Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

tpe

The passenger is aware of what's happening around the vehicle and pauses the conversation and does not become a distraction

Sometimes but not always. I know that when I'm a passenger a lot of times I'll have a newspaper with me and am paying zero attention to the road. If you're a parent and you are talking with your kids I doubt they are all that aware of what's going on. For the sake of argument I'll agree, cell phone use is more distracting. Are you saying that talking to a passenger represents no distraction or are you saying that it represents an acceptable level? If you are someone that believes the task of driving requires 100% attention then there is no acceptable level. I, on the other hand, believe that there are times driving does not require 100% of your attention and a reasonable person can recognize these situations. If you were to ask me to assign a value for how much attention was required given the situation I wouldn't be able to.

I think that most people are instinctively aware of what is and isn't safe. If we start justifying new laws based on irresponsible, reckless behaviour we are travelling down a slippery slope. Actually we're well down that slope already and gaining speed.

gagrice

I think our fellow posters would like to just ignore the facts. People ARE dying as a result of drivers using cell phones. The sad part is most people do not realize they are being distracted by the conversation they are in. After spending 7 years under a mandatory NO cell phone calls from a moving vehicle rule. I do not think I missed anyone's call. They all managed to get a hold of me. Many companies are imposing NO cell phone use in company vehicles. You think it may have some basis in reality. Too bad the drivers are not smart enough to realize on their own what is a distraction. I hate having more laws as much as anyone. I also hate to have my life in a vehicle compromised by some jerk on a cell phone or eating a Big Mac or changing a CD.

snakeweasel

If you are trying to compare a telephone operation and conversation via phone, they are not the same as a conversion within the vehicle.

I would think that they are, the only difference is that the person you are talking to is not in the car.

That said, there is a risk of less attention when passengers are in the vehicle.

I would think that the risk of inattention would be greater when passengers are in the vehicle. The reality of the situation is that you will give those passengers some of your attention. And if you are conversing with them there is a natural inclination to look at them.

If I am in an point in time of driving where it takes more concentration on the road, I will ignore the conversation and pick it up later.

That can be done with a cell phone conversation too.

tpe

I attend several sporting events a year throughout the country. More and more venues are prohibiting the sale of alcohol at these events. I am someone who has always enjoyed having a couple beers while watching the game but am no longer allowed to because a small percentage of people can not drink responsibly. To me the cell phone legislation represents the same kind of rational. We no longer hold the individual responsible and accountable. We look for some external agent or device to blame.

I own a cell phone but rarely use it. I'm not really arguing to defend someone's right to talk on a cell phone while driving. It's far more general. I'm arguing against laws based upon what might happen if someone acts in an irresponsible and reckless manner. If it is possible for a cell phone to be safely used while driving then it should not be illegal just because it is also possible for it to be used unsafely.

snakeweasel

Maintain those delusions,

What delusions.

Being able to post defends not wearing a seatbelt.

Yep if I was strapped to the seat of that Dodge duster back in '78 I would have been crushed with it. I wasn't delusional when two people (one cop and one paramedic at the scene) told me that if I was in that drivers seat I would at the best been crippled for life and most likely dead.

snakeweasel

You've got to be joking, right?

Nope I think he believes the number of hits on a search engine corresponds to actual occurance. Its a very poor argument.

I went to YAHOO and searched for "politician tells the truth" and got 1.9 million hits.

I searched "Mars invades Earth" and got 128,000 hits. I guess that means Mars has invaded Earth. :P

gagrice

I can fully appreciate your position. I used to go and shoot at targets on the Indian reservation. A few crazies dumped trash and were acting in inappropriate ways with guns. They stopped all of us from using that area. So a hobby I enjoyed has been ruined by a few ignorant folks. Same thing happened with off road vehicles.

I fully understood the tribes position just as I understand the states position on banning cell calls. I just think they need to research it more and make the ban for all calls from a moving vehicle.

If you look at any law we have it is directed at just a few people. I refuse to have a drink away from home anymore, out of fear that a breath test will show I have .0000001% alcohol and they toss me in jail. It is the society we live in.

smittynyc

"I attend several sporting events a year throughout the country. More and more venues are prohibiting the sale of alcohol at these events."

Really? Which ones?

I've been to NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA events (off campus) in the last year and have drank to my heart's content.

tpe

The last event I attended was a Maryland football game at Cole Field.

snakeweasel

I was sitting at a red light once when all of a sudden someone runs into me rear end. Turns out the driver was distracted by his kids in the back seat.

Several years ago my sister was sideswiped by another driver when she (the other driver) turned around to address her misbehaving children.

Just two cases out of many

We need to ban kids from cars.

snakeweasel

The passenger is aware of what's happening around the vehicle and pauses the conversation and does not become a distraction;

Nope not always, many times when I am a passenger I am very ignorant of the traffic around me, usually taking the time to either do something in the car or enjoy the scenery that I cannot enjoy as much when I drive.

Talking to someone in a car is a distraction regardless of what you think. Also their is a natural inclination to look at someone you are talking to. So having a conversation with someone in a car could mean less time with your eyes on the road, causing the ultimate distraction from driving.

smittynyc

"there is NOTHING out there in the form of studies or data to back up the assertion that banning handheld cell phone use will make the roads even a little bit more safe. IN FACT there is plenty of evidence that if you want to ban cell phone use you must ban all use of all voice-operated comm devices in the car (including hands-free sets for phones), and certainly the hand-operated ones like the (in some cases these days, very complicated) stereo and NAV system."

Are you serious? Have you not read the links that numerous posters have provided to studies that show how sharply and dramatically the risk of having an accident rises when a driver is talking on ANY type of cell phone?

No one here is disputing the notion that ALL kinds of distracted driving are a problem. But how many cars on the road have DVD/NAV systems? Maybe 10%, optimistically? And how many drivers have a cell phone -- probably 90%, conservatively?

When the house is on fire, you tackle the big flames first.

And the assertion others in the anti-ban camp have made that banned cell-phone users will just distract themselves with something else is a giant, stinking red herring.

snakeweasel

People ARE dying as a result of drivers using cell phones.

And thats opposed to the fact that no one get killed by drivers not using a cell phone?

People also get killed by drivers who have nothing distracting them.

I will repeat myself, the inconsiderate lugnut behind the wheel will be an inconsiderate lugnut behind the wheel with or without a cell phone.

I would suspect that the number of people who drive and use a cell phone and have no related issues far outweighs the number who can't.

snakeweasel

Really? Which ones?

I know that at sporting events here in Chicago they stop serving about 2/3 -3/4 of the way through the game.

smittynyc

"The last event I attended was a Maryland football game at Cole Field."

Got it. So it's really just one venue that you've experienced this, not many as your post stated.

The majority of on-campus NCAA facilities do not sell alcohol at games (logically, as at least 3/4 of the undergraduate population is underage), and in many places, that policy was put into effect years ago -- before cell phones even existed, e.g.

tpe

Here are the NHTSA's property damage only stats from 1988 to 2004 based upon 100 million vehicle miles travelled. I use property damage only because it eliminates the argument that seatbelts and airbags have caused the numbers to go down. They have only made crashes more survivable. I think we can all agree that cell phone use increased tremendously during this time period.

1988 437
1989 401
1990 384
1991 360
1992 338
1993 331
1994 351
1995 361
1996 352
1997 335
1998 315
1999 285
2000 283
2001 276
2002 276
2003 270
2004 260

When the house is on fire, you tackle the big flames first.

I don't see the big flames. What did you say about red herrings?

tpe

I guess I should clarify. I attend mainly ACC events up and down the east coast. I know that I've also experienced this at University of Florida games, both basketball and football. I know there was at least one other venue. If you don't get my point I can understand. I've read some of your posts.

grbeck

I've been to Philadelphia Eagles games at Lincoln Field...between the high ticket prices and outrageous beer prices, I'm amazed ANYONE can afford to have a drink in the stadium.

Of course, given the Eagles' uneven performances, beer could be a necessity for a dedicated fan...

smittynyc

Impressive numbers . . . imagine how much more impressive they'd be if there were an enforced ban on driver cell-phone use!

snakeweasel

When the house is on fire, you tackle the big flames first.

You go after the fuel first. No use putting out a flame you know will flame back up first.

And the assertion others in the anti-ban camp have made that banned cell-phone users will just distract themselves with something else is a giant, stinking red herring.

I don't know about others here but my assertion is that its poor driving skills not cell phones that are the problem. Eliminating the cell phones and you still have someone with poor driving skills out on the road.

You don't solve the problem you just punish those who are responsible and have good driving skills.

smittynyc

You don't have a point.

There can be no burgeoning conspiracy to deny you the right to purchase alcohol at on-campus NCAA sporting events when the overwhelming majority of such facilities never sold alcohol to begin with.

snakeweasel

Yeah they may not go down at all with that ban. thats impressive.

smittynyc

"I don't know about others here but my assertion is that its poor driving skills not cell phones that are the problem."

All of the studies disprove this.

No one here with any sense would be arguing for a ban on cell phones if the studies said that only bad drivers showed a further loss of driving ability while chatting on cell phones, or if it was only drivers over 85, or drivers driving on the fourth Saturday in June.

The studies say that ALL drivers of every stripe -- good ones, bad ones, rich ones, poor ones, PhDs, high-school dropouts -- show a dramatic and conspicuous loss in driving function when talking on either a hand-held or voice-activated cell phone.

We can work on educating the poor drivers and eliminating other distractions later. I think the logical first step is to eliminate a factor that affects 100% of the approximately 95% of drivers who own cell phones.

xrunner2

We have far too many driving regulations based on the fact that a small percentage of people can't exercise reasonable judgement. This is just one more example. Probably the best example is our speed limits. How can a static number represent what is a safe speed when road, weather, traffic, visibility, etc.. can vary so dramatically?

Having a valid driver's license gives a driver the responsibility to use his/her "judgement" to determine the safe speed depending upon traffic, weather and road conditions. The driver determines the speed to drive which could be less than the "Speed Limit" but no more than the "Speed Limit". This is fundamental Rules of the Road.

It seems that there are probably many drivers out there that forgot these rules and want to make their own. Maybe states should institute mandatory and rigorous written tests (with appropriate fee) about Rules of the Road for all drivers every 2-3 years. Of course there would be 1 or 2 questions regarding legal cell phone use in car. Also, periodic driving tests should also be instituted with appropriate fees to cover expenses.

tpe

imagine how much more impressive they'd be if there were an enforced ban on driver cell-phone use!

Hard to argue with that logic. Unfortunately it isn't scientific or objective. I suspect if the accident rate had increased during this period you would have considered that definitive proof of the hazards posed by cell phone use. Based on the most comprehensive data available a better case can be made that cell phones have made the roads safer. I don't believe that but the point is, if cell phones were as dangerous as people claim it should be reflected in the numbers.

tpe

The driver determines the speed to drive which could be less than the "Speed Limit" but no more than the "Speed Limit". This is fundamental Rules of the Road.

It seems that there are probably many drivers out there that forgot these rules and want to make their own

Where I live at least 90% of the vehicles on the road are exceeding the speed limit. Usually by around 10 mph. So yes, the vast majority of drivers in this country do feel that they should be able to make their own rules. At least in the case where they consider the existing rules to be ridiculous.

xrunner2

I started using a seatbelt as a condition of employment in 1961. That was PT&T policy. That was their right. The government does not have that right.

They sure do, just like PT&T, if you want to use a public road. If one has a ranch or farm and wants to drive on their private roads within without a seat belt while on a hands-free cell phone (assuming coverage) and drinking a beer, then it is OK. If you are on a public road, then you must simply comply with all laws and regulations applicable. Pretty straightforward. As always, one can take up a cause to have laws changed.

tpe

NCAA sporting events when the overwhelming majority of such facilities never sold alcohol to begin with

Actually that isn't true. From my research it turns out that most NCAA schools still do allow the sale of alcohol at sporting events. The current trend is to limit/reduce this with an initial focus on beer advertising, not sales. I suggest that you occasionally do some research. You might end up with more valid points of view.

smittynyc

Based on the most comprehensive data available, the NHTSA says that cellphone use causes an instant and significant deterioration of driving ability.

Why do you trust their data-collecting in one area and not the other?

snakeweasel

All of the studies disprove this.

What studies, I have seen no studies with hard numbers to support that.

smittynyc

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2005-11-16-colleges-alcohol_x.htm

About half of all schools do, and this doesn't take into account the difference between schools that do not allow sales at an on-campus venue but do allow it at an off-campus venue.

Probably time to get back on topic. But the fact that you'd express disappointment over a trend that aims to prevent underage drunk driving speaks volumes.

smittynyc

"What studies, I have seen no studies with hard numbers to support that."

Unbelievable.

Look at the title of your own post!

Here . . .

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.a8131659c3- c0a2381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_ws_M- X&javax.portlet.prp_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.po- rtlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=d01bab6383f62010V- gnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard

snakeweasel

But the fact that you'd express disappointment over a trend that aims to prevent underage drunk driving speaks volumes.

Nice way to twist things around to mean what the original posted didn't intend it to. He was not expressing disappointment at trying to prevent underage drinking. He was expressing disappointment that he, as an adult of legal drinking age, cannot drink responsibly at sporting events, where it used to be common, simply because of the actions of a few.

snakeweasel

Unbelievable.

No its not unbelievable. the link you posted made the claim but gave nothing in the way of facts and/or stats to back it up.

Yet the actual stats do contradict that assertation. Highway deaths are declining, the number of accidents have been declining and the rate of property damage has been declining (even with inflation). Yet with the number of cell phones and the numbers that they are being used one would think that those trends would show something in the way of a cell phone effect. Guess what? they don't, not that I can see.

Sorry I am not like you, I will not accept a study simply because some group posted the results on the net. I want to see some data that supports it, I want to see what they used to come to that conclusion, I want to review that study.

Kirstie_H

Let's back off the "prove it" demands, and cease with the snide remarks about other members. Remember, we can't actually pass laws in this discussion; we can only talk about them. If someone else is wrong, they can't enact any law here that would be contrary to your own perspective.

enjoynlifehere

The question here is "Should cell phone users be singled out?" The logical answer is NO! ALL forms of driving distractions need to be addressed equaly. If you only apply restrictions to one type of distraction, then YOU are the one with your head in the sand. Studys get distorted by the agenda of the person alalysing the data. I have seen some that show an astounding 1% of accidents are caused by cell phone distraction. If 90 to 95% of drivers have cell phones, and they are only causing 1% of the accidents, then it is only logical to ban the 5 to 10% of the drivers without cell phones who are causing the other 99% of the accidents.(I don't actually support this line of thinking, I am just using it as an example of how skewed a study can be)

I suggest everyone get back on the topic of singling out the cell phone user.

I dont think we need to single out anyone. The police already have the ability to write a ticket for negligent driving or wreckless driving, both of which carry pretty stiff penalties. Both tickets could be written for getting in an accident while talking on the phone or sorting through your CD collection. We already have laws that cover this problem. WHY is this even an issue?

tpe

Probably time to get back on topic. But the fact that you'd express disappointment over a trend that aims to prevent underage drunk driving speaks volumes.

Not surprisingly you completely missed my point and whole reason for bringing up alcohol to begin with. It represents a general trend in how what we can and can't do is restricted by the actions of the small minority of irresponsible people in our society. I thought the message was pretty obvious. I guess in your case it wasn't obvious enough. As far as condoning underage drinking, define underage. 18, 19, or 20? Okay, you may be right. If these young adults are old enough and mature enough to get their asses shot off in Iraq or Afghanistan they are sure as hell mature enough to have a beer. Just another example of stupid and ineffective legislation.

tpe

Well in this case the NHTSA is offering data that contradicts itself. I'll choose to go with the bottom line number.

It does bring up an interesting point. With so many states enacting different degrees of restrictions regarding cell phone use we should see some good data regarding effectiveness by comparing one state to another. My guess is we won't see any significant differences. If that turns out to be the case this could prove one of two things. The danger of cell phone use was exaggerated or laws are an inneffective tool at modifying behaviour. Either way it would indicate this anti-cell phone legislation is a waste of time.

john500

I agree with post 190.

I believe the questions regarding cell phones should be:
1. Is it reasonable to for a police officer to physically write a ticket when a driver is physically seen talking on a telephone?
Yes, any reasonable person will make the conclusion that cell phones are an unnecessary distraction and should be banned during driving.
2. If there is erratic car movement, can a person be pulled over for potentially talking on a cell phone?
Yes - this is non-arguable and falls into a host of other offenses with precedent already in the law books- alcohol consumption, drug use, stolen car, medical condition (stroke, epilepsy).
3. Is the mere presence of a cellular phone on the person or in the car sufficient for a ticket and potential accident liability if a driver is involved in a car accident? This is the only debatable topic. The answer to the topic question is covered in 1. Alcohol tests are quite routine after car accidents. Should cell phone searches become part of the equation due to irresponsible cell phone users?

nippononly

Well, no matter the outcome of this debate, I take one thing for granted: laws ARE an ineffective tool for modifying behavior. In this and every other walk of life.

I think mainly this will be a revenue generator for the state - one more thing to charge an otherwise errant driver with, if you have to pull them over. Much the way the seatbelt law is enforced. I resent driving laws pitched as "improving safety" when their sole reason for existence ACTUALLY is to increase state revenues. I doubly resent them when they impinge on my personal lifestyle, of course.

And we all know that the state deserves more revenue...

gagrice

Personally I believe that cell phone users in general are rude, crude and socially unacceptable. I would like to see a ban on them in cars, on planes, trains, buses, trolleys, in restaurants and all public places. They can pool their vast resources and put up phone booths in various location. Then go in and have their conversation out of my hearing. Noise pollution from cell calls has reached a point that it is intolerable.

My vote is YES cell phone users need to be singled out.

By the way all San Diego beaches are now smoke and alcohol free zones. It would be so easy to add Cell phones to that ban.

tpe

Yes, any reasonable person will make the conclusion that cell phones are an unnecessary distraction and should be banned during driving

I think there are a lot of people that consider themselves to be reasonable that would disagree.

I'd like you to try something next time you drive. Occasionally ask yourself what you are thinking about? In my case, in addition to driving, I think about all sorts of other things ranging from work to personal matters. I can't believe that I'm unique in this regard. My point is most of our brains have capabilities that exceed what is required by the task of driving.

nippononly

Well, so you are anti-cell everywhere in public. While I won't argue the merits of that perspective, I will just say that we are only talking about driving here, where for the most part the "noise pollution" of the person using the phone will not reach your ears, as they will be in their cars and you will be in yours.

edit....and YIKES! If they tried to ban all cell phones from the beaches, that would instantly become the new #1 most broken law of all time. I would certainly ignore it, although I hardly ever go to the beach, so it wouldn't be an issue. I mean, C'MON!

gagrice

ban all cell phones from the beaches

I just threw that in for fun. It is really sitting next to someone on a plane or in a restaurant carrying on a long conversation, that annoys me.

tpe

By the way all San Diego beaches are now smoke and alcohol free zones

Really. When I went to school in San Diego one of my favorite yearly events was the over the line tournament on Fiesta Island. It was always sponsored by a major beer company and it was a lot of fun. They had some pretty crude team names. I still remember some of the better ones like "Gilligan's finger smells like Ginger". I participated in it for the first time when I was 18 and yes I had a few beers. Amazingly I survived the experience. That was a different era than the PC, hand wringing times we live in today. And, IMO, a better one.

fintail

Your friends better pray they have adequate legal representation

snakeweasel

Yes, any reasonable person will make the conclusion that cell phones are an unnecessary distraction and should be banned during driving.

Is drinking or eating an unnecessary distraction? yes. Are we outlawing these? no. Is talking to a passenger an unnecessary distraction? yes. Are we outlawing these? no. Is.... well you get my point.

fintail

Use government controlled roads, abide by government policies, or work to change them. It's the exact schtick I've been thrown when complaining about arbitrary and worthless speed limits. Write your congressman.

Still no defense on why anyone wouldn't buckle up. Crazy.

fintail

Delusions about seatbelt laws being some kind of violation of liberties.

Nice story, in a car that doesn't even exist. Got any bridges for sale?

snakeweasel

It is really sitting next to someone on a plane or in a restaurant carrying on a long conversation, that annoys me.

So you demand that everybody in the restaurant where you eat remain in total silence?