That said, if someone is so easily distracted as to be the cause of accidents merely talking, they certainly would be the cause of more accidents reading a map, GPS, or even adjusting the temperature controls....
Or, for that matter, at looking at billboards, road signs, other cars, low-cut tops, fingernails, kids in back seats...
It should be fairly obvious that a lot of us can manage balancing all of this stuff well enough, and that only a few of us can't. Most of us know better than to change CD's while going into a hairpin turn or at other critical times, even though there are a few who will and will wreck because of their stupidity. The same logic applies to phone usage and all of the other self-inflicted distractions that most of us can live with, but again, that a few of us cannot. And I'm sure that those who can't make up the majority of that 1/7th of the driving pool who can't help themselves but to slam into other objects multiple times over the course of a one-year study.
Ok I will simplify even further. If as you say cell phones are a distraction, how will a law that doesn't ban cell phones do any good? Will anyone quit using their cell phone and will there be any less distractions? Are you saying that hands free units are not a distraction but hand held units are? The very same units that people are using today they can use tomorrow they simply can't hold them up to their ear. The result of the law is what? It is simply restricting where I hold my hand. Nothing else changes. What will change in the number of calls being made in California in 2008 as opposed to 2007? Maybe I can make it even more specific. Do you believe that people will make fewer calls while driving in 2008 than they are making now? Is the intent of this law to make people stop using cell phones in their cars? If so how will it accomplish that task?
Habitat. I didn't get your answer,I might have missed it, do you believe this law will do anything?
Boaz, I really don't think you are as dumb as you sometimes manage to make yourself sound. But damn if you don't keep trying.
I just timed myself - it took about 10 seconds, both eyeballs and and one hand to dial an area code and phone number on my Motorola. Assuming I didn't hit a bump and press the wrong button and need to start over. At 65 mph, that's roughly 950 feet of travel. I could "multi-task" by glancing down and back up at the road every other number, but then it takes me closer to 15-20 seconds. Conducting this exercise on city streets at 25 mph only covers about 375 feet, but considerably more opportunities for something unexpected to happen in front of me that I'm not prepared to avoid.
And you, of all people, don't get that?? Come on. You fantasize in that other forum about a "high tech" SMG transmission on a MR2 so you can keep both hands on the wheel and shift faster than me in my 911S 6-speed. And not compromise 2 handed "control" of a car that isn't fast enough or handles well enough to test the forearm strength of a grandmother? But now, here, you are suggesting there is no difference in distraction or potential danger in taking both of your eyes off the road and one hand off the wheel to fiddle around with a cell phone compared to a voice activated hands free system?
I'm not suggesting that there won't be some people who still get distracted enough absorbed in conversation to be dangerous. I agree with pch101, it would be nice to just get those drivers off the road completely. And, neither am I suggesting that many intelligent, physically coordinated people can handle dialing a hand held cell phone at the appropriate time without compromising the safety of others. But for someone who is enamored with a paddle shifting slushbox as an alternative to a crisp shifting 6-speed manual so you can keep both hands on the wheel, how can you even ask the "what's the difference?" question with a straight face? If you think paddle shifters are an enhancement to your own driving ability, you fall into the category of "most in need" of a hands free phone.
Sometimes Boaz, I think that the stork that distributed common sense just flew right over your hospital without stopping.
While my reasoning may be frustrating to you your failure to see realism is frustrating to me. The consistency with my belief is that somethings we personally believe will have an effect on the driving public and some things will not. I have never once said during this whole debate that cell phones were not a distraction. I have even posted some of the studies that show where cell phone stands in relation to other distractions, but you seem to be totally missing my point on this one or have the same rose colored glasses on about the value of this particular legislation as some others.
I asked the question because more than half of the people I know and maybe as many of the people in our area that have cell phones use hands free units today. The people that work for me I allow to have cell phones and of those 22 perhaps 15 have cell phones. All my drivers have cell phones so I can contact them to assist in dispatching them. Of the 15 that have cell phones maybe 9 have hands free blue tooth. If you for a minute believe the studies that have been posted then you know those studies don't show hands free units to be less distracting than hand held units. So if hands free units are just as distracting, and all hand held units have the potential of being used hands free, what distraction is this law going to eliminate? Do you mean to tell me you believe there will be less calls on cell phones because of this law? Do you ever look at the rest of the world or how people are as opposed to should be? Put yourself in the place of the officer trying to enforce this law. It doesn't say it has to be a voice activated cell phone, though most cells have that feature now. So how in the world can the officer enforce a law that will require him to see your hand next to your ear and even if he does guess correctly you are making a call how will he know you didn't simply use the voice command, assuming you aren't foolish enough to have the phone next to your ear? So tell me again how I am missing the point? Tell me again how this law will eliminate distractions. If you believe for a minute the cell phone companies will have fewer billing minutes in California between December 2007 and January 2008 I hope you enjoy the gifts santa brings you and say hello to the easter bunny for me.
The other debate is still going on so we didn't have to bring it here. Sometimes I believe you get so caught up in opposing the person you miss the whole point of the debate. Like you have on paddle shifters. I don't care how your 911 feels. Never have. I am a drag racing fan. Drag racing is all about quick not feel. My preference can be measured and tested. Debates aren't about individuals they are about ideas.
Now that we have cleared the air a bit tell me again. Do you believe this law will have any effect on distractions or cell phone use. I say, no.
"Do you ever look at the rest of the world? Put yourself in the place of the officer trying to enforce this law"
It was suggested the Autobahn for its' speeds is the safest road in the world. Germany, has strict cell phone legislation. Do you think there is a correlation between Germany's laws and the ability to go 150 without looking down to dial a cell phone? Do you think dialing a phone on the Autobahn at those speeds should be allowed? If you do not think so, what speed should a driver be allowed to take their eyes off the road? These are just rhetorical questions for the driver who believes they are they exception.
You said you communicate with your drivers via cell phones. Are you aware of the huge damages awarded to individuals(or families) hurt or killed by drivers on the job using cell phones? Is that an acceptable risk for you?
What makes you think an officers primary duty will be enforcement of these laws? If the cops see you on the phone you will be ticketed, else you get a free pass. If you cause a car crash and the cops determine you committed a traffic infraction you will get a ticket, and I'm sure be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
But since you recognize there is a danger in using phones, why don't you just put them down completely?
I find it hard to believe, everyone quotes studies about the danger of cell phones and nobody except for habitat1 has claimed to put them down. What's up with that? I admit to using hands-free, my hands are always on the wheel and my eyes on the road.
You are disingenuous in this regard. You did not put them down you simply did as I said everyone will more than likely do. You switched, and you admitted it. If you believed they were such a distraction you would have stopped all together. Because I don't believe they are as great a of a distraction I am willing to measure the risk and decide when I can and can't use one. If a person lacks that capability to make such decisions they might consider taking public transportation. Changing the radio is a distraction, we measure that and take the risk. Talking to another person in the car is a distraction, we measure the risk and take the chance. Drinking coffee is a distraction but we measure the risk and take the chance. If someone is incapable of assigning risk to their driving actions maybe they should evaluate their ability to drive at all. Whatever the case you are not clean in principle even if you are in practice. Not my principles mind you, because I am not here to judge your ability to determine how much distraction you are willing to risk. You have in effect proposed a do as I say as opposed as a do as I do argument. Do you believe the calls will go down or not? Do you believe hands free is a distraction or not? Sidestep it all you want that is what it all comes down to. What real world effect will this law have? If you weren't compelled by your own argument to give up cell phones in you car by your own admission, at least till now, how can you expect anyone else to?
"You are disingenuous in this regard." "Do you believe hands free is a distraction or not?" (I believe hands-free is a still a driver distraction, yes)
First I am not disingenious, I am asking some questions, of which none of them you answered. Especially those about driving 150 on the Autobahn and looking at your cell phone to dial. But you seem to be saying a huge civil (multi-millions) judgement against your company if a driver kills a person, while talking on the cell phone to you is an acceptable risk? It's okay if it is, I am asking.
Second, you are indirectly supporting habitat1s' point where it says these regulations were written for the lowest common denominator of driver. By claiming you yourself deem to the risk to be acceptable unless you really get tested you don't really know if your cognotive functions are diminished when talking on the phone. So even if you deem the risk acceptable, the lawmakers are taking the decision making out of your hands.
Thirdly, with regard to my own usage, first and foremost I am operating within the law, as apparantly are you. The difference is while I admit to using a hands-free and I repeat my hands and eyes are on the road. A person with common sense would say, it is much safer to voice dial, instead of looking at the phone to dial. I also admit I understand there are situations I should not be using the hands free. You have not said any such thing about using the phone.
So while you can claim I am being a hypocrite, I can claim I am operating my vehicle in a safer manner than you.
"If you for a minute believe the studies that have been posted then you know those studies don't show hands free units to be less distracting than hand held units."
Say what?? I haven't posted any studies, just actual statistics with verifiable sources rather than the voodoo stats you and/or brightness posted.
Would you need a friggin "study" to tell you you're going to get wet if you walk out in the rain without an umbrella? If you need some third party study to tell you that taking your eyes off the road and your hand off the wheel for 10-20 seconds to dial a number is no less "distracting" than pushing a button at the 10 o'clock position on the steering wheel and speaking the number into the system, then I can't help you. Go commission the study.
And while you are at it, have the study tell you whether there is any difference in driver distraction level between listening to the radio or playing a keyboard mounted to your passenger seat. Or, more likely, glancing at a GPS sytem for directions vs. attaching a keyboard to it so you can surf the web while you are cruising the highway.
Oh, not to get further off subject, but I see now you're a "drag racing fan"? So all that talk about why paddle shifting SMG's are the wave of the future for street legal sports cars because they are used in Schumacher's 3.5 lateral G Formula One racer was??? I guess just a detour from the real logical argument - that the manual transmission is really dying because California's Hummer driving governator is going to outlaw them to save the earth.
I haven't posted any studies, just actual statistics with verifiable sources rather than the voodoo stats you and/or brightness posted.
But if you read the various theoretical studies that make various negative claims about phone usage, you'll see that most of them put hands-free and handheld on equal footing. They attribute the correlation in the data that they report to distraction caused by conversation, not to holding the device to your head.
Intuitively, I too would be inclined to think that hands-free is better than hand-held. I personally avoid using the phone without an earbud because I like to have both hands on the wheel, and because I have a manual transmission. But the studies would tell you that this makes no appreciable difference in the outcome.
If we are going to use these studies to support legislation, then it should be to ban the use of phones entirely, including hands-free. The funny thing about proponents of these laws is that they quote the studies out of one side of their mouths, while conveniently ignoring their findings out of the other. Those who support a ban only on hand-helds but support the use of hands-free alternatives are basing that strictly on opinion and intuition, not on the studies.
The problem is those who support legislation to ban cell phone use totally ignore the other "distractions" like MP3 players, CD's, and navigation. Even talking to other passengers.
There is a reason transportation agencies have rules against bus drivers chatting with passengers....it distracts them! :surprise:
The problem is those who support legislation to ban cell phone use totally ignore the other "distractions" like MP3 players, CD's, and navigation. Even talking to other passengers.
And yet another problem is that the studies don't tend to address why it is that a few drivers manage to collide so often, and what we can do about those people. There is no social benefit gained by treating everyone like the lowest common denominator.
"nd yet another problem is that the studies don't tend to address why it is that a few drivers manage to collide so often, and what we can do about those people. There is no social benefit gained by treating everyone like the lowest common denominator."
You are still going around in circles because you are guessing, because the real numbers are not known. But I'm glad you do acknowledge taking your eyes off the road to dial the phone is not a good thing.
It would be okay to say (if you believe) that you acknowledge that conversations are distracting, but knowing that they are managed appropriately and minimized your risk.
Maybe if everybody use these things responibly, these laws wouldn't be needed. But the people that don't understand and can't manage and cause issues, these laws are needed.
But if everybody drunk responsibily also, we wouldn't need drunk driving laws and have the number of DUIs go up instead of down since last year. Unfortunately other areas of driving show the LCD needs to be addressed.
"The funny thing about proponents of these laws is that they quote the studies out of one side of their mouths, while conveniently ignoring their findings out of the other. Those who support a ban only on hand-helds but support the use of hands-free alternatives are basing that strictly on opinion and intuition, not on the studies."
You brought up a great point and as a pro-restriction person I've already addressed this in a previous post. Some could try to call me a hypocrite (but will only be able to make that point if the person does not use hand held cell phones while driving and I will debate it), since I use a hands free and manage my conversations, I'm safer than xx% of the people out there who blindly think it is okay to look away from the road and engage in intense conversations who don't know any better.
I give up. You win. There is no problem and whatever problem there was this law will solve. People will make fewer calls in their car and the accident rate will drop in relation to that trend. All this because you feel it. AAA and NHTSA should have just asked rather than doing the study and listing the distractions in order. My posting of the results only made me the messenger. However if you like I will take credit for commissioning the study. I apologize for taking up so much of your time. The other guy was simply saying one thing and doing another but I didn't realize you carry a grudge from one forum to the other.
I had asked if you thought the law would do any good because I thought you would be honest and tell me how you thought it would effect cell phone use or distractions caused by cell phones. I now realize you didn't care you only wanted to get at me because of my stand in another forum. I am sorry I hurt your feelings and will try not to address you again on controversial, or emotional, subjects. Have a merry Christmas.
Nobody knows what the nationwide real number of crashes or fatalities that are directly attributable to the root cause of inattention due to cell phone use, either dialing or loss of cognitive abilities due to conversation. Backing into the number by trying to deduce it from the VMT is like taking the number of stars in the universe dividing by 2 and coming up with an estimate.
The only real way to know for sure is to nationwide track this information, in the same way DUIs are now tracked. In 5 to 10 years, a picture will emerge. More studies now in progress will shed additional light on the effect on drivers.
In the meantime, cell phones are now the poster child for driver inattention. The reason for this is the fast spreading brush-fire like quality they have demonstrated in being used by the motoring public. More than cds, makeup, fiddling with radio, eating MacDonalds, sifting through the glove box, etc.
Doesn't it make more sense for people to actually study the situation, before demanding passage of MORE laws :confuse:
It is rather startling to see so many people, who usually post with good sense, to be backing something we know little about, other than someones good guess. I must have hit home with my comments about talking to passengers. There are several studies done by Regional Transportation Agencies that do show cause and effect between their drivers chatting with riders and more accidents. Since these are so-called "professional drivers" it is fair to make the assumption non-professional drivers (us) would be at least as "distracted" by chattering away with passengers.
By the way, statistics show there are more vehicles with radios/CD's out there than cellular users. And I venture to guess more women applying makeup and combing their hair as well. :P
Don't fall into this "we don't have sufficient information" trap. There is plenty of information, both direct real-world data and through implication. Some of it has been provided above. Just because the proponents of the law don't want to read those posts or research the data for themselves doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
PCH, don't be acting like my Conservative brethren and take that all or nothing tack.
The point is, there are just as many studies showing distractions from the radio/CD/MP3 players cause just as many accidents. And even more, as I said, conducted by transportation agencies, showing the distraction of talking to other passengers cause way more.
So, I am waiting for these anti-phone zealots to pony up, and also agree that along with banning cell phones, we forbid radios and navigation units, as well as talking to others while driving. Let us see how fair they really are, when banning effects something they like to use, or do, shall we? :P
"So, I am waiting for these anti-phone zealots to pony up, and also agree that along with banning cell phones, we forbid radios and navigation units, as well as talking to others while driving. Let us see how fair they really are, when banning effects something they like to use, or do, shall we? :P"
Okay, this might be tough, but I'm asking you to be honest and use common sense. How long does it take to change the station on your radio. To me about 2 seconds and I don't have to take my eyes off the road. How long does it take to insert a cd? To me zero, I don't do it while moving. How long does it take to dial a phone by punching in the numbers. to me 15 or 20 seconds with my eyes and hand off the wheel a number of times and many seconds. How many times do you take your eyes off the road?
When traveling down the road, do you notice many drivers holding a cell phone to their ear more often than not?
If you live in Montana you may answer zero the last question, but in CA, Florida, NY, NJ and Chicago it's very prevalent. Even talking about other distracting behaviors, I may see one idiot doing something like reading the paper, for every 10 using the phone. The knowledge gained from the studies and the prevalent use of cell phones has lead to bans, restrictions and partial restrictions.
In my other cars, I don't even have to move my hands to fiddle with the radio or cd. All the controls are under both thumbs. Talking is rarely allowed in my cars by the driver, the rule is the driver needs to drive. Even so when attention demands it, it is much easier to shut up, than to throw down the phone and put both hands on the wheel.
One more thing, when the younger set drives the rules are no radio, no cd, no casual talking. So I do recognize there can be distractions in the car, which puts me ahead of a other less informed drivers who do not believe they can be distracted. (not anybody on this board however :P )
>Talking is rarely allowed in my cars by the driver,
And often the passenger will quit talking when things get tense on the road or will comment or point at the car coming on the side street that's not slowing down for its stopsign; a cellphone "partner" can't do that.
> does it take to change the station on your radio.
Most drivers know their radio and do it by feel. Even if I don't, it doesn't require the same brain concentration to glace at the dial, if traffic isn't tight or demanding, and see what I want to do and then my eyes are back on the road. Or I press the steering wheel button. But I know both my radios by feel.
Same for the AC/heater controls or I just use the temp adjust button on the steering wheel.
Same for the wipers and dimmer lever combo w/ cruise on one car. On the others cruise buttons are, guess where, on the steering wheel.
If you've watched someone one the telephone their eyes go into a "telephone stare" when the subject is demanding their brain's focus. The same occurs on the cellphones. The lady drifting on I70 had the same forward stare as she drove and held her phone. Some people use the same stare to try to confuse someone reading body language for lie telltales. I've used it often to decide if someone is more likely to be lying.
Ken, I spend lots of times in Great Falls.....all the time keeping in touch with my business, using a headset...like most in Montana do, even my ranching friends are using Bluetooth. :P
These days, in the City, kids are using CD/DVD players with video displays....I even saw one down in Kalispell this last year. :P
And as someone who has been through three kids, I can assure you they are not refraining from talking when you aren't there. Bug the car sometime, you will learn too much.....
Actually they have a method right now to determine who is at fault in many accidents. At least if your cars is a 2005 or newer.
NHTSA 06-06Monday. August 21, 2006
Automakers will be required, for the first time ever, to tell new car buyers if an Event Data Recorder (EDR) has been installed under a new rule issued today by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Event Data Recorders are electronic devices that capture crash data in the few seconds before, during and after a crash. EDRs do not capture any data unless there is a collision that is severe enough to cause the airbag to deploy. While automakers are not required to install EDRs, approximately 64 percent of the model year 2005 passenger vehicles came equipped with the device. This new rule will not require automakers to install EDRs if they are not already doing so. The new federal rule, which takes effect starting with model year 2011 cars, will require automakers who have chosen to install EDRs to note in the owner’s manual that the safety monitoring equipment has been installed.
There is the solution to the distraction problem and it doesn't cost the tax payer anything. I didn't know about them but I am sure my insurance company did. And I see they are willing to give the manufacturers plenty of time to gather data before they have to tell you if your car has one. I wonder how many would have had them installed if the NHTSA hadn't decided to make them tell us? You might also make note of the fact they are not telling the manufacturers to stop installing them.
All well and good....however it won't tell anyone if a husband and wife were arguing like crazy people before the crash, or if some teenagers were blasting the music and raising hell while driving.....
I don't understand why NY and other places ban "hand-held" usage of cell phones while driving and not "free-hand" with it. Wouldn't it be better if they were to completely ban cell phone communication while driving?
Is it because if they ban "free-hand" there would be no way for a police officer to pull over a driver mumbling to themselves?
I've read some research that says hand-held and free-hand usage of cell phones while driving both distracts a driver's 'cognition' state. Sure dialing numbers on a hand-held is a bit distracting but isn't the main cause of distraction being the driver's mind?
In emergencies, without that moments of hesitation of fumbling with holding a phone, both hands can be on the wheel where they should be anyway. Two or three seconds can make the difference between loosing control or not.
Wired or wireless, there is just no excuse for not using a headset of some type. Most phones even come with voice dialing, so you don't even have to look at a keypad, just say "Call 911" or "Call Home". I've been using voice dialing and/or a headset for over 10 years now, IMO, its just plain inexcusable to not be using that technology if you must make or take a call when driving.
And to add fuel to this non-debate, debate, there are literally thousands of people who's lives have been saved by motorists reporting hazards on the road, wash-outs, road rage idiots, and even con artists who deliberately hit motorists from behind, boxing them in, and robbing them or stealing their cars.
Personally I have reported to the police two guys literally trying to force some woman off the road (turns out to be an abusive husband and his buddy), dozens of washed-out or huge boulders on the road, and scores of injury accidents, several involving small kids being hit.
Would any of you zealots really wish I, or the thousands who also report such trouble, every day, wasn't allowed to use a phone in the car? And would as many bother to help out do so if it meant they had to pull over before legally calling?
I've had that talk with my kids, and was quite blunt them about the consequences using their phones in the car while they are driving (except in an emergency), if I find out. That kids use dvd players in the car and have that type of a cavalier attitude toward driving is going to get them into trouble.
I personally know of four drivers with graduated licenses that totaled their cars, with the exception of one driver, who was rear-ended the other three happened under "mysterious" circumstances.
So having children I want to see grow up without becoming a statistic, I may be a bit more sensitive and passionate about things that cause driver distraction.
"Would any of you zealots really wish I, or the thousands who also report such trouble, every day, wasn't allowed to use a phone in the car? And would as many bother to help out do so if it meant they had to pull over before legally calling?"
I agree with everything you said. In an emergency I would want someone to call on my behalf, as I would call on someone elses behalf.
But calling in an emergency is an infrequent act that is not even a blip on the radar. For me, it is the fumbling to dial, phone to the ear gossiper, who pays more attention to the conversation than the driving, who is the issue for all of us. Unfortunately that person is all around us when we drive, or worse, looking at videos.
Unfortunately because that driver exists, we must all be penalized, in a manner exactly like the drinker and driver.
>Would any of you zealots really wish I, or the thousands who also report such trouble, every day, wasn't allowed to use a phone in the car?
And those are calls you can make sitting still at the side of the road--not socializing or conducting business while driving for 30 minutes as I picture the problem. You certainly can make an emergency call without stopping other than pausing to dial "9," "1," "1."
Some drivers amazed me by being able to smoke AND to talk on a cell phone while driving... Although smoking might not take the driver's mind of the road it definitely takes one hand off the wheel and makes a substantial distraction...
Actually once I was in a big slow moving traffic jam on I-95 I think... We were moving w/ approximately 0 - 30mph speed. In the neighbor lane a small truck suddenly hit a truck a front of it, and even at such slow speed the airbag went off. I still can picture a driver's face with a cigarette in his mouth and totally surprised expression....
Anyway, although poor smokers wouldn't be able to smoke pretty much anywhere if the driver's seat will be also free of smoking, I think it would be really good to make this a law...
I'd second that. If the wannabe authoritarians are going to ban one distraction, they need to ban them all. Smoking, eating, drinking, playing games on a LCD screen, untethered animals, all of it.
Of course, those are more difficult/less visible scapegoats.
I was run into by a woman driver on her cellphone, again. She stopped quickly, not paying attention to the surroundings and traffic because of the conversation distracting her, spun her cart around to go the other direction. She ran her cart into mine. It took her a lot more than 0.13 seconds to realize she had done something wrong in the traffic pattern.
Would think that the bottom front of a heavily loaded shopping cart can cause a severe injury to ankle/foot if pushed into a person. Wonder when we will hear of a case at a big box store somewhere involving a customer injured by another customer who is busy on cell phone and pushing cart. Will store share liability for injury because of lack of adequate warnings/instructions on using the cart with a cell phone? Sound ridiculous? Will stores need to have warnings posted in carts and in cart parking area to not use cell phones while pushing cart? :P
I sometimes have to make cell phone call to wife while in store. But, of course, I park my cart in a safe area and not blocking anyone and then make the call with as "quiet" of my voice as possible.
Do Multi-taskers (driving and using) have same behavior in store as in car on cell phone use?
Actually there were lawsuits about heavy carts tipping, and they were re-designed more than a dozen years ago to discourage using them as a "coaster", putting one's feet on the bottom bar, and gliding along. If one was heavy enough, the entire car up-ended. :sick:
As for the other comments above, yes, as I said, one can pull over and dial 911. I asked how many would be such good Samaritan's if they had to inconvenicence themselves.
Really, some of you should get out of the horse-and-buggy days, and realize most cell phones today come with VOICE dialing, so no need to even look at a keyboard! :P
I've read some research that says hand-held and free-hand usage of cell phones while driving both distracts a driver's 'cognition' state.
Welcome to the forum. I agree with the research that shows that all type of communication by phone while driving is very distracting. I think the Majority of drivers agree with those studies. Just getting it across to the minority that feel they have a right to drive any way they darn well please is the issue.
I asked how many would be such good Samaritan's if they had to inconvenience themselves.
When I hit a deer in Sun Valley Idaho, a nice gentleman stopped and called the Sheriff for us. In 1998 we did not have a cell phone that worked in that area.
Your comments about using a headset are not really an issue. The CA ban does not include those using hands free cell phones. So you are not being singled out. Only those trying to juggle a hand held phone while driving are being selected.
"Just getting it across to the minority that feel they have a right to drive any way they darn well please is the issue."
It is not the minority, it is the majority. It has nothing to do with good vs bad drivers. It is the number of cell phones being used in the aggregate on the road at the same time. Minority vs majority, good vs bad it adds up to a lot of drivers.
From what I've seen in rush hour traffic, talking on the phone is the rule rather than the exception.
I was going by one of the studies that said 6% of the people use cell phones while driving. It seemed low to me from what I see driving around town. I think you are right about the extent of the problem. I was run out of my lane by a distracted cell phone user yesterday. Then she swerved back and almost got the guy that was behind her. Of course there is never a cop around to see that behavior. They are busy protecting the donut shops from being robbed.
"And I drive surface streets for most of my commutes. Lots of phone yappers. A few LLC yappers, no carnage."
It's different here, I can see three or four accidents and wonder why. Maybe cell phones maybe not. You still do not want people driving like they have their eyes closed even if you believe the carnage is low.
And I drive surface streets for most of my commutes. Lots of phone yappers.
I do not see carnage as you put it. I see yappers not paying attention to the lights and stop signs. They are holding up traffic. That would be my biggest gripe. We have some very short left turn signals. Someone talking instead of driving can block several people from making the green arrow. Hopefully the cameras for red light runners will get the cell phone talkers as well. Mail em a ticket.
Wouldn't not paying attention to lights and signs cause an increase in fender benders? An increase that isn't taking place.
I do notice the yappers who hesitate to accelerate or camp out in lanes where they have no right to be...that's it. But compared to phone proliferation, I really don't see more of these people than say 10 years ago. Clueless is clueless, a phone doesn't change things.
Mail em a ticket...that'll solve things. Phones can easily be masked. I saw a cover for a phone that looked like a banana. The authoritarians won't win. Bring it on.
That's the fallacy, without any metrics you don't know how many of the 24,000 fatalities that were not DUI were due to cell phones. It could be 1 or it could be 12,000.
And for the record, even if it is one, the driving people should not have to put with "yappers" that are not able to drive, that swerve, tailgate and other behaviors due to loss of cognitive abilities.
"It should be locked down. Opinions are not being changed here, and there is nothing to be gained from it"
Why are you posting here then? You could ignore the thread and take it off your tracked items? As long as the posters adhere to the "Rules of the road" what is the problem?
The fallacy is the massive problem that the wannabe authoritarians claim is taking place...with nothing to back it up. The actions of irresponsible credibility-free legislators aren't a leg to stand on.
How many of those fatalities stemmed from playing with in car electronics, smoking, daydreaming, untethered kids and animals, eating and drinking, etc? Why do the wannabe authoritatians ignore this? I shouldn't have to put up with any of that either.
Comments
Or, for that matter, at looking at billboards, road signs, other cars, low-cut tops, fingernails, kids in back seats...
It should be fairly obvious that a lot of us can manage balancing all of this stuff well enough, and that only a few of us can't. Most of us know better than to change CD's while going into a hairpin turn or at other critical times, even though there are a few who will and will wreck because of their stupidity. The same logic applies to phone usage and all of the other self-inflicted distractions that most of us can live with, but again, that a few of us cannot. And I'm sure that those who can't make up the majority of that 1/7th of the driving pool who can't help themselves but to slam into other objects multiple times over the course of a one-year study.
Habitat. I didn't get your answer,I might have missed it, do you believe this law will do anything?
I just timed myself - it took about 10 seconds, both eyeballs and and one hand to dial an area code and phone number on my Motorola. Assuming I didn't hit a bump and press the wrong button and need to start over. At 65 mph, that's roughly 950 feet of travel. I could "multi-task" by glancing down and back up at the road every other number, but then it takes me closer to 15-20 seconds. Conducting this exercise on city streets at 25 mph only covers about 375 feet, but considerably more opportunities for something unexpected to happen in front of me that I'm not prepared to avoid.
And you, of all people, don't get that?? Come on. You fantasize in that other forum about a "high tech" SMG transmission on a MR2 so you can keep both hands on the wheel and shift faster than me in my 911S 6-speed. And not compromise 2 handed "control" of a car that isn't fast enough or handles well enough to test the forearm strength of a grandmother? But now, here, you are suggesting there is no difference in distraction or potential danger in taking both of your eyes off the road and one hand off the wheel to fiddle around with a cell phone compared to a voice activated hands free system?
I'm not suggesting that there won't be some people who still get distracted enough absorbed in conversation to be dangerous. I agree with pch101, it would be nice to just get those drivers off the road completely. And, neither am I suggesting that many intelligent, physically coordinated people can handle dialing a hand held cell phone at the appropriate time without compromising the safety of others. But for someone who is enamored with a paddle shifting slushbox as an alternative to a crisp shifting 6-speed manual so you can keep both hands on the wheel, how can you even ask the "what's the difference?" question with a straight face? If you think paddle shifters are an enhancement to your own driving ability, you fall into the category of "most in need" of a hands free phone.
Sometimes Boaz, I think that the stork that distributed common sense just flew right over your hospital without stopping.
I have never once said during this whole debate that cell phones were not a distraction. I have even posted some of the studies that show where cell phone stands in relation to other distractions, but you seem to be totally missing my point on this one or have the same rose colored glasses on about the value of this particular legislation as some others.
I asked the question because more than half of the people I know and maybe as many of the people in our area that have cell phones use hands free units today. The people that work for me I allow to have cell phones and of those 22 perhaps 15 have cell phones. All my drivers have cell phones so I can contact them to assist in dispatching them. Of the 15 that have cell phones maybe 9 have hands free blue tooth. If you for a minute believe the studies that have been posted then you know those studies don't show hands free units to be less distracting than hand held units. So if hands free units are just as distracting, and all hand held units have the potential of being used hands free, what distraction is this law going to eliminate? Do you mean to tell me you believe there will be less calls on cell phones because of this law? Do you ever look at the rest of the world or how people are as opposed to should be? Put yourself in the place of the officer trying to enforce this law. It doesn't say it has to be a voice activated cell phone, though most cells have that feature now. So how in the world can the officer enforce a law that will require him to see your hand next to your ear and even if he does guess correctly you are making a call how will he know you didn't simply use the voice command, assuming you aren't foolish enough to have the phone next to your ear? So tell me again how I am missing the point? Tell me again how this law will eliminate distractions. If you believe for a minute the cell phone companies will have fewer billing minutes in California between December 2007 and January 2008 I hope you enjoy the gifts santa brings you and say hello to the easter bunny for me.
The other debate is still going on so we didn't have to bring it here. Sometimes I believe you get so caught up in opposing the person you miss the whole point of the debate. Like you have on paddle shifters. I don't care how your 911 feels. Never have. I am a drag racing fan. Drag racing is all about quick not feel. My preference can be measured and tested. Debates aren't about individuals they are about ideas.
Now that we have cleared the air a bit tell me again. Do you believe this law will have any effect on distractions or cell phone use. I say, no.
It was suggested the Autobahn for its' speeds is the safest road in the world. Germany, has strict cell phone legislation. Do you think there is a correlation between Germany's laws and the ability to go 150 without looking down to dial a cell phone? Do you think dialing a phone on the Autobahn at those speeds should be allowed? If you do not think so, what speed should a driver be allowed to take their eyes off the road? These are just rhetorical questions for the driver who believes they are they exception.
You said you communicate with your drivers via cell phones. Are you aware of the huge damages awarded to individuals(or families) hurt or killed by drivers on the job using cell phones? Is that an acceptable risk for you?
What makes you think an officers primary duty will be enforcement of these laws? If the cops see you on the phone you will be ticketed, else you get a free pass. If you cause a car crash and the cops determine you committed a traffic infraction you will get a ticket, and I'm sure be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
But since you recognize there is a danger in using phones, why don't you just put them down completely?
I find it hard to believe, everyone quotes studies about the danger of cell phones and nobody except for habitat1 has claimed to put them down. What's up with that? I admit to using hands-free, my hands are always on the wheel and my eyes on the road.
"Do you believe hands free is a distraction or not?" (I believe hands-free is a still a driver distraction, yes)
First I am not disingenious, I am asking some questions, of which none of them you answered. Especially those about driving 150 on the Autobahn and looking at your cell phone to dial. But you seem to be saying a huge civil (multi-millions) judgement against your company if a driver kills a person, while talking on the cell phone to you is an acceptable risk? It's okay if it is, I am asking.
Second, you are indirectly supporting habitat1s' point where it says these regulations were written for the lowest common denominator of driver. By claiming you yourself deem to the risk to be acceptable unless you really get tested you don't really know if your cognotive functions are diminished when talking on the phone. So even if you deem the risk acceptable, the lawmakers are taking the decision making out of your hands.
Thirdly, with regard to my own usage, first and foremost I am operating within the law, as apparantly are you. The difference is while I admit to using a hands-free and I repeat my hands and eyes are on the road. A person with common sense would say, it is much safer to voice dial, instead of looking at the phone to dial. I also admit I understand there are situations I should not be using the hands free. You have not said any such thing about using the phone.
So while you can claim I am being a hypocrite, I can claim I am operating my vehicle in a safer manner than you.
Say what?? I haven't posted any studies, just actual statistics with verifiable sources rather than the voodoo stats you and/or brightness posted.
Would you need a friggin "study" to tell you you're going to get wet if you walk out in the rain without an umbrella? If you need some third party study to tell you that taking your eyes off the road and your hand off the wheel for 10-20 seconds to dial a number is no less "distracting" than pushing a button at the 10 o'clock position on the steering wheel and speaking the number into the system, then I can't help you. Go commission the study.
And while you are at it, have the study tell you whether there is any difference in driver distraction level between listening to the radio or playing a keyboard mounted to your passenger seat. Or, more likely, glancing at a GPS sytem for directions vs. attaching a keyboard to it so you can surf the web while you are cruising the highway.
Oh, not to get further off subject, but I see now you're a "drag racing fan"? So all that talk about why paddle shifting SMG's are the wave of the future for street legal sports cars because they are used in Schumacher's 3.5 lateral G Formula One racer was??? I guess just a detour from the real logical argument - that the manual transmission is really dying because California's Hummer driving governator is going to outlaw them to save the earth.
Good grief. :confuse:
But if you read the various theoretical studies that make various negative claims about phone usage, you'll see that most of them put hands-free and handheld on equal footing. They attribute the correlation in the data that they report to distraction caused by conversation, not to holding the device to your head.
Intuitively, I too would be inclined to think that hands-free is better than hand-held. I personally avoid using the phone without an earbud because I like to have both hands on the wheel, and because I have a manual transmission. But the studies would tell you that this makes no appreciable difference in the outcome.
If we are going to use these studies to support legislation, then it should be to ban the use of phones entirely, including hands-free. The funny thing about proponents of these laws is that they quote the studies out of one side of their mouths, while conveniently ignoring their findings out of the other. Those who support a ban only on hand-helds but support the use of hands-free alternatives are basing that strictly on opinion and intuition, not on the studies.
There is a reason transportation agencies have rules against bus drivers chatting with passengers....it distracts them! :surprise:
And yet another problem is that the studies don't tend to address why it is that a few drivers manage to collide so often, and what we can do about those people. There is no social benefit gained by treating everyone like the lowest common denominator.
You are still going around in circles because you are guessing, because the real numbers are not known. But I'm glad you do acknowledge taking your eyes off the road to dial the phone is not a good thing.
It would be okay to say (if you believe) that you acknowledge that conversations are distracting, but knowing that they are managed appropriately and minimized your risk.
Maybe if everybody use these things responibly, these laws wouldn't be needed. But the people that don't understand and can't manage and cause issues, these laws are needed.
But if everybody drunk responsibily also, we wouldn't need drunk driving laws and have the number of DUIs go up instead of down since last year. Unfortunately other areas of driving show the LCD needs to be addressed.
You brought up a great point and as a pro-restriction person I've already addressed this in a previous post. Some could try to call me a hypocrite (but will only be able to make that point if the person does not use hand held cell phones while driving and I will debate it), since I use a hands free and manage my conversations, I'm safer than xx% of the people out there who blindly think it is okay to look away from the road and engage in intense conversations who don't know any better.
I had asked if you thought the law would do any good because I thought you would be honest and tell me how you thought it would effect cell phone use or distractions caused by cell phones. I now realize you didn't care you only wanted to get at me because of my stand in another forum. I am sorry I hurt your feelings and will try not to address you again on controversial, or emotional, subjects. Have a merry Christmas.
The only real way to know for sure is to nationwide track this information, in the same way DUIs are now tracked. In 5 to 10 years, a picture will emerge. More studies now in progress will shed additional light on the effect on drivers.
In the meantime, cell phones are now the poster child for driver inattention. The reason for this is the fast spreading brush-fire like quality they have demonstrated in being used by the motoring public. More than cds, makeup, fiddling with radio, eating MacDonalds, sifting through the glove box, etc.
Doesn't it make more sense for people to actually study the situation, before demanding passage of MORE laws :confuse:
It is rather startling to see so many people, who usually post with good sense, to be backing something we know little about, other than someones good guess. I must have hit home with my comments about talking to passengers. There are several studies done by Regional Transportation Agencies that do show cause and effect between their drivers chatting with riders and more accidents. Since these are so-called "professional drivers" it is fair to make the assumption non-professional drivers (us) would be at least as "distracted" by chattering away with passengers.
By the way, statistics show there are more vehicles with radios/CD's out there than cellular users. And I venture to guess more women applying makeup and combing their hair as well. :P
Don't fall into this "we don't have sufficient information" trap. There is plenty of information, both direct real-world data and through implication. Some of it has been provided above. Just because the proponents of the law don't want to read those posts or research the data for themselves doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The point is, there are just as many studies showing distractions from the radio/CD/MP3 players cause just as many accidents. And even more, as I said, conducted by transportation agencies, showing the distraction of talking to other passengers cause way more.
So, I am waiting for these anti-phone zealots to pony up, and also agree that along with banning cell phones, we forbid radios and navigation units, as well as talking to others while driving. Let us see how fair they really are, when banning effects something they like to use, or do, shall we? :P
Okay, this might be tough, but I'm asking you to be honest and use common sense. How long does it take to change the station on your radio. To me about 2 seconds and I don't have to take my eyes off the road. How long does it take to insert a cd? To me zero, I don't do it while moving. How long does it take to dial a phone by punching in the numbers. to me 15 or 20 seconds with my eyes and hand off the wheel a number of times and many seconds. How many times do you take your eyes off the road?
When traveling down the road, do you notice many drivers holding a cell phone to their ear more often than not?
If you live in Montana you may answer zero the last question, but in CA, Florida, NY, NJ and Chicago it's very prevalent. Even talking about other distracting behaviors, I may see one idiot doing something like reading the paper, for every 10 using the phone. The knowledge gained from the studies and the prevalent use of cell phones has lead to bans, restrictions and partial restrictions.
In my other cars, I don't even have to move my hands to fiddle with the radio or cd. All the controls are under both thumbs. Talking is rarely allowed in my cars by the driver, the rule is the driver needs to drive. Even so when attention demands it, it is much easier to shut up, than to throw down the phone and put both hands on the wheel.
One more thing, when the younger set drives the rules are no radio, no cd, no casual talking. So I do recognize there can be distractions in the car, which puts me ahead of a other less informed drivers who do not believe they can be distracted. (not anybody on this board however :P )
And often the passenger will quit talking when things get tense on the road or will comment or point at the car coming on the side street that's not slowing down for its stopsign; a cellphone "partner" can't do that.
> does it take to change the station on your radio.
Most drivers know their radio and do it by feel. Even if I don't, it doesn't require the same brain concentration to glace at the dial, if traffic isn't tight or demanding, and see what I want to do and then my eyes are back on the road. Or I press the steering wheel button. But I know both my radios by feel.
Same for the AC/heater controls or I just use the temp adjust button on the steering wheel.
Same for the wipers and dimmer lever combo w/ cruise on one car. On the others cruise buttons are, guess where, on the steering wheel.
If you've watched someone one the telephone their eyes go into a "telephone stare" when the subject is demanding their brain's focus. The same occurs on the cellphones. The lady drifting on I70 had the same forward stare as she drove and held her phone. Some people use the same stare to try to confuse someone reading body language for lie telltales. I've used it often to decide if someone is more likely to be lying.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
These days, in the City, kids are using CD/DVD players with video displays....I even saw one down in Kalispell this last year. :P
And as someone who has been through three kids, I can assure you they are not refraining from talking when you aren't there. Bug the car sometime, you will learn too much.....
NHTSA 06-06Monday. August 21, 2006
Automakers will be required, for the first time ever, to tell new car buyers if an Event Data Recorder (EDR) has been installed under a new rule issued today by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Event Data Recorders are electronic devices that capture crash data in the few seconds before, during and after a crash. EDRs do not capture any data unless there is a collision that is severe enough to cause the airbag to deploy. While automakers are not required to install EDRs, approximately 64 percent of the model year 2005 passenger vehicles came equipped with the device. This new rule will not require automakers to install EDRs if they are not already doing so.
The new federal rule, which takes effect starting with model year 2011 cars, will require automakers who have chosen to install EDRs to note in the owner’s manual that the safety monitoring equipment has been installed.
There is the solution to the distraction problem and it doesn't cost the tax payer anything. I didn't know about them but I am sure my insurance company did. And I see they are willing to give the manufacturers plenty of time to gather data before they have to tell you if your car has one. I wonder how many would have had them installed if the NHTSA hadn't decided to make them tell us? You might also make note of the fact they are not telling the manufacturers to stop installing them.
Is it because if they ban "free-hand" there would be no way for a police officer to pull over a driver mumbling to themselves?
I've read some research that says hand-held and free-hand usage of cell phones while driving both distracts a driver's 'cognition' state.
Sure dialing numbers on a hand-held is a bit distracting but isn't the main cause of distraction being the driver's mind?
Wired or wireless, there is just no excuse for not using a headset of some type. Most phones even come with voice dialing, so you don't even have to look at a keypad, just say "Call 911" or "Call Home". I've been using voice dialing and/or a headset for over 10 years now, IMO, its just plain inexcusable to not be using that technology if you must make or take a call when driving.
And to add fuel to this non-debate, debate, there are literally thousands of people who's lives have been saved by motorists reporting hazards on the road, wash-outs, road rage idiots, and even con artists who deliberately hit motorists from behind, boxing them in, and robbing them or stealing their cars.
Personally I have reported to the police two guys literally trying to force some woman off the road (turns out to be an abusive husband and his buddy), dozens of washed-out or huge boulders on the road, and scores of injury accidents, several involving small kids being hit.
Would any of you zealots really wish I, or the thousands who also report such trouble, every day, wasn't allowed to use a phone in the car? And would as many bother to help out do so if it meant they had to pull over before legally calling?
I personally know of four drivers with graduated licenses that totaled their cars, with the exception of one driver, who was rear-ended the other three happened under "mysterious" circumstances.
So having children I want to see grow up without becoming a statistic, I may be a bit more sensitive and passionate about things that cause driver distraction.
I agree with everything you said. In an emergency I would want someone to call on my behalf, as I would call on someone elses behalf.
But calling in an emergency is an infrequent act that is not even a blip on the radar. For me, it is the fumbling to dial, phone to the ear gossiper, who pays more attention to the conversation than the driving, who is the issue for all of us. Unfortunately that person is all around us when we drive, or worse, looking at videos.
Unfortunately because that driver exists, we must all be penalized, in a manner exactly like the drinker and driver.
And those are calls you can make sitting still at the side of the road--not socializing or conducting business while driving for 30 minutes as I picture the problem. You certainly can make an emergency call without stopping other than pausing to dial "9," "1," "1."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Actually once I was in a big slow moving traffic jam on I-95 I think... We were moving w/ approximately 0 - 30mph speed. In the neighbor lane a small truck suddenly hit a truck a front of it, and even at such slow speed the airbag went off. I still can picture a driver's face with a cigarette in his mouth and totally surprised expression....
Anyway, although poor smokers wouldn't be able to smoke pretty much anywhere if the driver's seat will be also free of smoking, I think it would be really good to make this a law...
Of course, those are more difficult/less visible scapegoats.
Would think that the bottom front of a heavily loaded shopping cart can cause a severe injury to ankle/foot if pushed into a person. Wonder when we will hear of a case at a big box store somewhere involving a customer injured by another customer who is busy on cell phone and pushing cart. Will store share liability for injury because of lack of adequate warnings/instructions on using the cart with a cell phone? Sound ridiculous? Will stores need to have warnings posted in carts and in cart parking area to not use cell phones while pushing cart? :P
I sometimes have to make cell phone call to wife while in store. But, of course, I park my cart in a safe area and not blocking anyone and then make the call with as "quiet" of my voice as possible.
Do Multi-taskers (driving and using) have same behavior in store as in car on cell phone use?
As for the other comments above, yes, as I said, one can pull over and dial 911. I asked how many would be such good Samaritan's if they had to inconvenicence themselves.
Really, some of you should get out of the horse-and-buggy days, and realize most cell phones today come with VOICE dialing, so no need to even look at a keyboard! :P
I saw them.
Inquiring minds want to know! :P
Welcome to the forum. I agree with the research that shows that all type of communication by phone while driving is very distracting. I think the Majority of drivers agree with those studies. Just getting it across to the minority that feel they have a right to drive any way they darn well please is the issue.
When I hit a deer in Sun Valley Idaho, a nice gentleman stopped and called the Sheriff for us. In 1998 we did not have a cell phone that worked in that area.
Your comments about using a headset are not really an issue. The CA ban does not include those using hands free cell phones. So you are not being singled out. Only those trying to juggle a hand held phone while driving are being selected.
It is not the minority, it is the majority. It has nothing to do with good vs bad drivers. It is the number of cell phones being used in the aggregate on the road at the same time. Minority vs majority, good vs bad it adds up to a lot of drivers.
From what I've seen in rush hour traffic, talking on the phone is the rule rather than the exception.
Indeed, same way here. With no explosion of incidents or casualties. Hmmmm....
And I drive surface streets for most of my commutes. Lots of phone yappers. A few LLC yappers, no carnage.
It's different here, I can see three or four accidents and wonder why. Maybe cell phones maybe not. You still do not want people driving like they have their eyes closed even if you believe the carnage is low.
I do not see carnage as you put it. I see yappers not paying attention to the lights and stop signs. They are holding up traffic. That would be my biggest gripe. We have some very short left turn signals. Someone talking instead of driving can block several people from making the green arrow. Hopefully the cameras for red light runners will get the cell phone talkers as well. Mail em a ticket.
I do notice the yappers who hesitate to accelerate or camp out in lanes where they have no right to be...that's it. But compared to phone proliferation, I really don't see more of these people than say 10 years ago. Clueless is clueless, a phone doesn't change things.
Mail em a ticket...that'll solve things. Phones can easily be masked. I saw a cover for a phone that looked like a banana. The authoritarians won't win. Bring it on.
And for the record, even if it is one, the driving people should not have to put with "yappers" that are not able to drive, that swerve, tailgate and other behaviors due to loss of cognitive abilities.
Why are you posting here then? You could ignore the thread and take it off your tracked items? As long as the posters adhere to the "Rules of the road" what is the problem?
How many of those fatalities stemmed from playing with in car electronics, smoking, daydreaming, untethered kids and animals, eating and drinking, etc? Why do the wannabe authoritatians ignore this? I shouldn't have to put up with any of that either.
No problem for me. The rest of you, debating endlessly a topic no one will give on, just want an audience, I guess...