We already have such a law for Drunk Drivers....do you think it is a deterent against alcoholics driving?
While there are certainly alcoholics that still drink and drive, I think that DUI laws have gone a long way towards discouraging the occasional drinker from having one too many before getting behind the wheel.
Will a total ban on cell phone use while driving be enforceable? Well like most laws, it will mainly keep the honest people honest. Those too addicted to their cell phones or people who consider themselves too self-important will ignore it (just like alcoholics who knowingly drink and drive). But at least there would be fewer distracted drivers on the road which can only be a good thing
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.
Someone once said that the best definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. It is also a good definition for "futility."
kdshapiro: I would argue less for laws that protect me from myself, and more from laws that protect you from me and me from you.
The intelligent approach is to argue for laws that actually address problems at hand, are enforcable and don't divert law enforcement resources from vital tasks that really do improve public safety.
kshapiro: With the freedom we have in this country comes responsibility, unfortunately some don't understand that and then the legislatures have to step in.
Unfortunately, what some don't understand is that laws must address a real problem.
Considering that no one has proven that cell phone usage while driving has increased accidents or fatalities - despite over 1,700 posts in this thread - this is not a real problem.
Yet none of them prove that accidents and fatalities have increased despite the explosion of cell phone use over the past decade.
That's quite the disingenuous argument. I could counter that for all we know, the total number of accidents and fatalities would be much lower today if the cell phone hadn't been invented. But of course I can't prove it :P
1. I want to know how this company will be able to reserve on street parking in Manhattan? :confuse
2. Currently Verizon offers a cell phone application called VZ Nav, but you don't have to look at your cell phone after the address has been entered, but you cannot enter the address while moving, unless you want to crash your car. I'm sure it would be the same with the above mentioned app.
"Considering that no one has proven that cell phone usage while driving has increased accidents or fatalities - despite over 1,700 posts in this thread - this is not a real problem."
You might want to add in your humble opinion. It's not my opinion it's not a problem, and the danger has already been proven to lawmakers.
That has got to be one of the best business ideas I have read about in a long time. The amount of time saved and the frustration of having to look for a parking space would be worth the price in a heart beat. You know that is how visitor slip space is assigned in many of the LA harbor marinas? You simply call ahead and reserve a slip when you are hours out.
Last night, sitting about #4 in line at a stoplight heading to the health club in my 911 the cell phone rings. In my jeans pocket, of course. Since the light was red and I knew I had 15-20 seconds and it was probably my wife (7:00 p.m.), I throw the 6-speed in neutral and gyrate around to get the phone out of my pocket. Fumble around and start to answer when the light turns green. Yell "bye" after hearing a "pick up mayo on my way home", drop the phone into the passenger seat and quickly shift into first and start to take off.
Quick, anyone know where "reverse" is in a 911? You guessed it, not down and away next to 6th, but just a notch left of 1st. I found it. Fortunately, the guy/lady behind me had left 15 feet between us, of which I used about 10 before hitting the brakes shifting into the real 1st gear and taking off. Thanks to ample horsepower, I closed the gap and was right behind the guy in front of me within a couple of seconds, but I'm sure the domino effect of my assinine move meant that at least one car in line behind me didn't get through that traffic signal before it turned red again. To whom I apologize if they are an Edmunds reader.
None of this excitement would have happened in my Bluetooth equiped Acura TL. I would have seen it was my wife on the instrument screen, answered with the push of a button on the steering wheel, and had time to say "Love you" before signing off, all with one hand on the stick so I knew what gear I was in. With the 911, I am just thankful I'm writing this post and not calling up body shops.
So for those of you who think that "hands free" and "hand held" really aren't any different, may you never enjoy the thrills of a 911. If you get my drift.
Coming home from work last week I was next a woman and a man who may of may not have been her husband. We pulled up to a light with a red light camera looking right at us. The woman was slightly into the cross walk so she popped her WRX into reverse and backed up about three feet. It looked like maybe he had mentioned something to her about the light or where she was parked but it was after he talked to her that she backed up. We sat there till the light turned green and took off. She was still in reverse however and was treated to the blare of the horn on a very large 4x4 right behind her. I have no clue how she missed him. Perhaps there should be a law indicating what gear you are in while driving a stick and no one should be allowed to make suggestions while we drive?
None of this excitement would have happened in my Bluetooth equiped Acura TL. I would have seen it was my wife on the instrument screen, answered with the push of a button on the steering wheel, and had time to say "Love you" before signing off, all with one hand on the stick so I knew what gear I was in. With the 911, I am just thankful I'm writing this post and not calling up body shops.
Real point of this story is that "excitement" would never have happened if the cell phone was shut off. Your "concentration" was diverted by the phone and a frivolous message.
Other than police, paramedics, fire and other emergency vehicles there is no need to have phone/radio communication in a moving or about to move vehicle. Those that need to make calls should find a safe/legal place to "park" their vehicle and then make the call. I follow this practice along with trying to plan ahead and make calls before or after vehicle trips. Perhaps most folks just don't know how to think ahead or plan. They make calls at the spur of the moment.
Real point of this story is that "excitement" would never have happened if the cell phone was shut off. Your "concentration" was diverted by the phone and a frivolous message.
While you are right that there would have been no excitement had the phone been turned off, my point was that there IS a difference between hand held and hands free - at least for me. In this instance, it wouldn't have been a challenge to my concentration to push the steering wheel button in my Acura and take the call. The problem in this case was all related to the physical act of getting to the hand held phone and fumbling around with it. Which, frankly, I shouldn't have even attempted, notwithstanding I was stopped at a light. I generally do have my phone turned off in the 911 so as to avoid even the temptation of being distracted.
And that's not to suggest that there aren't conditions where taking or making a hands free phone call doesn't also present a risk and should be avoided as well. I have hit the button that sends the incoming call directly to voicemail many times in the Acura.
Honestly, if I make a mistake behind the wheel such as missing a shift, I place the blame precisely where it belongs -- myself.
People need to take responsibility for their actions if they are to avoid making mistakes. If I were to almost clip somebody because I'm too fixated on the hot babe standing on the sidewalk, then that's my fault, not hers. If I screw up because I focus too much on changing radio stations, then I blame myself, not the DJ who played something that I didn't want to hear or the artist who I didn't like.
If a driver makes a mistake, it's the driver's fault. Take one object away, and another will take its place. That's why accident rates are unaffected by phones, because the phone simply takes the heat for something else that would be blamed in its absence. Cop outs don't absolve us of our responsibility, no matter how much we'd like them to.
I don't need a lesson from you to know where the blame belongs for my mistakes, and I'd thank you to remember that.
The point is that anyone - me or anyone else - fidgiting with a hand held cell phone is more likely to make that mistake than taking a call on a hands free system. It shouldn't be that hard to comprehend that point, but reread slowly if you need to. Nowhere did I put the blame on Cingular.
I don't need a lesson from you to know where the blame belongs for my mistakes, and I'd thank you to remember that.
I don't get the defensiveness. When I screw up, I feel much better just by accepting it, learning from my error and moving on. That contributes to a generally lower error rate that decreases over time.
The issue isn't hands-free versus anything else, it's a matter of letting the device manage you, when you should be managing the device. If the phone rings and it is inconveniently located at that time, then I let it ring, that's all.
On a related note, I find it curious that one of the more active forums on this site is the one related to "inconsiderate drivers". I've only skimmed it on occasion, but I notice that these drivers are always eager to point fingers at others, but never seem willing to step up and show how they've contributed to the problem, such as the left-lane hog who doesn't seem to understand that "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" is not intended to be just a decorative billboard.
It comes back to us taking the blame and learning from the lesson, instead of pretending that it is the aformentioned babe, radio or phone. We have met the enemy, and it is us.
"It comes back to us taking the blame and learning from the lesson, instead of pretending that it is the aformentioned babe, radio or phone. We have met the enemy, and it is us."
I agree 100%. MacDonald's hot coffee lawsuit is a good case in point. In addition, laws are intended to keep a society functioning. So in the case you make a mistake, and fully accept the blame, but your mistake costs me dearly, there can be a quid pro quo for your mistake vs my suffering.
Fair enough, I agree with your premise that we all need to take personal responsibility.
So what do we do about those that don't? I assume you didn't need MADD sponsored legislation to keep you from drinking and driving. Nor did I. But it saved a few hundred thousand lives and millions of injuries over the past couple of decades.
You claim that there accident rates are unaffected by cell phones. Castrol produces a not so funny video with the message that the likelihood of an accident is increased by 400%. Again, not Cingular's or Verizon's "fault" any more than it would have been Jack Daniels' or Annheiser Busch's. In one case, we have legislation that says the two don't mix, in another case we have this debate.
I don't have the answer. But I think the suggestion that there is no problem is more wishful thinking than truly statistically valid studies.
Castrol produces a not so funny video with the message that the likelihood of an accident is increased by 400%.
These kind of factoids should give up pause to think about what they mean. Last time I checked, accident rates had fallen, not increased by 400% or some other outrageous number. Clearly, that stat is either bogus, or else has been taken grossly out of context.
As for alcohol, that has been covered here before. As has been stated, alcohol and drugs create a few serious problems: they impair judgment, diminish the quality of reaction (not just the quantity is impacted), and they remove enough inhibition that our healthy fear of death is compromised.
Let's face it, a lot of decent driving is based in part on fear -- most of us don't want to die, get hurt or destroy our cars. We exercise enough judgment so that we can avoid serious problems, which deters most of us from driving 100 mph in business districts or experimenting with braking into walls.
Young people comprise a disproportionate pool of the lousy drivers not because they have worse reaction times -- this is actually an area in which they excel above everyone else -- but because they lack good judgment and feel too invulnerable to associate their stupidity with their likelihood of causing death or injury. It also explains why a few people are involved in most of the accidents, as the basic problem is that there are a few folks whose judgment just sucks.
So phones have virtually nothing in common with booze and drugs, despite the hype. The one downside to phones is similar to that of higher speeds -- all things being equal, they may increase the amount of the driver's reaction time. This was the same argument used by the proponents of the 55 mph limit, as the increased braking distances would supposedly kill us off. Years of data and retrospective studies tell us that this "speed kills" hypothesis turned out to be totally and utterly false because safety isn't ultimately about having reaction time, but about managing it properly, and most drivers are able to increase their speeds and adjust accordingly.
If you read other studies, they indicate that drivers on phones tend to leave more distance between themselves and the other cars in front of them. My guess is that this is largely a instinctive reaction, and one that almost completely offsets any of the issues related to a slightly increased reaction time. And since the loss of reaction time is minimal, it doesn't take much effort to offset it. Going back to 13/100th's of a second, that amounts to one car length at 80 mph.
"These kind of factoids should give up pause to think about what they mean. Last time I checked, accident rates had fallen, not increased by 400% or some other outrageous number. Clearly, that stat is either bogus, or else has been taken grossly out of context."
These "factoids" are supported in multiple studies, though percentages vary. No matter how you slice it you are at an increased chance of accident using a phone, especially dialing or texting, while driving.
"As for alcohol, that has been covered here before. As has been stated, alcohol and drugs create a few serious problems: they impair judgment, diminish the quality of reaction (not just the quantity is impacted), and they remove enough inhibition that our healthy fear of death is compromised."
Agreed, but not every DUI ends in getting caught, car crash or death. There are "factoids" for drinking and driving as well. I wonder how accurate they are.
The only think one can point to is the lack of cognitive ability while using the phone. That to me is serious enough given the penetration studies of the NHTSA.
The not so funny Castrol video illustates a point not lost on lawmakers in 40 countries and a number of states. Talking and driving impair judgement in a manner that leads to unsafe driving. IMHO that is what the lawmakers understand and are reacting to. Not to some mythical 13/10000000ths (sic) of a second.
"These kind of factoids should give up pause to think about what they mean. Last time I checked, accident rates had fallen, not increased by 400% or some other outrageous number. Clearly, that stat is either bogus, or else has been taken grossly out of context."
I'm not going to resurrect the debate about what statistics are more bogus than others. To be honest, I haven't seen anything from either side of this debate that would pass Statistics 101 in terms of methodology. And the claim that accident rates going down proves anything is even more of a leap. As I pointed out before, life expectancy has gone up over the last 40 years during the same period obesity rates have risen dramatically. Interesting, but statistically uncorrelated.
I must have missed the original 13/100ths of a second you are "going back to". But the other studies you refer to in which "drivers on phones tend to leave more distance between themselves and other cars in front of them" would make an excellent case for banning cell phones in any areas with traffic congestion.
I'm in the real estate development business and we frequently commission traffic studies. Every traffic engineer will tell you that, during peak hours, traffic on most heavily travelled roads runs at 80% or less of the ideal road capacity because of driver inefficiencies. Improving driver efficiency would save literally billions of dollars of road construction and widening annually. According to the study you are quoting, cell phones are going in the wrong direction.
The one downside to phones is similar to that of higher speeds -- all things being equal, they may increase the amount of the driver's reaction time.
It is not "may". Tests show that reaction time is decreased. State laws require that drivers concentrate on the road and defensive driving. Using a phone clearly diminishes concentration. This is not disputed. Why would any sane and logical person want to endorse anything that diminshes concentration. It seems that society would want to do everything possible to maintain and improve level of concentration. This is a no-brainer.
It is not "may". Tests show that reaction time is decreased.
I don't disagree. However, the very same studies that indicate that there is a display show this reaction time increase to be slight.
This goes back to the earlier metastudy that found an average delay of 13/100ths of a second. At average speeds, that's well under a car length.
The fact that drivers adjust for that delay explains why this doesn't translate into a real-world problem. It's the very same reason why all of the speed limit rhetoric turned out to be faulty -- because the statisticians forgot that drivers in the real world adjust for changes in conditions. If the phone user drives in such a way that accounts for the 13/100ths of a second, then phones should have little or no impact...which is exactly what the studies of real-world accidents indicate.
Molehills are being turned into mountains here. If phones were a major problem, then the accident rates should reflect that problem, but they don't. If the only place that you can illustrate a problem is in a hypothetical study based upon forced premises and a lack of a control group, then it's obvious that you are reaching and trying to manipulate the result. The 400% example should be an obvious red flag that someone is toying with your emotions and playing fast and loose with the quotes.
Some things are just too obvious to be questioned; yet they are. You need a study to know that cell phone use in an auto in motion would be potentially dangerous. Really now, how embarrassing is that .
Every traffic engineer will tell you that, during peak hours, traffic on most heavily travelled roads runs at 80% or less of the ideal road capacity because of driver inefficiencies.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but I'm familiar with some of the underlying concepts, enough to know that phones are not really the problem here. If you want to improve capacity, you'd be better off creating systems that encourage drivers to drive at consistent speeds and with minimal speed variance between them. Hence, the usefulness of timed traffic lights, on-ramp metering, keep-right/pass-on-left rules and the replacement of conventional intersections with roundabouts.
In other words, we should be encouraging drivers to go at about the same speed, and try to set things up so that they don't need to stop or slow down. The distance between them isn't the issue, so much as the disruptions that occur when those distances change -- braking promotes a reaction in the flow of traffic behind the car that is doing the braking -- in the big picture, that triggers a ripple effect that effectively reduces road capacity.
If it's so obvious, then where are the accidents to show for it?
The proponents of the low speed limits used to make all kinds of fantastic predictions that never materialized, all based upon the "obvious." It's pretty **cough** obvious that they missed some important details...
Having read the new law and seeing that I had all next year to get used to the idea I didn't know if I wanted to take the time but the little device works with all cell phones even without blue tooth. I got a call when I was in Fallbrook today from one of my friends telling me it was snowing at home and the thing worked fine. I now realize that the fine for getting caught in 2008 is 20 bucks but at least I got this thing at a discount. I did have to fork out for 4 AAA batteries but thats life.
Lawmakers in 40 countries get it. I get it. You get it. The collective we don't need a hard and fast correlation between cell phone usage and fatalities, to understand, at the very minimum, wireless devices should not be handled while the car is in motion. You cannot legislate away distractions, but you can try to protect one from another where possible.
You are exactly right in your assessment of how to maximize volume capacity of our roads.
But even when all of those measures are taken, the engineers will tell you that the drivers have to cooperate. We've all been behind the driver that sits for 5+ seconds distracted after the light turns green. In the videos of actual roads and computer simulations, you'd be surprised as to how long the "domino" effect lasts. And if it happens a few more times, bingo, you have extensive backups that can last the entire rush hour.
I'm not claiming cell phones are the sole or even primary culpret to our traffic congestion. That would be an insult to your intelligence. But don't insult mine with some hokey 13/100ths of a second. Fumbling around just answering a hand held cell phone is a several second delay in the paying attention to driving - I unfortunately proved that. And I've been a passenger in a car on several occassions where I've pointed out, after the fact, that the driver completely missed his turn or exit yapping away. Hell, the difference in shift speeds between a 6 speed and a DSG is about 15/100ths of a second, so you are claiming that I'm holding up traffic more with my 911 than a guy holding a cell phone to his ear.
I don't believe in "legistlate first, ask questions later". But you seem so convinced in some voodoo statistics, that it seems like you would be willing to take the side of the argument that a bumblebee cannot fly, because of physical limitations. And the physics, math and science behind that false conclusion is ten times as sophisticated as anything you are quoting, I guarantee it. So I'd ask you, respectfully, to use your own brain, powers of observation and deductive reasoning in forming your opinions. Perhpas they will be different thatn mine. But if you really believe that a cell phone is a diminimus 13/100ths second distraction, we'd have surgeons yapping away performing transplants. Come on.
But if you really believe that a cell phone is a diminimus 13/100ths second distraction, we'd have surgeons yapping away performing transplants.
The number didn't come out of thin air, it's the outcome of a metastudy that comibined the results of 20+ studies. And in light of statistics produced from real-world accident data, it makes sense, as we haven't seen overall accident rates increase as they logicslly should have if these figures of doom were accurate or being properly quoted.
I didn't see the source of Castrol figure, but based upon the number, I'd guess that it is probably from the study published by the New England Journal of Medicine that has been misquoted with gusto in this forum. As I noted before, that study is obviously flawed on its face, given the lack of a control group in that study, and the study has been widely misquoted, given that it did not even attempt to measure the overall pool of accidents, and it counted those who had used the phone within five minutes of the accident as being on the phone, even if they weren't using the phone at the time of the crash. Talk about insulting one's intelligence!
I agree with miata. It's common sense that driving with a cell phone would be a dangerous distraction. I see many more people dropping their eyes and fumbling with a cell phone,while driving, than I see eating a hamburger or drinking a soda. I just don't think we're going to have enough accidents for there to show a significant difference in whatever studies they have done... still a risk factor though.
Cell phones strolling the sidewalks, cell phones in the restaurants, cell phones in the rest rooms, cell phones in the bedrooms, cell phone in your auto, cell phones in the church, cell phones on the beach, cell phones on the golf course, cell phones on a plane, cell phones in your shower (please do not attempt) -- Please someone end the madness. There has to be a twelve step program for these people. CPA. -Loren
"Common sense" would have indicated that raising the speed limit was inherently dangerous, or that the sun revolves around the earth. At a casual glance, it sure looks that way.
In fact, that isn't "common sense" at all, but the result of biased and faulty observational skills being used in place of more thorough reasoning. This "common sense" fixates on reaction time, as if the lack of it is the cause of accidents.
A bit more study shows that this is not true. If reaction time was the be-all/end-all, 18 year olds would be the best drivers on the planet. But as it turns out, not only is this not true, but they actually rank among the worst.
Again, good driving is largely an exercise in good judgment, not reaction time. A lot of good driving involves avoiding bad situations in the first place, knowing what one's limits are, and then performing within those limits. If you perform within your window of capability and don't make a habit of putting yourself in harm's way, your risk of having an accident is low. If you don't, then you're likely to be one of the 1/7th of drivers who ends up in 2/3rds of the accidents.
I think it has more to do with "distraction time" than reaction time. If ones cell phone rings, you divert your eyes from the road, the glare from the sun makes it hard to caller i.d, all of a sudden you look up and your plowing into the front end of a semi-truck or rolling over into a ditch. Common sense could dictate cases like this to be distractions leading to poor judgment. If common sense as well as good judgement, isn't that common... well then, laws must be put in place to protect those of us from the 1/7th of drivers you were referring to.
I think it has more to do with "distraction time" than reaction time.
Whatever we call it, the supposed result is a lengthier reaction time than you might have without the phone.
But the points remain that (a) that amount of time is short and (b) drivers tend to adjust around the amount of time that is needed so that it isn't a problem. The amount of time just isn't all that critical.
In other words, we should be encouraging drivers to go at about the same speed, and try to set things up so that they don't need to stop or slow down. The distance between them isn't the issue, so much as the disruptions that occur when those distances change
This would require that more driver attention be paid to the tasks at hand - operating a motor vehicle, conditions of road/traffic, defensive driving.
Would more focus and concentration on these "required tasks" help? Would elimination of distractions such as "cell phone use" and conversations with passengers help?
This goes back to the earlier metastudy that found an average delay of 13/100ths of a second. At average speeds, that's well under a car length.
.13 second delay is bad enough for "average" driver. Obviously, there are drivers whose reaction is less than .13. But, what does the distribution curve look like? Is it symmetrical, is it skewed? What about the drivers on the other end of the curve? Just how bad are they?
Think that many people on Edmunds are auto enthusiasts and pay more attention to driving and owning good performing/handling vehicles. And perhaps those who use cell phones while driving really try hard to quickly shift concentration back and forth between driving and talking on cell phone. But, this is tiny minority of driving public in US.
What about many (most?) drivers in US who consider a vehicle as simply an appliance "and" use cell phones while driving. They may not appreciate handling of vehicle nor joy of driving on interesting roads. Driving is simply a chore to them, nothing more, nothing less. They don't even think about safety problems of phones while driving. Do they even understand how much their attention to driving is diminished when using a cell phone? Don't think so. Not without public awareness campaigns on TV and other media.
.13 second delay is bad enough for "average" driver. Obviously, there are drivers whose reaction is less than .13. But, what does the distribution curve look like? Is it symmetrical, is it skewed? What about the drivers on the other end of the curve? Just how bad are they?
This is the point that I've been making -- if the variance is large, then that's a hint that the phone is not really the culprit. If many people can use a phone with success, and a few people can't, that is a good clue that it has more to do with the person than it does with the device.
It goes back to what I pointed out before: A few people cause most of the accidents. If you want to reduce accident rates, then target those drivers based upon the problems that they cause on the roads, rather than a technology item. Focusing on devices, instead of people, puts the emphasis on the wrong areas, and misdirects resources from places where they can better deployed.
Then your theory also applies to alcohol distractions? We shouldn't do anything with drinkers who are the chosen few who can drink and not be affected?
I don't think so.
"This is the point that I've been making -- if the variance is large, then that's a hint that the alcohol is not really the culprit. If many people can use alcohol with success, and a few people can't, that is a good clue that it has more to do with the person than it does with the alcohol.
It goes back to what I pointed out before: A few people cause most of the accidents. If you want to reduce accident rates, then target those drivers based upon the problems that they cause on the roads, rather than the alcohol. Focusing on alcohol, instead of people, puts the emphasis on the wrong areas, and misdirects resources from places where they can better deployed.
IF your assumptions were correct, I'd almost be tempted to agree with you. But...
"If many people can use a phone with success, and a few people can't, that is a good clue that it has more to do with the person than it does with the device."
No one can drive as well with a cell phone in hand as without. No one. Personally, given that I've taken a couple of performance driving courses and have a lot of track practice in defensive maneuvers, I believe I can drive better holding a cell phone at 100 mph than most people with both hands on the wheel at 50. So what? I'd still be a better driver being focused solely on driving.
"A few people cause most of the accidents. If you want to reduce accident rates, then target those drivers based upon the problems that they cause on the roads, rather than a technology item."
Certainly, there are chronically bad drivers. But when I moved and had to switch insurance companies last year, I learned from my agent (GEICO) that only about 25% of all drivers have not had at least one at fault accident in the last 10 years. I've yet to have one (at 30). But that means 75% of drivers have had at least one at fault accident. Probably more, if you counted the bumper benders not reported to the insurance company for fear of increasing rates.
It seems that your position is based upon the premise that using a cell phone in a car is or should be a civil right, supported by "studies" that show the accident rates haven't gone up proportionally to cell phone use. I really don't want to debate statistical accuracy and significance in this forum, but I hope you wouldn't extrapolate that a 83% probability of success in playing Russian roulette is indicative that it is safe.
Personally, I would simply like to see the "responsibility" that goes along with driving being taken more seriously and that it not be considered a "right" for kids, adults or seniors to get and keep licenses. That would help take the unsafe clutzes that you refer to off the road. But the other part of that "responsibility" would be to require drivers to maintain as complete of control and ability to avoid accidents as reasonably and humanly possible.
Honestly, I'm not sure where you draw the line. But I am quite certain that counting on the general public to make good judgement calls is wishful thinking at best. With Balckberries having been standard issue in my company for at least 3-4 years, we are at most a couple of years away from everybody having a web-surfing, stock-trading, video conferencing hand held device. This is not your father's Whopper and Fries we are talking about.
It seems that your position is based upon the premise that using a cell phone in a car is or should be a civil right, supported by "studies" that show the accident rates haven't gone up proportionally to cell phone use.
You're reaching. It's fairly simple -- laws should not be passed without justification, and there isn't much justification for this one. Not only does it violate my right to be left alone unless there's a good reason to interfere, but it also wastes police and judicial resources prosecuting laws that do no good.
You folks must think that there is some bottomless well of cash to pay all of the cops and judges who you need for your pet legislation. I'm just curious -- what enforcement effort would you like to see diverted to enforce your preferred law? Should we fire some of the guys in the homicide department so we can pay for the phone cops?
By the way, that's not a rhetorical question: I'd like to hear which laws that you'd like to see neglected in order to deal with this one. There's not much point in having a law that won't do good, particularly if it creates harm somewhere else.
Comments
While there are certainly alcoholics that still drink and drive, I think that DUI laws have gone a long way towards discouraging the occasional drinker from having one too many before getting behind the wheel.
Will a total ban on cell phone use while driving be enforceable? Well like most laws, it will mainly keep the honest people honest. Those too addicted to their cell phones or people who consider themselves too self-important will ignore it (just like alcoholics who knowingly drink and drive). But at least there would be fewer distracted drivers on the road which can only be a good thing
-Frank
Someone once said that the best definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. It is also a good definition for "futility."
kdshapiro: I would argue less for laws that protect me from myself, and more from laws that protect you from me and me from you.
The intelligent approach is to argue for laws that actually address problems at hand, are enforcable and don't divert law enforcement resources from vital tasks that really do improve public safety.
kshapiro: With the freedom we have in this country comes responsibility, unfortunately some don't understand that and then the legislatures have to step in.
Unfortunately, what some don't understand is that laws must address a real problem.
Considering that no one has proven that cell phone usage while driving has increased accidents or fatalities - despite over 1,700 posts in this thread - this is not a real problem.
That's quite the disingenuous argument. I could counter that for all we know, the total number of accidents and fatalities would be much lower today if the cell phone hadn't been invented. But of course I can't prove it :P
-Frank
Tech Watch: Cell Phones May Find Parking Spaces
1. I want to know how this company will be able to reserve on street parking in Manhattan? :confuse
2. Currently Verizon offers a cell phone application called VZ Nav, but you don't have to look at your cell phone after the address has been entered, but you cannot enter the address while moving, unless you want to crash your car. I'm sure it would be the same with the above mentioned app.
You might want to add in your humble opinion. It's not my opinion it's not a problem, and the danger has already been proven to lawmakers.
Rocky
Rocky
Quick, anyone know where "reverse" is in a 911? You guessed it, not down and away next to 6th, but just a notch left of 1st. I found it. Fortunately, the guy/lady behind me had left 15 feet between us, of which I used about 10 before hitting the brakes shifting into the real 1st gear and taking off. Thanks to ample horsepower, I closed the gap and was right behind the guy in front of me within a couple of seconds, but I'm sure the domino effect of my assinine move meant that at least one car in line behind me didn't get through that traffic signal before it turned red again. To whom I apologize if they are an Edmunds reader.
None of this excitement would have happened in my Bluetooth equiped Acura TL. I would have seen it was my wife on the instrument screen, answered with the push of a button on the steering wheel, and had time to say "Love you" before signing off, all with one hand on the stick so I knew what gear I was in. With the 911, I am just thankful I'm writing this post and not calling up body shops.
So for those of you who think that "hands free" and "hand held" really aren't any different, may you never enjoy the thrills of a 911. If you get my drift.
Have a good, safe, weekend.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Real point of this story is that "excitement" would never have happened if the cell phone was shut off. Your "concentration" was diverted by the phone and a frivolous message.
Other than police, paramedics, fire and other emergency vehicles there is no need to have phone/radio communication in a moving or about to move vehicle. Those that need to make calls should find a safe/legal place to "park" their vehicle and then make the call. I follow this practice along with trying to plan ahead and make calls before or after vehicle trips. Perhaps most folks just don't know how to think ahead or plan. They make calls at the spur of the moment.
While you are right that there would have been no excitement had the phone been turned off, my point was that there IS a difference between hand held and hands free - at least for me. In this instance, it wouldn't have been a challenge to my concentration to push the steering wheel button in my Acura and take the call. The problem in this case was all related to the physical act of getting to the hand held phone and fumbling around with it. Which, frankly, I shouldn't have even attempted, notwithstanding I was stopped at a light. I generally do have my phone turned off in the 911 so as to avoid even the temptation of being distracted.
And that's not to suggest that there aren't conditions where taking or making a hands free phone call doesn't also present a risk and should be avoided as well. I have hit the button that sends the incoming call directly to voicemail many times in the Acura.
People need to take responsibility for their actions if they are to avoid making mistakes. If I were to almost clip somebody because I'm too fixated on the hot babe standing on the sidewalk, then that's my fault, not hers. If I screw up because I focus too much on changing radio stations, then I blame myself, not the DJ who played something that I didn't want to hear or the artist who I didn't like.
If a driver makes a mistake, it's the driver's fault. Take one object away, and another will take its place. That's why accident rates are unaffected by phones, because the phone simply takes the heat for something else that would be blamed in its absence. Cop outs don't absolve us of our responsibility, no matter how much we'd like them to.
The point is that anyone - me or anyone else - fidgiting with a hand held cell phone is more likely to make that mistake than taking a call on a hands free system. It shouldn't be that hard to comprehend that point, but reread slowly if you need to. Nowhere did I put the blame on Cingular.
I don't get the defensiveness. When I screw up, I feel much better just by accepting it, learning from my error and moving on. That contributes to a generally lower error rate that decreases over time.
The issue isn't hands-free versus anything else, it's a matter of letting the device manage you, when you should be managing the device. If the phone rings and it is inconveniently located at that time, then I let it ring, that's all.
On a related note, I find it curious that one of the more active forums on this site is the one related to "inconsiderate drivers". I've only skimmed it on occasion, but I notice that these drivers are always eager to point fingers at others, but never seem willing to step up and show how they've contributed to the problem, such as the left-lane hog who doesn't seem to understand that "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" is not intended to be just a decorative billboard.
It comes back to us taking the blame and learning from the lesson, instead of pretending that it is the aformentioned babe, radio or phone. We have met the enemy, and it is us.
I agree 100%. MacDonald's hot coffee lawsuit is a good case in point. In addition, laws are intended to keep a society functioning. So in the case you make a mistake, and fully accept the blame, but your mistake costs me dearly, there can be a quid pro quo for your mistake vs my suffering.
So what do we do about those that don't? I assume you didn't need MADD sponsored legislation to keep you from drinking and driving. Nor did I. But it saved a few hundred thousand lives and millions of injuries over the past couple of decades.
You claim that there accident rates are unaffected by cell phones. Castrol produces a not so funny video with the message that the likelihood of an accident is increased by 400%. Again, not Cingular's or Verizon's "fault" any more than it would have been Jack Daniels' or Annheiser Busch's. In one case, we have legislation that says the two don't mix, in another case we have this debate.
I don't have the answer. But I think the suggestion that there is no problem is more wishful thinking than truly statistically valid studies.
These kind of factoids should give up pause to think about what they mean. Last time I checked, accident rates had fallen, not increased by 400% or some other outrageous number. Clearly, that stat is either bogus, or else has been taken grossly out of context.
As for alcohol, that has been covered here before. As has been stated, alcohol and drugs create a few serious problems: they impair judgment, diminish the quality of reaction (not just the quantity is impacted), and they remove enough inhibition that our healthy fear of death is compromised.
Let's face it, a lot of decent driving is based in part on fear -- most of us don't want to die, get hurt or destroy our cars. We exercise enough judgment so that we can avoid serious problems, which deters most of us from driving 100 mph in business districts or experimenting with braking into walls.
Young people comprise a disproportionate pool of the lousy drivers not because they have worse reaction times -- this is actually an area in which they excel above everyone else -- but because they lack good judgment and feel too invulnerable to associate their stupidity with their likelihood of causing death or injury. It also explains why a few people are involved in most of the accidents, as the basic problem is that there are a few folks whose judgment just sucks.
So phones have virtually nothing in common with booze and drugs, despite the hype. The one downside to phones is similar to that of higher speeds -- all things being equal, they may increase the amount of the driver's reaction time. This was the same argument used by the proponents of the 55 mph limit, as the increased braking distances would supposedly kill us off. Years of data and retrospective studies tell us that this "speed kills" hypothesis turned out to be totally and utterly false because safety isn't ultimately about having reaction time, but about managing it properly, and most drivers are able to increase their speeds and adjust accordingly.
If you read other studies, they indicate that drivers on phones tend to leave more distance between themselves and the other cars in front of them. My guess is that this is largely a instinctive reaction, and one that almost completely offsets any of the issues related to a slightly increased reaction time. And since the loss of reaction time is minimal, it doesn't take much effort to offset it. Going back to 13/100th's of a second, that amounts to one car length at 80 mph.
These "factoids" are supported in multiple studies, though percentages vary. No matter how you slice it you are at an increased chance of accident using a phone, especially dialing or texting, while driving.
"As for alcohol, that has been covered here before. As has been stated, alcohol and drugs create a few serious problems: they impair judgment, diminish the quality of reaction (not just the quantity is impacted), and they remove enough inhibition that our healthy fear of death is compromised."
Agreed, but not every DUI ends in getting caught, car crash or death. There are "factoids" for drinking and driving as well. I wonder how accurate they are.
The only think one can point to is the lack of cognitive ability while using the phone. That to me is serious enough given the penetration studies of the NHTSA.
The not so funny Castrol video illustates a point not lost on lawmakers in 40 countries and a number of states. Talking and driving impair judgement in a manner that leads to unsafe driving. IMHO that is what the lawmakers understand and are reacting to. Not to some mythical 13/10000000ths (sic) of a second.
I'm not going to resurrect the debate about what statistics are more bogus than others. To be honest, I haven't seen anything from either side of this debate that would pass Statistics 101 in terms of methodology. And the claim that accident rates going down proves anything is even more of a leap. As I pointed out before, life expectancy has gone up over the last 40 years during the same period obesity rates have risen dramatically. Interesting, but statistically uncorrelated.
I must have missed the original 13/100ths of a second you are "going back to". But the other studies you refer to in which "drivers on phones tend to leave more distance between themselves and other cars in front of them" would make an excellent case for banning cell phones in any areas with traffic congestion.
I'm in the real estate development business and we frequently commission traffic studies. Every traffic engineer will tell you that, during peak hours, traffic on most heavily travelled roads runs at 80% or less of the ideal road capacity because of driver inefficiencies. Improving driver efficiency would save literally billions of dollars of road construction and widening annually. According to the study you are quoting, cell phones are going in the wrong direction.
It is not "may". Tests show that reaction time is decreased. State laws require that drivers concentrate on the road and defensive driving. Using a phone clearly diminishes concentration. This is not disputed. Why would any sane and logical person want to endorse anything that diminshes concentration. It seems that society would want to do everything possible to maintain and improve level of concentration. This is a no-brainer.
I don't disagree. However, the very same studies that indicate that there is a display show this reaction time increase to be slight.
This goes back to the earlier metastudy that found an average delay of 13/100ths of a second. At average speeds, that's well under a car length.
The fact that drivers adjust for that delay explains why this doesn't translate into a real-world problem. It's the very same reason why all of the speed limit rhetoric turned out to be faulty -- because the statisticians forgot that drivers in the real world adjust for changes in conditions. If the phone user drives in such a way that accounts for the 13/100ths of a second, then phones should have little or no impact...which is exactly what the studies of real-world accidents indicate.
Molehills are being turned into mountains here. If phones were a major problem, then the accident rates should reflect that problem, but they don't. If the only place that you can illustrate a problem is in a hypothetical study based upon forced premises and a lack of a control group, then it's obvious that you are reaching and trying to manipulate the result. The 400% example should be an obvious red flag that someone is toying with your emotions and playing fast and loose with the quotes.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but I'm familiar with some of the underlying concepts, enough to know that phones are not really the problem here. If you want to improve capacity, you'd be better off creating systems that encourage drivers to drive at consistent speeds and with minimal speed variance between them. Hence, the usefulness of timed traffic lights, on-ramp metering, keep-right/pass-on-left rules and the replacement of conventional intersections with roundabouts.
In other words, we should be encouraging drivers to go at about the same speed, and try to set things up so that they don't need to stop or slow down. The distance between them isn't the issue, so much as the disruptions that occur when those distances change -- braking promotes a reaction in the flow of traffic behind the car that is doing the braking -- in the big picture, that triggers a ripple effect that effectively reduces road capacity.
The proponents of the low speed limits used to make all kinds of fantastic predictions that never materialized, all based upon the "obvious." It's pretty **cough** obvious that they missed some important details...
http://www.amazon.com/FoneFree-Hands-Free-Cell-Phone-Accessory/dp/B000AS8V7Q
Having read the new law and seeing that I had all next year to get used to the idea I didn't know if I wanted to take the time but the little device works with all cell phones even without blue tooth. I got a call when I was in Fallbrook today from one of my friends telling me it was snowing at home and the thing worked fine. I now realize that the fine for getting caught in 2008 is 20 bucks but at least I got this thing at a discount. I did have to fork out for 4 AAA batteries but thats life.
But even when all of those measures are taken, the engineers will tell you that the drivers have to cooperate. We've all been behind the driver that sits for 5+ seconds distracted after the light turns green. In the videos of actual roads and computer simulations, you'd be surprised as to how long the "domino" effect lasts. And if it happens a few more times, bingo, you have extensive backups that can last the entire rush hour.
I'm not claiming cell phones are the sole or even primary culpret to our traffic congestion. That would be an insult to your intelligence. But don't insult mine with some hokey 13/100ths of a second. Fumbling around just answering a hand held cell phone is a several second delay in the paying attention to driving - I unfortunately proved that. And I've been a passenger in a car on several occassions where I've pointed out, after the fact, that the driver completely missed his turn or exit yapping away. Hell, the difference in shift speeds between a 6 speed and a DSG is about 15/100ths of a second, so you are claiming that I'm holding up traffic more with my 911 than a guy holding a cell phone to his ear.
I don't believe in "legistlate first, ask questions later". But you seem so convinced in some voodoo statistics, that it seems like you would be willing to take the side of the argument that a bumblebee cannot fly, because of physical limitations. And the physics, math and science behind that false conclusion is ten times as sophisticated as anything you are quoting, I guarantee it. So I'd ask you, respectfully, to use your own brain, powers of observation and deductive reasoning in forming your opinions. Perhpas they will be different thatn mine. But if you really believe that a cell phone is a diminimus 13/100ths second distraction, we'd have surgeons yapping away performing transplants. Come on.
The number didn't come out of thin air, it's the outcome of a metastudy that comibined the results of 20+ studies. And in light of statistics produced from real-world accident data, it makes sense, as we haven't seen overall accident rates increase as they logicslly should have if these figures of doom were accurate or being properly quoted.
I didn't see the source of Castrol figure, but based upon the number, I'd guess that it is probably from the study published by the New England Journal of Medicine that has been misquoted with gusto in this forum. As I noted before, that study is obviously flawed on its face, given the lack of a control group in that study, and the study has been widely misquoted, given that it did not even attempt to measure the overall pool of accidents, and it counted those who had used the phone within five minutes of the accident as being on the phone, even if they weren't using the phone at the time of the crash. Talk about insulting one's intelligence!
I agree with miata. It's common sense that driving with a cell phone would be a dangerous distraction. I see many more people dropping their eyes and fumbling with a cell phone,while driving, than I see eating a hamburger or drinking a soda. I just don't think we're going to have enough accidents for there to show a significant difference in whatever studies they have done... still a risk factor though.
-Loren
P.S. Perhaps taking up scuba diving as a hobby?
In fact, that isn't "common sense" at all, but the result of biased and faulty observational skills being used in place of more thorough reasoning. This "common sense" fixates on reaction time, as if the lack of it is the cause of accidents.
A bit more study shows that this is not true. If reaction time was the be-all/end-all, 18 year olds would be the best drivers on the planet. But as it turns out, not only is this not true, but they actually rank among the worst.
Again, good driving is largely an exercise in good judgment, not reaction time. A lot of good driving involves avoiding bad situations in the first place, knowing what one's limits are, and then performing within those limits. If you perform within your window of capability and don't make a habit of putting yourself in harm's way, your risk of having an accident is low. If you don't, then you're likely to be one of the 1/7th of drivers who ends up in 2/3rds of the accidents.
Whatever we call it, the supposed result is a lengthier reaction time than you might have without the phone.
But the points remain that (a) that amount of time is short and (b) drivers tend to adjust around the amount of time that is needed so that it isn't a problem. The amount of time just isn't all that critical.
This would require that more driver attention be paid to the tasks at hand - operating a motor vehicle, conditions of road/traffic, defensive driving.
Would more focus and concentration on these "required tasks" help? Would elimination of distractions such as "cell phone use" and conversations with passengers help?
.13 second delay is bad enough for "average" driver. Obviously, there are drivers whose reaction is less than .13. But, what does the distribution curve look like? Is it symmetrical, is it skewed? What about the drivers on the other end of the curve? Just how bad are they?
Think that many people on Edmunds are auto enthusiasts and pay more attention to driving and owning good performing/handling vehicles. And perhaps those who use cell phones while driving really try hard to quickly shift concentration back and forth between driving and talking on cell phone. But, this is tiny minority of driving public in US.
What about many (most?) drivers in US who consider a vehicle as simply an appliance "and" use cell phones while driving. They may not appreciate handling of vehicle nor joy of driving on interesting roads. Driving is simply a chore to them, nothing more, nothing less. They don't even think about safety problems of phones while driving. Do they even understand how much their attention to driving is diminished when using a cell phone? Don't think so. Not without public awareness campaigns on TV and other media.
This is the point that I've been making -- if the variance is large, then that's a hint that the phone is not really the culprit. If many people can use a phone with success, and a few people can't, that is a good clue that it has more to do with the person than it does with the device.
It goes back to what I pointed out before: A few people cause most of the accidents. If you want to reduce accident rates, then target those drivers based upon the problems that they cause on the roads, rather than a technology item. Focusing on devices, instead of people, puts the emphasis on the wrong areas, and misdirects resources from places where they can better deployed.
I don't think so.
"This is the point that I've been making -- if the variance is large, then that's a hint that the alcohol is not really the culprit. If many people can use alcohol with success, and a few people can't, that is a good clue that it has more to do with the person than it does with the alcohol.
It goes back to what I pointed out before: A few people cause most of the accidents. If you want to reduce accident rates, then target those drivers based upon the problems that they cause on the roads, rather than the alcohol. Focusing on alcohol, instead of people, puts the emphasis on the wrong areas, and misdirects resources from places where they can better deployed.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"If many people can use a phone with success, and a few people can't, that is a good clue that it has more to do with the person than it does with the device."
No one can drive as well with a cell phone in hand as without. No one. Personally, given that I've taken a couple of performance driving courses and have a lot of track practice in defensive maneuvers, I believe I can drive better holding a cell phone at 100 mph than most people with both hands on the wheel at 50. So what? I'd still be a better driver being focused solely on driving.
"A few people cause most of the accidents. If you want to reduce accident rates, then target those drivers based upon the problems that they cause on the roads, rather than a technology item."
Certainly, there are chronically bad drivers. But when I moved and had to switch insurance companies last year, I learned from my agent (GEICO) that only about 25% of all drivers have not had at least one at fault accident in the last 10 years. I've yet to have one (at 30). But that means 75% of drivers have had at least one at fault accident. Probably more, if you counted the bumper benders not reported to the insurance company for fear of increasing rates.
It seems that your position is based upon the premise that using a cell phone in a car is or should be a civil right, supported by "studies" that show the accident rates haven't gone up proportionally to cell phone use. I really don't want to debate statistical accuracy and significance in this forum, but I hope you wouldn't extrapolate that a 83% probability of success in playing Russian roulette is indicative that it is safe.
Personally, I would simply like to see the "responsibility" that goes along with driving being taken more seriously and that it not be considered a "right" for kids, adults or seniors to get and keep licenses. That would help take the unsafe clutzes that you refer to off the road. But the other part of that "responsibility" would be to require drivers to maintain as complete of control and ability to avoid accidents as reasonably and humanly possible.
Honestly, I'm not sure where you draw the line. But I am quite certain that counting on the general public to make good judgement calls is wishful thinking at best. With Balckberries having been standard issue in my company for at least 3-4 years, we are at most a couple of years away from everybody having a web-surfing, stock-trading, video conferencing hand held device. This is not your father's Whopper and Fries we are talking about.
Of course, it doesn't. Alcohol and phones have nothing in common. Next!
You're reaching. It's fairly simple -- laws should not be passed without justification, and there isn't much justification for this one. Not only does it violate my right to be left alone unless there's a good reason to interfere, but it also wastes police and judicial resources prosecuting laws that do no good.
You folks must think that there is some bottomless well of cash to pay all of the cops and judges who you need for your pet legislation. I'm just curious -- what enforcement effort would you like to see diverted to enforce your preferred law? Should we fire some of the guys in the homicide department so we can pay for the phone cops?
By the way, that's not a rhetorical question: I'd like to hear which laws that you'd like to see neglected in order to deal with this one. There's not much point in having a law that won't do good, particularly if it creates harm somewhere else.