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
If you believe the cell phone users are being singled out, here are additional laws I would be most in favor of seeing:
1. make-up law
2. lunch eating law
3. hair combing law
4. cd/radio adjusting law
5. hot coffee drinking law
6. searching through glove box law
You are trolling, right? You can't be serious about any of that stuff!"
Notice the operative word...troll, which you used. That's what I suspect you've been doing as well. In the face of overwhelming evidence how can one not believe cell phone usage while driving is not a good thing. You're suspecting my motives? I'm suspecting yours.
Actually I have not singled out cell phones, it's that my opinion and the lawmakers seem to agree. I agree cell phone usage in cars is not a great thing. But I stay within the law, even the spirit of the law. Even hands-free use is kept to a minimum. But it is legal to use hands-free, illegal to hold the cell phone to your ear.
"One of the studies you posted said cell phones slowed a 30 year old drivers reaction time to that of a 70 year old. Are you in favor of banning 70 year olds from driving? If not why not?"
I am in favor of banning 70 drivers who prove they can no longer drive. It is not a driving requirement to have reflexes within a specific range, but why tempt fate? A moment of inattention due to cell phone use from a spry 30 year old with great reflexes can end in tragedy. That is what I am in favor of banning.
I'm lucky he/she didn't pull over into me. They turned a 1/4 mi up into the plaza next to Wally World... Yup real safe driving with those cellphones.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
I believe part of any accident investigation should be a court ordered phone record for that driver. It would be fairly easy to pinpoint the use of a cell phone at the time of the accident. If we are interested at getting to the truth of whether cell phone use while driving is hazardous, hard data will prove it. Personally I don't see how anyone that is not blind and drives would not be aware that it is a BIG problem.
I'd suggest that you read Orwell's 1984, and then rethink your position. (Hint: despite what you might be inclined to believe, Big Brother is not one of the book's protagonists!)
Wow, lots of iffy CLS drivers in your area...cheap gas and then smoking in it?
Look up the word "analogy" in the dictionary and then get back to us.
imidazol97: The use of cell phones and accidents in vehicles do have a relationship whether you wish to think they do or not..
And your proof of this is found exactly where?
That New Jersey study that is constantly being misunderstood, and thus inappropriately quoted?
What happened on the way to Best Buy?
Sorry, but those do not prove anything - except perhaps that driving to a shopping center the week of Thanksgiving is not the best time of the year to do so (wow, who would have thought that?).
As a suggestion, if you explain your viewpoint and the study in some detail, we will understand it as well as you.
"And your proof of this is found exactly where?"
It's already been proven that at least one fatality in the US has been attributed to impaired driving due to cell phone usage. That is proof enough for me.
Anybody who would want to have a default subpoena for phone records following accidents is more than just casually flirting with Big Brother -- they want to get married!
In any case, wouldn't it be nice to actually have to prove that the phone usage caused the accident? Even your NEJM study, that you've misquoted continually in this discussion, doesn't make that claim.
Banning cell phone use while driving NOW, i.e., in the absence of compelling evidence that 1) cell phone use is the most significant driving hazard not yet currently regulated by law and 2) a law would be both enforceable and curtail driving accidents and/or deaths, would certainly mirror the kind of reactionary government regulation and control envisioned in "1984". When government begins to curtail its citizens' personal freedoms without compelling evidence that it's necessary, we slide down the slippery slope that George Orwell prophesized.
The cause is often the incapacity of citizens to rationally examine evidence and draw reasonable conclusions via the scientific method. Truth ends up being dismissed in favor of opinion and statements like, "Well, it's OBVIOUSLY a major safety hazard!" Silicone breast implants OBVIOUSLY caused a major health risk, according to citizen juries, until the scientific community finally convinced the government to examine existing data that clearly showed there was no such risk. Unfortunately, it was too late to save Dow-Corning, which was driven into bankruptcy but our uninformed citizenry.
I have an engineering degree and am more than a little familiar with the scientific method. So far, I haven't seen a single posting supporting a cell phone ban that suggests that the poster has a clue about how to examine scientific data. That's a problem. And succumbing to the opinions of such people on any number of matters would shove us down that slippery slope at break-neck speed. I don't want to live in that society, thanks.
Bob
Determing the root cause of an accident can be very difficult. Even without cell phones. A hypothetical situation. In a state that bans holding cell phones, hands-free is allowed, the following occurs:
- A driver who had a bit to drink, but not legally drunk, is doing 50 in a 25 zone while using the cell phone, holding the cell phone to the ear. This driver blasts through a stop sign at 50 t-boning another vehicle and cause 2 fatalities, the driver and passenger. What is the root cause of the accident? If you were the investigating officer, how would you handle it?
I couldn't disagree more with your post. It is certainly my right as a citizen to support laws that I believe prohibit behavior which are not in the best interest of the public good.
You of course, are free to disagree, and you did.
"Silicone breast implants OBVIOUSLY caused a major health risk, according to citizen juries, until the scientific community finally convinced the government to examine existing data that clearly showed there was no such risk."
Back then it was a major health risk. However in 15 years the technology has changed making them safer. 15 year old technology is not being used.
Let's take cigarettes. Maybe you're of the opinion there is little cause and effect between cigarettes and lung cancer in spite of evidence to the contrary.
I believe hand held cell phone usage is the latter, not the former.
BTW this is your one and only post on Edmunds?
See above.
>use of cell phones and accidents in vehicles do have a relationship
Just look all around you.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Folks, we have a winner. Give this man a prize for having the guts to demand accountability from government and respecting civil liberties, attitudes that apparently aren't all that popular with everyone these days.
Big Brother had lots of supporters in "1984"; no doubt you'd be one of them. We live in a representative democracy and there will always be many points of view. Unfortunately, our educational system has declined to such an abysmal level that many of our "informed voters" have never been given the capacity to apply deductive logic in solving everyday problems.
"Back then it was a major health risk. However in 15 years the technology has changed making them safer. 15 year old technology is not being used."
The prevailing opinion of the medical community when silicone breast implants were banned was that they posed no greater risk than saline implants, using the technology of that time. Silicone, which was targeted as the hazardous agent, is virtually unchanged in the newly approved implants. Dr. Dean Edell, one of the few "rational thinkers" in the media, has done extensive coverage on the irrationality displayed by the implant-case juries.
"BTW this is your one and only post on Edmunds?"
That question, coming from someone who was challenging the relevance of the book "1984" to this discussion, is a bit curious. I believe this post is only my fourth post on Edmunds. Tell me how that relates?
Bob
Should we all ignore the potential of global warming, or should we wait for compelling evidence (i.e. perhaps only New York city under 10 feet of water is compelling evidence for some) before taking action? Should we allow free discharge of pollution into rivers or should we wait to ensure that at least a statistically significant amount of birth defects occur in a given population before ceasing free discharge? Does everyone see the analogy here, or do I need to refer to a George Orwell book for effect?
An action that has been proven to decrease attention span while driving and has been implicated in thousands (not one) of accidents is "proof" to an educated population. Will a law do anything? I don't know. It will likely be parasitic lawyers and "exemptions" that dilute the law into a useless waste of time rather than the basis of the law.
Welcome to the Forum.
I do disagree that banning something that is potentially harmful to others is bad law. Your analogy of implants is more kneejerk reaction to a study. There are many documented cases that have been posted on this thread where folks were killed by a cell phone junky being distracted while operating their vehicle. There is more than sufficient evidence to ban them totally from being used in motor vehicle. I feel a compromise allowing handsfree is better than no law at all. I was also for the banning of smoking in public buildings, restaurants and bars. That is a violation of a person's freedom to smoke a legal cigarette. I agree with drunk driving laws as well. I think that slowing down in a school zone is good legislation. So if that puts me in an Orwellian light, so be it. We cannot legislate common sense. We should at least have laws on the books to give my case teeth, when I sue some jerk that runs into me while talking on the cell phone.
That's a strawman argument, given that we have actual evidence of climate change obtained from real world data.
In contrast, we seem unable to get similarly strong findings with phones, and the advocates apparently see the need to misrepresent what the data says in order to support their arguments. Apples and oranges.
We have over 40 countries that already have these phone laws in effect, and that have had them for quite some time. Likewise, New York has had its law since late 2001. If the benefits of the laws are so unimpeachable, then why can't you use data from any of these places to back up your argument?
I'm not going to debate 1984. If you are not yet aware, because you have been to busy yakking on the phone while driving, a number of countries as well as states have laws on the books regarding the use of hand-held cell phones. If you want to debate that, I will be happy to.
Strawman arguments are fine when it comes to saving lives. I know you don't agree, there are a number of us that do. You do know however, there is hard evidence that people were killed by drivers using cell phones who were not aware of their surroundings are in the following paragraph from:
http://www.talewins.com/protectyourself/cellphones.htm
The Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a census of police-reported fatal accidents occurring in the US. In one analysis of fatalities involving cell phone use, the cell phone-using drivers were all in the "striking vehicle. (emphasis inserted by editor)
That is to say: they struck something stopped in front of them, or left their lane of traffic and struck a vehicle or object. In these crashes:
75% of the drivers were engaged in conversation, 13% were dialing their cell phones, and 13% were hanging up.
Of those engaged in conversation,
a third were using mounted phones in the hands-free mode.
(Source: Fatal Analysis Reporting System [FARS])
Again, please note that the hand-held doesn't make any difference.
I'm pretty sure that what you meant to say was, "It's OK to make things up if we can scare people about stuff that we can't prove." The Emperor might have already realized by now that he isn't wearing anything if he'd just answer the phone!
With your last response, I'm going to have to turn down your generous offer of further debate. Your response made no sense to me. I guess this is an example of what C.P. Snow meant when he wrote about the communication gap between humanists and scientists. We speak different languages. When your comments are put through my logic filter, they come back "Does not compute", to borrow some Bill Gates nomenclature.
I find debate most interesting when the ground rules stipulate that facts joined together with logical arguments will win the day. But when your only criterion appears to be whomever has the "best opinion", you're engaged in something that I find of little value. It's like an art contest, judging which is the best work of art when there are, in fact, no accepted criteria for what makes a good work of art. (If there were, every artist would simply "follow the rules" and create masterpiece after masterpiece.)
But hang onto your opinion, kdshapiro. That, plus $4.25, will buy you a latte at most Starbucks. Just don't drink it while you're driving...
Bob
Studies based upon hard data indicate that these figures are minimal.
Furthermore, it is wise to not confuse the phrase "contributing factor" with something more sweeping, such as "the accident would not have happened in this absence of this one factor." Take the latter into account, and the figure becomes smaller still.
The real world data tells the story -- the fact that we haven't seen an increase in real world negative results from phone usage, and that those places with phone laws can't point to any demonstrable benefit, would indicate that the phones are largely irrelevant to the overall performance of the driver pool. Factor in the results of the Naturalistic study which shows how a few people are invariably involved in most of the crashes, including some with multiple crashes under their belts within a relatively short period, and you can seeing that accidents are caused by people and behavior, not by inanimate objects.
Well then countries and states who is enacting this legislation must be missing the obvious. I think you need to look at additional studies rather than hanging your opinion on just one data point. Obviously the lawmakers have looked at multiple data points. You might even want to review the NHTSA comments.
It should be locked down. Opinions are not being changed here, and there is nothing to be gained from it.
I've actually read quite a few studies and abstacts, which is how I've reached these conclusions.
One problem on this thread is that the anti-phone advocates tend to take the outcome of a study, only to misinterpret it and jump to bold conclusions about what it means. Take his NEJM study of yours -- you not only misquoted it, but you also obviously didn't quite follow exactly what the study had reported, and you overreached as a result.
I'm not necessarily faulting the study, but how you've distorted what it said. You make claims about its findings that it never even made, and your inclination to continue do this makes it difficult to discuss with you because you don't seem to comprehend the source that you're quoting.
All I can say is a lot of people and/or lawmakers are "misinterpeting" the results. You have to ask yourself, what am I missing that other people are seeing? I don't know the answer, but it seems obvious there is a causality between cell phone usage and fatalities. Even if the number isn't as big as you would like, these laws are a benefit to public (IMO). The lawmakers here and abroad see this as well.
So my advice is to take stock and re-review the data to see why lawmakers are enacting this legislation and missing what you believe is the "obvious" and why everyone except yourself and other pro-phoners don't comprehend the result.
For the most part, in the US, they are not popular and not being passed.
But the credibility or lack thereof has nothing to do with how many lawmakers go along with or oppose them. Everyone reading this forum can surely think of examples of laws that they dislike. Legislation = Intelligent + Justified is not an equation that computes as a math formula.
But what information are the lawmakers using to enact this legislation. We have differing viewpoints. I believe these laws are justified based on a number of studies in the last 10 years.
What do you believe the lawmakers are basing their decisions on? Can you answer the question instead of deflecting?
Let's use California as an example.
I know people have said we should give the drinkers the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they won't get drunk and maybe they won't hit a cross walk full of people. But I would rather have a chain smoker getting in their car than a one picture of beer during the Foot ball game driver. Yes this was off topic but it shows how reasoning and laws doesn't always match up. It also shows that we will allow drinking and driving as long as it is below .08 percent by the time they get tested and not allow any hand held cell phones after 2008. Does anyone else see some hypocracy in this?
Not to wander too far off topic, but the California smoking law for bars is worded as an employee health protection law, not as a consumer protection law. An owner-operated bar without employees can allow smoking if it wishes. However, given there are few bars run in that fashion, so it becomes a de facto ban at virtually every bar in the state.
But in any case, we can all point out laws that we dislike, no matter our political perspectives. A leftist may argue that the Second Amendment and easy conceal-carry laws are dumb, while a staunch conservative may argue that laws that minimum wage laws hurt the poor because it will keep some of them unemployed. Regardless of one's politics, the laws-are-naturally-good-for-us fall flat for people on both sides, and I hear virtually nobody who claims that the government always makes good decisions.
The reason this link was posted, is to contradict the notion there is no causality between cell phone usage and fatalities on the roadway. This is one example 6 years ago. You can almost bet if the lawyer had not been on the phone, this would not have occured.
Please note the sentence on page 3: A lack of statistical data about a problem, is not the same thing as a lack of evidence.
The anti-cell phone law coalition is confusing the two. There is not enough statistical data, but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence.
The NHTSA website has a ton of research related to cell phones. You can see what is available and see if it meets your paradigm of cell phone usage.
You have 40+ countries, plus a US state, that can provide you with several years' and billions of vehicle miles worth of data. If you can't provide evidence based upon that, it's because you don't have any evidence at all.
You're just copping out, because you have only conjucture to support your arguments. Obviously, phones don't have an impact that is significant enough to create huge swings in that data, otherwise it would be already apparent.
Actually the evidence is in. That's why countries like Australia have banned usage early on. You're just conviently ignoring the evidence. Cell phones cause fatalities on the road. As far as I'm concerned one fatality is too many. Please read my posts, I provided hard evidence cell phones cause fatalities. If you don't want to acknowledge this, I can't do anything about it. It won't change the facts.
In addition, I'm going to repeat: A lack of statistical data does not mean there is a lack of evidence. You are confusing the two. I don't need the statistical data to know this is something that needs to be addressed. Obviously Austrialia didn't either.
Is someone missing the old Russia?
1300+ posts, and you've provided no such thing. Yes, you've distorted and misreported the findings of several studies, but nothing that evidences actual problems.
Studies based upon actual data peg the figure at around 1% or less. (And of course, there is no evidence that the accident prone wouldn't find other excuses to have accidents.) That result would be consistent with how the overall data has been trending, and far less than you'd have us believe.