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
Anyone who states that driving requires 100% of their focus probably shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Its interesting that there is also a eating while driving discussion going on and people opposed to this behavior seem far less militant. My conclusion is that there has developed a form of prejudice against cell phone users that exceeds what can be supported by reason.
I'm gonna call phooey on the remark. This is from the person who is concerned about 13/1000 of a second?
"My conclusion is that there has developed a form of prejudice against cell phone users that exceeds what can be supported by reason."
Actually the prejudice is due to peoples observations and the studies to date. A lot of people and lawmakers have determined that using hand held cell phones to your ear while driving is not a good thing. I agree.
You've got me confused with someone else because I'm not concerned with 13/100ths of a second. I believe you can drive in a manner that allows for this delay. How can safely operating a vehicle require 100% of your attention. I guarantee that when I am driving at night, in bad weather, heavily congested areas, etc. I have to focus more than driving during the day on a highway with sparse traffic. So if I needed full concentration while on that highway then I'd need something greater than 100% effort in these more intensive situations. Its not possible.
Actually the prejudice is due to peoples observations and the studies to date. A lot of people and lawmakers have determined that using hand held cell phones to your ear while driving is not a good thing. I agree.
Again you've missed my point. Most of these studies also mention the dangers of eating and driving and I was pointing out that a lot of people seem more tolerant of that behavior. How would you explain that? Your studies also mention the distraction caused by interacting with passengers. I'm fairly certain that the anti-cell phone crowd for the most part doesn't have strong feelings against this. I'll agree that distractions while driving can be dangerous. But when people take the position that some are more acceptable than others then that's an inconsistency that discredits their opinion. I've heard the argument that just because there are other distractions why do we need one more. That's invalid because cell phones are already here so we aren't talking about adding one more distraction. We are currently talking about which ones to punish and attempt to eliminate. And finally, most states still don't have any legislation against cell phone usage. So apparently even more people and lawmakers have determined that this isn't a worthwile path to take, I agree with the majority on this one.
Sorry, driving requires a 100% attention in any situation. That does not mean I can't use the steering wheel controls to flip the radio. I don't want to hear the pilot is doing something else other than flying when landing the plane. Hand held cell phone usage conclusively has proven it takes away from driving. I'm okay with singling out this crowd, there is ample evidence to prove there is an issue. I don't need people dying on the roadway as my proof.
Actually the driving courses I have been in, say you should maintain both hands on the steering wheel. That would be when you are not shifting. You are trying to justify a behavior pattern that cannot be justified. Any distraction is bad. Some worse than others. That includes talking to the person next to you. I have missed my exit off the freeway because of normal conversation with the person next to me. I think the cell phone ban is a good start with food being another good choice to ban. If government can force people via laws to wear a seat belt or a helmet. They should be more cognizant of behavior that endangers others. That is one of the few things we have a government for. To protect us from outside forces. I would consider a 2 ton projectile running into the side of me an outside force.
Then you must be an awful driver. Even a skilled driver on a racetrack can use the in-car two-way radio without wrecking the vehicle, and this is a guy who is going 150+ mph in fast moving traffic.
Here's a thought -- if you are driving with tunnelvision because you need to focus 100% on a relatively easy activity, then chances are pretty good that you're part of that 1/7th of the population that is involved in 2/3rds of the crashes. And if that's the case, we don't need to be taking away your phone, we need to give you a bus pass.
Then you must be an awful driver. Even a skilled driver on a racetrack can use the in-car two-way radio without wrecking the vehicle, and this is a guy who is going 150+ mph in fast moving traffic.
Aren't those voice activated?
I'll bet people who have had oncoming drivers cross the median on the interstate and hit them headon wished they had maintained both hands and better attention instead of cruise control, lean the seat back, and boogie on down the I75 corridor!!! We have had several of those through SW Ohio.
All relaxed. Talking on the cellphone. Wham.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
How is that relevant? Most of these studies lump together hands-free devices with handheld devices, so that shouldn't make a difference.
What should be most relevant, in any case, is that "accidents" aren't really accidents, and that a few people have an uncanny ability to be involved in most of them. Just as you wouldn't preemptively arrest everyone in town in order to prevent a few crooks from stealing, it's foolish to target the entire driving population for the problems caused by a few people.
By that logic we don't need laws against stealing, rape or murder. It is less than 1% of the population involved in that type behavior. My take on it is this. You are distracted and kill someone, there should be a law that lays out the punishment for the crime. I would consider it attempted murder if you are talking on the cell phone and wander into my lane.
The whole purpose for the cell phone ban, is the masses using them are clueless as to the potential for distraction and mayhem, until after it occurs. Then it is too late to tell them they should not have had that phone stuck in their ear while trying to drive.
>How is that relevant?
That's how it's relevant to your post... They don't have to dial out or answer upon ring after they find where the cellphone is located in the car, pocket, purse, cubbyhole.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
OK, if you're going to resort to extreme strawmen like that, then there's not much point in having discussion, as all the time will be spent discussing irrelevant points.
Crimes such as murder and robbery are illegal because there is an issue of the civil rights of the victim being violated. We outlaw them for the sake of justice.
Phones, on the other hand, are not inherently good or bad -- in fact, as a modern society, we would tend to believe that they are a benefit. (OK, we know that you don't, but you're the odd man out on this one.)
A law against phones only makes sense if (a) phones are a problem and (b) that law can be effective and doesn't inefficiently "distract" law enforcement from more important matters. If the phones aren't particularly hazardous, then the law is unnecessary; if the law in unenforceable, then you should be questioning why you keep it, and whether its cost exceeds its benefit.
You haven't read the studies. They don't distinguish between handheld and handsfree devices, but on conversation. The racer on the two-way is having a conversation.
That is where you fit into the minority. Most folks I know consider them a hazard while driving. I consider them a nuiscance in public. I don't want to hear your side of the story while I am sitting down for a meal. Again you bring up the lack of ability to enforce a cell phone ban. I guess that is the same as unsolved crimes of any sort. At least the perpetrator will know he is breaking the law when he holds the phone to the ear. I repeat most cell phone users are CLUELESS as to the potential hazard. They are also oblivious to those around them. I say take your call outside & pull over to make that important call. No less of a personal freedom restriction than the ban on smoking in public places. Cell phones and cigarettes are both legal addictions.
Well stated.
I recall back somewhere in mid-80's when car cell phones became available, but kind of expensive, that these were status symbols. You had to have some equipment box(es) installed in the trunk. The antenna on top of the rear window of your car said that you have arrived in the minds of some. I remember some "wanna-be" important type guys at the office who were early adopters could usually be seen yakking on the phone coming out of or going into the company parking lot.
Wife and I both had these car cell phones installed around late 80's. There was absolutely no attention back then focussed on the safety problem. (Still is not much). I do remember using cell phone while driving in the past for conversations that could have been made either before my trip or could have waited until my trip end. I also remember that as soon as I hung up that I could not recount many details about road/traffic situations during the phone conversation. I probably made many of these calls due to poor time utilization and planning on my part. I believe that I am now reformed. I try to anticipate calls that need(?) to be made and do so before the trip or wait till end of trip. If I find I failed in planning and suddenly(?) need to make a call while driving, which is rare, I will find a safe and legal place to park to make the call.
Beside people here on Edmunds discussing this cell phone issue, I doubt that the average cell phone using driver ever thinks about the safety degradation issue. They are not stupid, they just don't know any better. The cell phone service providers have not stepped up to provide safety messages in their TV commercials. They could look for examples on corporate responsibility to the beer companies who have had TV commercials in the past about having designated drivers.
Maybe all we need is a very well-to-do person to get nabbed in such a shameful misuse of publicly funded resources, then massive legal challenge can be presented on their dime. In WA there's this kook/thief named Tim Eyman who now and then likes to create movements to change legislation. He's too often off-base, but I bet he'd like to get a movement to repeal this kind of nonsense, should it come to this state. He made the state think twice about the power an individual can have when he changed car registration fees.
Get a ticket for breaking the law....ROFL. That's funny.
Apparently? Is it on record that many state lawmakers did indeed study driver cell phone use and then made determination to do nothing? Which states?
I would welcome an unambiguous law prohibiting cellphone use to PROTECT ME from such expectations of an employer.
That has nothing to do with the cell phone while driving issue. The one is an annoyance. While driving a car it is dangerous to others. There have been plenty of actual accidents posted here and many studies confirming the distraction caused by using a cell phone while driving. There are just a few of this group that cannot see it as a problem. I see it all around me. I worked under very strict Oil company rules concerning cell phones so it is easy for me. I would imagine it will be hard for some to put them down while they drive. They can get used to it and make the roads a little safer for all of us.
Here's a current list of cell phone legislation by state. With the exception of bus drivers and young drivers there doesn't appear to be a total ban in any state. There are 7 states that actually prohibit banning cell phones. Its a knee jerk, political reaction by the handful of states that have passed legislation because if they were going by these studies they would not have singled out handheld devices.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jan2006/bw20060103_745302.htm
Yes. It can be done with maturity, self-control and discipline. I changed my own behavior on cell phone use.
Alas, there will be some, who like spoiled kids/brats in a toy or grocery store, will wail and cry that they have to have toys, candy bars, sugar cereal, etc. There will be some in general population, similar to this board, that will claim that their rights and personal liberties are being violated and our country is headed toward Orwell's 1984.
I am much more concerned about government taxing me out of house and home than a few laws designed to protect those using the highways. Some of the same people that feel using their cell phone while driving is a god given right, will advocate higher and higher taxes. Strange logic in my book.
It's not clear from the article whether or not states' legislatures "actually" debated driver cell phone legislation and then decided to do nothing or made a decision to allow unlimitted driver cell phone use.
Following is one of the responses on Business Week web site regarding the article:
"When a significant percent of the population place their own self-centered desires above the safety of everybody else on the road, even if they don't know any better, then it is time to prohibit the use of all cellphones by all drivers in this country."
Are some of the posters on this board "self-centered"?
I don't know about that. I've read most of the posts and can't remember anyone stating that using a cell phone had zero affect on their ability to drive. Most cell phone users that have been posting acknowledge that they need to be used responsibly and if done so pose at most a very minimal risk. Unfortunately you can't legislate good judgement or good driving and laws that attempt this are futile.
BTW, the analogy someone made between these laws and laws against rape and murder is invalid. The laws against these serious offenses is not to prevent them from happening but to give society a mechanism for removing dangerous people. Seriously, how many people are out there just itching to commit a rape or murder but don't because of the illegality?
I can't see how anybody, thinks looking for stuff in the glove box at 70 is bad, but driving and conversing with a phone in their ear at 70 is justified, because it's my right.
I want property tax reform, not to be killed on the highway because some jerk is ordering out and lost focus on driving.
Amen. Worse are those with walkie talkie function on their Nextel or Nextel-like phones where you hear the other person at a loud volume and the beeps indicating transfer of reception!!! And the people often grin--they're so proud to have the latest. We had those at work 5 years ago.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The idea of cell phone legislation has been around for some time now. I think its unlikely that it has totally escaped the attention of a state. These states inaction can viewed as at least a concession that support does not exist. I doubt support exists in any state for a total ban, which is what your Business Week article calls for.
Are some of the posters on this board "self-centered"?
I've also read articles that state driving a full sized SUV or truck improves your safety at the expense of drivers in smaller vehicles. That could be considered a little self centered. The fact is we are allowed to place our personal interests first, within reason.
What are you talking about? I've never posted anything about a glove box and never justified one distraction while singling out another. That's what the anti cell phone crowd is doing. Hence the thread title, "should cell phone users be singled out"?
You've defended the right of a person to have a couple drinks and drive as long as he's within the legal BAC. Well driving with a handheld cell phone is legal in most states and driving with a hands free is legal in all states. So depending on where you live I guess it is your right.
Does driving at 70 mph represent a difficult task for you? Oh I forgot, in your mind there are no easy tasks when it comes to driving since 100% effort and concentration is always required.
I want property tax reform,
Okay I agree with you there but that represents one of the most bizarre tangents I've read in awhile.
I'm calling BS on this.
"Okay I agree with you there but that represents one of the most bizarre tangents I've read in awhile."
With some of the off-topic tangents you have posted? Give me a brake.
And just how many laws does a society need to survive? How many laws do we currently have on the books? Probably nobody knows the answer to that one, which is a pretty good tip-off that there are too many. When most states already have laws against distracted driving, which they don't enforce, yet they feel compelled to come up with a slightly different flavor of the same law then you know the process is out of control.
I guess as many as it takes to get the message across. Why when most people know that wearing a seat belt is a good thing, do we have seat belt laws with fines? Why do some states feel compelled to spend millions of dollars for signs stating that if you don't buckle you seat belt you will get a ticket? At least the cell phone ban will help protect people from those that feel it is the right to drive while distracted. I would include all distractions. Why not. Then the cell phone people won't feel like lepers.
A quick fix to 25 percent of the deaths caused by accidents would be to ban people under 25 from driving and we could save another 5 or 10 percent by banning people over 70 but I wouldn't support that kind of law either. Just think how easy it would be to save 30 percent of the people that die in traffic accidents. A law dealing with the two extreams of age in the driving spectrum should be easy for some to support, considering they do not believe driving is a right. Still I believe the additional risk is worth it for the ability of those same people to enjoy some of the same mobilety as I have.
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that with as many laws as we currently have if the message still isn't getting accross then its not an effective tool.
The seat belt law is a bad law. It represents the government attempting to protect us from ourselves and that was never the government's purpose. Why is it legal to ride a motorcycle even though the fatality rate is around 30x that of a passenger vehicle? Why is smoking still legal? Now if you say that someone who doesn't use a seat belt should pay more for health insurance I'd have no problem with that. Just like someone that is obese should be paying more. And any other lifestyle choices that can increase your chances of needing additional health care should be subject to an extra fee.
Aren't you the person who keeps us on our toes by telling us when we are making strawman arguments. Well this is a great strawman argument.
So you are in favor of repealing murder and rape laws and every other law that helps a civilized society, since we as a society are still dealing with these issues with laws on books for a long time? That is what you are saying isn't it? Or are you saying you only want to repeal the ones you are personally against like the cell phone laws. Maybe you could help us and cherry pick the laws you want to keep and the laws you want to repeal.
I will admit we are bogged down in the courts and enforcement areas. We have become a society of protecting the guilty while letting the victims suck wind. Our streets are not safe to walk on at night. Our cars are not safe on the streets. Maybe another law will not do any good. At least with a law we make it clear that cell phone usage while driving can be a dangerous distraction. I do not think most people using them have a clue that they are not driving up to what they should be, while talking on the phone.
Interesting, I thought all school buses had seat belts. The school buses in my juristriction have seat belts.
Either I have a problem with communicating or you have a problem with comprehension. I specifically stated that these type of laws are useful because they allow us to remove the offenders from society. I don't think they are particularly effective at preventing the initial act but by eliminating the person responsible you can prevent him from repeating his crime.
Or are you saying you only want to repeal the ones you are personally against like the cell phone laws. Maybe you could help us and cherry pick the laws you want to keep and the laws you want to repeal.
Where I live I'm not subject to any cell phone laws so there is no need to repeal anything. If I use a hands free unit then regardless of where I live these laws won't impact me. So why do I even care? Because I think its a waste of time and discredits the system as a whole. BTW, I actually would like to have the authority to eliminate some laws. I think if given enough time I would get rid of at least 50% of the existing laws, maybe closer to 90%.
That would be the former. The problem is there is very little to stand on when it comes to a case stating cell phone usage while driving is a non-issue. You keep dancing around the same flimsy house of cards without anything that contributes to your position, except a lot of emotion on how bad our legal system is. You are certainly welcome to get as involved in your area as you are in this conversation.
You never answered my post, I didn't really expect a response. For to answer it would be to admit the cell phone usage while driving is an activity that doesn't need to add one more distraction to a driver.
Okay, you're starting to be ridiculous again. I can assure you that long before any cell phone legislation there were serious consequences for being involved in a fatal accident where you were responsible. Often times the person that is fatally injured is the person who caused the accident. You seem to think that isn't an adequate deterrent but a law will be.
Umm no. Since I posted a link to the very same scenario I don't think I am being ridiculous, I don't think you really understand the scope of the issue.
No jail time. Maybe a civil suit. What if the fatality was you?
"You seem to think that isn't an adequate deterrent but a law will be."
Bingo, exactly. Give the man a cigar! Make it a criminal act, maybe people will think twice.
I worked under a zero tolerance jurisdiction for the last 5 years. It was imposed by British Petroleum on all the leased lands they controlled. No cell calls, lights on, seatbelts on, safety glasses with side protection etc etc. Of course they also enforced the regular speeding, stop sign rules. If anyone thinks those rules were not a deterrent they are not living in reality. You break the rules you don't drive in the oil field. If you cannot drive you do not have a job. That was a very well run operation. There were no court of appeals. You were escorted to the plane and your stuff was shipped home. Not many people tried to buck the system as they did not want to jeopardize a $100k+ job.