Actually it's okay with me that you are misinformed, naive or somehow have a better handle on the analytics of this issue than the experts in the US and the experts in other countries who deemed this a dangerous behavior.. Having "blinders on" regarding cell phone does not make the issue go away. It only let's you talk about it from a position of misinformation.
There is overwhelming evidence to support the usage of cell phones is causes driver inattention. The widespread adoption of cell phones and the sheer number in use by the drivers makes this a critical issue. Driver inattention, in addition to one handed driving is just an accident or fatality waiting to happen. You can be as naive as you want with regard to this issue, but that doesn't make it go away. You can probably expect more laws in the future regarding this.
That is your one and only misinformed data point. There is no credible body that takes that study seriously as the be all and end all of all studies. I wonder why? It's one datapoint out of hundreds and hundreds, which in context means zero, zilch, nada. Except to you of course. :P
Actually I've already proved causality between cell phone usage and fatalities, so my job here is done.
There you go again, making more inaccurate statements and misreporting the conclusions of the work.
It isn't a single data point, it is from the findings of a "metastudy" that summarized the findings of 20+ other studies. So there are numerous studies that drive that result, not just one.
And can you cite a single legitimate source that finds fault with the data reported in that study? (Let me guess -- you can't.)
As is someone wanting the government to tell people what they can or cannot do in their vehicles, so long as they are obeying the speed limit, and driving laws.
There were accidents before cell phones, and will still be after some do-gooders ban them all.
What is stupid is the herd mentality of justifying all kinds of invasions into personal liberty as being done to "help the kids" or prevent accidents.
"There you go again, making more inaccurate statements and misreporting the conclusions of the work.
It isn't a single data point, it is from the findings of a "metastudy" that summarized the findings of 20+ other studies. So there are numerous studies that drive that result, not just one."
There you go again, posting inaccurate information because you don't have an understanding of the real problem, nor do you understand the study you keep quoting. And that prevents you from understanding the information in the links I'm posting.
This is what researchers find time and time again in every different study.
There is not one study that says cell phones are safe and do not distract drivers. In my book widespread behaviors, which cause driver distraction should be banned. And they are, because lawmakers have an understanding of the issue, I might add.
"What is stupid is the herd mentality of justifying all kinds of invasions into personal liberty as being done to "help the kids" or prevent accidents."
That's only your opinion. As I keep saying, the lawmakers see things differently. And I am in agreement with them based on the information available on cell phone usage while driving.
One problem on this thread is that the anti-phone advocates tend to take the outcome of a study
Mine is based on personal experience which I consider above all studies. I do not go out driving without seeing someone distracted by a cell phone driving a vehicle. The studies and case histories back up what I am seeing. I don't need to know the fatality count for 2004 to know that driving while talking on the cell phone is potentially dangerous. Thankfully our legislatures are not swayed by illogical opinions from those that cannot live without a cell phone in their ear. Face it the cell phone is addictive just like smoking, video games and gambling. It does not need to be used while driving a car.
So our legislators want to protect the health of people who go out "intending' to drink and drive. think about it.
You need to study the law a little more. It is a California OSHA law. It is not to protect the patrons of a bar. It is to protect the employees working in the bar. If you are the sole owner operator of a bar in CA you do not have to enforce the law. It is not the smoker that gets fined. It is the owner of the bar. I think it is a great law. Made my time working in the bar much more pleasant. Plus it helped business.
there is no evidence that the accident prone wouldn't find other excuses to have accidents
That is the point. Why give them one more distraction to add to the problem. I can see next month a thread with "Why are laptop users being singled out". The same people will argue that it should be OK for someone to drive down the road with a laptop strapped to the steering wheel so they can blog on Edmund's while driving to work. If cell phones are allowed I should be able to use my laptop while driving. Or I should be able to play video games to kill the time while commuting. We will have to wait until 2020 to see if the evidence is there to prove that surfing the web while driving is a distraction.
There is not one study that says cell phones are safe
Nobody claimed that they were, so stop strawmaning by arguing with points that nobody made.
You keep trying to change the subject. I asked you to show us the source that you claim takes issue with the findings of the metastudy with the 13/100ths of a second finding. You didn't do that.
I'm going to ask you again to stop changing the subject and to stand behind your earlier accusation. Since you claimed that the figure had been disputed, show us the basis for this claim.
I just posted a link to text of the 100 car naturalistic study from which you are deriving your misinformation.
Please read the studies before proceeding with any further opinions. Since you are even loathe to read the studies to which you are deriving your misinformation, I have nothing else to say about this line of conversation for the meantime.
"Nobody claimed that they were, so stop strawmaning by arguing with points that nobody made."
So I argue, it seems successfully, if an action is not safe it is unsafe and should be dealt with.
Not being judgmental but I have to ask. with the moral outrage you have for the rude behavior of others using cell phones did you have a problem serving people alcohol that you "knew" were going to go out and drive or were you able to simply say cest la Vie? I know the detachment that comes from allowing others do take their own chances but I wondered.
Let's not pin the blame on gagrice for the cell phone laws. It is legal to imbibe and drink, whether you find it morally objectionable is another story. Let me ask you? Do you drink anything and then drive?
It is not legal to exceed a certain BA level. In CA it will not be legal to use a hand held cell phone. I don't see the problem. gagrice is not the nations' alcohol monitor nor the nations' hand held cell phone monitor.
You reference a lot of NHTSA studies so I'm assuming you consider them to be a credible source. You have also praised the judgement of our legislators for enacting these laws. So how is it possible that the NHTSA doesn't share your enthusiasm? In fact they think these laws are a bad idea. The two possibilities I see are that either these laws are a bad idea or the NHTSA is capable of being mistaken when it comes to highway safety issues.
What may come as an interesting surprise is that, even if a cell phone is being used completely hands-free, the risk of having an accident doesn't seem to be reduced. Apparently, the act of conversing on the phone — not holding the phone to your ear — is the more dangerous distraction. Emotional conversations in particular seem to elevate risk. So hands-free or not, there's an increased risk to DWY.
NHTSA's upcoming study on wireless phone interfaces should shed new light on whether hands-free driving is safer or not. In the meantime, the agency feels that banning hand-held cell phones is a bad idea. And even in states or localities where cell phones are banned, there is a serious problem with compliance.
Actually I posted direct links to NHTSA articles. How come there are no direct links to NHTSA articles in the edmunds article?
In fact NHTSA based on what I've observed, and linked to, believes cell phones to be an issue. I didn't write an article that describes the issue, I linked directly to the sources so the reader can draw their own conclusion.
"The two possibilities I see are that either these laws are a bad idea or the NHTSA is capable of being mistaken when it comes to highway safety issues."
The other possibilities:
1. the damage is starting but due to collection methods it is not yet identified as such. 2. opinions from the agency is divided, depending on who you talk to, it's an issue or not. But one has to wonder why attention to this issue is exploding. Mountain out of mole hill syndrome maybe? 3. this is either a really big issue or not a big issue, but the investigators have to determine if driving like a drunk while you are on the phone really leads to more car crashes and fatalities?
In any case until this is sorted out, I believe these laws are going in the right direction.
that many people question whether reduced attention to the driving task is related to accident rate??!!
Cite whatever statistic you wish, but I believe that any reasonable person would conclude that the less attentive that one is to ANY task, the more likely they are to make mistakes.
No, it suggests that maybe cell phones aren't the major cause or even the primary cause and for reasons only known to the legislators they have picked one of the distractions down on the list as a target more for political posturing than for safety. If safety were the issue either they would have banned more distracting issues or banned cell phone use all together.
All that aside however unless we are all being very disengenious we will have to admit that we all have periods of time where our full attention isn't on driving. Where we drive almost on auto pilot. Long stretches of open highway where we will sing to ourselves, have the car on cruise control, hold the hand of our wife's or loved ones. Get involved in a deep conversation or spend time telling jokes. I am willing to bet very few of us are race car driver attentive most of the time we are driving. We listen to favorite songs, look for signs along the road and sometimes even read bill boards. We might say we don't but we know we do. So yes there are distractions, and we weigh all of them against the level of attention we feel we need to drive and survive that level of distraction. The NHTSA study indicated that more people were involved in entertainment center distractions and were involved in more accident within 3 seconds of the accidents than Cell phone users. For some reason this activity doesn't cause alarm even if it is more common. While some laws can and often do seem arbitrary this one seems even more so because it bans hand held cell phones and allows hands free cell phone useage citing the same studies that indicate they are about the same as a distraction.
I tend to use hands free as well. There are times when I don't expect a call and I don't have the headset on that I have received a call but the conversations are short. But I did post a device that plugs into the cigarette lighter and goes through the speakers of your car that won't require a headset and would make using your current cell pretty easy.
"We might say we don't but we know we do. So yes there are distractions, and we weigh all of them against the level of attention we feel we need to drive and survive that level of distraction. The NHTSA study indicated that more people were involved in entertainment center distractions and were involved in more accident within 3 seconds of the accidents than Cell phone users."
Actually the same report said the major distraction was the cell phone user more than any other form of distraction by a large margin. I posted a link, you can certainly refer to it.
Been there. I posted the agreement by NHTSA that confirmed the AAA study indicating entertainment useage was involved in nine times as many accidents as Cell phones. While they admitted cell phone use was more prevalent it still accounted for less of the recorded accidents.
As is someone wanting the government to tell people what they can or cannot do in their vehicles, so long as they are obeying the speed limit, and driving laws.
There were accidents before cell phones, and will still be after some do-gooders ban them all.
What is stupid is the herd mentality of justifying all kinds of invasions into personal liberty as being done to "help the kids" or prevent accidents.
Personal liberty to have a conversation in your vehicle would not be compromised with a law totally banning driver use as long as vehicle is stopped and parked in a safe and legal location.
Personal liberty to do “anything” one desires does have limitations where the safety of self and others are at stake whether on public roads, in the home, in public places, theatres, workplace, etc.
We already have limitations on liberty in motor vehicles in terms of laws requiring certain behavior with regards to seat belt use, child safety harnesses, open liquor, BAC levels, etc. Laws deny "personal liberty" to carry open liquor, drive while drunk, drive without a seatbelt attached, not having a child properly restrained with a specially attached baby seat or seat belts. These are all for the public good.
New laws to totally ban driver cell phone use similarly would be for the public good. Recall arguments over last few decades about seat belt use. There were those who believed, and some still do, that seat belt use is dangerous because they could get trapped in their burning car in an accident. Many of these folks also said that belt usage was uncomfortable and therefore an infringement on their comfort and "personal liberty". Laws were needed to change their behavior and force them to use belts for their own good and the public good.
"Personal liberty" can only be allowed in a moving motor vehicle to the extent it is not a danger to the general public. Driver cell phone use is a distraction in that it diminishes driver attention and reduces reaction time. Majority of drivers using cell phone do not even realize that they are compromising safety. That is why laws are needed to totally ban their use. These laws will get a lot of publicity and responsible drivers will change their behavior. As with any law, some will feel they are above it and will use cell phone anyway.
Perhaps as new total ban laws are enacted in states, public information spots on TV and other media will illustrate the danger in using while driving and will politely encourage drivers to better plan and organize their lives to not have to make cell calls while driving.
Personally, I use the Moto RAZR with a Bluetooth headset, so it works no matter what vehicle I am in. The voice recognition software doesn't require any training, and I can simply speak the numbers and it dials.
And xrunner2, you should talk, when you advocate common sense, such as exceeding the posted speed limits! :P
Yes, you are right, but for now I don't have to because till 2008 it isn't necessary and I don't normally talk on the cell and drive. I also don't view it as a major distraction so it isn't as important to me.
Here is what I look at. A non profit organization like AAA for traffic safety.
The specific sources of distraction among distracted drivers were, in order of frequency: Specific Distraction % of Drivers Outside person, object, or event 29.4% Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4% Other occupant 10.9% Moving object in vehicle 4.3% Other device/object 2.9% Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8% Eating and/or drinking 1.7% Using/dialing cell phone 1.5% Smoking related 0.9% Other distractions 25.6% Unknown distraction 8.6%
Percentages for the different types of distractions should be viewed as preliminary estimates that are likely biased by differential under reporting. These are research results that will be useful in building a broader understanding of driver distraction. The percentages for the different types of distractions should not be used to guide policy development. Young drivers (under 20 years of age) were the most likely to be involved in distraction-related crashes. In addition, certain types of distractions were more prominent in certain age groups, for example, adjusting the radio, cassette or CD among the under 20-year-olds; other occupants (e.g., young children) among 20-29 year-olds; and outside objects and events among those age 65 and older. Variations by driver sex were less pronounced, although males were slightly more likely than females to be categorized as distracted at the time of their crash.
As opposed to a study that assumes or uses words like could be attributed to. But if we get into one study verses another we are still left with making a decission when we find distractions acceptable and when we don't. Don't even try to convince me that on the road from El Paso to Dallas someone has both hands on the wheel and they don't have time for a call or a cup of coffee 90 percent of the time.
Actually that's the whole point, there is almost no statistical data to prove anything and a lot of evidence to prove cell phone usage is unsafe. All of the studies add up to cell phone use in vehicles in unsafe. No matter how you slice it, the same conclusion applies. But you already knew that.
You keep bolstering the case. Now add in a one hour call to the office on the cell phone. You will still be doing all these other distractions, which last milli-seconds vs a one hour call. It has already been proven humans cannot multi-process. Stands to reason, phone wins, car/driver loses. This is common sense on top of every other study that has been done in the last 15 years.
How many milliseconds does it take to open your CD case, select a new CD, slide a CD out of the case, eject the old one, insert the new one and play the entire drum solo of Ina Gotta divida on the steering wheel? Just so I know?
kdshapiro: As a suggestion, if you explain your viewpoint and the study in some detail, we will understand it as well as you.
When a "study" can only say that 12 percent of accidents "could" be caused by cell phone usage while driving, it is worthless.
Other posters have done a much more thorough job of dismembering this study.
kdshapiro: 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.
Using that criteria...in Harrisburg last year, a grandmother left the passenger-side front seat - while the minivan was in motion - to reprimand her grandchildren in the back seat.
At that moment, a logging truck entering the freeway in the opposite direction turned over, spilling its load of logs.
One of the logs went right through the minivan's windshield and the passenger seat. Fortunately, because she ignored the laws against unfastening a seat beat while the vehicle is in motion, her life was saved.
I guess based on the standard you are using here, since one life was saved by someone's disobedience of mandatory seatbelt laws, we should scrap them.
I do even better. I read the local paper every day for accident reports.
The most common causes of accidents around here are drunk driving and traveling too fast on two-lane country roads. Most fatalities are unbuckled drivers and passengers.
For a few years now, the Pennsylvania State Police have been noting on accident report forms if the driver was using a cell phone at the time of the accident.
If that were the cause of the accident, it would be noted in the report, and picked up by the article.
As for "looking around while driving" - I do that, too and what I see as the most common causes of poor driving are outright rudeness (tailgating, left-lane camping), young, inexperienced drivers, and people who really can't keep up with modern traffic anymore (many of the elderly).
"I guess based on the standard you are using here, since one life was saved by someone's disobedience of mandatory seatbelt laws, we should scrap them."
I'm getting smarter at recognizing disingenuos comments and not responding.
OK I'll play along. :P Sure, why not. :P I'm in favor of banning items I believe cause driver distractions. Some lawmakers have the same viewpoint as me.
>How many milliseconds does it take to open your CD case, select a new CD, slide a CD out of the case, eject the old one, insert the new one and play the entire drum solo of Ina Gotta divida on the steering wheel? Just so I know?
If you are saying opening a CD case is the same as talking on a cellphone, I just can't buy that. The problem with talking on a cellphone is that you are tieing up your concentration interpreting what you are hearing with body language and then you are formulating responses. That distracts your brain much more than reaching for a CD case, opening the snap and then pulling out a CD.
Well, I just tried it, and it was very much longer than miliseconds. Much.
And you know what the National Safety Council says, don't you? "It only takes a second of distraction to kill someone you love, or someone who is loved." :sick:
Personally I don't know how you live with yourself, you potential killer! :P
It's called humor! I guess that's The Trouble With Being Ernest. :P
The whole convo takes on a different tune when someone suggests taking away something you find essential, though, huh? That is the slippery slope when making suggestions about forcing some people to do things they don't want to......not everyone will see your logic.
For the literally minded out there, I by no means meant that imidazol97 was an actual killer.
>I by no means meant that imidazol97 was an actual killer.
I feel better now. :shades:
But you must have been responding to an earlier post in the links; mine was too insipid to deserve that label. (Although driving and trying to get the kid on cellphone and text messaging on I70 a couple weeks ago was enough to scare my wife I was going to kill us because I wasn't keeping in my lane. A few of my own experiences with cellphones have me convinced of their distraction potential.)
..some now have a poster ad that reads. "Hey Hot Shot, hang up the cell phone and DRIVE".
It looked like the ad was co-sponsored by AAA. Interesting that they would do that if cell phones ranked 8th on their list and accounted for only 1.5% of the distractions causing accidents. Especially when reading a billboard might be considered an "outside person, object or event" that accounts for 29.4% of distractions.
One thing I will say about these statistics: According to a recent demographic study, 98.3% of cell phone users are not as "hot shot-ty" as me. And not the company I own, my personal net worth, my marriage or my social life has suffered one tiny little bit by my turning off my cell phone before driving around in my 911. So why can't all you other hot shots do the same and end this stupid debate? :P
On a lighter note, my wife watched our neighbor drive off this morning yacking away on his cell phone. With his briefcase and coffee on the roof of his car. We are waiting to find out how far he got.
that the only times I got my two speeding tickets were also the only times I was talking on my cellphone (w/o bluetooth) while driving?
I typically refrain from using the cellphone, especially dailing out. Now I have a bluetooth that I use only to answer calls or call via voice-dail. No tickets using that.
When a "study" can only say that 12 percent of accidents "could" be caused by cell phone usage while driving, it is worthless.
The funny thing is that he totally misquoted the study. It didn't include the 12% figure, and it didn't say what he claimed that it said. He made up that data, and admitted as such in a previous post.
What the study actually reported was that drivers who had accidents and owned phones were more likely than not to have used the phone at some point within several minutes of the accident.
The study never claimed to study all phone users. The only drivers who were studied were those who had both crashes and phones. Phone users who did not have accidents, and non-phone users who had accidents were both excluded from the study.
The study never considered whether the drivers were actually even using the phone at the time of the crashes. Phone usage that occurred within several minutes of the crash was also included in the results, so drivers who were NOT even on the phone were reported as phone users for the purposes of this study.
Nor did the study consider who was at fault for the accidents, or whether the phone played a role in the crash. The issue considered by the study was whether a crash occurred, not why it occurred.
By the way, the problem with all of the above is obvious -- no control group was used for the study at all. Without comparing the performance of these drivers to others, i.e. drivers who wrecked without phones, or drivers with phones who didn't have wrecks, it's hard to know what to even do with such a study.
And the fact that the study didn't even determine whether the phone was in use at the time of the accident would hint that they were trying to cast a wide net to get as much data that would support an agenda as they could. That's fine for them, but why would anyone who actually read about these findings wish to quote them with a straight face?
All that aside however unless we are all being very disengenious we will have to admit that we all have periods of time where our full attention isn't on driving.
Exactly. And to add to that, it is simply blind hysteria for anyone to pretend that complete attention is even required much of the time behind the wheel.
The vast majority of driving is such a rote activity that this degree of attentiveness is not required. If driving was as dangerous as to require 110% all of the time, then we'd need to ban cars entirely except for those very few people capable of that degree of fixation. As it turns out, 13/100ths of a second is just no big deal under real-world conditions.
Comments
Actually it's okay with me that you are misinformed, naive or somehow have a better handle on the analytics of this issue than the experts in the US and the experts in other countries who deemed this a dangerous behavior.. Having "blinders on" regarding cell phone does not make the issue go away. It only let's you talk about it from a position of misinformation.
There is overwhelming evidence to support the usage of cell phones is causes driver inattention. The widespread adoption of cell phones and the sheer number in use by the drivers makes this a critical issue. Driver inattention, in addition to one handed driving is just an accident or fatality waiting to happen. You can be as naive as you want with regard to this issue, but that doesn't make it go away. You can probably expect more laws in the future regarding this.
So we're back to 13/100ths of a second again?
By the way, you never did show us how this 13/100ths of a second has brought us to the brink of the Apocalypse.
That is your one and only misinformed data point. There is no credible body that takes that study seriously as the be all and end all of all studies. I wonder why? It's one datapoint out of hundreds and hundreds, which in context means zero, zilch, nada. Except to you of course. :P
Actually I've already proved causality between cell phone usage and fatalities, so my job here is done.
There you go again, making more inaccurate statements and misreporting the conclusions of the work.
It isn't a single data point, it is from the findings of a "metastudy" that summarized the findings of 20+ other studies. So there are numerous studies that drive that result, not just one.
And can you cite a single legitimate source that finds fault with the data reported in that study? (Let me guess -- you can't.)
There were accidents before cell phones, and will still be after some do-gooders ban them all.
What is stupid is the herd mentality of justifying all kinds of invasions into personal liberty as being done to "help the kids" or prevent accidents.
It isn't a single data point, it is from the findings of a "metastudy" that summarized the findings of 20+ other studies. So there are numerous studies that drive that result, not just one."
There you go again, posting inaccurate information because you don't have an understanding of the real problem, nor do you understand the study you keep quoting. And that prevents you from understanding the information in the links I'm posting.
This is what researchers find time and time again in every different study.
http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
There is not one study that says cell phones are safe and do not distract drivers. In my book widespread behaviors, which cause driver distraction should be banned. And they are, because lawmakers have an understanding of the issue, I might add.
This is a synopsis to date of information:
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/
Here is an overview of the 100-car naturalistic study:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-12/100Car_ESV05summary.pdf
What does it say about wireless devices?
Here is a more detailed analysis of the same study you keep quoting:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/810594/images/810594.pdf
What conclusion can you draw from this? Can you honestly say your posts are accurate after reading this material?
That's only your opinion. As I keep saying, the lawmakers see things differently. And I am in agreement with them based on the information available on cell phone usage while driving.
Mine is based on personal experience which I consider above all studies. I do not go out driving without seeing someone distracted by a cell phone driving a vehicle. The studies and case histories back up what I am seeing. I don't need to know the fatality count for 2004 to know that driving while talking on the cell phone is potentially dangerous. Thankfully our legislatures are not swayed by illogical opinions from those that cannot live without a cell phone in their ear. Face it the cell phone is addictive just like smoking, video games and gambling. It does not need to be used while driving a car.
You need to study the law a little more. It is a California OSHA law. It is not to protect the patrons of a bar. It is to protect the employees working in the bar. If you are the sole owner operator of a bar in CA you do not have to enforce the law. It is not the smoker that gets fined. It is the owner of the bar. I think it is a great law. Made my time working in the bar much more pleasant. Plus it helped business.
That is the point. Why give them one more distraction to add to the problem. I can see next month a thread with "Why are laptop users being singled out". The same people will argue that it should be OK for someone to drive down the road with a laptop strapped to the steering wheel so they can blog on Edmund's while driving to work. If cell phones are allowed I should be able to use my laptop while driving. Or I should be able to play video games to kill the time while commuting. We will have to wait until 2020 to see if the evidence is there to prove that surfing the web while driving is a distraction.
Nobody claimed that they were, so stop strawmaning by arguing with points that nobody made.
You keep trying to change the subject. I asked you to show us the source that you claim takes issue with the findings of the metastudy with the 13/100ths of a second finding. You didn't do that.
I'm going to ask you again to stop changing the subject and to stand behind your earlier accusation. Since you claimed that the figure had been disputed, show us the basis for this claim.
Please read the studies before proceeding with any further opinions. Since you are even loathe to read the studies to which you are deriving your misinformation, I have nothing else to say about this line of conversation for the meantime.
"Nobody claimed that they were, so stop strawmaning by arguing with points that nobody made."
So I argue, it seems successfully, if an action is not safe it is unsafe and should be dealt with.
- playing video games,
- surfing,
- blogging.
Actually one law that covers all wireless devices should handily suffice.
It is not legal to exceed a certain BA level. In CA it will not be legal to use a hand held cell phone. I don't see the problem. gagrice is not the nations' alcohol monitor nor the nations' hand held cell phone monitor.
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/43812/article.html
What may come as an interesting surprise is that, even if a cell phone is being used completely hands-free, the risk of having an accident doesn't seem to be reduced. Apparently, the act of conversing on the phone — not holding the phone to your ear — is the more dangerous distraction. Emotional conversations in particular seem to elevate risk. So hands-free or not, there's an increased risk to DWY.
NHTSA's upcoming study on wireless phone interfaces should shed new light on whether hands-free driving is safer or not. In the meantime, the agency feels that banning hand-held cell phones is a bad idea. And even in states or localities where cell phones are banned, there is a serious problem with compliance.
In fact NHTSA based on what I've observed, and linked to, believes cell phones to be an issue. I didn't write an article that describes the issue, I linked directly to the sources so the reader can draw their own conclusion.
"The two possibilities I see are that either these laws are a bad idea or the NHTSA is capable of being mistaken when it comes to highway safety issues."
The other possibilities:
1. the damage is starting but due to collection methods it is not yet identified as such.
2. opinions from the agency is divided, depending on who you talk to, it's an issue or not. But one has to wonder why attention to this issue is exploding. Mountain out of mole hill syndrome maybe?
3. this is either a really big issue or not a big issue, but the investigators have to determine if driving like a drunk while you are on the phone really leads to more car crashes and fatalities?
In any case until this is sorted out, I believe these laws are going in the right direction.
Cite whatever statistic you wish, but I believe that any reasonable person would conclude that the less attentive that one is to ANY task, the more likely they are to make mistakes.
All that aside however unless we are all being very disengenious we will have to admit that we all have periods of time where our full attention isn't on driving. Where we drive almost on auto pilot. Long stretches of open highway where we will sing to ourselves, have the car on cruise control, hold the hand of our wife's or loved ones. Get involved in a deep conversation or spend time telling jokes. I am willing to bet very few of us are race car driver attentive most of the time we are driving. We listen to favorite songs, look for signs along the road and sometimes even read bill boards. We might say we don't but we know we do. So yes there are distractions, and we weigh all of them against the level of attention we feel we need to drive and survive that level of distraction. The NHTSA study indicated that more people were involved in entertainment center distractions and were involved in more accident within 3 seconds of the accidents than Cell phone users. For some reason this activity doesn't cause alarm even if it is more common. While some laws can and often do seem arbitrary this one seems even more so because it bans hand held cell phones and allows hands free cell phone useage citing the same studies that indicate they are about the same as a distraction.
I have never used a cell phone without a headset and voice dialing. It just seemed common sense to me......
Actually the same report said the major distraction was the cell phone user more than any other form of distraction by a large margin. I posted a link, you can certainly refer to it.
But you knew that.
There were accidents before cell phones, and will still be after some do-gooders ban them all.
What is stupid is the herd mentality of justifying all kinds of invasions into personal liberty as being done to "help the kids" or prevent accidents.
Personal liberty to have a conversation in your vehicle would not be compromised with a law totally banning driver use as long as vehicle is stopped and parked in a safe and legal location.
Personal liberty to do “anything” one desires does have limitations where the safety of self and others are at stake whether on public roads, in the home, in public places, theatres, workplace, etc.
We already have limitations on liberty in motor vehicles in terms of laws requiring certain behavior with regards to seat belt use, child safety harnesses, open liquor, BAC levels, etc. Laws deny "personal liberty" to carry open liquor, drive while drunk, drive without a seatbelt attached, not having a child properly restrained with a specially attached baby seat or seat belts. These are all for the public good.
New laws to totally ban driver cell phone use similarly would be for the public good. Recall arguments over last few decades about seat belt use. There were those who believed, and some still do, that seat belt use is dangerous because they could get trapped in their burning car in an accident. Many of these folks also said that belt usage was uncomfortable and therefore an infringement on their comfort and "personal liberty". Laws were needed to change their behavior and force them to use belts for their own good and the public good.
"Personal liberty" can only be allowed in a moving motor vehicle to the extent it is not a danger to the general public. Driver cell phone use is a distraction in that it diminishes driver attention and reduces reaction time. Majority of drivers using cell phone do not even realize that they are compromising safety. That is why laws are needed to totally ban their use. These laws will get a lot of publicity and responsible drivers will change their behavior. As with any law, some will feel they are above it and will use cell phone anyway.
Perhaps as new total ban laws are enacted in states, public information spots on TV and other media will illustrate the danger in using while driving and will politely encourage drivers to better plan and organize their lives to not have to make cell calls while driving.
Personally, I use the Moto RAZR with a Bluetooth headset, so it works no matter what vehicle I am in. The voice recognition software doesn't require any training, and I can simply speak the numbers and it dials.
And xrunner2, you should talk, when you advocate common sense, such as exceeding the posted speed limits! :P
Here is what I look at. A non profit organization like AAA for traffic safety.
The specific sources of distraction among distracted drivers were, in order of frequency:
Specific Distraction % of Drivers
Outside person, object, or event 29.4%
Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4%
Other occupant 10.9%
Moving object in vehicle 4.3%
Other device/object 2.9%
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8%
Eating and/or drinking 1.7%
Using/dialing cell phone 1.5%
Smoking related 0.9%
Other distractions 25.6%
Unknown distraction 8.6%
Percentages for the different types of distractions should be viewed as preliminary estimates that are likely biased by differential under reporting. These are research results that will be useful in building a broader understanding of driver distraction. The percentages for the different types of distractions should not be used to guide policy development.
Young drivers (under 20 years of age) were the most likely to be involved in distraction-related crashes. In addition, certain types of distractions were more prominent in certain age groups, for example, adjusting the radio, cassette or CD among the under 20-year-olds; other occupants (e.g., young children) among 20-29 year-olds; and outside objects and events among those age 65 and older. Variations by driver sex were less pronounced, although males were slightly more likely than females to be categorized as distracted at the time of their crash.
As opposed to a study that assumes or uses words like could be attributed to. But if we get into one study verses another we are still left with making a decission when we find distractions acceptable and when we don't. Don't even try to convince me that on the road from El Paso to Dallas someone has both hands on the wheel and they don't have time for a call or a cup of coffee 90 percent of the time.
Or are you in favor of banning only items you don't use or like?
When a "study" can only say that 12 percent of accidents "could" be caused by cell phone usage while driving, it is worthless.
Other posters have done a much more thorough job of dismembering this study.
kdshapiro: 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.
Using that criteria...in Harrisburg last year, a grandmother left the passenger-side front seat - while the minivan was in motion - to reprimand her grandchildren in the back seat.
At that moment, a logging truck entering the freeway in the opposite direction turned over, spilling its load of logs.
One of the logs went right through the minivan's windshield and the passenger seat. Fortunately, because she ignored the laws against unfastening a seat beat while the vehicle is in motion, her life was saved.
I guess based on the standard you are using here, since one life was saved by someone's disobedience of mandatory seatbelt laws, we should scrap them.
That hardly constitutes a rebuttal.
imidazol97: Just look all around you.
I do even better. I read the local paper every day for accident reports.
The most common causes of accidents around here are drunk driving and traveling too fast on two-lane country roads. Most fatalities are unbuckled drivers and passengers.
For a few years now, the Pennsylvania State Police have been noting on accident report forms if the driver was using a cell phone at the time of the accident.
If that were the cause of the accident, it would be noted in the report, and picked up by the article.
As for "looking around while driving" - I do that, too and what I see as the most common causes of poor driving are outright rudeness (tailgating, left-lane camping), young, inexperienced drivers, and people who really can't keep up with modern traffic anymore (many of the elderly).
I'm getting smarter at recognizing disingenuos comments and not responding.
If you are saying opening a CD case is the same as talking on a cellphone, I just can't buy that. The problem with talking on a cellphone is that you are tieing up your concentration interpreting what you are hearing with body language and then you are formulating responses. That distracts your brain much more than reaching for a CD case, opening the snap and then pulling out a CD.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And you know what the National Safety Council says, don't you? "It only takes a second of distraction to kill someone you love, or someone who is loved." :sick:
Personally I don't know how you live with yourself, you potential killer! :P
Your response doesn't even make sense in light of my post.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The whole convo takes on a different tune when someone suggests taking away something you find essential, though, huh? That is the slippery slope when making suggestions about forcing some people to do things they don't want to......not everyone will see your logic.
For the literally minded out there, I by no means meant that imidazol97 was an actual killer.
I feel better now. :shades:
But you must have been responding to an earlier post in the links; mine was too insipid to deserve that label. (Although driving and trying to get the kid on cellphone and text messaging on I70 a couple weeks ago was enough to scare my wife I was going to kill us because I wasn't keeping in my lane. A few of my own experiences with cellphones have me convinced of their distraction potential.)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You have that option too, eh? :sick:
It looked like the ad was co-sponsored by AAA. Interesting that they would do that if cell phones ranked 8th on their list and accounted for only 1.5% of the distractions causing accidents. Especially when reading a billboard might be considered an "outside person, object or event" that accounts for 29.4% of distractions.
One thing I will say about these statistics: According to a recent demographic study, 98.3% of cell phone users are not as "hot shot-ty" as me. And not the company I own, my personal net worth, my marriage or my social life has suffered one tiny little bit by my turning off my cell phone before driving around in my 911. So why can't all you other hot shots do the same and end this stupid debate? :P
On a lighter note, my wife watched our neighbor drive off this morning yacking away on his cell phone. With his briefcase and coffee on the roof of his car. We are waiting to find out how far he got.
I typically refrain from using the cellphone, especially dailing out. Now I have a bluetooth that I use only to answer calls or call via voice-dail. No tickets using that.
The funny thing is that he totally misquoted the study. It didn't include the 12% figure, and it didn't say what he claimed that it said. He made up that data, and admitted as such in a previous post.
What the study actually reported was that drivers who had accidents and owned phones were more likely than not to have used the phone at some point within several minutes of the accident.
The study never claimed to study all phone users. The only drivers who were studied were those who had both crashes and phones. Phone users who did not have accidents, and non-phone users who had accidents were both excluded from the study.
The study never considered whether the drivers were actually even using the phone at the time of the crashes. Phone usage that occurred within several minutes of the crash was also included in the results, so drivers who were NOT even on the phone were reported as phone users for the purposes of this study.
Nor did the study consider who was at fault for the accidents, or whether the phone played a role in the crash. The issue considered by the study was whether a crash occurred, not why it occurred.
By the way, the problem with all of the above is obvious -- no control group was used for the study at all. Without comparing the performance of these drivers to others, i.e. drivers who wrecked without phones, or drivers with phones who didn't have wrecks, it's hard to know what to even do with such a study.
And the fact that the study didn't even determine whether the phone was in use at the time of the accident would hint that they were trying to cast a wide net to get as much data that would support an agenda as they could. That's fine for them, but why would anyone who actually read about these findings wish to quote them with a straight face?
Exactly. And to add to that, it is simply blind hysteria for anyone to pretend that complete attention is even required much of the time behind the wheel.
The vast majority of driving is such a rote activity that this degree of attentiveness is not required. If driving was as dangerous as to require 110% all of the time, then we'd need to ban cars entirely except for those very few people capable of that degree of fixation. As it turns out, 13/100ths of a second is just no big deal under real-world conditions.