiting a behavior,"
No that is an opinion.
"So is that proof of how dangerous an activity this is?"
Commmon sense would say yes. Common sense would also say drunk driving is bad. Yet for years there were no laws on the books prohibiting it.
"I have no doubt that using a cell phone while driving creates a level of distraction, which reduces reaction time. So why isn't this causing more accidents?"
More than 720,000 (12%)? That's a lot of accidents that could be attributable to cell phone usage according to the data potentially observed from one study.
Raising the speed limits from 55 to 65-75 reduces your time to react by up to 30%, which should essentially have the same effect as slowing your ability to react by this much. In addition the stopping distance increases more than linearly. Common sense and numerous studies stated that this should significantly increase the number of accidents and fatalities. It didn't. How can this be explained? The one thing that it did prove is that studies are not always good predictors.
If talking on a cell phone while driving can be done safely then whether or not the conversation is important is irrelevant. .....I have no doubt that using a cell phone while driving creates a level of distraction, which reduces reaction time.
Great. Question of whether driving and using cell phone is safe raised and answered by tpe. TPE has no doubt that it reduces reaction time. Any reduction of reaction time also reduces safety. There is no rational argument that would say that reducing reaction time has no effect on safety.
Much has been written on this board about "reaction" time. Think this means time from when an incident (such as opposing car moving toward and over center line of two-lane road) actually starts (time of day to say thousandth of second) to when the cell phone using driver actually starts (time of day) to execute a responsive action such as steering change. It would seem that there at least three actions of cell phone driver that are affected.
First would be a delay in recognizing the deviation of car in opposing lane. Second would be delay in brain processing to determine what should be done. Third would be delay in signals to hand(s)/feet to execute a counter action.
Within last month, I was on a two-lane highway in a slight curve section with light traffic perhaps going 50-55 mph in both directions. I had both hands on steering wheel and of course was not on the cell phone. Suddenly, an opposing car (Accord) veered toward double yellow center line and actually came over maybe about one foot. I was attentively watching and quickly moved car right so right side wheels were near edge of pavement. Did not have to go on shoulder, but was ready. I did not notice whether or not Accord driver was holding cell phone. Was too busy. But, I wondered after that if I would have reacted later, or if at all, if I had been busy gabbing on the cell phone.
Think that it is impossible to infer anything about trends of accident/fatality/injury rates and relationship to cell phone driver use. It is not possible to legitimately claim that driver cell phone use is OK because the accident rate might be stable or improving. As has been pointed out on this board many times in past, there are numerous factors/variables at play that work toward improving the rates. Some of these are:
Each year sees more vehicles in U.S. population with improved crash worthiness (structure), improved protection (front, side, curtain air bags), improved handling/brakes/tires/abs/stability control/etc. All of these work to either avoid the accident/crash to begin with or mitigate serious injury in event of crash.
Each year sees improvments in medicine/surgery to treat injured and otherwise save from fatality.
EMT improvements in response time and treatment at scene and enroute to hospital.
Improvements in road configurations, surfaces, intersections, turn lanes, roadway hazard mitigation, signage and so forth.
Continued attention by media, law enforcement and others about dangers of drunk driving. Stiff penalties and jail time for accidents caused by drunk drivers (my area),
These are the things that work toward improving the rates. Wonder how much better the rates might be if cell phones had not been invented.
Great. Question of whether driving and using cell phone is safe raised and answered by tpe. TPE has no doubt that it reduces reaction time. Any reduction of reaction time also reduces safety. There is no rational argument that would say that reducing reaction time has no effect on safety.
You took my comment somewhat out of context. I compared the reduced reaction time to driving at higher speeds, should have the same affect. Why didn't it? Or, maybe it did. You went on to describe how vehicles and roads have become safer and that is potentially offsetting the danger of cell phones. Maybe its doing the same for traffic moving at higher speeds. My point is that if you oppose cell phones because they cause more accidents and fatalities then you should also oppose higher speed limits. You can't state that higher limits haven't made the roads less safe by referency accident/fatality rates and dismiss these same stats when it comes to cell phones. How many of the posters that are in favor of cell phone bans would also like to see a reduction in our speed limits? The main benefit of driving 75 as opposed to 55 is the convenience of arriving at your destination a little earlier. A case of trading convenience for safety, just like using a cell phone while driving. I commented a while back how receiving a call while on the way home saved me 30 minutes from having to make a separate trip. The general response was 30 minutes isn't all that important. Maybe not, then lets roll back the speed limits to 55 because you'd have to drive a pretty long way before that cost you 30 minutes.
"A case of trading convenience for safety, just like using a cell phone while driving"
In the states that ban hand held cell phone usage, you cause injury or fatalaties while using a cell phone, and it can be proved, it will cost a pretty penny. Not every legally drunk driver will cause an accident, not every cell phone user will cause an accident. There is enough information to studies to prove using hand held cell phones are far from safe.
The ones I have posted dated in Conjunction with AAA and NHTSA dates as late as 2006 state that while cell phone use is the most common distraction it only accounts for 1.3 percent of the accidents when measured against the other distractions. Eating came in at 1.7. They measured these activities as having taken place within 3 seconds of the accident happening. Fiddling with the Radio/CD player and fellow passenger distractions accounted for nine times as many accidents. Nine times more chances for someone to run into you. And nine times more reported as the activity that was taking place only three seconds or less before the accident occurred. But what Do Universities and NHTSA know? And common sense these us that what ever activity is most often causing the distraction should be the most common activity taking place during an accident. But it isn't so common since isn't science. Accident rates were dropping even with the increase of cell phone use and if cell phones were the cause that shouldn't happen. So it isn't science it is opinion about why and how often people are using cell phones. The whole issue simply comes down to some people not approving of cell phone use and deciding they don't solve more problems or save more lives than the risk. NHTSA says they have saved some lives because quick response to emergency situations reported by cell phone users. But some would say the 1.3 percent of the accidents they cause are not worth the risk.
No I am not going to post the study again because it isn't the studies that are being talked about. It isn't the lives saved or lost it is the attitude about cell phone use in cars. The dreaded animal called the "Ya-but" runs free in forums like this.
The NJEM posted a study where the concluded cell phones could account for up to 12% of the accidents. That could mean up to 720,000 accidents.
That other study found that the 241 drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes and 8,295 critical incidents. What? I don't buy that, they picked the worst of the worst to study? Just because someone sets out to study a problem, doesn't mean they have defined the problem or the study correctly.
OHOH, here's a study that profile driving behaviors or normal, legally drunk and cell phone users while driving:
kdshapiro: The number of fatalities went up from 2004 and 2005. Even as some contend, it's the motorcycles, there is no way to understand the root cause of most of the accidents, even the motorcyles. Speed related could mean cell phone related.
But you seem to have no problem blaming a certain percentage of accidents on cell phone usage, even though you admit that "there is no way to understand the root cause of most of the accidents..."
If we want to prevent accidents, we need to know what causes them in the first place.
And people do more than "contend" that the increase in fatalities from 2005 to 2004 was caused by motorcycles. They know it, as NHTSA breaks out motorcycle fatalities from motor vehicle fatalities, and reports them in a separate column. It's a matter of comparing the number of motorcycle fatalities in 2004 to those in 2005.
kdshapiro: The study did not say, cell phones would cause 12% more accidents, they said 12% of the accident base could be attributable to cell phones.
And if the operative in the study word is "could," then it leaves the field for blame wide open, and thus becomes basically worthless.
kdshapiro: So out of the 6 million accidents and 40 thousand deaths, you don't know how many were caused by cell phone inattention. You may never know.
And neither do you, and since you are the one pushing for legislative action, you bear the burden of proof.
kdshapiro: As these bans take effect and people stop dying on the highways due cell phone usage, you'll keep saying: "Why do we need these laws..nobody's dying?"
First you have to prove that cell phone usage is causing accidents, which have you not. I'd suggest clearing this hurdle before progressing on to steps 2, 3 and 4.
"But you seem to have no problem blaming a certain percentage of accidents on cell phone usage, even though you admit that "there is no way to understand the root cause of most of the accidents..."
Correct. I am only extrapolating certain data reported in studies.
"And if the operative in the study word is "could," then it leaves the field for blame wide open, and thus becomes basically worthless."
I absolutely agree that either it can be worthless or hold a lot value.
"And neither do you, and since you are the one pushing for legislative action, you bear the burden of proof"
Actually, this is where we disagree. Seems the lawmakers who are making the laws are drawing the same conclusions as me. It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to note that laws against drunk driving are good. Same with cell phones.
"First you have to prove that cell phone usage is causing accidents, which have you not. I'd suggest clearing this hurdle before progressing on to steps 2, 3 and 4."
Actually, it's already a done deal. As laws are already on the books for this an California is next in 2008.
"When you show a better understanding of the difference between what constitutes a "fact" and "conjecture," I will."
I agree there is a lot of conjecture. But thankfully the lawmakers believe or conjecture that cell phone usage while driving is inherently unsafe. They are correct. While hard to quantify how many accidents and how many fatalities are attributable to cell phone users, there is enough evidence to warrant the question: "Should hand held cell phone use be banned in moving vehicles".
The states involved have taken a half way step, by outlawing hand held phone usage. Hands free usage is allowed. I would think you pro-cell phone users would be real happy, it's a win-win for all involved. No negatives except to those who believe cell phone usage should be banned entirely.
I wonder with all the legislative effort and expense going into the cellphone issue, if someone hits me while eating/drinking/smoking while driving, if I could sue the government (any agency) for negligence as they jumped on one "scare the braying masses" bandwagon (phones) while ignoring other strong evils (everything else)? I mean, we all know the others cause AT LEAST as many issues as phone yappers, yet nothing is done, because even the anti-phone people drink/eat/smoke behind the wheel...
"Actually, it's already a done deal. As laws are already on the books for this an California is next in 2008"
Deflection, that addresses nothing in regards to any proof which has been endlessly demanded and never shown. Overpaid underworked irresponsible egoistic politicos and their decisions don't mean any proof is involved.
"Deflection, that addresses nothing in regards to any proof which has been endlessly demanded and never shown. Overpaid underworked irresponsible egoistic politicos and their decisions don't mean any proof is involved."
You keep missing the point, this is not a theoretical discussion. I don't have to show or demonstrate anything. All I have to do is point, and there is information about why using hand held cell phones driving is a bad thing or a very very bad thing. Lawmakers agree, it is a bad thing.
Because something hasn't been proven to your satisfaction, doesn't mean the legistlation is bad. You probably want a vast amount of carnage on the highway attributed to cell phone usage before you will accept any idea cell phone usage while driving is a bad thing. Maybe with this legislation this unnecessary carnage can be avoided.
But thankfully the lawmakers believe or conjecture that cell phone usage while driving is inherently unsafe. They are correct.
Yes what would we do without our brilliant lawmakers solving social ills with the stroke of a pen.
Even MADD has recently come out in favor of a more high tech approach to keeping drunk drivers off the road. I guess they've realized the limited effectiveness of legislation.
Comments
It is hard to understand how if someone is so concerned with the saving of even one life even to the point or being overly cautious and yet they themselves would continue to use the distracting device that has cause such concern in the first place.
If this isn't simply an emotional issue how can we debate someone that feels we need a law to stem rudeness and someone that believes a study showing cell phone use, both hand held and hands free, is distracting and claims they cause accidents; But will continue to use a hands free unit themselves?
The sides have simply drawn a line in the sand. Some of us believe that moderate use of the cell phone should be permitted. Some would punish everyone for the behavior of others. That to me is just like keeping everyone after school because Johnny was talking during a test. It doesn't make everyone hate Johnny it only makes the students made at the teacher. Punishing responsible people for the actions of irresponsible people is at the core of socialistic insanity. As the saying goes, if you give up freedom for security you have neither.
1. Why are drunk driving laws in place? Why not just allow one drunk to drive without getting arrested?
2. Why are we screened for guns and other stuff before getting on aircraft? Why not allow good people with honest intentions the ability to carry firepower on aircraft?
"As the saying goes, if you give up freedom for security you have neither."
As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with people who believe they should be the exception.
And while they do no allow us to go packing on a plane neither do they allow my Pilot to have anything to drink something like 12 hours before he flies a commercial aircraft. Should we apply that ban to all types of transportation, even private?
If we applied the same standards to every distraction as some are saying we should to cell phones one of the studies you quoted said cell useage slows a 20 year olds reaction time to that of a 60 year old, maybe it was a 70 year old. Whatever the case if that reaction was so important shouldn't we ban 70 year old drivers? But we didn't because that was acceptable. Because the same quick reaction time 20 year olds were involved in more accidents than 30 year olds quick reaction time or not. From studies we could decrease deaths and accident by 25 percent simply by doing away with drivers under 25. But we don't. Because we can be reasonable with our laws at times. Drunk driving laws have a bit of reason to them. A total ban against a distraction does not if that distraction is not the number one cause of accidents.
And the abusive people continue to drive drunk. With the lowering of the BAC limits the responsible people that used to comply with the old limit now drink less or not at all. Someone willing to ignore a .10 limit is still going to ignore a .08 or .05 as many people propose lowering it to. I'm not saying DUI laws are bad because at least they address a very real and statistically identifiable problem, unlike cell phone laws. However DUI or drug laws in general are a good example of the limited effectiveness of many of our laws.
The analogy that was made about carrying firearms on an aircraft is ludicrous. That only represents an inconvenience to the person that planned on using his gun during the flight and most people would agree that represents a far more dangerous situation than using a cell phone while driving. Not to mention that law is actually enforceable, which is another criteria that a law should meet before being enacted. Now a ban on guns entirely would have been a better example. There are clearly some responsible gun owners and others that use guns in a reckless or criminal manner. Should the responsible gun owner be penalized for the actions of the criminal? Some would say yes but I'd disagree.
This statement is ludicrous. I personally don't care if you obey the law or not and I hope you are not the victim in an car crash of a "safe" cell phone driver... one who was just being told by his girlfriend to pick up milk.
Not quite, you are either legally intoxicated or you are not. You are either using the phone or you are not.
"A total ban against a distraction does not if that distraction is not the number one cause of accidents."
Up to 12% of all accidents could be attributable to cell phones usage. If that is not near the top of the list I would be surprised.
This statement is ludicrous.
No it's not ludicrous. There are people adamently opposed to cell phone usage that feel comfortable in their ability to determine when it is safe to exceed the speed limit. I agree, and there are also people that can recognize when it is safe to use a cell phone. I've read all of your posts but I'd appreciate some clarification. Is it your position that it is never safe to use a cell phone while driving?
Okay, so I'll bite. Yes it is a matter of degree. However, most of the time cell phone usage is totally inappropriate to the driving situation. Here's a for instance. Driving at 65, guy next to me is tailgating the car in front of him at 1/2 car length, yakking on the cell phone. Fatality waiting to happen. I think for that type of stupidity is a matter of time.
Going 10 mph down an empty stree, probably always ok to use a cell phone. Disclaimer: It's just my opinion and not a reflection of local law. I am still going to obey the cell phone laws as I do the speed limits.
Well if you're consistent that definitely gives you more credibility than others.
This is precisely the sort of soundbite that should tell you that these factoids are completely bogus.
If the 12% figure had any basis in reality whatsoever, then we should have seen New York's fatality rate fall through the floor after enacting its law. Obviously, that didn't even come close to happening.
It's obvious why it didn't -- because people cause crashes, objects don't. You can pass all the laws you like, but unless you take keys away from bad drivers, they will keep driving and keep causing wrecks. If you want to reduce crash rates, you need to target the 1/7th of drivers who are involved in 2/3rds of the crashes, not the 2/3rd's who aren't.
Do you honestly believe that this driver you've described tailgates only while on the phone?
The number of fatalities went up from 2004 and 2005. Even as some contend, it's the motorcycles, there is no way to understand the root cause of most of the accidents, even the motorcyles. Speed related could mean cell phone related.
The study did not say, cell phones would cause 12% more accidents, they said 12% of the accident base could be attributable to cell phones.
So out of the 6 million accidents and 40 thousand deaths, you don't know how many were caused by cell phone inattention. You may never know.
As these bans take effect and people stop dying on the highways due cell phone usage, you'll keep saying: "Why do we need these laws..nobody's dying?"
Yes. Nobody drives like that in a death defying manuever unless they are out of it.
So you are actually claiming that tailgating is attributed solely to phone usage? I could have sworn that tailgating had been around a lot longer than cell phones!
Yes, in this instance I am claiming the cell phone user was focusing on the phone conversation, not the driving.
"I could have sworn that tailgating had been around a lot longer than cell phones!"
Wow, druken behavior has also been around a lot longer than cars. So what?
You believe cell phones are safe and the studies and statistics support that assumption. I believe that is a very myopic view. We are at an impasse and therefore it is not worth continuing this line of conversation. You are extrapolating data that doesn't exist into a conclusion. I have made my point, you disagree. You have made your point, I disagree. We agree to disagree or we disagree to disagree. Either way, I'm not continuing this line of discussion.
This is NOT what I'm saying. We can't have a discussion if you're going to misunderstand the argument.
The broader point is that "accidents" are rooted in behaviors, that tend to be exceptionally bad in a minority of drivers, and are not caused by devices.
Tailgating is unsafe, whether or not you're on the phone. There's no reason to ASSUME that aggressive drivers become Mother Teresa after phone laws are enacted. Tailgating existed long before anyone even thought of inventing the cell phone.
Ok, so I won't talk about the numbers, let's talk about driver behaviors. Tailgating, swerving into the other lane, erratic driving behaviors, failures to yield all existed before cell phones. Ever see a driver behind you on the cell phone, erratic behaviors and inablity to keep a car moving straight down the road. If anything else, that is driver distraction caused by cell phone use. Driver distraction is bad, but this behavior can keep on for minutes not seconds.
Right. And the studies indicate that the average distraction time is minimal -- 13/100ths of second. So we're back to turning molehills into mountains again!
And we should all know how absurd that is, being that the real world results don't correlate with that soundbite.
Let's say for the sake of argument that phones can be blamed for an average distraction of 13/100ths of a second, as the studies indicate. What happens at the end of the 13/100ths of a second? The sober driver on the phone now goes into reaction mode, as would any other sober driver.
In contrast, let's say a drunk driver not on the phone now has to react to a situation, and for the sake of argument, we'll pretend that the reaction time for the drunk driver is exactly the same. Guess what happens in this case -- the drunk driver cannot respond as would a sober driver because his motor skills remain impaired from the alcohol. Not only is the reaction time different, but the actual quality of the reaction also differs because of the intoxication. You don't get double vision from using a phone.
It is simply absurd to compare the loss of reaction time attributed to driver inattention and the actions of a drunk driver who continues to have diminished motor skills after the reaction time has begun. It's a great soundbite, but apply a bit of basic analysis to it and the statement completely falls apart.
I watch, every day, someone trying to carry on a cell phone conversation that can't keep it between the white lines. Hang it up. Pull it over to the side of the road before you kill someone.
Ok, here we go again. You don't know what the real world results are. The NEJM in its' study says that up to 12% of car crashes could be attributable to cell phone users. So I'm going to take that 12% and say that 720,000 accidents a year are attributable to cell phone users. The problem is this conjecture is mostly theoretical, since it can't be proven or disproven with todays methods and data collection.
So theoretically we can eliminate 720K accidents a year and save maybe a billion dollars, if people would put down their cell phones. Seems like a win/win to me.
So why can't you name a single example of accident rates falling to match these figures once these laws are enacted?
If phones are the problem that you claim, then this should be a piece of cake. The fact that you can't claim any such thing shows you how ridiculous this claim is.
You're right. Based on an extremely small sample from one state for a short period of of, I can't prove they have fallen, but I can prove the fatality rate rose between 2004 and 2006. The fact the accident rate rate fell however, may have something to do with the ban even though data collection is nill.Until there is a national tracking system, we will not be able to prove or disprove anything.
That is why these laws make sense, at some level this can now be tracked.
But I still estimate at least 720,000 accidents a year could be attributable to cell phone usage.
That's disingenuous, and you know it. Three years of data from a state with 19 million people is not a small sample, by any stretch of the imagination.
And what about the other countries that also enacted such laws? They also haven't had these stellar results that you claim.
You have 40+ examples to choose from, yet you can't find one that proves your point. That kind of batting average doesn't win any games.
Went over this point previously.
Here is an recap of some of the information to date about cell phones. Please choose the study that most closely matches your position.
Click here
Click here
I may not have all of the answers, but the lawmakers still see something pch101 misses. I wonder what information they have that we don't. They obviously aren't analysing NHTSAs information correctly. Or using the information (or lack thereof) coming from NY as guide. I wonder what information they are reviewing?
As far as I'm concerned cell phone usage while driving should be against the law.
Very few conversations are that important.
I can't tell you how many times I have watched someone totally involved in a conversation not paying attention to their driving!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Come on, someone has to mind the store until Tpe and Boaz get back. I'd phone them to ask, but I'm busy driving...
Very few conversations are that important.
So is that the criteria for prohibiting a behavior, that it's not that important? By that rational you could ban just about everything. If talking on a cell phone while driving can be done safely then whether or not the conversation is important is irrelevant.
I hear these examples of people seeing drivers swerve all over the place while on their cell phone. So is that proof of how dangerous an activity this is? I've seen plenty of drivers on cell phones that were driving just fine. Is that proof of its safety? The answer is that neither is proof of anything, to draw a conclusion is purely anecdotal. There is no data to support how dangerous these studies claim cell phone usage is. So the question becomes, should laws be based upon studies or real world data?
I have no doubt that using a cell phone while driving creates a level of distraction, which reduces reaction time. So why isn't this causing more accidents? It is certainly a paradox much like the fatality/accident rate going down when speed limits are raised or in the temporary case of Montana eliminated completely. The authors of these studies should be trying to figure out why their conclusions aren't supported by the numbers. There is clearly something going on that is mitigating the distracting effects of the cell phone.
No that is an opinion.
"So is that proof of how dangerous an activity this is?"
Commmon sense would say yes. Common sense would also say drunk driving is bad. Yet for years there were no laws on the books prohibiting it.
"I have no doubt that using a cell phone while driving creates a level of distraction, which reduces reaction time. So why isn't this causing more accidents?"
More than 720,000 (12%)? That's a lot of accidents that could be attributable to cell phone usage according to the data potentially observed from one study.
Except you are ignoring the "drunk" factor in using hand held cell phones.
"Common sense and numerous studies stated that this should significantly increase the number of accidents and fatalities."
You don't call 720,000 out of 6 million accidents significant?
Great. Question of whether driving and using cell phone is safe raised and answered by tpe. TPE has no doubt that it reduces reaction time. Any reduction of reaction time also reduces safety. There is no rational argument that would say that reducing reaction time has no effect on safety.
Much has been written on this board about "reaction" time. Think this means time from when an incident (such as opposing car moving toward and over center line of two-lane road) actually starts (time of day to say thousandth of second) to when the cell phone using driver actually starts (time of day) to execute a responsive action such as steering change. It would seem that there at least three actions of cell phone driver that are affected.
First would be a delay in recognizing the deviation of car in opposing lane. Second would be delay in brain processing to determine what should be done. Third would be delay in signals to hand(s)/feet to execute a counter action.
Within last month, I was on a two-lane highway in a slight curve section with light traffic perhaps going 50-55 mph in both directions. I had both hands on steering wheel and of course was not on the cell phone. Suddenly, an opposing car (Accord) veered toward double yellow center line and actually came over maybe about one foot. I was attentively watching and quickly moved car right so right side wheels were near edge of pavement. Did not have to go on shoulder, but was ready. I did not notice whether or not Accord driver was holding cell phone. Was too busy. But, I wondered after that if I would have reacted later, or if at all, if I had been busy gabbing on the cell phone.
Think that it is impossible to infer anything about trends of accident/fatality/injury rates and relationship to cell phone driver use. It is not possible to legitimately claim that driver cell phone use is OK because the accident rate might be stable or improving. As has been pointed out on this board many times in past, there are numerous factors/variables at play that work toward improving the rates. Some of these are:
Each year sees more vehicles in U.S. population with improved crash worthiness (structure), improved protection (front, side, curtain air bags), improved handling/brakes/tires/abs/stability control/etc. All of these work to either avoid the accident/crash to begin with or mitigate serious injury in event of crash.
Each year sees improvments in medicine/surgery to treat injured and otherwise save from fatality.
EMT improvements in response time and treatment at scene and enroute to hospital.
Improvements in road configurations, surfaces, intersections, turn lanes, roadway hazard mitigation, signage and so forth.
Continued attention by media, law enforcement and others about dangers of drunk driving. Stiff penalties and jail time for accidents caused by drunk drivers (my area),
These are the things that work toward improving the rates. Wonder how much better the rates might be if cell phones had not been invented.
You took my comment somewhat out of context. I compared the reduced reaction time to driving at higher speeds, should have the same affect. Why didn't it? Or, maybe it did. You went on to describe how vehicles and roads have become safer and that is potentially offsetting the danger of cell phones. Maybe its doing the same for traffic moving at higher speeds. My point is that if you oppose cell phones because they cause more accidents and fatalities then you should also oppose higher speed limits. You can't state that higher limits haven't made the roads less safe by referency accident/fatality rates and dismiss these same stats when it comes to cell phones. How many of the posters that are in favor of cell phone bans would also like to see a reduction in our speed limits? The main benefit of driving 75 as opposed to 55 is the convenience of arriving at your destination a little earlier. A case of trading convenience for safety, just like using a cell phone while driving. I commented a while back how receiving a call while on the way home saved me 30 minutes from having to make a separate trip. The general response was 30 minutes isn't all that important. Maybe not, then lets roll back the speed limits to 55 because you'd have to drive a pretty long way before that cost you 30 minutes.
In the states that ban hand held cell phone usage, you cause injury or fatalaties while using a cell phone, and it can be proved, it will cost a pretty penny. Not every legally drunk driver will cause an accident, not every cell phone user will cause an accident. There is enough information to studies to prove using hand held cell phones are far from safe.
No I am not going to post the study again because it isn't the studies that are being talked about. It isn't the lives saved or lost it is the attitude about cell phone use in cars. The dreaded animal called the "Ya-but" runs free in forums like this.
That other study found that the 241 drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes and 8,295 critical incidents. What? I don't buy that, they picked the worst of the worst to study? Just because someone sets out to study a problem, doesn't mean they have defined the problem or the study correctly.
OHOH, here's a study that profile driving behaviors or normal, legally drunk and cell phone users while driving:
http://www.sante.bouyguestelecom.fr/btdocs/653.pdf
But you seem to have no problem blaming a certain percentage of accidents on cell phone usage, even though you admit that "there is no way to understand the root cause of most of the accidents..."
If we want to prevent accidents, we need to know what causes them in the first place.
And people do more than "contend" that the increase in fatalities from 2005 to 2004 was caused by motorcycles. They know it, as NHTSA breaks out motorcycle fatalities from motor vehicle fatalities, and reports them in a separate column. It's a matter of comparing the number of motorcycle fatalities in 2004 to those in 2005.
kdshapiro: The study did not say, cell phones would cause 12% more accidents, they said 12% of the accident base could be attributable to cell phones.
And if the operative in the study word is "could," then it leaves the field for blame wide open, and thus becomes basically worthless.
kdshapiro: So out of the 6 million accidents and 40 thousand deaths, you don't know how many were caused by cell phone inattention. You may never know.
And neither do you, and since you are the one pushing for legislative action, you bear the burden of proof.
kdshapiro: As these bans take effect and people stop dying on the highways due cell phone usage, you'll keep saying: "Why do we need these laws..nobody's dying?"
First you have to prove that cell phone usage is causing accidents, which have you not. I'd suggest clearing this hurdle before progressing on to steps 2, 3 and 4.
When you show a better understanding of the difference between what constitutes a "fact" and "conjecture," I will.
Correct. I am only extrapolating certain data reported in studies.
"And if the operative in the study word is "could," then it leaves the field for blame wide open, and thus becomes basically worthless."
I absolutely agree that either it can be worthless or hold a lot value.
"And neither do you, and since you are the one pushing for legislative action, you bear the burden of proof"
Actually, this is where we disagree. Seems the lawmakers who are making the laws are drawing the same conclusions as me. It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to note that laws against drunk driving are good. Same with cell phones.
"First you have to prove that cell phone usage is causing accidents, which have you not. I'd suggest clearing this hurdle before progressing on to steps 2, 3 and 4."
Actually, it's already a done deal. As laws are already on the books for this an California is next in 2008.
I agree there is a lot of conjecture. But thankfully the lawmakers believe or conjecture that cell phone usage while driving is inherently unsafe. They are correct. While hard to quantify how many accidents and how many fatalities are attributable to cell phone users, there is enough evidence to warrant the question: "Should hand held cell phone use be banned in moving vehicles".
The states involved have taken a half way step, by outlawing hand held phone usage. Hands free usage is allowed. I would think you pro-cell phone users would be real happy, it's a win-win for all involved. No negatives except to those who believe cell phone usage should be banned entirely.
Deflection, that addresses nothing in regards to any proof which has been endlessly demanded and never shown. Overpaid underworked irresponsible egoistic politicos and their decisions don't mean any proof is involved.
You keep missing the point, this is not a theoretical discussion. I don't have to show or demonstrate anything. All I have to do is point, and there is information about why using hand held cell phones driving is a bad thing or a very very bad thing. Lawmakers agree, it is a bad thing.
Because something hasn't been proven to your satisfaction, doesn't mean the legistlation is bad. You probably want a vast amount of carnage on the highway attributed to cell phone usage before you will accept any idea cell phone usage while driving is a bad thing. Maybe with this legislation this unnecessary carnage can be avoided.
Yes what would we do without our brilliant lawmakers solving social ills with the stroke of a pen.
Even MADD has recently come out in favor of a more high tech approach to keeping drunk drivers off the road. I guess they've realized the limited effectiveness of legislation.