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
We actually agree drunk driving is bad? And maybe multiple tactics are necessary to attempt to mitigate the issue. But it all starts with legislation.
Now if we can agree cell phone usage while driving is bad, and maybe multiple tactics are necessary to attempt to mitigate the risks...
But it starts with legislation.
Actually its been proven to my satisfaction that cell phones aren't as dangerous as some people are stating. The proof is that this vast carnage hasn't materialized, not even minimal carnage. Actual numbers are more compelling then speculative studies. BTW, even these studies don't support your position that banning handheld units will be effective.
It's been proven to my satisfaction that buried in the numbers could be a sad story related to hand held cell phone usage, but we won't know until this information is really tracked nationwide, for some years. In the meantime the legislation is a great start.
Totally unnecessary post. Just a put down.
Just ignore my posts instead of playing a game. I'll turn on the filter.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"You keep missing the point, this is not a theoretical discussion"
But ALL you provide is theory.
All we get from the wannabe authoritarians here is "maybe", "perhaps", "what if"....
Actually real world numbers are far more compelling. The accident and fatality rate have dropped 30% since 1990. I guess someone could always argue that these rates would have dropped even further had it not been for cell phones. That's the same argument that people opposed to higher speed limits use. They concede that fatalities have dropped but claim they would be even less with lower speed limits. At that point the dialogue becomes almost meaningless because its based on someone speculating about what would have been and ignoring what is.
Okay. Back at ya.
I don't see any conflict with hypothesis (not conjecture: conjecture is not really based on fact or logic) that cell phones could play a significant role in accidents or fatalities and we don't know.
Exactly right.
And this law, as I see it, fails on both the counts I mentioned. So I am going to go see if I can find a citizens' group willing to take up the cause of readying a ballot measure to repeal this pointless law before it ever takes effect. I think such a measure would stand a good chance of passing once people learn the things that actually significantly contribute to driver errors and an increase in accidents and injuries on the roads. Of which group handheld cell phone calls cannot reasonably be singled out as a member.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Can I just call in my vote? (I'll do it from the car if it will help!)
I don't see any conflict with hypothesis (not conjecture: conjecture is not really based on fact or logic) that cell phones could play a significant role in accidents or fatalities and we don't know.
The operative word here is "could". If someone proposed this theory to me I would initially think that is sounded plausible. Before enacting legislation I would make my best attempt to determine that it was more than theory. There are few agencies that maintain stats as comprehensive as those of the NHTSA, so that would be my best source. Not studies or people's individual observations. I'd conclude that there is no evidence that a problem exists and certainly not one of any significant magnitude as many would have us believe. That being the case the only reason to enact legislation is for some sort of political gain. Unfortunately this happens all the time and will continue to happen but it reflects poorly on our system and is a big reason some of us don't hold it in such high regard.
The probability has decreased. That's not a study but hard data coming from an agency that actually supports your point of view. So they certainly wouldn't manipulate the numbers to contradict this position.
Individual experiences are somewhat meaningless. I've never hit anyone nor been hit by someone on a cell phone yet I was in an accident 30 years ago that obviously didn't involve cell phones. Therefore cell phones seem to have made the roads safer.
If at any given time 2% of the drivers are on cell phones and it turned out that 4% of two car collisions involved a vehicle whose driver was on a cell phone would that mean using a cell phone doubles your chance of being in an accident? If you say yes then you don't grasp basic probability even though I suspect that this is the nature of some of the studies being put forth and why they don't agree with real world data.
When it comes to saving lives on the road, I'm ok with word "could". There are enough studies that show the detrimental effects of driving while talking to merit the word "could".
I think it is a great reflection on lawmakers finally doing something about an issue before it becomes a real problem.
I think what you are doing is mistaking, or trumpeting, some misinformation communicated in one study, which contradicts every other study done.
Individual experience should sort of take on a common sense approach. Ever see a drunk driver on the road. Ever think it's okay for them to drive? Same with a cell phone user totally absorbed in their conversation with driving coming in second.
In all frankness, I'm not sure you even read the studies out there, if you had you would be coming to different conclusions.
"I thought I was all alone in thinking that legislators should have the burden of proving a problem exists before enacting legislation that inhibits my lifestyle, and then ought to really show that the legislation they come up with will do something about that problem."
What is meant by inhibiting lifestyle?
Having a driver's license means that we are bound to operate our motor vehicles according to all laws of the state where driving. There are probably many dozens, if not hundreds (low), of laws that have to be obeyed while on public roads. Do any of these other laws inhibit one's lifestyle? Don't understand how safely operating a motor vehicle has anything to do with a lifestyle. Think that any person can have a very enriching and fulfilling lifestyle and not use a phone while driving.
What is so difficult about a driver making a cell call while stopped in a safe and legal spot? Why does a driver feel that it is his "right" to make a call while driving? Do these drivers have problems in planning ahead and making their business/personal calls before their trip? Or, alternatively, wait until at end of trip.
Except for reporting an emergency while on the road (and usually can stop in safe place to make call), why do cell phone using drivers feel that they can compromise their response time and safety and jeopardize others for "their" convenience?
Any cell phone/driving laws will be the beginning and the foundation for further actions to focus attention and change behaviour of driving public and get compliance. Would think that most cell phone using drivers are not even aware of their dangerous habits and new laws banning cell phone use will increase publicity and educate these persons to safe driving practice.
I'll wager everything I own that even if desperate-for-attention politicos who act to appease braying sheep enact such laws en masse, there will be no call to curtail other distractions. No bans on eating, drinking, smoking, etc. Sad and ridiculous.
Or are we about to get another "Ya, but argument." Ya but they are professional. Ya but it is necessary. Well ya but you are equating it with being drunk and we don't allow drunk even in an emergency.
NHTSA statistics are not studies but historical facts. And yes, facts do trump studies.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of cell phone opponents abide by the posted speed limits. And their rational is that, yeah, I'm technically breaking the law but I have the judgement to decide what is and isn't safe, and besides, everybody does it. So most of us really don't feel compelled to operate our motor vehicles according to "all" laws. Some of us however think that we have a keener insight into which laws are more important.
I don't feel unsafe when the pilot communicates with the tower, but I do feel unsafe when you talk on your cell phone. There are actually rules in effect regarding cockpit behavior during takeoff and landing. Did you know that? Do you know why the FAA has to tell pilots how to behave during takeoff and landing? Why do you think these rules are in existence?
I notice you never seem to address my questions directly, only seem to deflect the answer.
"I don't feel unsafe when the pilot communicates with the tower, but I do feel unsafe when you talk on your cell phone. There are actually rules in effect regarding cockpit behavior during takeoff and landing. Did you know that? Do you know why the FAA has to tell pilots how to behave during takeoff and landing? Why do you think these rules are in existence? "
Yes I know there are rules for pilots communicating while flying. Knowing this doesn't have a thing to do with how you feel it "allows conversation, even intense conversation while flying a plane." It mandates it in fact. Now if as you contend it is as bad as being drunk or drinking would they mandate it? You have often equated cell phone use to driving when drunk or drinking. I am answering your question as directly as I can. They allow communication between pilots multi tasking and they do not allow drinking or being drunk for any reason. How can you equate the two actions as being the same when you are in a car and not the same in an airplane? Remember the last time you flew anywhere? Did the pilot make announcements to you over the intercom? Did he describe what was out side of your right or left windows? Did he ever tell you about that mountain top off to the left or that other plane off to your right? Did he ever tell you the weather conditions as he was circling LAX or Heathrow? Looking, talking explaining and flying all at the same time. Does that sound the same as being drunk to you? Does that sound like a emergency? Does that sound like landing instructions? Or does that sound like simple chit chat?
Does this sound like a response to your post?
Pilots aren't worried or using hand held devices, they are using headsets. They are communicated infrequently and quickly only about flying the aircraft. They in fact do not have to worry about 33/1000 seconds before a collision. They in fact can have instrumentation keep the plane on course automatically and even land the plane without any intervention. They have radar to tell if there are any obstructions within miles, much less feet. They don't talk about dinner, when landing the plane.
I'm glad you understand the difference between flying and driving, my original point was regarding rules in the cockpit and you didn't answer it.
You're assertation equating using a hand held cell phone worrying about dinner to using a headset communicating with the tower and equating the two was all I needed to hear. According to your interpetation of what I said, anybody who uses any communication device is drunk when they use it.
I don't think so.
You have said:
#944 of 1191 Re: We all quote studies [boaz47] by kdshapiro Nov 12, 2006 (1:33 pm)
Some studies even suggest a cell phone user has a mental capacity of a legal drunk. That in my opinion is a huge difference between twiddling with the radio and talking on a cell phone
But you weren't through:
1062 of 1191 Re: Speaking of studies [boaz47] by kdshapiro Nov 16, 2006 (9:22 am)
“What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour.”
So a Pilot talking to the passengers on the plane has the capacity of a drunk driver during the time he is conversing?
I do believe I have been answering your questions.
If the NHTSA states that the accident rate is down 30% since 1990 that is based on actual numbers. How is that not factual?
I actually never made the assertion, I pointed to studies that made this assertion, which you obviously haven't read.
"So a Pilot talking to the passengers on the plane has the capacity of a drunk driver during the time he is conversing?"
This is so far-fetched it doesn't even deserve an answer.
“What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour.”
Absolutely. I've pointed to studies that verified this. But, this is not the same as a pilot landing the plane, to make that leap means all you want to is say things for the sake of just saying any old thing. To that end I have nothing else to say. Personally it doesn't bother me that you don't get it, I'm glad the lawmakers do however.
There is no other data available except to estimate number of accidents a year multipled by 12%. Wow, 720,000 accidents could be caused by cell phones. It's no wonder lawmakers are jumping on the bandwagon. Just like you sort of throw out NEJM, I throw out that other study as an anomaly that contradicts evertbing else. I agree with the lawmakers.
I guess someone's got to.
If this is true, then why can't you name a single place on Planet Earth that saw its accident rate decline at its previous rate of decline, plus 12%, after enacting a law?
There are 40+ countries, plus New York, that have had such laws for a few years now. Yet you can't name a single one of the bunch that saw these great results. Not one.
You guys should love this one, eh ?
Big Brother, has got his hand in your back pocket ! :surprise:
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/AUTO01/611210355/- - - - - 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
P.S. What's next a monitor that dials Richard Simmons 24 hr. help line because you were labeled obese by your crack pot doctor, and took in to many calories at the local crab shack :surprise:
I'm sure it is more than a few. It could potentially be a majority.
Even those that oppose these laws have seen people driving erratically while talking on a cell phone. I see stupid things on a regular basis and don't have the knee jerk response that we need a law. I don't assume that these people driving poorly while on the phone would be paying significantly more attention without a phone. I do think there are driving situations where it is possible to safely use a cell phone. If it is safe whether or not it is necessary becomes irrelevant. It doesn't seem to me that there are more bad drivers than 15 years ago and accident stats back this up. And lastly, I don't think the law will be the least bit effective at improving highway safety.
You don't have study drunk driving for too long to know it's not a good thing and should have been outlawed in 1905. As we get smarter about tracking nationwide cell phone incidents with additional studies, I think more bans will be on the way.
Those of you who protest to much, get hands-free hardware for your phone and stop the nonsense.
If there is a law against it, it makes it much easier to get damages from a lawsuit in event of injury or fatality.
Any legislation that has the potential to generate more lawsuits is definitely what this country does not need.