Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

brightness04

There is no iota or shred of scientific evidence on why, if cellphone use is as debilitating as the ban-phone crowd insist, how in the world did the accident and death rates go down while cell phone use increased by 100 if not 1000 fold. That simple fact proves all the theoretical attention tests are completely irrelevent in real life. Either that, or something cellphone use is providing is more than making up for the supposed detriments.

grbeck

kdshapiro: That is the best rebuttal to the last 1922 posts?

No, that was the rebuttal to YOUR post. The last time I checked, most of the other 1,922 posts dealt with the use of cell phones while driving, not fatalities caused by driving under the influence.

I also note that in 1,922 posts, no one, including you, has proven that cell phone use while driving has led to more accidents and fatalities. Granted, you keep saying that NHTSA has never proven that cellular phone use while driving is a benign activity, which is the wrong question, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

But since you can't grasp that fact, I guess it will be "onward and upward" for you - although I don't know where to, seeing as how you have no idea of what you are talking about.

kdshapiro: We should go back to Prohibition because the number of DUI fatalities increased because of *my* tough stance against drunk driving?

Nice attempt at a dodge, but it won't work here.

The problem is that the tough stance you advocate toward driving under the influence has not worked. Yet you keep advocating tougher stances. Which also won't work.

grbeck

xrunner2: Comparing the absolute number of fatalities year by year would only be valid if all things were constant such as same number of drivers, vehicles and miles driven in US year after year. But, that is not the case. All of these (drivers, vehicles, miles driven) keep going up every year. Given that, the rate is actually improving and this is due to the combined efforts of media tv ads, beer responsibility tv ads, enforcement, MADD, etc.

Except that your hypothesis fails when fatatlies resulting from DUI are examined from the early 1980s (when MADD began its crusade).

Fatalities - both in raw numbers and per 100 vehicle miles driven - began FALLING in the mid-1980s, even as the number of vehicles increased and the total number of miles driven increased.

In other words, we were experiencing the same conditions - more miles driven, more drivers, more vehicles, etc. - that we are now, but the figures were in a decline.

Now they have experienced a slight increase.

So your conclusion doesn't work.

xrunner2: I believe most drivers would not use cell phone for fear of severe penalty if caught and/or public education campaigns of the danger to safety of using the phone. But, as in any law, there will be some who will violate.

Except that there has been no proof that cell phone use has led to increased accidents and fatalities, so the "danger" remains largely imaginary.

pch101

There seems to be a sentiment common to some people that if we keep demanding unworkable "solutions" long enough and often enough that they will suddenly become effective.

People need to realize that without a climate of fear and a secret police force to back it up, it is simply not possible to enforce or obtain compliance for an unpopular law. From the 55 mph limit to Prohibition and beyond, people have a tendency to simply evade laws that they dislike.

kdshapiro

Doesn't seem like there is anything else to say about this. The sad thing is that I haven't heard the pro-cell phone crowd, with the exception of a tacit admission from pch and boaz, admit dialing a phone might be a bad idea while driving. It's even a worse idea when going 65+. The only acknowledgement about the last 15 years of study is that they are inconclusive in statistically determining cell phone usage to crashes and fatalities.

I agree, but there also is no comprehensive national statistics. It's not rational that people would defend their right to die and potentially hurt or kill other innocent motorists to dial a cell phone. I guess that is what makes America, America.

I am happy the lawmakers understand the broader issue and are enacting this legislation.

kdshapiro

"Germans don't have speed limit on AutoBahn either"

You are absolutely incorrect. Look it up. A large part of the AutoBahn is regulated.

"Germans have much higher threashold for blood alcohol level for DUI; does that mean you are for raising BAL threshold?"

See link, again this is false information. Granted the report is a few years old, but I don't think Germany raised the BAC limit since the report was published.

Most of the information contained in your posts, IMO, is outright wrong. Also note the NHTSA freely admits sharing information from other countries is a valuable step to take.

NHTSA article link title

kdshapiro

"I also note that in 1,922 posts, no one, including you, has proven that cell phone use while driving has led to more accidents and fatalities. Granted, you keep saying that NHTSA has never proven that cellular phone use while driving is a benign activity, which is the wrong question, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

But since you can't grasp that fact, I guess it will be "onward and upward" for you - although I don't know where to, seeing as how you have no idea of what you are talking about."

Your argument is specious. You are making an argument similiar to the pro-gun crowd tries to use to make it easy for everyone to own a concealed weapon. By their reasoning, if everyone owns a gun the streets will be safer. There is no proof to that nor do I want to give it a try to see how it works. In other words, I don't need proof to know this is a bad idea.

In the same way there really is no conclusive proof at this time due to lack of comprehensive nationwide statistics I don't need proof to know that taking your eyes from the road to dial a phone at highway speeds or above is a bad idea.

Since you don't have the capacity to understand this, I guess you will be posting the same gibberish over and over.

"Nice attempt at a dodge, but it won't work here."

Huh? You posted that bit of on-topic sage like advice. Not me.

boaz47

One thing you are absolutely correct on is that we will never see eye to eye on this issue. I have never been one to support a law based on speculation because ot me that is simply knee jerk to political pressure. I can understand people that don't like cell phones. I can even understand people that don't believe cell phones are safe. But there are a lot of things I don't believe are safe. Putting on makeup as you drive. When I was commuting to LA every day I saw this every day. I watched people reading, looking at their CD collection, fighting with their passengers and drinking big gulps to get their ice. Doesn't sound bad I am sure but with a big gulp tipped skyward there is no way on God's green earth you can see the road at all, it covers and view you might have had. I see people resting in an almost reclined position on the center arm rest bopping their heads to a base beat that I can hear five cars back with one wrist hung over the wheel. I expect my fellow driver to do something stupid and never believe they will yield the right away or stop just because the light has turned red. I let someone start across the intersection first before I start myself. I consider all of this defensive driving and realize that no law is going to make people think the way I do. A hand held cell phone ban may look good on paper but it will do so little that it will cost more than it will save. It is like banning rotary dial phones, people will simply switch to push button or voice dialed. We can huff and puff all we want but it isn't going to take the inconsiderate bad drivers off of the road. We could over night save ten times the people that might be effected by cell phone accidents by simply passing a law not allowing teen age drivers. We have fact and studies coming out of our ears proving they are the ones responsible for the most accidents. But we aren't going to because that wouldn't be politically correct. I am sorry there is no solution to this question and that it proves how polar things like this can be. You have a good Christmas and a happy new year. But please realize you aren't safe from your fellow man simply because they aren't supposed to be distracted. Keep your eyes open.

pch101

I have never been one to support a law based on speculation because ot me that is simply knee jerk to political pressure.

Well, that will teach you to be reasonable!

In all seriousness, we go through these cycles when people go into a collective panic about some Great Enemy that threatens to destroy us all, or get caught in the hype in favor of some Great Savior that will lead us to Utopia.

Sometimes it backfires badly, such as Prohibition, which was supposed to eliminate the scourge of alcohol from the earth, but only succeeded in providing enough cash and weapons to organized crime that it could expand into other areas. (You may notice that the advccates never apologized for their huge, costly mistake.)

Other times, it dies with a whimper. You sure don't hear anybody bothering to advocate the 55 mph limit anymore, do you? Before the limits were raised, you would have thought that we were at the brink of the Apocalypse, but we all know now how much bloated hype and drama lay behind all of those predictions.

As much as I dislike excessive interference, I suspect that this will all soon be a moot point. Within the next several years, bluetooth and hands free devices will be fully adopted, and you won't find too many politicians with enough suicidal tendencies to go for a full ban, even if the studies that they used for the hands-free law would advocate it. We have a tendency to pick and choose our studies depending upon the flavor of the month, not necessarily on what makes sense.

kdshapiro

Thank you. Have a happy and safe holiday to you also. I realize that laws can't keep you safe.

As I'm sure you know you are also not safe - where ever you may live and I'm sure you realize this. Having laws against murder and drunken driving doesn't automatically protect you. We do our best to keep out of harms way and do our best to avoid harming other people. But sometimes that is not in the cards.

As the saying goes: "It's not the bullet with my name on it that I'm concerned about, it's the one that's addressed to, Whom it may concern".

xrunner2

No, they aren't. Your motor skills are not affected by phones. Depth perception is not affected by phones. A phone won't give you a hangover or slur your speech.

Yes they are. Driver ability to react and then change/adjust vehicle operation is impaired when using cell phone. Posts on this board have cited tests about same.

xrunner2

can you point me to the study or scientific proof that cell phones are as universally as debilitating as being drunk?

Never made that claim or statement.

xrunner2

People may abuse cell phones and may talk longer or more intently than they should. But that doesn't equate to someone that simply answers a call answers a question and disconnects in only a few minutes. when have we as a nation fallen into the trap of punishing everyone with staying after school because some people can not monitor their cell phone use?

With that rationale, you could lobby for having a beer while driving. You could make the case that the vast majority of people that consume alcohol are responsible and that it is unreasonable that the state deny a driver "one" cold beer on a warm day while driving home from work. After all, it would only be one beer and the driver's blood alcohol level would not even get close to the DUI threshhold. You could further argue that the state is unduly limiting your freedom to do as you like in your own private vehicle with existing law and that you are unduly being punished for a tiny minority who would drive DUI.

xrunner2

I think there are a lot more people like me that only use the cell when necessary and when we can afford the distraction.

"Affording a distraction" Would you be comfortable with a 18-year old affording a distraction on a dark two-lane road and your spouse will pass this driver on the same road in the opposite direction? Are you comfortable on fast busy interstates with drivers affording a distraction and using the cell phone in your lane or adjacent lanes? Might any of these drivers (interstate) have had some alcohol also but be legally below the blood alcohol limit?

You are putting a lot of trust into drivers' judgements on when they feel it is ok to "impair" a little of their driving ability and divert their concentration.

xrunner2

This is utterly proposterous. How can cell signal interception and voice recording be built into the blackbox without wiretap court order?

PrOposterous you say? Never said anything about voice recording. Need to read my post very carefully.

I said that scientists/engineers should be able to develop technology to include in current vehicle black boxes that would record the presence of transmitting/receiving signals from cell towers to the vehicle. Did not say that "actual" contents of message would be recorded. I understand if you are not familiar with telecom/radio technology.

grbeck

kdshapiro: You are absolutely incorrect. Look it up. A large part of the AutoBahn is regulated.

There are speed limits where the Autobahn skirts urban areas. But most of it is still unregulated.

I know; I was there in 2004, and again last summer.

grbeck

kdshapiro: Your argument is specious. You are making an argument similiar to the pro-gun crowd tries to use to make it easy for everyone to own a concealed weapon. By their reasoning, if everyone owns a gun the streets will be safer. There is no proof to that nor do I want to give it a try to see how it works. In other words, I don't need proof to know this is a bad idea.

First, look up the word "specious" to learn how you are misusing it.

Second, if you knew anything about guns and gun control, which you obviously don't, you would know that more liberal concealed carry laws have had not led to a spike in crimes or even gun deaths. This subject has been studied MUCH more extensively than cell phone use while driving a vehicle.

Incidentally, you should also know that the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, which is pro-gun control, recently released a report card grading states on gun-control efforts. It rated states from "A" to "F," with the higher grades going to to the states with stricter gun control laws. Interesting, when crime rates in each state were examined, many of those states with the greater increase in violent crime rated BETTER for stricter gun control. So the Brady Campaign essentially undermined its own argument.

This proves that once again, an entirely separate topic, you're in over your head, so it would be advisable to stop going by what you think you know.

kdshapiro: In the same way there really is no conclusive proof at this time due to lack of comprehensive nationwide statistics I don't need proof to know that taking your eyes from the road to dial a phone at highway speeds or above is a bad idea.

We know that you don't need proof.

Since most of us have a much more informed understanding of not only traffic safety issues, but how laws are made, we do.

What you need is conclusive proof that cell phone use leads to more accidents and fatalities, which you do not have.

Let's see - first you show no understanding of what is needed to prove that cell phone use while driving is actually a danger, which is strike one.

Then you post on guns, proving that you don't know anything on that topic either. Which is strike two.

And finally, you say that most of the Authbahn has a speed limit, which only shows that you have obviously never been to Germany. Which constitutes strike three.

Looks like you're out for today!

Kirstie_H

Back off the personally-directed comments.

kdshapiro

"First, look up the word "specious" to learn how you are misusing it."

The word means "lacking real merit". I'm not going into a point by point rebuttal of your specious reply, but every point is incorrect except for the point about the Autobahn. It is not totally unregulated, and that is what I said and you confirmed. You should read the posts more carefully before responding.

nippononly

that all the debate has finally ceased here, appropriately enough I guess given the 2000 posts.

I thought I would just mention that since the law is now on the books (although not taking effect until 7-1-08), I would go look up the penalties.

And they are.....$20 fines for first and second instances, $50 for third and more offenses, and no points on the driving record. Whew! Them's tough consequences. Heck, PARKING TICKETS in San Francisco are more than $50 now. Ground-breaking legislation indeed.

Makes me feel a little better actually. They passed a law with no teeth to make it look like they were doing something, but without teeth it can and probably will be ignored with virtual impunity.

Just thought some who followed the debate might be interested. I still disagree with the principle of what they did, but am concerned less about the reality of it now.

boaz47

You my friend are evil.

nippononly

tryin' to get by, boaz, just tryin' to get by ;-)

m1miata

Yes, they should not have bothered with the law unless it had some teeth to it. Perhaps a $100 fine for first offense, and a suspended license on second offense, and on a third offense take the license away and burn it.Otherwise, as is, the law is not worth enforcing when those with money to burn really don't care about the dollar amount of the fine. If they freely waste money on endless, and mindless chat on cell phones, they have more than enough money for the fines ( or their parents do ).

May as well go ahead and use text messaging, have lunch, a few brews,catch up on TV, brush your teeth, trim those finger nails, and shave while driving too! Will those be $20 fines too?
-Loren

p0926

Heck, I just went to court to fight a $142 speeding ticket. Ticket was for driving at an "unsafe" speed. I was doing 22 mph in a 15 mph zone. Broad daylight, 48-ft wide straight road and no traffic. Of course I lost :confuse:

-Frank

fintail

Sounds like a cash grab, the key ingredient in 99% of speed limits.

rockylee

Loren,

I think we are getting a bit excited over nothing. I personally think people driving on the highway or a un busy road should be able to chat on a cell phone. :confuse:

Rocky

lilengineerboy

I think they should be able to talk until they hurt someone...then they can get sent to Iraq to get hanged and wind up on youtube with their head popping off. Then they can use hands free to chat.
I figure a few of those might be an effective deterent and it would give those guys in Iraq some practice.
*that might be a little extreme, but I am a fan of secondary enforcement with realtively harsh pentalties

terry92270

Mandatory life in prison is too good for those highway talkers! I say bring back stoning!

rockylee

Well the ultimate solution is to get cars with crash avoidance technologies with camera's that talk to each other. Many business people need to talk while they drive. I'd also would rather have a talking driver at the wheel than a sleepy one.

Rocky

m1miata

Need to talk while on the road? If the business is law enforcement or you are a taxi or truck driver, you may need to communicate. I think all this business conversation stuff would be very distracting. These poor managers these days never get a real vacation or any downtime as they drive to the next meeting. I would think they would love to have some freedom. I recall the days when I thought the pager had ended freedom; boy was I wrong. Now people can catch these poor managers anywhere and at any time. Next up is the shower cell phone. Please, tell me it ain't so!

The cell is a great invention, no doubt. It is a valuable tool. Can save lives too. I do chat a few hundred minutes per year. I doubt I would ever go over 1,000 minutes. Great to take in car - great to have while walking / hiking. I just think it is no so great when cars are not in control due to someone using a cell while being the navigator. Are the text messaging their insurance company before crashing. Oh well, it keeps life interesting as yet another obstacle to getting your car safely from point A to point B. What's life without your daily challenge :shades:

Loren -- " freezing in California; in need of some global warming"

rockylee

Loren -- " freezing in California; in need of some global warming"

Oh poor you it's only 60 degrees.... :P You don't know what cold is pal It's only in the 20's here now. :surprise: burrrski

I do know some folks that have phone's in their rest rooms at home. :P

I think you sometimes are just to "old fashion" :P

I admit I talk quite a bit on my phone and can text while driving with out taking my eyes off the road. Just a glance down with my eyeballs is all is required for me and I do take my time doing it to make sure I'm safe. I rarely text though. I'm definetly going to get a hands free bluetooth phone if I get a car with bluetooth. This is one more reason why I like Cadillac's so much. I don't think my 07' Sierra Denali has bluetooth. GM, should make that a standard on all top trims in their cars.

Rocky

lilengineerboy

Actually Rocky,
The ultimate solution is to have an adequate public transportation system. I would rather have someone who is driving driving than someone pre-occupied talking on the phone about business meetings and deals going bad.
Like I said, if they can manage their workload, thats great, if not, nail them.

boaz47

This whole debate has caused me to do some things differently. As I mentioned earlier I bought a Fonefree speaker device for my current cell phone. It works well even if I have to remember to take the phone with me when I leave the car,because it is mounted to the dash and not in the holster when I use it now while driving. I got a notice in the mail that my phone was due for an upgrade so I decided to get a Bluetooth Palm Treo phone. I have also started to use my cell more to stay in contact with our secretary. The new phone will make and receive calls, alert me to meetings, forward my e-mail and if I can ever find a good reason it even takes pictures. Heaven knows why I would need it to take pictures but that is one of the features it comes with. Even without the bluetooth feature the speaker works better than I thought when the phone is attached to my visor. So the same question still comes to mind. Just what has changed? Bluetooth is becoming almost standard and speaker phones are getting better. So still all that seems to have happened is people aren't supposed to hold the phone up to their ear. I know this won't even slow down my sister in law. She needs a cell phone inplant.

xrunner2

Many business people need to talk while they drive.

Why?

If drivers will use a public highway for part of their business office, then we the public should expect that they pay part of their business revenue to the state for office rental space. This could be good revenue for states for road upkeep. Maybe a special license plate costing $1000 per year.

About one week ago in my area, a woman driving in an suv on a two lane 55 mph dry road in daylight came upon an accident scene that was partially in the right lane. She swerved at last instant and hit an oncoming suv and died from injuries. Witnesses said they saw her holding a cell phone to her head. Newspaper account said that accident scene had been visible for good enough distance to adequately slow down and pass it safely.

rockylee

xrunner2,

You bring up a good point but I still think many folks have to operate their business mobile or will lose contracts. You have to take the good, with the bad sometimes....

Rocky

nkeen

Watch the facial expressions of a typical cell phone driver -- oblivious to their driving environment, addicted to inane chatter, unable to shut up. One nearly hit me while I was riding my bike, and then with an unconcerned ditzy smile, as if to say "Oh dear, silly me, now what was I doing?..." charged off with a courageous lunge at the gas pedal of her troop supporting Suburban.

Having already banned use, the UK is about to introduce license penalty points for drivers caught using them. Great idea -- get them off the road. Hang up, leave the coffee in the kitchen, and drive.

imidazol97

>ense penalty points for drivers caught using them. Great idea -- get them off the road. Hang up, leave the coffee in the kitchen,

I drink coffee from a spillproof mug and it takes about 1/20th the attention that a cellphone does. I've had conversations some recently and realized I was not paying nearly the attention to the road. That wasprimarily interstate or no intersection rural highway. If it's city, I pull over.

lilengineerboy

USA Today Distracted Driver

boaz47

Isn't this USA today report pretty much a mirror of what has been said in this whole debate? One side says if you can do something at home don't do it in the car and the other says,

"But Leon James, a professor of traffic psychology at the University of Hawaii, says multitasking itself is not necessarily distracting, and drivers need to train themselves to multitask in the car without being distracted.

For example, he says, people can read in the car as long as they only do it at stoplights."

"Taxi drivers talk on the phone all the time," he says. "Cops talk on the radio and look at a screen while they're patrolling. They do it just fine. This proves to you that if the right training is there, you can do this without distraction."

I was reading on the net about some place that was trying to ban eating or drinking while driving, It might have been Queensland. It may be just me but it all sounds like knee jerk solutions to a problem no one has a real answer for.

rockylee

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. — Many teens report that their peers routinely talk on cell phones and play handheld games while driving — distractions that increase the risk of traffic fatalities — a new study has found.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119402

Rocky

xrunner2

Many teens report that their peers routinely talk on cell phones and play handheld games while driving

Wonder how much bad example of parents using cell phone while driving has led to subsequent teen use of cells.

rockylee

I guess I'd be a bad example.....Luckily I have 13 more years until my oldest drives. :P

Rocky

boaz47

Depends on the age of the parents and teens. Most of the parents I know that have teens will never be able to use a cell as well as their teens. These kids multi-task everyday. I know several parents that receive text messages from their children while the kids are still in school. I have seen the same kids play video games while sending a text message to brag to their friends about how well they are doing. The parents in may cases are slower at accepting the new technology than the kids. Shoot, I could beat my 7 year old grandson at the Tony Hawk Skate Board game. He now has one of those simple cell phones and he is only 9. It comes with GPS and can only make limited calls.

rockylee

I 100% agree......I'm only 28 and feel I can multi-task much better than my parents ever dreamed of. I thank my years of playing video games, eating, talking on the phone/cell phone and being on the internet all at the same time.

Rocky

p0926

No offense but I think that's total BS. While the younger generations may have an advantage with picking up the latest technologies, multi-tasking is hardly a new concept. I'd be willing to bet that when you're parents were 28 they were just as capable of multi-tasking as you are today :P

-Frank

PF_Flyer

Of all the "tasks" people seem to want to do in the car now, driving is the only one where your life (and the life of others)is at risk when you do it poorly.

Think about it...the person on the cell phone in the restaurant or on the street who's oblivious about what's going on around them. What makes anyone think that putting them behind the wheel of a car on the phone is going to make them any more aware???

As I'm fond of scre...err.. REMARKING when someone loses focus on what their car is doing and comes close to nailing me... Hang up the phone and DRIVE YOUR CAR!

boaz47

Before cell phones I am sure you were just as tempted to remark about the other diver when they were putting on makeup, turning to talk to passengers, and any number of other things that might have caused them to come close to hitting you. I would bet your volume of remarking was no less for those events. But then people multitask at many things today.

Yes people should concentrate on what they are doing. But it still makes one wonder how a police officer in full conversation with other officers and maybe a helicopter can chat away while catching a fleeing suspect who is only concentrating on getting away. Like a link posted earlier more and more drivers are multitasking while driving. eating, drinking, calling, texting, GPS reading, and seat dancing to the sounds seems to be happening in half the cars I see commuting today.

Got my new Smart Phone Friday. Great device but now I have a device that provides even more information than my old flip phone. It has my calender, appointments, contacts, e-mail and I understand I can download a map feature. With the expansion card it can even play videos. I only plan on using the Bluetooth hands free feature but you have to wonder how tempting that map feature might be? Now if it came with a microwave.

xrunner2

But it still makes one wonder how a police officer in full conversation with other officers and maybe a helicopter can chat away while catching a fleeing suspect who is only concentrating on getting away.

Do you think that the average teen, wife, or guy who is chatting on phone has the focus, intense concentration and driving skills of a police patrolman? Is the teen guy or gal in la la land maybe talking about last/next date? What kind of focus/concentration is that? What is the teen thinking about vs what is the officer thinking?

boaz47

Good point. So you are saying that with proper training and concentration a person "could' drive as effectively as the officer? " has the focus, intense concentration and driving skills of a police patrolman?" I believe that as well.

lilengineerboy

Actually, cops and other emergency personnel using in-vehicle communication systems is a pretty big problem. That is how the whole anti-cell phone backlash got started when the fireman in PA killed the little girl:
Morgan Pena
Also, there are a number of projects underway to help mitigate the workload of emergency personnel:
"Car 54"

Visteon TACNET

Also, in the oldie days, there were 2 officers in a car, one to work the radio and one to drive. For anecdotal reference, watch one of the Langley shows on Worlds Scariest Police Chases.