By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Yes they do. Use of each by a driver will impair his/her abilities in concentration on driving responsibilites and will thus reduce reaction time.
I also wonder if the "average" 0.13 reaction time reduction of drivers using cell phones is applicable in the everyday non-test world. Perhaps it is worse.
Most everyone taking a test of their abilities (not blood test, x-rays, etc) will be at a heightened sense of awareness and will want to do well. Could it be that the drivers in the "0.13" tests being well aware that they were being tested increased their concentration and focus to "driving" and thus were able to lower their reaction times?
In everyday world, drivers are not in a test mode and therefore are not as highly focussed. If drivers using cell phones could be tested for reaction time without their knowledge of a test, then we might get realistic reaction time data.
I think we've covered this. It is quite possible to have great reaction time and be a horrible driver -- your average teenager proves this out all too often. Likewise, you can have mediocre reaction time and lead the pool, as your typical middle-aged driver illustrates. Judgment trumps reaction time, again and again.
We'll make a lot of progress when we get away from this mythology that driving is all about reaction time. Clearly, it isn't -- the speed limit argument was based on the very same faulty premise, and it has been proven wrong, wrong, wrong.
Too bad that these phone laws don't include provisions to ban CB radios, so that we could see the trucking lobby go absolutely nuts in attacking all of the needless legislation.
So, "isn't much justification". Looks like you begrudgingly admit that there is some amount of justification.
Idea about being left alone is OK in own home, but on public owned roads one needs to comply with all rules and regulations. And, even in home, one cannot have unregistered weapons. Being "left alone" concept in a car and a public road is simplistic.
There are many laws on the books that show that a driver really can't be "left alone" to freely do as he/she wants. Examples are laws not allowing transport of open alcohol containers, illegal drugs, loaded handguns in glove box, etc.
One of the rules of my state's DOT for drivers on roads is that the driver must concentrate on the road and practice defensive driving. Note the words "must"
and "concentrate". The rule does not state that a driver "should" try to concentrate on the road and "may" multi-task by splitting attention between driving and cell phone use. I think that this is what some pro-cell phone using drivers wish the rules stated.
Not really. I haven't seen a compelling argument yet, frankly. Once upon a time, I would have a kneejerk reaction in support of such laws, but the more that I have learned about it, the less inclined I am to believe that such laws make any sense.
I still haven't heard what laws you'd like to see ignored or enforced less rigorously in order to deal with this one. Which ones should we cut to enforce this one?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's this unembarrassed desire to continually overreach that makes the anti-phone crowd lose credibility.
Alcohol and drugs have obvious physiological effects that phones do not -- you can't get wasted or high by making a phone call!
If you want to have an honest discussion, you need to begin by being honest. A phone is more comparable to a radio or a passenger in the car than it is to pot, beer or vodka.
I agree. But I'm not "reaching". The justification would be actual experimental analysis and deductive reasoning that holding a cell phone does impede one's ability to drive, certainly in a fully capable, defensive manner. I can show you statistical "studies" that show no direct correlation between asbestos exposure and cancer, due to numerous other factors that "experts" can argue all day long should, or should not, be considered. However, the fundamental biological cause and effect evidence is overwhelming.
"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."
Frankly, just the opposite. Right now, cops have to rely on ambiguous laws rearding "failure to maintain control" and judges have to "judge" whether or not one is distracted and caused or contributed to an accident. In the case of cities with cell phone prohibitions, it's simply illegal and results in a fine/ticket.
You may not like it, but firm, absolute laws are the easiest to enforce. Look at the "three stikes" and mandatory sentencing legislation. They were the result of public outcries over a lack of judicial accountability to a reasonable standard. In some cases, the outcome is that a not so bad person is severly punished. But that's the result of disgust for too many instances of the other way around, in which yet another innocent person was victimized.
We don't need to recruit an entire fleet of cell phone cops. Anymore than we need to have a cop at every neighborhood stop sign. I think public streets are for driving and that cell phone use, which can clearly be a distraction, needs - at least in areas of congestion - to be curbed. You apparantly don't. That's O.K. We're only two votes.
That's not really the point. If the law is ineffective, for whatever reason, then it's ineffective. These laws have been in place elsewhere, and they don't reduce accidents or fatalities in those places, so there's no point.
Zero-tolerance laws without reason consistently fail. We don't prevent drivers from having a little alcohol or cold medication, for example, because the cost of enforcement would be enormous and it wouldn't create any benefit. Just as we don't prosecute drivers for taking an aspirin, even though it is a chemical substance, we shouldn't make mountains out of molehills with phones.
We don't need to recruit an entire fleet of cell phone cops. Anymore than we need to have a cop at every neighborhood stop sign.
Given the degree of stop sign running that I've seen as of late, that argument isn't too compelling. Regulations are bound to be violated, and they need to be allocated sparingly.
In the case of stop signs, I'd frankly prefer to see more roundabouts, which would allow people to yield, in place of intersections where stopping is required. If people are inclined to coast through at low speeds, we may as well account for that reality in our laws, rather than pretending that it doesn't happen.
We've had this same continual debate on technicalities in the speed limits done away with forum.
You can twist words all you want but we disagree. Just scroll over my posts.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Don't recall that anyone ever said that driving was "all" about reaction time. It is one important component.
What "argument"? Faulty premise? It is simple physics and testing of vehicles that shows that as speed increases, stopping distances increase exponentially not linearly. Higher speeds thus leave less margin for error and result in higher likelihood of injury/death.
We have all seen very irresponsible drivers going over the speed limit on interstates and using a cell phone. Just going the speed limit and using phone in the right lane is bad enough, but some of these cell phone drivers can be seen speeding in the left lane.
About a year ago on an Edmunds board, there was a guy bragging that he goes 85-90 mph on interstates in his bmw and then has extra time to stop and enjoy a Starbucks. Apparently he felt he was a superior driver. Have not heard from him in months on any Edmunds board. Wonder if he was also a cell phone using driver.
We have had national campaigns stating that alcolol and driving don't mix. Need laws and similar campaigns stating that cell phones and driving don't mix and are illegal and thus irresponsible behaviour.
Yet this doesn't create problems when raising speed limits. Why not? Because people adjust their behavior to accomodate higher speeds. If anything, a law that accounts for normal behavior will be more effective than one that doesn't, even if that means going faster.
It's not about physics, it's about human judgment being used to manage the totality of the driving experience. It's not about the phone, it's about moderating its use in the context of the overall driving experience -- using it when conditions make it reasonably safe to do so, and to cease using it when it isn't.
Just as you don't try to change discs in your CD player while driving fast on a winding road, you can likewise refrain from using the phone at such times. We'd be better off educating people in how to exercise good judgment than we would be to elevate every single little thing into a crime.
"Accounting for reality"?
"Coast through at low speeds" you say. So what should be an allowable "coast-through" speed? Would you have different sets of speeds to cover residential, business, country, etc? As some in past posts would use a term, is this a Slippery Slope? Then, drivers would have to divert attention to speedometers to comply with coast through speed rather than "simply" paying attention to driving and intersection and coming to a complete STOP.
What next? Change red stop signs to "Coast 2 mph" or "Coast 5 mph", etc?
Also, re speed limits, if we "Account for reality", then change Interstate speed limits around cities from 55 to max observed at times which might be 80. Then, when folks are going 95 in a few years, change it to 95? Another Slippery Slope?
Drivers using cell phones do not understand how much their abilities are diminished and need a combination of laws outlawing cell phone use and campaigns in the media/tv to educate drivers to not use cell phones.
Not true. NJ had an increase in the number of accidents the following year after the speed limit was raised.
"It's not about physics, it's about human judgment being used to manage the totality of the driving experience."
Because human judgement can be faulty and/or different for individuals, there are a myriad of laws to follow, including new cell phone laws.
"Just as you don't try to change discs in your CD player while driving fast on a winding road,"
Maybe you don't, but you've acknowledge you got a earpiece, why is that?
"We'd be better off educating people in how to exercise good judgment than we would be to elevate every single little thing into a crime."
Unfortunately that is an idealistic way of looking at the issue, and not every little thing is a crime.
Very well said... couldn't agree more.
Apparently, you aren't familiar with the concept of the roundabout. The premise behind them is that drivers should try to drive in such a way that they can avoid stopping as often as possible. Stopping disrupts traffic flow and reduces highway capacity; you get more benefit by doing what you can to keep traffic moving.
Since we are all inclined to go, rather than stop, you may as well create a traffic device that takes advantage of this. Laws that attempt to go against human nature are much harder to enforce. And when it comes to keeping traffic moving, I'd rather work with instinct than fight against it. (And incidentally, so would your average traffic engineer.)
If you haven't driven abroad, then you might not realize that we are addicted to stop signs here in the US. We use them in many places where yield signs will be used abroad. Stopping traffic for the sake of it is not particularly good for safety, so why keep something that doesn't help?
if we "Account for reality", then change Interstate speed limits around cities from 55 to max observed at times which might be 80. Then, when folks are going 95 in a few years, change it to 95?
That's pretty much how traffic engineers advise that speed limits be set now; when it isn't done, it's because of politicians who don't understand highway safety, not because it makes sense. The idea behind using the 85th percentile is that safe speeds are generally set by the flow of traffic, not by an arbitrary limit.
It doesn't make sense to create unenforceable laws that don't enhance safety. For example, why don't we use the "L" plate system that is so common abroad -- put a big sign on the backs of the cars of new drivers, so that everyone can spot them from a fair distance, and regulate them more strictly for their first year behind the wheel? Start by targeting the highest risk group (the young), and make it possible for the police and responsible drivers to take notice of them more easily, and you might actually accomplish something that goes beyond feeling good.
Good idea.
"Apparently, you aren't familiar with the concept of the roundabout."
Living in DC, I am very familiar with them as we have a half dozen or more in the areas I drive regularly. They also can be a good idea, although a large number of idiots here don't understand or follow the rule that traffic in the circle has the right of way. Also, you might be surprised at the cost of the real estate required for a 200-300+ foot outside diameter traffic circle, compared to conventional intersection.
"It doesn't make sense to create unenforceable laws that don't enhance safety."
Again, we agree in principal, just not in the application. It would be nice to wave a magic wand (call it "public education") and have everyone eliminate all safety compromising distractions from their daily driving. But the fact that we can't do that doesn't cause me to want to throw in the towel. I believe, from a preponderance of the evidence I've seen (which includes my own observations) that cell phone use in highly congested urban areas contributes to a greater risk to public safety at worst and driver inefficiency and congestion at least. I see nothing wrong with restricting (hands free) or banning cell phone use in these areas. I'm pretty sure most here would accept the legislative rationale of why I can take my daughters target shooting in the back yeard of my in-laws home on 50+ acres in Maine, but I can't do the same in the 6,000 acre Rock Creek Park in Washington DC.
While some of the more ardent opponents in the group may advocate a total ban on cell phone use while driving, and the other extremist side may dig there heals in as though it is a civil right to yap wherever they please, I would accept the decision be made on a local level, based upon conditions. And that, my friend, is a compromise on my part. Because "statistics" aside, I do think even cruising down the empty highway, holding a cell phone to your ear makes you a worse driver.
This is not a theortical discussion. We are not discussing *if* cell phones users should be singled out, they are already singled out in 40 countries. One has to ask why some form of cell phone legislation was enacted in 40 countries. One should ask why Germany has a fairly strict policy in regard to cell phone use and a fairly safe Autobahn. Is there a correlation? One should ask why if the, 13/100 of a second has nothing to do with cell phone use, legislatures all over the world would be rushing to repeal some of these laws.
The question that needs to be asked is: "Why are these laws being enacted when there seems to be no evidence (sic) to support the conclusion of dialing and using a wireless device is not dangerous? What are some of us not see or understand that lawmakers in 40 countries see and understand?
Not much space is required for a roundabout -- abroad, these are often comprised of just a painted circle in the middle of the interesection. At a small intersection, what it ultimately means is that everyone has to yield to the cars already in the intersection, and cars entering it have to slow down sufficiently to get through it, but that they should avoid stopping if possible.
The right of way issue does matter, as you noted. Until recently, the French gave the right of way to those entering the roundabout, and the results have not been optimal, so they have been changing over to the typical English method of giving right of way to those already in the roundabout. I frankly don't know why so many Americans seem to have so much trouble with the roundabout concept, when it works well in other places.
...I see nothing wrong with restricting (hands free) or banning cell phone use in these areas.
If there are specific zones where phone usage is uniquely hazardous, and it can be demonstrated through some sort of logical study, then I could see such a restriction being implemented in those places. (I would want to see some evidence, though, used in a similar fashion to how speed surveys are used in setting some speed limits.) But I see no reason for a blanket law, particularly if there is no logic behind it or if it does no good.
The impulse to create laws for the sake of it is a bad one. If laws aren't going to be obeyed or can't be enforced, then they do more harm than good, because they create widespread disrespect for law itself while distracting law enforcement from focusing on more important matters.
Traffic laws should focus on helping traffic flow and reducing accidents. That requires a combination of training, education and laws that accept human nature so as to figure out how to keep it orderly and moving, and to get drivers to cooperate willingly. To avoid banning something is not "throwing in the towel", it's being realistic and working with the resources that we've got, which is the only thing that makes sense.
I find it interesting that you're now showing all this concern about how a cell phone ban law would be enforced. I'd think that someone who adamantly denies that cell phone usage while driving is unsafe would be equally adamant against any laws banning such activity. Actually I'm glad though, once everyone is in agreement that driving and talking on a cell phone is inherently dangerous, we can move on to the more difficult discussion of how to stop (or at least reduce) such behavior. A law will certainly make some difference because many honest people will abide by it even though they know no one is watching. Even more effective I think would be a public education program (like the Castrol video), maybe along the lines of MAAD, perhaps showing reenactments of actual events. I can think of one right off the bat: a teenager while talking on a cell phone, veered onto the sidewalk and struck and killed a mother and infant (in a baby stroller).
-Frank
I've been doing this consistently throughout this discussion. Enforcement is obviously an issue when it comes to any law.
The rational for the law and it's enforcement are two different things. So I think you are saying cell phone usage is inherently bad, but the law restricting the behavior is bad also. This is where we disagree. I think the helmet and seatbelt laws are very bad, they protect no-one from me, except myself. Their enforcement as primary offenses (in some states) takes away the police from chasing the bad guys. The cell phone laws attempt to protect the public at large and their enforcement as primary offenses helps protect me from (the generic) you.
Fear not, help is on the way. With cameras at every stop and ALPR being deployed to police. It will be a simple task to add the cell phone number to your drivers license via your SS#. The cops will know everything about you before you pass them on the highway. With a cell scanner turned on they can listen to your conversation as well. Ain't technology grand. You blue toothing cell guys & gals should love it.
Here's a better idea: Uphold a system in which voluntary compliance is high, and both your need for enforcement and the cost of it go down, while the citizens feel better about it. I don't think that the Founders were envisioning a nation built on cops, snitches and Big Brother when they plotted the Revolution.
Well yes and no... they only "physically" protect the individual from him/herself but they protect society (you and me) from the financial burden of potentially having to pay the medical expenses resulting from an individual's actions.
If motorcyclists were given the option of either wearing a helmet or signing a waiver stating that they alone would be personally responsible for any and all medical expenses incurred as a result of not wearing a helmet, then sure, I'd be in favor of repealing those laws
-Frank
Many have appealed to us to use our common sense in reguards to cell phones and their ability to cut back on "everybody's ability to drive and yet every single formula one driver, all WRC drivers and all NASCAR drivers Both talk and receive instructions over devices very similar to cell phones. In fact WRC drivers also have a radio and a passenger talking constantly. But some will say those are professional drivers and the information they receive is important to the action they are doing, even if they are driving in excess of twice what most of us have ever driven at. Then lets look at people that aren't professional drivers. Ever seen the TV show , "Worlds Wildest Police chases?" I am sure you have, every one of the chases has an officer talking to dispatch, receiving information from dispatch and sometimes the helicopter while chasing another vehicle. The drivers they are chasing are not on cell phones or speaking on a radio. Those and yet the Police are both able to keep up with catch the non cell phone fleeing drivers. Are we supposed to believe that all of these police officers in all of these states are expert drivers and able to drive and talk but none of the rest of us can learn this skill? If the talking and listening are a distraction then the fleeing criminal should have a huge advantage. Using common sense as some suggest.
"Good" doesn't necessarily matter a whole lot when a strong political lobby is involved. Speaking of which, voters (who like to drive and yak) and the cell phone industry (who don't want anything preventing their customers from running up their minutes) are the biggest obstacles in passing effective cell phone laws.
Using common sense as some suggest
And has already been pointed out, although obesity rates have risen dramatically and life expectancy rates have gone up significantly, only a fool would conclude that the fatter you are the longer you'll live :P
-Frank
Oh good god, here we go again. Taking something from Formula One, twisting it competely upside down, and coming up with some perverted analogy to everyday driving on real streets.
Please, give me Schumacher's cell phone number. I'd like to have his wife call him in the middle of the French Grand Prix with a grocery list, and his lawyer to call him up to go over the terms and conditions of his latest sponsorship agreement. Should be no mental distraction nor any problem for him to hold that cell phone up to his helmet in one of those 3g hairpins, right?
Why didn't you just come up with some analogy of the space shuttle astronauts ability to circumnavigate the earth while talking to NASA? Obviously that has a lot in common with the soccer mom in her minivan. :confuse:
There really must be something in that California water. Like vodka.
Stop signs most definitely have everything to do with safety in terms of causing those required to stop to observe traffic flow and conditions and then proceed when traffic is clear and/or have the right of way. Stop sign procedure has to be fixed in minds of all drivers that they must "absolutely" come to a STOP. Any kind of lattitude of allowing coasting through stop signs, or changing to "yield" signs, would be deadly at many intersections in the mostly rural area where I live.
A total cell phone ban while driving would be absolute, just like always coming to complete stop at stop signs. No leeway.
A total ban would be no different from other laws about motor vehicles such as open liquor, illegal drugs, loaded handguns, etc. There is absolutely no lattitude on these items. Zero tolerance.
I think that some advocates of cell phone use might make an argument that they ought to be able to drive home with the remains of the bottle of wine they had at a restaurant dinner. After all, they are responsible adults and they only had a glass and a half with dinner. They would argue that they should be allowed to make the "judgement" whether or not to bring the open bottle wine home.
I understand what a total ban is about, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense.
You don't seem to follow the concept that the best laws are typically those that generate voluntary compliance. Short of running a police state, you don't get things done effectively in a democracy if everything is based zero tolerance and bullying.
Any traffic engineer knows that it's better to create rational laws that will be obeyed than rigid ones that people will ignore. There aren't enough cops or shredders (the ones that you'd need for the Constitution) for the sort of totalitarian nonsense that creates ineffective law for no good reason.
"No good reason"? Think that majority of posts on this board have provided good reasons. Laws will be effective with education via media/tv about the dangers of driving and using cell phone. Need the phone providers to step up just like the beer companies and their various campaigns on responsibility.
Driving is a "priviledge" and off hand don't see how anything in the Constitution guarantees freedom to do whatever you want in a motor vehicle with perhaps exception of free speech within vehicle (as long as it does not detract from driving concentration).
After we get a total cell phone ban, there will still be more new inventions in the future that are portable. Predictably, drivers will mistakenly say that it is their "right" to use these while driving in the "privacy" of their vehicles even though their concentration/attention is diminished.
I know that people are fond of saying this, but the reality is that this still results in tens of millions of people behind the wheel.
You have a rather unrealistic approach to dealing with the realities of law enforcement. Unenforceable laws simply don't work, the 55 mph speed limit being one of the more notorious examples. With as many as 70-90% of drivers violating it, it became a joke. Even the Big Brother wannabes couldn't do a thing about it (nor should they have.)
Rocky
What "La-La" land do you live in? :surprise:
I'll grant you that the average citizen probably doesn't need a set of laws to act civilly and not murder, rape or rob their neighbor. But we still have them on the books to try to protect all of us against the few that don't.
As far as laws that try to "encourage" compliance, they were also on the books in the 60's and 70's regarding drunk driving, but it wasn't until MADD sponsored legislation put some real teeth into the laws that they started to have the desired deterrant effect. In 1972, I watched a 14 year old girl die in my front yard with my Dad trying to perform CPR after being hit by a drunk driver that happened to be a prominant businessman in town. He was never charged, in spite of obvious intoxication by his wife and his own stumbling around at the scene. The accident occurred at 9:00 on a warm summer night. The investigation concluded that the girl was walking too close to the road (8 feet off the pavement) and in dark clothing (it was still dusky), contributing to her being hit. :confuse: :mad: Ten years later I was riding with a friend in the same town and he took a wrong turn on a pitch black one way city side street at 11:00 p.m.. He had two beers about a half hour earlier. Cop stopped us, as he was doing a slow U-turn with absolutely no other cars on the road. My friend was arrested, put in jail overnight, lost his license for 3 months, was on probation for 1-year and had at least $10,000 in legal bills. No blood alchohol test was ever done, this was all based upon a "touch your nose while standing on one leg and counting backwards" test. Thanks to ACL surgery 10 weeks ago, I am legally drunk 24 hours a day by that standard.
Neither of those two outcomes was correct, and I am personally pleased that we now have strict laws against DUI with objective standards (blood alchohol) by which to apply them.
You may like touchy feely laws that "encourage" us to all be on our best behavior, but they generally result in more abuses, unfair discretionary application by the police and judges and overall lack of effectiveness than the strict, objective ones. So, while I don't believe in "totalitarianism", neither do I subscribe to the idea that "strict" is necessarily a bad word when it comes to laws (nor do I think that "discipline" is a bad word when it comes to raising kids).
Lastly, I respectfully suggest not claiming "any traffic engineer knows ....", unless you are the president of the American Society of Civil Engineers and have the power to disbar those that "don't know". None of the traffic engineers I know personally (4-5) are on your side of "cell phones are OK" position here. One testified at the DC hearings before its law was passed. Given the chance, they would be more totalitarian than I would.
Lady hits pole
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was lucky it did not damage my car, but had she gone faster she could have pushed me right into oncoming traffic. And I blame her distraction since there is no good reason on a clear day not to stop in time while traveling up an off ramp.
What I can’t figure is how one holds a cell phone and drive safely at the same time. I do think that holding any hand held device while driving should be banned. That at least should be common sense and yes should be banned.
I can buy the argument that hand-free is safer, although really I would prefer that people not talk on the phone at all while driving. My experience is that it takes more concentration to figure out what someone is saying on a cell phone than when someone is right besides you. And that the conversation on the cell phone tends to lack the normal breaks in conversation that you might have with a passenger. Passengers seem to respect the driving conditions while a cell phone user has no clue.
As for enforceability, well where I live the police might let you off, but I wouldn’t count on it. They do write tickets for any infraction of the rules of the road and if you are unfortunate enough to be caught for a speeding ticket, you will get all other applicable tickets with it. (i.e Not wearing seat belts ect.).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Or she could be sent on her way with some "encouraging" words from a "compassionate" judge to "be more careful" next time. Wouldn't that be just peachy?
But if those "totalitarian" laws were in place, she'd be charged with a "strict" moving violation, and required to make restitution for her damages to public property. I see no reason why the taxpayers of Dayton need to pay for her indescretion.
You be the judge - the next time it might not be a light pole.
And If I might clarify my other post, if the contention is that "all electronic conversation" is so distracting that no one can drive and talk at the same time then no one, including race car drivers could drive and talk or listen at the same time. Using so called common sense and avoiding all of these contentious studies we have been talking about. But lets say race car drivers are a special breed. If it isn't a case of training and ability then the Police pursuit driving we can all watch and see puts people more like ourselves in cars more like the ones we drive in a state of tense communication and still able to drive. It is much harder to use a big paint brush and say all electronic communication is so distracting that no one can do it and drive. If someone were to say that hands free makes this action possible then it would only seem logical that the conversation itself isn't the problem but the "drivers" themselves and their ability to multi task. It is nothing like drunk drivers or dope smoking drivers because no stoned or drunk driver could race or pursue anyone let alone win the race or catch the criminal.
Some distraction is always with us when we drive. Some have indicated that a total ban is necessary because no one can communicate electronically and drive safely, that is simply a jump that is hard to take. But if police officers and other drivers can be trained to use such communication safely then just maybe it is a training issue?
Didn't we go over this before? There are fundamental differences between basic felony laws that prohibit murder, rape, etc. and the vast majority of traffic laws.
We ban murder because life is a basic civil right. We ban theft because property ownership is a basic civil right. We have laws against them because of the need to uphold rights and maintain justice. While we hope that the penalty creates a deterrent, we still maintain the laws because of the priority of civil rights.
Traffic laws are largely intended to facilitate movement. The laws are supposed to serve a practical purpose, to move people and goods as easily and as safely as possible. It's not a matter of being some Superman fighting for justice, but doing stuff that works.
Enforcing traffic laws that require shoving them down the throats of the average driver just won't work. You are in Dreamland if you believe that there are enough cops to make this work -- there aren't. And while you're focusing their attentions on something that doesn't do any good, those police resources could have been deployed elsewhere.
It's not a matter of being "touchy feely" (I have no idea where you got that from), but of keeping traffic moving with as few resources as possible. These draconian initiatives may sound fun to the Big Brother in all of us, but we saw with the example of low speed limits how unpopular laws only breed disobedience and a disrespect for authority. If you have a set of traffic laws that require acting like a petty tyrant to uphold them, then the problem is with the law, not with the people.
Their "communication" is intended to augment and enhance their driving, not distract from it. I assume it would help to hear in my ear that Schumacher is coming up on my tail than have to look in the rear view mirror or over my shoulder. Not that I could do anything about it, either way.
More relevant - a navigation system that allows me to glance at a screen and/or my dash to see how how many streets to go before my next turn can definitely be better than squinting at street signs and shuffling a map. But that doesn't suggest that watching the movie "Cars" on my DVD screen is O.K. Or even trying to reprogram it for another destination when I'm moving (Acura, Porsche allow this, Lexus doesn't).
There is an element of common sense here. But I think it is serious La-La land to expect everyone has it or will use it. If Big Ben Rothlesburger wants to do a faceplant without wearing a helmet, that's his perogative, as far as I'm concerned. Stupid, maybe, but his choice, since there is little, if any, risk to the innocent bystander. (That assumes the Steelers and not the public is paying for his medical expenses or rehab). But when my distraction puts you at risk, a higher standard than my personal choice to be stupid needs to be considered.
One last thing - all IMO: The cell phone itself does not have civil rights. It doesn't have the right to deemed innocent until proven guilty. We don't need volumes of studies showing actual evidence of significant death and destruction before we can fairly regulate thier use by the driver of a car. Pharmaceutical companies have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars before a new drug or procedure is deemed to be safe for the market. I'm not necessarily advocating that we need to abolish cell phones until the providers complete a Phase III trial in 2012. But I can guarantee you, if the burden on Cingular was as stringent as it is on Pfizer, there would be no cell phone use by drivers permitted in any car anywhere in the country.
I'm not going to that extreme, but for goodness sakes, on the other side don't elevate cell phone use to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I would suggest that a proper "training" issue would be how to plan and manage time and make telephone calls before or after your vehicle trip or stop in a safe/legal place to make the call. That is the "training" that is needed.
I think that everyone would agree that police, fire, paramedics and similar have a "need" to communicate by phone or radio while driving. Nobody on this board has yet shown "Proof of the Need" for ordinary civilian drivers to talk on the cell phone while driving. Examples of cell phone use on this board were either frivolous calls or calls that were made because of lack of planning/time management skills.
What is so important that has to be communicated on cell phone while driving? Pick up a bottle of wine, or pick up a jar of mayo, or what time did you get home, or I had a great date last night, or.......
The passenger is the "navigator". Have never been on a WRC event, but have been on many other types of very brisk speed-timed events in the past as both a driver and navigator. As a driver, I can say that I brought to bear an extreme level of concentration (never went off road or crashed). And, this was with relevant (not frivolous) info from my navigators. Too bad that ordinary everyday drivers will never aspire to get to this level of concentration. There would be a great reduction in accidents/crashes if they could step up concentration.
The "talking" of the navigator is needed, is brief, is timely and is concise. Nothing superfluous is said. The navigator points out upcoming turns, curves, hazards, yumps, and other info relevant to helping the driver go max speed while keeping the car on the road and on course.
boaz said:
The drivers they are chasing are not on cell phones or speaking on a radio. Those and yet the Police are both able to keep up with catch the non cell phone fleeing drivers. Are we supposed to believe that all of these police officers in all of these states are expert drivers and able to drive and talk but none of the rest of us can learn this skill?
What would be purpose of training ordinary drivers to have same skill as police in driving/using phone(radio)? Ordinary drivers have absolutely no compelling need to talk on cell phone and drive.
That is your contention. I think some contributing posters might feel, talking to the tower to land the jet, is different than talking to your divorce lawyer while tooling down the freeway at 70mph. 'Nuff said.
You're absolutely right. Let's ban alcohol. Can you imagine how much better the roads would be if alcohol was banned? Let's take away seat belt and helmet laws as well. Let's get rid of the tax code and enforcement. How much more productive would we be as a society if we didn't have to deal with taxes? Maybe we should get rid of the entire traffic code to make a cops life easier. This way they can ticket us for whatever they want to and we could drive anyway we want to on the road. Biggest truck wins!
I'm not for more laws that don't make sense, but these restrictions make a lot of sense for the common good.
Just curious.
Draconian? Totalitarian? Big Brother-ish?
Come on. We are debating about where to draw the line with repsect to public safety on public roads. We can respectfully disagree on how much the public safety is at increased risk due to cell phones, but cell phone regulation isn't a covert NSA operation, as best I can tell.
"You are in Dreamland if you believe that there are enough cops to make this work -- there aren't."
Not buying that. In Bethesda, Maryland, the odds of getting a $35 parking ticket for an expired meter is about 60% in the first 5 minutes after it expires. About 97% in the next hour. That's a real public safety risk, huh? Guess we should rename Bethesda "Dreamland". Your concern about enforcement is a specious argument, IMO. There wasn't a single cop added to the DC police force as a result of the law passed last year and the Chief has gone on record as supporting it as good, appropriate and overdue legislation. Interestingly, some of the so-called "public interest" groups that argued against the DC law claiming, in part, that it would be costly to enforce, were also opposed to red light cameras which delivered millions in income with no manpower costs to the District. And subsequently reduced violations and accidents in the areas they were installed. A little ironic, at best.
In sheer number they are, if you read NHTSAs penetration studies.