Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

terry92270

Ken, they don't anymore. Ticketing, nationally, for what we used to think of as normal infractions (failing to signal, stop and high beams), are down over 60% since 1980.

Like I said, pass all the laws you want. But unless you, and all Americans, are willing to increase your personal taxes by, say 20% or more, it won't do any good.

kdshapiro

"Ken, they don't anymore. Ticketing, nationally, for what we used to think of as normal infractions (failing to signal, stop and high beams), are down over 60% since 1980"

Well I didn't mention ticketing. Maybe nationally the rate is down, but the police around here like to catch 'em in the act. Can't say I blame the police. I see people doing stupid things all of the time and sometimes the cops even catch. Some of the people doing stupid things even have a cell phone in their hand.

Which brings me back to one point the law is good. Writing a ticket to an accident causer gives the victims more teeth if the violater violated a specific law, rather than a general failed to keep the car under control.

gagrice

Here in San Diego they seem to keep pretty busy writing speeding tickets on the freeways. That is about the only place I see them with anyone stopped. Just today 3 cars in front of me ran a red arrow with a cop across the street. I thought they were going to get nailed. He turned into the strip mall where two other cops were parked in front of Wendys. Time for lunch I guess. I do see a lack of enforcement of existing laws.

terry92270

They simply don't have the manpower, with all the other, bigger crimes they are forced to deal with. And there is that perception on local cops and the Highway Patrol, of putting their life on the line each time the pull someone over for a "minor" infraction.

That perception on their part, is very real, often unspoken in public, but nonetheless there...

boaz47

I realize I live in a small resort community. There are only two patrol officers working in our area and a citizens patrol. working out of the local Sheriffs office. We have more CHP during the day but not at night. I wanted to stop one and ask about some valve stem reflectors my son sent me to see if they were legal. My wife was with me and we followed a Deputy into a 7-11 parking lot. I wasn't able to talk to him righ away however and I know you can guess why. Yes, he was talking on his cell phone. I don't think half of our patrol officers will be all that diligent when the law goes into effect.

kdshapiro

"Yes, he was talking on his cell phone. I don't think half of our patrol officers will be all that diligent when the law goes into effect."
I know what you mean. There have been several cases of officers convicted of DUI. Sometimes it's tough to get the fox to guard the henhouse, isn't it?

In my area the officers obey the law. They do not speed unless they have their lights on, always put on their blinkers, do not tailgate, and importantly comply with the laws relating to cell phone usage.

I'm sure law enforcement in CA will obey the law once it goes into effect.

pch101

I haven't actually seen the "studies" you keep referring to, so I can't say whether I believe them or not.

Some of these studies are referenced (and in some cases, heavily misquoted) throughout this thread. Read back a couple of weeks, and you'll find a few.

But there are plenty of studies out there that even an high school math student could drive a truck through the methodology.

One of the faves among the anti-phone crowd is the well-misquoted Canadian study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, which studied only phone users who had accidents and that included no control group. This study is frequently referenced by NHTSA and other advocacy groups, despite some obvious flaws.

Frankly, I don't blame you for being skeptical, but the findings across studies are fairly consistent in respect to hand-held vs. hands free. One of my points in this discussion is that if one is going to base his/her position on studies, then you can't use them to support the current batch of laws. Banning handhelds without taking the next step is hypocritical and smacks of feel-good legislation, rather than a good-faith effort to create sound and consistent policy.

boaz47

I don't see DUI and cell phones in the same catagory. DUI is much like the law we already have on getting into an accident while not paying attention. Cell phones are already covered under this law. Beer, Wine and Vodka are covered under DUI as are several other drugs. We don't need a law covering drinking beer if they are going to enforce a DUI pull over. There are laws our officers ignore. It is against the law to enter this state illegally and other than our border patrol that law is ignored by most of our officers even when they pull over a person. Be assured they, as it has been pointed out before lack the manpower to enforce a law they don't believe in. And do you know why they carry their badge next to their drivers licenses? Some my enforce it if they happen to be in a bad mood but it isn't likely to have much of an effect on the carnage so many fear. We haven't seen a huge decrease in accidents in any state that already has such laws on the books and with the number of lawyers we have per capita it isn't likely it will help much in a civil case.. After all if the diver is struck by someone that happens to be using their cell phone at the time when the victim gets on the stand and has to testify they were watching the other driver on his cell it is hard to argue they were watching the road themselves. The law is simply over simplistic and far to easy to circumvent. Looks good on paper but that is about it. I think the problem is that it breaks down much like this. People are irritated by other talking on cell phones. Right now cell phone users are still in the minority. Cell phone use is growing however and they will be a political force to be reckoned with. Hand held units are being replaced by hand free units, much like remote controls replaced manual dials. Few people will be using hand helds and fewer still will get caught using hand helds. As far as legally we still live in a country where the burden of proof is on the accuser so the system will plod along pretty much as it always has and the accident victim will still have to toss the dice to get restitution. So all in all it is like adding a line in the DUI law that says no driving while drinking wine but you can drink beer.

In truth the whole issue hasn't been about logic, or safety,or even cell phone use. It has been about emotion. It reminds me of some counties in Texas that permit open containers in the car and allow passengers the privalige. of drinking. When a officer pulls over a vehicle they are amazed at the number of passengers that have two beers. Some laws are pretty ineffective.

kdshapiro

One of the most highly regarding medical magazines in the country, probably the world did a study of hand held cell phone usage. You can do a quick search for the New England Journal Of Medicine to see their study and their results.

But it seems common sense has taken a back seat. I can't imagine it's okay anywhere, anytime, anyplace to see a side-to-side serving, tailgating yapping cell phone user and think that behavior is okay on the road. Nor can I imagine anybody thinks it's okay to look at your phone to dial or text message. Especially while going highway speeds. Which is why the lawmakers have stepped in to to create these laws.

There has been a lot of back-yard analytics in this forum. Trying to back into a number, where little or no data collection exists and make gross assumptions is fallacious.

kdshapiro

"Cell phones are already covered under this law."

Actually now it's covered in it's own law in certain states. I disagree with your post. How can you say with a straight face, and this is a question I asked posts back but nobody answered, that dialing at 60, 70 or 150 and taking your eyes off the road for 20 seconds is okay? No need to answer, the common sense answer is it is not okay, but voice actiiviated hands free dialing removes that element of distraction. The way I figure it, a convo on the hands-free is the same as a convo with a fellow passenger. Both need to be monitored, but at least the law is making clear you can't take your eyes off the road. In addition, holding the phone causes a potential loss of control of the vehicle.

Because people are to stupid to understand this is a bad thing, the lawmakers stepped in to protect me from you. Far different from seatbelts and helmets where the law is protecting me from myself.

kdshapiro

Summary of the overall issue as I believe the lawmakers see it

Note this quote from the NHTSA:

Tyson pointed out that talking on the phone is very different than talking to the person in the passenger seat. "If you are engaged in a conversation with a passenger, the passenger has some situational awareness, whereas a person on the phone has no idea what you are dealing with on the road," he said.

Or said another way, a conversation is not just a conversation. Talking on the phone is different than talking to a passenger, as indicated incorrectly in the previous post.

To those who are against the legislation because it doesn't go far enough, I agree. We probably should ban all wireless communication by the driver while driving. But until that happens, those who understand dialing a phone and talking on a phone are inherently dangerous activities as shown in study after study, are much better off than those who don't believe there is any risk and go on blindly yapping merrily on their way.

terry92270

kdshapiro

terry92270

Ken, that wasn't aimed at you specifically, I was just too lazy to make a new post. :P

kdshapiro

I wasn't replying specifically to you either , I actually was agreeing with your assessment. The visual was perfect, thanks for the chuckle.

lilengineerboy

Thank you for this. I can use that gif on a couple of emails at work. Its going to be a good Monday.

terry92270

LMAO!

That poor, dead horse!

Some of my employees cringe at receiving it as a reply from me, when they try to sneak in some idea previously shot down, along with a suggestion they deserve more $.

boaz47

yes, the truth is it has been a dead horse almost from the beginning. No one has moved from their position and chances are they won't. we don't have to look down to dial, you hit one key or say home, work, Joe, Bill or Wanda and the phone dials. Everyday we make decisions about how much attention we are going to pay as we drive and that won't change either. It is simply that most people do not feel driving takes 100 percent of their attention 100 percent of the time. Five cup holders in all of our cars shows the manufacturers agree. Like it or not our vehicles have become a second home or business office to many people. we eat, listen to entertainment, and yes conduct business as we are stuck in traffic or even as we take trips.

terry92270

Well, yes. More and more my "job' is one of a public policy consultant. There is no end to really "good" laws to be enacted. However, experience shows us that merely having laws means nothing, unless people are willing to obey them. That is the price we pay for living in a free society. Even with laws, they cannot be enforced without the public obeying them. When was the last time you saw everyone, even 50% of the drivers, keeping to the speed limit on the Interstate?

So it all comes down, really, to not if some proposed law is actually good, it comes down to the fact we continue to pass more and more of them with little, if any, chance to enforce them. Legislators know this. They merely pander to special interests and pass them, then it is out of their hair. The poor beat cops are the ones stuck with them, and they make their own decisions on when, where and if to enforce them....

kdshapiro

"Five cup holders in all of our cars shows the manufacturers agree."

I have to call hooey on this statement. There are not five cup holders for the driver, there is one for the driver. Show me a set of studies that in the collective equates drinking a cup of coffee with being on the cell phone or worse driving with the cognitive ability of a drunk. Or a set of studies that in the collective states listening to music while you drive is distracting.

You still don't understand, the reason for the law. IMO it is the same as murder laws...there is second degree murder, first degree murder. There is driver distraction, there is driver distraction caused by cell phones.

If it weren't for special interest groups, to cite the NRA as an example, some laws wouldn't be on the books, for better or worse.

Maybe certain parts of the country it doesn't matter if a driver is distracted, due to traffic conditions, but in some parts of the country it sure as heck does.

You can't make all non-driver activities into major distractions like cell phones, anything that involves taking your eyes off the road is bad. Anything that involves losing your concentration to driving for extended periods of time is worse.

grbeck

kdshapiro: It's only been pointed out by those who don't understand the last 15 years of study. You keep missing this point.

You have no proof that cell phone usage causes accidents. That is what you need, and you have not provided it. Once again, you are asking the wrong question.

kdshapiro: Okay, so why has 40 countries enacted legislation? Oh I forgot you already know the answer.

As has been explained numerous times, the passage of a law is not proof that there was a harm to be corrected.

They act based on (misguided) emotion, what they think they know, the inability to ask the proper questions, or the misunderstanding of studies.

All of which you should be quite familiar territory for you...

kdshapiro: Actually methinks it's you who need the shovel.

Then you really don't know what you are talking about...

grbeck

kdshapiro: So please tell us the statistics about collisions and fatalities in Pa. with regard to cell phone usage. And can we use this as a model to describe the rest of the country?

They've discovered that it isn't contributing to accidents, hence you don't hear much about it. Next question...

grbeck

Your posts prove nothing, except that juggling statistics and making up "factors" and arbitrarily assigning them to certain behaviors can yield the results researchers want.

Might not be a good idea to reference this type of "evidence" as supporting your arguments if you want to have credibility on this issue in the future.

Incidentally, I've met Morgan Lee Pena's mother (the little girl referenced in the one article). She visited my boss to ask for his support to ban cell phone usage. So I'm quite familiar with the Pena case, and this issue.

imidazol97

The use of a cell phone involves the user's concentration differently than glancing at a radio dial or picking a CD off the sunvisor rack and slipping it into the player. It is different than talking with a passenger.

The attention given to construction or listening and responding to the cell phone is different than the attention given to incar activity. Just try remembering the scenery the next time you ahve a five-minute conversation on the cell phone. Then think back about what you passed what picking and inserting a CD or talking to your passenger for a few minutes.

There's a much deeper involvement of the brain distracting from observing what's going on around the vehicle.

boaz47

And the reason there is a cup holder for the driver? Is it because they expect total concentration 100 percent of the time? Nope. Does it show that the passengers expect that the car is only for transportation? Nope. Does anyone care how much distraction eating and drinking in the car is? Nope. Do we decide everyday when we can afford a distraction and when we can't? Yes we do. Do people get in arguements while driving with passengers? Yes they do, should they? No they shouldn't but we don't need a law to tell us that. Should a parent reach into the back seat and discipline a child while driving? No but they do. Have all of these other distractions been pointed out and studied in order of frequency? Yes they have and no one cares. Because driving is not something most people consider rocket science. There is a division even between those that support the ban. Some say hand helds and hands free are the same and some don't care and will continue to use hands free units even if it offends the very same people that support the ban. People simply haven't changed their minds and without compelling evidence they will not. I have spent a week or two in the Navigation forum and have discovered that one of the reason some prefer portable rather than embedded units is because they can use the portable units on the fly "if they so chose." So there are even more people besides the coffee drinkers, fast food eaters, Multipal cd users, Cell phone users map readers and just plain bad drivers to contend with. But spitting in the wind is a human trait.

kdshapiro

"And the reason there is a cup holder for the driver? Is it because they expect total concentration 100 percent of the time? Nope. Does it show that the passengers expect that the car is only for transportation?"

Trying to equate a cup holder with either 1) dialing the phone or 2) being on a business call for an hour is ludicrous. Some common sense tells one that.

boaz47

what is the point? The AAA study and NHTSA did the same thing. No one believes the studies either way. I wouldn't believe the NEJM on a study dealing with building a skyscraper or a car or painting or boats or planes why should I believe what they have to say about cell phones? So if I don't believe the study any more than you do, because you reject the idea that hands free is equal to hand held phones, why should any one else? If as a society we don't consider driving a full time job that requires our full attention 100 percent of the time what will change with this law? It is much like trying to outlaw scratching or spitting people are simply going to find a way to do what they feel is important in their Lives. Driving is simply a tool to promote commerce period. Work or pleasure is the object not driving or how it is done. That is why fast food is so popular. That is why Starbucks does a booming business during the morning rush hour. Not because people will wait till they get to work to drink the coffee but because they feel they can and drive at the same time. It is also why people will continue to find a way to talk and drive at the same time. Hands free or hand held with stealth doesn't matter they haven't been shown by anyone that they personally can't do both and so aren't going to become better drivers simply because someone doesn't like them talking and driving at the same time. No one has changed their position because no one believes the other point of view.

kdshapiro

"No one believes the studies either way. I wouldn't believe the NEJM on a study dealing with building a skyscraper or a car or painting or boats or planes why should I believe what they have to say about cell phones?"

Therein lies the rub, we cherrypick our credible sources. eh?

About drinking coffee and driving vs cell phone usage. You need to try the two out on a busy freeway going at 70. Have a business conversation holding your phone to your ear and make sure you talk about detailed information and the convo lasts at least 15 minutes, and tell me it's the same as drinking coffee. Your post does not indicate you are using any common sense regarding this issue.

boaz47

Doesn't matter if it is the same does it? Isn't it your contention that if it is a distraction and we do it, it endangers our fellow man? Didn't you indicate we owe it to curtail cell phone use,unless it is you on a hands free, to our fellow drivers? Even you don't believe the studies if they indicate that an activity you participate in is as bad as a activity I, or people that believe like I do, participate in. So what has changed? Hand held phones will be banned if they can be seen next to our ear. Fine, so we don't put them next to our ears. The real question is, will cell phone use decrease? I would ask you to assess honestly if anyone here believes for a minute that cell phone use will go down because of the law? Isn't that the point of a law to correct an activity it finds offensive? Otherwise why waste your time, unless you have tons of it to waste? It has been said the no one cares if they can enforce it or not or even if anyone will obey the law so what has changed? Simply put, do you or does anyone believe the intended goal of decreased cell phone use will take place? Do you personally believe cell phone use will decrease in 2008? Do you personally believe that the number of people driving and using cell phones will decrease in 2008? If the answer is no, then that is my definition of spitting in the wind. If you believe it will decrease cell phone use in cars you have a right to your opinion. But I am not willing to bet on that happening.

kdshapiro

"Isn't it your contention that if it is a distraction and we do it, it endangers our fellow man?"

It's not my contention, it's the contention of every study under the sun. We are not debating my personal beliefs we are debating the studies. I hope people adhere to the law with cell phone use, like I hope people adhere to the law with regards to drunk driving. However, hope has nothing to do with it, people will do what they do.

boaz47

That was the answer I expected.

john500

Beliefs have nothing to do with it. Go to your local university and type the keywords "cell phone" and "accident" into Scifinder. You will see several studies that highlight cell phone usage does decrease with legislation. This isn't religion, just numerical analysis on albeit weak science.

boaz47

Thank you, and I have done just that. went to Google and the first site was the study by AAA. I even posted the results of the AAA study supported by NHTSA. But studies do not have a thing to do with this debate. Accident rates per capita have been falling at the same time cell phone use has been going up, and the cell phone use has almost been geometric. No science to support why the rate has been dropping. Some states have legislated had held cell phone bans over the last few years, several people have pointed out that the accident rates i those states have not decreased any more than the states without the bans. Still science and still no answer. So it does come down to what people believe and how they react to it. Under Google here is a quote from a 2006 study. "These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers. That study was based on the analysis of videotapes from cameras installed in the vehicles of 70 drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania."

Don't believe it? Believe a study by someone else, that is fine as well. Pick your study but in the end people will react to what they believe is true and decide what distractions they can operate a vehicle with. A hand held ban will not effect the new phones at all and mostly they will not effect the people who talk the most or most often or longest on cell phones because they believe they need to talk so they will simply use hands free. Not science, human nature.

Even more importantly look at edmunds stand on the subject. They may not support cell phones but they don't contend they should be banned. It is all opinion, not science as any of us know it. Science looks at a problem, gathers the evidence, finds the solution and recommends the solution. That simply hasn't been done. And so people don't believe they should be restricted from doing business while driving and will continue to talk even if they have to keep their hands away from their ear. It is simply too easy to get around this law. The chances of getting caught are far too slim.

kdshapiro

You haven't answered my questions, which is the non-answers I've been expecting as well. When I ask if common sense says that dialing a cell phone at 70mph and drinking a cup of coffee at 70mph carry the same risk, I get no answer.

The only reason I can fathom, is that secretly you agree taking your eyes off the road to dial a cell phone is dangerous and an activity that should be legislated into non-existence.

terry92270

My! Such personal rancor!

Granted you don't have to agree or even believe the claims of another, but resorting to rude remarks or casting aspersions to their honesty isn't acceptable or appropriate.

This type of conduct only alienates others and if it happens continuously a reputation as a forum bully is established.

If you feel there is misinformation being posted, you are more than welcome to question and/or provide what you know to be true, but it must be done in a civil, respectful manner. Engaging in a back and forth flaming benefits no one, and sarcasm in the written form, no matter how many smileys/winkies that accompany it, is very often misinterpreted. Therefore, it is usually best to abstain from ironical taunts.

kdshapiro

B.A.D.H!

kdshapiro

Passing a law in and of itself does no good. But let's say like a DUI a law is put into effect mandating 1 year jail time if a cell phone abuser causes a fatality whereby it is proven the tragedy could have been prevented if the driver was driving and not holding the cell phone to his/her ear. Let's say this state has a cell phone policy equivalent to Germany's policy.

Let's say this was put into law. How many people would risk it? Would it have an impact? I don't know the answer, but if DUI serves as a guide, probably very little. However, the law is there to ensure retribution can be made by those careless with the operation of their vehicle.

boaz47

Agreed. There is nothing left to say. All we can do is let the chips fall where they will. Each person will have to asses the risk they are willing to take whenever they drive. Some people read maps as they drive some look at printed directions. I am sure you have seen the note pads they sell to stick on your dash or windshield. They are designed to be used while driving and one must ask how someone can drive and write but it seems as if they can because they sell the things. I have a year and a few weeks to wait but I don't see my life changing because of cell phone use or non use. As it stands now I am not affected and I can only hope I never will be. Maybe I can check back in a year and see if cell phone use has decreased even one percent. Something tells me it won't but I am sure the cell phone companies will do a landmark business in new phones this coming year. Hands free of course.

terry92270

We already have such a law for Drunk Drivers....do you think it is a deterent against alcoholics driving? :surprise:

m1miata

Yes. Of course not everyone is deterred by any law. But there are now fewer drunk drivers. All you can do it try and get the point across with as stiff a penalty as possible. I realize excessive cell phone use is now a new class of addiction, but all you can do it to try and break the hold it has on people, as much as possible. Maybe they need some type of step program to stop the madness. CFUA Cell Phone Users Anonymous. It too is worth a try Cell phone mania,like this thread and the Eveready Bunny, it too keeps going and going.

Bye, see ya'all later - Loren

kdshapiro

We have hundreds of thousands of laws. Some criminal some civil. Some don't appear to work, yet rather than erasing those laws, I would argue for stronger penalities for breaking some of those laws.

I would argue less for laws that protect me from myself, and more from laws that protect you from me and me from you.

With the freedom we have in this country comes responsibility, unfortunately some don't understand that and then the legislatures have to step in.

gagrice

yes, the truth is it has been a dead horse almost from the beginning. No one has moved from their position and chances are they won't.

No, you have convinced me. The future is in multitasking drivers. I have spent the last two days in my shop developing a great little device to mount your laptop on the steering wheel. Then you can drive down the highway surfing the net and not missing one single post on this forum.

terry92270

Ya know, in those hundreds of catalogs that come to my house, there is actually a desk set-up device, that straps into the passenger seat, has multiple power outlets (laptop and a FAX and/or printer) that is wedge shaped, with two drawers at the bottom, a non-slip top with clips for your laptop. Comes in four colors as well. :P

gagrice

I want mine on the steering wheel so I don't have to take both eyes off the road. It will be sooooo cooool :shades: Never miss any Edmund's posts again.

terry92270

LOL....send the Edmunds post emails to your phone, silly! :P

fintail

Or get a PDA and post here from your phone in your car while driving. That's a good statement opposing the no=phoners.

terry92270

Humor is a good thing.

gagrice

I'm still using my analog brick phone. No text messaging on this puppy. Just clear as a bell conversation.

eltonron

Let's cut out the personal attacks, ok? The is a place for civil discussion among all members, not a court of law where two members go head-to-head insisting that the other prove their point beyond a reasonable doubt. That kind of dialogue is exclusionary and is not fair to other members who want to actively participate in an open discussion on automotive issues.

If you have any doubts as to the nature of the forum guidelines, please review the Rules of the Road. Thanks.

EltonRon
Host- Automotive News & Views

grbeck

john500: Beliefs have nothing to do with it. Go to your local university and type the keywords "cell phone" and "accident" into Scifinder. You will see several studies that highlight cell phone usage does decrease with legislation. This isn't religion, just numerical analysis on albeit weak science.

Yet none of them prove that accidents and fatalities have increased despite the explosion of cell phone use over the past decade.