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. It is being said that police in police vehicles on duty communicate wirelessly to perform their jobs. Not talk to their divorce lawyer. You keep making all wireless communication the same level of distraction. I can tell you for a fact it isn't. When is the last time a plane crashed due to tower to plane communications?
I know you don't care what those of us on this side of the debate think anymore than we care about what you think. No one is swayed either way. You have decided to continue hands free use because you feel you can do both drive and talk. I agree you should be able to make that decission and be held accountable if you become distracted with the laws currently on the books. I may not see any consistency to that stand based on the studies that have been posted by the anti cell phone side that show both hands free and hand held units to be just as distracting. But I still support your right to continue an activity that is legal and requires you to take responsibility for your own actions. I would not suggest a law limiting your right to make that hands free decission even if you would support one to limit a hand held decission.
Parking violations are usually handled by a special division of city government (i.e., "meter maids"). The last thing any competent, well-run local government - especially in a large urban area - wants is for highly trained and relatively well-paid police officers to spend valuable time writing out parking tickets.
habitat1: 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.
Anyone who knows anything about how urban governments work - particularly the Washington, D.C., government - will be extremely careful about using a quote from a local government official as proof of the efficacy of a law.
habitat1: 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.
Except that traffic laws are supposed to improve safety, not raise revenue. That breeds the very disrepect for the law the others have raised on this thread.
habitat1: And subsequently reduced violations and accidents in the areas they were installed. A little ironic, at best.
If they reduced violations, they could not have delivered more money to the government, as people are only fined when they violate the law in the first place. At least, one hopes that is the way it works.
Incidentally, the red light cameras in D.C. also increased other types of collisions, as well.
You're lengthy reply is not lost on me. I disagree with your stance however. I appreciate the fact, you believe I will follow the law, which I will.
I also believe drunk drivers should be held accountable as you do. But that begs the questions of why special laws on one hand and no special laws on the other?
I'm all for traffic laws raising revenue. Maybe it will cut down on the infractions. Heck, if a speeding fine is an automatic $1000, I think people will think twice about going an unreasonable rate over the speed limit.
No, it only breeds disrespect for the law, and a reluctance among law enforcement officials to enforce it, because they the face public antagonism firsthand.
For example, a few years ago, it was suggested that Pennsylvania raise fines for various traffic violations. Who opposed it? Local police chiefs, because they knew that officers would be reluctant to slap people with hefty fines for various violations.
There was also the problem of enforcement in small towns and rural areas, where it is likely that the officer and the driver know each other.
kdshapiro: Heck, if a speeding fine is an automatic $1000, I think people will think twice about going an unreasonable rate over the speed limit.
No, it will just lead to booming sales of radar detectors and CB radios, and drivers flashing their headlights to warn oncoming traffic of a speed trap. Please review the history of the 1970s to become better informed on how this works in the real world.
It was on one of your posted studies that reported all cell phone use as the same distraction. I bothered to read what you asked me to. It said they could find no difference between the two type of cell use with the exception of only having one hand on the wheel. At the same time the CHP added a caveat in your posted test saying that they aren't sure that can equate the hand issue as being a contributing cause because manual drivers typically have one hand off of the wheel. So using the logic you posted and the studies you have quoted it seems as if you have decided that only the study that applies to what you don't do is relevant but the part that address the legal issue of something you do admit to doing you aren't concerned. Not concerned anymore than those of us who are not now under a hand held cell phone ban. Both activities are at this time legal and we have every reason to wish them to stay that way. Because at this time the issue is one of perception and the posted studies. In other words till 2008 it is just as legal to use a hand held phone as a hands free phone in our state. to contend that they should be banned because of the studies ignores the part that lumps all cell phone use together. Either the study is correct in its assessment of all cell phones, even the one you use, or they are not viable for any.
The really sad part of the story in the Seattle Times is that there a women who mentioned she makes "the best" cole slaw while driving...
I couldn't disagree more with this post. Do you think the hefty fines, surcharges and enforcement have in general helped with DUI? I do. The only people bemoaning this are the drunkards themselves?
Frankly if people want to buy radar detectors than let them have at it. Doesn't bother me in the least.
Given the data from a number of studies, none of which concluded cell phone usage (especially fumbling around with the keypad) is a benign activity and something the NHTSA could endorse.
HUH?!?!? :confuse: The percentage of drivers who are actually cited for running a red light, stop sign, speeding, etc. is a fraction of 1 percent. A cop car at an intersection will deter most people from running a red light only when it's present but a red light camera serves as a deterrent 24/7 (even when not turned on).
Incidentally, the red light cameras in D.C. also increased other types of collisions, as well.
How so?
-Frank
I think distracted driving is the issue. Those who cant drive and talk on a cell phone likely should not be using the radio or their iPod as well.
Of course rather than banning cell phones you could simply increase the fines by say a factor of 10. That would get people's attention. i.e. in stead of a $101 fine for inattentive driving make it $1,000.00.
Just a thought.
I agree with the objective of improving safety, but what La-La land do you live in that there aren't fines for traffic violations?? What do they do instead - give you 20 hours of community service and make you clean public restrooms? And if somebody's going to disrespect the law just because they got caught breaking it and have to pay the price, maybe we should shoot them?
"If they reduced violations, they could not have delivered more money to the government, as people are only fined when they violate the law in the first place."
Look up the term "subsequently" in the dictionary. After DC installed the inital batch of red light cameras, they had a 30+/- day "warning period" in which violators were sent a notice, but no fine. After that, $100 fine but still no points as they couldn't be sure who was driving. After 6 months, the number of red light violations and accidents were reduced, accross the board, at each and every test location. There was a nice "audit" in the Washington Post.
"Incidentally, the red light cameras in D.C. also increased other types of collisions, as well."
That is patently FALSE. I read the complete audit published in the Post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just repeating somebody else's heresay, but you need to stick to the facts.
As for the disparaging remarks towards "public officials", I find it difficult to defend most government workers and elected officials. But I do have great respect for the majority of police oficers. They are charged with the task to "protect and serve" and oftentimes find that duty interfered with by those that think every bloody thing they do is a violation of somebody's civil rights. If you think you can do a better job, have at it.
I don't doubt the studies that support the cameras. However studies also show that increasing the yellow by a second or 2 also reduces collisions as well. Wouldn't that be a better way to improve safety?
Sadly I have read in other cities where the red light camera's were not meeting revenue goals. The solution, the yellow was shortened. This type of activity tends to support the view that the cameras are nothing but revenue enhancement.
Any behavior that causes the driver to look away from the road for an extended period of time is bad. But you can't legislate every activity that causes a driver to look everywhere else except the road. Cell phones pose a far greater dilemna as the amount of time spent in conversation goes from seconds, as in twiddling with the radio, to minutes and hours. How long do you typically fiddle with your radio?
In addition, the callee does not have what is called situational awareness, which means the callee does not know what you are dealing with. A (smart) fellow passenger does, and should shut up in difficult situations.
Accident and fatalities need to be tracked at the same granularity as DUI. Today data collection is incomplete and marginal. It will take a few years to get complete and accurate data on accidents and fatalities cause by cell phone usage nationwide.
Two sub-issues.
How do we know that individuals use same criteria to determine when they feel OK to use the phone? Where are the guidelines? Are new drivers tested for any kind of criteria? No. Every driver has his own criteria.
Who wants to drive ahead of a cell phone driver that made a bad decision while on a fast interstate? Who wants to be in an opposing lane of a cell phone driver on a posted 55 rural 2-lane highway at night (with deer) that made a bad decision? Can think of numerous other examples of bad decisions.
A total ban will work to eliminate those bad decisions and unsafe situations.
Old theme on this board, but it would seem that state DOTs would want to be aware of any type of new device or future invention that is proven to distract the driver. The goal of DOTs, along with any necessary legislation, ought to be to continually strive to improve safe operation of vehicles. Anything that comes along in the future that would diminsh safety needs to be addressed and eliminated from use. Why should any device such as cell phone be condoned that has proven to delay reaction time?
More on bad decisions-
Although seat belts have been standard equipment since late 60's, people were still not smart enough to use them. People made "incorrect" judgements (and bad decisions to not use) that seat belts were unsafe. Many said, and perhaps some still do, that seat belts are unsafe because they could cause a driver and passenger to be entrapped in a burning and crashed car. People just did not know any better that belts actually improved their odds for surviving a crash and/or having less severe injuries. So, states had to make laws requiring seat belt use.
In a similar vein, drivers don't understand the dangers of cell phone use and need to be told by state law to not use.
The yellow cycle in DC seems pretty long to begin with, so I'm not sure lengthening it would help, or hurt, the amount of red light running that had been occuring. As far as "revenue goals", I can honestly say that wasn't a primary objective in DC. The company that installed the camaras and monitored the system got 50% of the take. DC was able to enforce red light compliance without stationing a human police officer at each location. Many of the locations were picked based upon high accident rates and citizen complaints. But when the tickets started going out in larger numbers than even the police expected, they considered reducing the fines or trying to make the "trigger point" more lenient. The decision was to leave them as is and, sure enough, over 6 months, the violation rate went down anywhere from 50% to 80%+/-.
Your other suggestion for increasing fines for traffic violations / accidents caused or contributed to by cell phone distractions has some merit, IMO.
The idea of red light cameras could be applied to cell phone usage. Point a directional antenna toward a traffic path and photograph each driver to see if they have a phone to their ear or are talking to a hands free... Send 'em a bill.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:V_iz84cU06sJ:www.dot.wisconsin.gov/statepat- - rol/docs/cell-phone-use-in-crashes.pdf+cell+phone+fatality+statistics&hl=en&gl=u- - s&ct=clnk&cd=18
Spoken like a real city hall thug.
Maybe it will cut down on the infractions. Heck, if a speeding fine is an automatic $1000, I think people will think twice about going an unreasonable rate over the speed limit.
Far more likely, people will either push for speed limit increase or simply run from police leading to a chase at much higher speed.
What is really interesting is that, even in that study, only 1-2% of crashes took place while cell phone was in use. Guess what? I use cellphone far more than 1-2% of the time that I drive. If I drive an hour, 1-2% of that time span only amounts to half to 1 min! So a completely random sampling should find cellphone in use more than 1-2% of the time just because the time it is in use while driving! Hmm, perhaps not making cellphone call is less safe than making cell phone calls while driving.
HOWEVER there are lots of crappy drivers out there just waiting to smash into somebody. I would think a better solution would be to allow police to issue tickets for distracted driving. I have seen this by people on phones, and people trying to dip their french fries into a vat of ketchup. Let the officer cite this type of behavior. On top of that increase the fine 10 fold for people who cause accidents, or who are at fault for accidents, and to really drive home the point (pun intended!) adjust the fine based on overall impact. You cause a ten car pile up that blocks traffic for hours (for what ever reason you were on the phone or playing with your lipstick) then your find should be in the low 5 figues.
I don't see a ban on cell phones changing the stats. The bad driver without a phone will be using their laptop, making a sandwhich or what ever. A few $10,000 dollar fines however will get them off the road for a long time.
You basically correct, but it's actually better than this -- these rates have declined. The overall trends of improved safety remain in place, even with phones.
I would think a better solution would be to allow police to issue tickets for distracted driving.
They already can. A driver who is not controlling his vehicle is almost certainly violating a law
If we want to see improvements, the most obvious path to getting there would be to combine more logical traffic controls and driver awareness programs with an enforcement effort that targets certain behaviors that tend to create the sudden movements and surprises that cause accidents.
There would be improved traffic flow with timed lights, drive-on-right/pass-on-left rules and roundabouts.
We could reduce the elements of surprise that provoke reactions and accidents by enforcing laws regarding turn signal usage and tailgating, and educating drivers that they need to do the former and avoid the latter. The obsession with speed enforcement has helped to encourage these types of issues to be ignored.
We could make it far easier to spot the most reckless group of drivers (the young) by instituting an "L" (learner) plate program and combining it with provisional licensing.
With the exception of the roundabouts, which would cost a fair bit of money to install, these are all fairly cheap methods that could be successfully implemented in fairly short order. That makes a lot more sense than these flavor-of-the-month phone laws that won't do much except to appease the legislators who are always on a quest to appear to be doing something, even if that something doesn't do any good.
Come on already, that "coincidence" by itself shows absolutely no statistical significance or cause and effect correlation. Remember the increased obesity and higher life expectency "coincidence"? And when you sort through the NHSTA data, it's quickly evident that fatality and accident rates for alcohol related accidents decelined at a rate over 10 times the rate of decline for non-alcohol related accidents. The only statistically significant conclusion from that data is that MADD was a success.
There was also a traffic study done of the major arterials in and around DC - the incidence of fatal accidents is much lower during heavy rush hour than during light traffic (duh, speeds less than 25 vs. over 60). Some hair brained local politician saw that as a reason not to undertake road improvemetns that would alleviate congestion.
_____________________________
Murphydog,
You seem to be attempting to be a voice of relative reason in a forum that is a bit polar at times (and bi-polar at others). I appreciate your efforts.
With respect to police citing any and all "distractions", there are laws on the books in most jurisdictions that allow that. But it is an area of judgement and (according to police I've spoken with) if the fine/penalty were significant, there is a high probability it will end up in court being argued in front of a judge. This is a significant deterrent to the police in issuing a ticket, even when one is deserved.
IF cell phones rise to a higher level of distraction and public safety risk than a Big Mac or XM Satellite Radio, then laws that objectively "single them out" may be warranted over the seldom used more subjective/judgemental laws of distraction. From what I've seen in DC, IMO cell phones rise to a higher level of risk than the burger and fries. Maybe not to the level that some cell phone addicts think should be the threshold for a ban, but the majority of District residents polled support it. And from what I can tell, the bonus pool among DC law partners rivaled that of Goldman Sachs this year, so the ban didn't seem to have any affect on productivity. Or maybe that's just a coincidence.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/482425p-405876c.html
There are also lots of good drivers waiting to smash into somebody. What do you call a good driver who uses the cell phone? A crappy driver? Good drivers focus on the driving as the primary task. Not changing the diaper, talking to the lawyer on the cell, putting on makeup etc. The cell phone turns a good driver into a crappy driver. Every single study has proven it.
By the mile Germany has one of the safest road in the world. Their cell phone policy is simply, you can use them, but the usage has to be hands free. You can't even dial a phone unless your engine is off.
Until we fundementally change the way we drive in this country, we will continue to see carnage on the roads. Use of cell phones (especially dialing, texting and emailing) is just one more thing drivers do that detracts from driving, not for seconds, but sometimes minutes and hours. IMO that is why it deserves it's own laws.
Who says the laws don't do any good? Using Germany as a case study with the Autobahn. They have a very safe road and coincident a tough cell phone policy. Without these laws it would be legal to dial a cell phone at 150. Is that something that is a rational thing to do?
In my circle, people are complying with the law. Seems like it is doing some good somewhere.
You can't have it both ways. First you'd like to claim that phones are this enormous problem, yet you'd also like to make this claim without demonstrating it with the data. If you are going to tell me that something is significant, then you should be able to show it.
At least with obesity, the effects have been measured and demonstrated. With phones, we have this enormous gap between fantastic hypothetical studies that are based upon some rather skewed assumptions, and real world data that doesn't show much of anything happening at all.
The whole thing is pretty logical, if you step back and think about the totality of data:
(1) Because the effects on reaction time are limited, it is easily compensated for by other means. The average phone user can simply put a bit more distance between himself and the car in front of him, and eliminate virtually every risk associated with the slight delay in reaction time. Therefore, no big deal.
(2) The "severely distracted" drivers (the exceptions at the lower end of the bell curve who the anecdote lovers around here would like to hold up as the rule) are going to tend to be the types of people who would crash with or without a phone. In a world without phones (a world that we incidentally had not long ago), these same people tended to crash anyway. While the phone might be a handy tool for their error making, eliminating that tool does not mean that they'll suddenly become Jackie Stewart and set new safety records without a phone. Invariably, they will find other reasons to crash, while pundits and Chicken Littles will find other things to blame.
We're always going to have people who claim that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but there is this magic panacea that will fix everything. Yet every time we follow these folks, these grand one-stop solutions never work. On this one, I'd like to see something a bit more concrete.
There were 14 in her class ranging from 16 to 20 years old. At the start of the 5 week (Saturday) class, none of the participants passed a series of accident avoidance maneuvers which involved avoiding pop up obstacles, recovering from a hydroplane, avoiding a swerving obstacle, etc.). By the end of the course, all 14 passed and, according to my brother in law, the skill gains were nothing short of very impressive. As they should be for a $1,200 fee.
However, to prove a point, on the last day the instructors had the students try communicating back to them on a cell phone in one of the avoidance tests. They each ran it 3 times. Some "cheated" on their last turn by putting their cell phone on speaker after they answered it, so they could have both hands on the wheel. Of 42 runs, there were 10 passes and 32 failures, compared with 36 passes and 6 failures without a cell phone.
The point that the instructors made was that, thanks to ABS, skid control, better vehicle dynamics, etc. was that accident avoidance ability can be significantly enhanced by current technology and proper training. But it all goes to hell in a handbasket if you aren't mentally focused on driving defensively.
This was not a scientific study and the owner of the company that runs the courses did not want the results of this test published. Apparantly, someone did so in a local paper this spring and they got a nasty call from a phone company attorney threatening action. They acknowledged they could probably achieve the same results with a hamburger (or lipstick). But they started doing this test when it was noticed last year that hardly a single student arrived at the course without a cell phone in their pocket or handbag.
Personally, I'd like to see NHSTA try out this type of a study on adults. As someone suggested, it doesn't need to be a FDA type three phase clinical trial. But on the other hand, the claim that a cell phone is a 0.13 second distraction to reaction time is absolutely BS. The fastest Ferrari F1 paddle shifters in production cars have a 100 millisecond shift time (0.1 seconds). The average person fumbling with a hand held cell phone and not having their eyes on the road is compromising their reaction time by days compared to that.
I'll bet that your driving course did not also include usage of radios, Big Gulps or anything else. And in a closed environment, it also did not offer all of the real-world distractions that occur outside of the car, such as sexy pedestrians, billboards and the rest. A test track does not offer a good measure of what happens on the street.
The point that the instructors made was that, thanks to ABS, skid control, better vehicle dynamics, etc. was that accident avoidance ability can be significantly enhanced by current technology and proper training. But it all goes to hell in a handbasket if you aren't mentally focused on driving defensively.
Excellent post!!
Were there any comments/feedback by the 16-20 year-olds regarding the results of drivers using cell phones? Did any of them say something like: Gee, I didn't realize cell phone use while driving was so dangerous.
I'm sure if you substituted the NHTSA for the local driving school and the NHTSA published the test, the local cell phone company/industry wouldn't even try a lawsuit. Would be like suing CR when they publish less than stellar reviews. CR has always won.
I'm sure you meant IMO.
Comparing cell phone use to Big Gulp is not credible.
Grabbing a soda with a straw from cup holder in center console and sipping from straw is infinitesimal in brain power use and loss of concentration compared to an ongoing (minutes) cell phone conversation. I have done both in years past and I know. I now limit any soda drinking, which is infrequent, to when I am stopped at a traffic signal red light early in red light interval.
I remember in past years of instances of ongoing cell conversations I had while driving. Right after terminating the call I often had thought of not recounting any details about the road course, traffic, etc. during the phone call. I would think: "I don't know how I got to this point in my trip". It's as if you are in a twilight zone while on the call and driving. I think that if state DOT law requires that drivers concentrate on road and do defensive driving that drivers would be able to recount recent details about last few miles driven. If you are not concentrating, you cannot recount.
Of course today, I plan my time and anticipate any tel calls and make calls before or after vehicle trip. If I find I do need to make a call while driving, I find a safe/legal place to park and make the call.
So, are you now 180-degrees turned around on speed limits?
Until we fundementally change the way we drive in this country, we will continue to see carnage on the roads.
The real problem is that we have too many irrelevent laws that trying to micromanage how people drive, such as speed limit and cellphone ban instead of seeing the big picture and facing the reality. In terms of relative income level, it is much much easier to own and operate cars in the US than in any other country. As government and IIHS statistics repeatedly show, accidents and fatality are better correlated (inversely) with the value of cars than with almost any other factor. People at lower strata of the society perhaps are just more prone to accidents (perhaps also the reason why they have not accummulated wealth in other aspects of their lives to begin with). This is not to put down on poor people, on the contrary, we as a society in the US have more or less decided that it's better to give people the opportunity to drive, including to those who are poor and those who are young (and therefore relatively poor) instead of shutting them out altogether. That's just the reality. I don't see any problem with that reality. Our society is made better and more vibrant by the participation of the poor and the young. We just need to work on safer cars so that they are well protected even when the poor and the young do get into accidents.
BTW, the really funny part is that, when I was hit, I was never on the phone myself. I use cellphones a lot during driving; no accident so far while I was on the phone. Perhaps I should stay on the phone to avoid accident :-)
You caught me off guard with that statement. I however can see some truth in that post after thinking about it.
I also believe like you obviously do that we can make cars safer. Perhaps gadgets such as BLISS, automatic cruise control, pre-collision systems, front and rear camera's, that enhance drivers awareness and safety just might be the ticket to improve overall safety on our roads.
Rocky
Laws are needed to regulate operation of vehicles on public roads and drivers' behaviour. I can understand people debating whether or not cell phone use laws are needed, but stating that speed limit laws are irrelevant is nonsense.
Thank you for the compliment. I have always believe that, instead of thinking of ways to ban this and ban that, we should pursue enabling technologies (or simply ways of doing things) that give people new dimensions of freedom. Cars really do represent opportunity and freedom. Sure, letting the poor and the young to drive may increase accidents, but it sure beats the heck out of corralling the poor and young into public-transportation accessible shanty towns to fester periodic riots like what happened outside Paris last year. What a waste of precious human resources that was. There are far bigger pictures in life than a few road kills.
Hope your family have a wonderful holiday season!
Thanx.....I wish the same to your family.
Rocky
Rocky
Unfortunately, statistically cell phone users (like drunks) single themselves out by their poor driving habits. I don't care specifically about cell phone usage, but I do care about lack of attention to the important function of driving. Certainly attempting many types of other functions while driving can cause a similar result. I'll never forget a case in Calif. where a young driver while changing tapes in their in-dash sound system plowed through and killed six adults, three young couples (each with children at home) out ridng bicycles together. I wonder how often alcohol consumption is combined with cell phone usage? Yikes!
"Everyone exceeds speed limit"? Everyone? Not so. Don't know what actual data might be, but I routinely observe a fair amount of drivers going at or below speed limits.
With any law, if it is unfair or unjust, a civilized society based on the rule of law has procedures to get changes in law.
Perhaps there are other dynamics at play when some have contempt for the law. Do media and entertainment industry do things that undermine respect for the law? What was the effect of a president lying under oath to a federal judge and his supporters pooh-poohing this event? To what extent did that president undermine the respect for law and our legal system?
Those that disrespect the law will have a hard time abiding by any future driver cell phone total bans. They already show a contempt for the rule of law.
"However, to prove a point, on the last day the instructors had the students try communicating back to them on a cell phone in one of the avoidance tests. They each ran it 3 times. Some "cheated" on their last turn by putting their cell phone on speaker after they answered it, so they could have both hands on the wheel. Of 42 runs, there were 10 passes and 32 failures, compared with 36 passes and 6 failures without a cell phone."
Do you wonder how a device that effects everyone the same way could allow 10 students to pass while using a cell phone? And maybe more to the point even with training 6 students didn't pass without cell phones. If this is proof positive maybe we could design a drivers test to see if we are one of the ten? And maybe if someone is part of the 6 they shouldn't be allowed to drive at all? After all we are willing to say the 32 that failed failed because they were distracted. The 6 theat failed without a cell phone must have been dangerous to everyone on the highway all of the time?