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
> That is how the whole anti-cell phone backlash got started when the fireman in PA killed the little girl:
?????
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No. Did not say that. Many things in our culture and habits would have to be addressed first.
Officers obviously are using vehicles as part of their jobs and are more likely to be highly motivated to "concentrate" on responsibilities of driving while also being required to use radio to communicate. Would take quite a bit of motivation to have ordinary citizen drivers ramp up their concentration to be focussed only on driving duty similar to police officer. Driving and operating the motor vehicle would have to be stressed as the only task that the driver should be conducting. All other activities while driving would have to be understood to pose dangers. Nonsense about multitasking while driving would have to be unmasked.
We need to remove the frivolities that some drivers have adopted. Educational campaigns would have to be ongoing about asking drivers to address and be mindful of the dangers of onboard distractions such as cell phone use, children, conversations with passengers, applying makeup, shaving, reading a map, drinking a beverage, eating a big mac, etc.
Present day world of big businesses promoting use of various products in vehicles (cell phone, mp3, coffee/soda for cupholders, large wattage music speaker systems, etc.) is diametrically opposed to "improving" driving habits and reducing US death rate of 40,000 per year, not to mention injuries. Distracted driving contributes to that 40,000 number. That is over 100 deaths per day. Imagine if our media were to report a list of the 100+ people that die each day over the next four years in traffic crashes. Would our public clamor for something to be done about it similar to the recent calls for an "exit strategy" on a different topic?
Advocating or otherwise making available cell phone use while driving contradicts the responsibilities of safe operation of a motor vehicle.
The ban was pushed by her state senator from Bucks County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia suburbs), but was never enacted into law. He retired in November 2006, and I haven't seen any legislation for the new session of the General Assembly, which began in January 2007.
The "death rate" is expressed in fatalities per 100 million miles driven, and that figure was dropping until 2005, and the reason it didn't drop further last year was because of increased fatalities among motorcyclists. Even then, it is still near the record low figure. I seriously doubt that those motorcylcists were chatting on the cell phone at the time of their accidents. Fatalities among passengers in vehicles DROPPED in 2005.
xrunner2: That is over 100 deaths per day. Imagine if our media were to report a list of the 100+ people that die each day over the next four years in traffic crashes. Would our public clamor for something to be done about it similar to the recent calls for an "exit strategy" on a different topic?
The media already do this on a local basis in the local paper. At least, our local paper does this. Do you not subscribe to yours? If so, are you not reading accident reports?
I read the accident reports in our local paper faithfully. And the last three fatal accidents were as follows:
1. A driver pulled out from a hotel on to a main thoroughfare in his Dodge Neon and collided with a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The Neon driver was killed. No mention of cell phone use, or that the Neon driver was "distracted."
2. On I-81, the driver of a Ford Explorer fell asleep at the wheel, crossed the median strip and collided head-on with a tractor trailer. The Explorer driver was killed. Obviously, cell phone use wasn't a problem, as the Explorer driver fell asleep at the wheel, and I doubt that he would have done that while talking on the cell phone, unless he had narcolepsy. In which case, he shouldn't have been driving at all.
3. A Ford Explorer driver was traveling on a two-lane road, ran off the road and hit a tree. No mention of cell phone use, although the driver was apparently traveling at a high rate of speed when he lost control and hit the tree.
Based on these reports, which are typical of the ones I read regularly, I don't know what the public is supposed to "clamor for," although it wouldn't be a restriction on cell phone use while driving. Perhaps better driving overall...?
Maybe someday they will make a law against that too, huh? :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A couple years ago I saw a driving while using an electric razor.
Would not defend that, but, cannot imagine it takes away much if any concentration from the road - unless one looks in the mirror. But, don't have to do that - can merely feel skin to determine if stubble is gone. Sure is a lot different than diverting brain processing away from the road and toward a cell conversation, which is serial tasking.
Not my problem unless you're in the 3rd lane at 15 mph. AND some of these people driving are on the cell phones. The ones wandering and straddling two lanes are on the phone. Snow coming down. Snow forming ridges that tug your car if you cross them between lanes. These people are wandering narrowing 3 lanes to 2.
Cell phones don't bother anything? Bah, humbug.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Legislation will be introduced in Albany on Wednesday to lay a $100 fine on pedestrians succumbing to what State Sen. Carl Kruger calls iPod oblivion.
"We're talking about people walking sort of tuned in and in the process of being tuned in, tuned out," Kruger said. "Tuned out to the world around them. They're walking into speeding cars. They're walking into buses. They're walking into one another and it's creating a number of fatalities that have been documented right here in the city."
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_037234835.html
I can just see someone so into eating a Krispy Kreme that he walks in front of an Amtrak train. What a mess that would be. How will we word the law?
God, if this legislation doesn't take the cake,I just don't know what does. Of course, one doesn't have to carry one's license to walk down the sidewalk, so when the cop comes up to give the perp the $100 ticket, how many times out of ten do you think he/she is going to get the true name and address of the criminal??? Surely they wouldn't actually arrest and detain someone not carrying their ID for this type of petty crime??!! :-P
STILL laughing my head off over here. The cell phone law in CA is a total joke, so is the iPod law in NY.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes better driving overall along with a TOTAL BAN on cell phone use.
In article by Dutch Mandel in Feb 12 issue of Autoweek, he says: "Only a fool would use a mobile phone while driving". He cites research data from Vanderbilt University that states that a normal, healthy brain struggles when charged with multitasking; one function shuts down to achieve another. He quotes Rene Marois and Paul Dux of the University. They said that dual-tasking (using a cell phone and driving) can cost up to a full second in cognitive recognition. At 60 mph in a car, that is 88 feet. They said that hands-free phone makes no difference.
Have the pro-cell phone users done research as these persons have done at Vanderbilt? Are there any pro users that even have pertinent research credentials?
Crystal ball -
Everyone remembers hot coffee lawsuit against McDonalds. Some day there will be incident in big box store where some bozo in loaded/heavy shopping cart and talking on cell phone runs their cart into another person and results in serious foot/calve/ankle/spine injury. There will be witnesses, big lawsuit against big box and lots of publicity. Injured person will win suit and this will force change in customers' habits and redefinitions of stores' responsibilities and legal postings at entrances.
When it comes to distracted drivers most people are only upset when someone else is distracted. Sometimes I am sure they are so made they shake their bottled water at the offenders. How much attention can a seat dancer be paying? would they cite them for DWD?
boaz, you are on top of your game! Hilarious! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
When you have evidence to support this ban, let us all know.
I did what you originally suggested - looked at regular accident reports to get an idea of what should be an area of concern - and didn't quite get the answer you wanted.
Incidentally, today's paper featured two fatal accidents - an 82-year-old woman turned her vehicle in front of another car on a busy commercial thoroughfare, and was killed. A tractor trailer driver turned his vehicle on its side while exiting I-581, hit the concrete barrier, and was killed. No mention of cell phone use in either accident...
It may pay to actually READ the local paper to get an idea of what accidents are occurring, before making this suggestion, to avoid future embarrassment.
xrunner2: Have the pro-cell phone users done research as these persons have done at Vanderbilt?
And have those researchers at Vanderbilt proven that increased cell phone use has led to increased accidents?
Um, no. Next question...
xrunner2: Are there any pro users that even have pertinent research credentials?
Given the fact that those with pertinent research credentials have not proven that fatalities per 100 million miles driven have resulted from increased cell phone use, that obviously isn't a pertinent question.
I'd suggest on focusing less on research credentials, as this tends to be a fault among those who can't prove their case by regular means.
Since cell phone use is not collected in accident reports, there is no reason it would be mentioned. I would wonder what would cause a trained experienced truck driver to hit a concrete barrier for no reason.....
Read the Autoweek article on page 11 of Feb 12 issue.
Quote by Dutch Mandel, Editor and Associate Publisher of Autoweek: "So, yes, only a fool would knowingly distract himself while driving. Cell phone use while driving is distracting."
Seems like the pro-cell phone while driving persons should try to prove that they can "Multi-task" (driving and talk on cell phone) without losing any reaction time. They have not provided any study or research to show that multi-tasking has a zero or null effect on a driver's action/reaction time. Let's see if they can cite researchers, scientists, doctors, etc that have studied and done tests on the matter and have conclusively stated that drivers using cell phones have zero impairment to their action/reaction times.
What happens is task-switching, and your brain requires time to switch between tasks. It's a basic cognitive limitation: your brain has to identify the new task, ascertain its goal and define the process before you assume the task itself.
Needless to say, your ability to process is hampered each time you switch.
Human multi-tasking is a myth, probably invented at Harvard's Business School for purposes of amending the "One-Minute Manager"!
-Loren
Sorry if this has been posted already...secondary enforcement for distracted driving...hmm I dunno who suggested that :P
The Pennsylvania State Police have been instructed to note on the accident report if cell phone use while driving was responsible for the accident. They have been instructed to do this for several years.
The accident happened on an interstate highway, so the Pennsylvania State Police would have responded to the call.
There was no note of cell phone use...so it's safe to say that this wasn't the cause.
So, you are incorrect.
That's not proof, that is a writer's opinion, and it isn't even addressing the proper question.
xrunner2: Seems like the pro-cell phone while driving persons should try to prove that they can "Multi-task" (driving and talk on cell phone) without losing any reaction time. They have not provided any study or research to show that multi-tasking has a zero or null effect on a driver's action/reaction time. Let's see if they can cite researchers, scientists, doctors, etc that have studied and done tests on the matter and have conclusively stated that drivers using cell phones have zero impairment to their action/reaction times.
Again, you're not asking the right question. You need proof that cell phone use has lead to increased accidents and fatalities. So far, no proof of this has been forthcoming.
How do they know?
As they approach their destination, say LAX or JFK, they go into "sterile cockpit mode" and all non-flying tasks are prohibited. No eating a sandwich, no idle conversation with the cute flight attendant over the intercom system, no idle conversation with the other pilots even.
The "flying pilot" is not to talk to air traffic control, this being the task of the "non-flying pilot"
Through years of research and aircraft incidents (that still are WAY below the death rate on our highways by the way) the NTSB and NASA-Ames found they could save lives by cutting out distractions, even small ones and telling these highly trained professionals this data. They complied. Their job is safety.
And you're trying to tell me you can drive down the expressway, talking on the cell phone with no added risk - on a highway system that is littered with thousands dead? You're an IDIOT!
I am very confident that in the near future cell-phone use while driving WILL be banned. This INCLUDES hands-free. New York did the right thing.
I think the Department of Transportation should launch an immediate program for fact-finding, and all accidents with emergency/non-emergency response, the police will HAVE to inquire about cell-phone use in conjunction with the incident with a driver surrendering the cell-phone if they refuse to comply. After the cell is checked for recent calls, it is returned to them.
If you just happen to know an airline pilot, casually ask him at what time they feel most at risk when they have to go to work.
You already know the answer.
It's actually quite simple. All cell phone calls have a permanent date/time stamp. The call for an incident is always recorded also... 911/mutual aid..... It would be very simple to see if the cell phone was being used during the accident - especially if motorists have to surrender it...
The time stamp on the phone is from the phone network, and is different then the time stamp from the officer's watch, which is different from the clock in my bathroom. All three are about as relevant.
It would be very hard to tell if the call was made before the accident or immediately afterwards, especially if it was to someone like a family member as opposed to a 911 call.
My phone doesn't log call times. This means someone would have to subpena my phone records. This is unlikely to happen for most accidents and again, there is not a synchronized clock here.
While all this interrogation and investigation is great, what really happens is:
Cop- " were you on the phone at the time of the crash?"
Distracted driver - "uh, no"
No check box.
Easy to get emotions high on a lot of these subjects, but try to avoid making comments abou each other as much as possible. Thanks!
Simple fact remains that "distraction" as we know it is anything that diverts your attention from your primary function. The other simple fact is that your brain doesn't process multiple tasks, but rather switches back and forth between tasks, and the processing is in fact interrupted during the switch.
Whether or not there is necessary data captured yet to confirm a trend seems more or less immaterial to me. Hands-free laws are popping up like weeds, and will likely go federal at some point, because it presents a business opportunity, which an outright ban does not.
But the distraction part needs no statistical comfirmation. It just is.
There is definitely a body of literature that says the cognitive resources required for a hands free call are no less than those required for a hand held call.
In graduate school, I remember looking the different cognitive modeling tools and realizing soon or later, they all had a serial process in the system.
Yep.... We just always have to go through this routine. It was drunk driving, now it's cell phones. I think people deep down know they're putting other people at risk but choose to ignore common sense for personal convenience and then the cars bash into each other and the lawbooks become more bloated because somebody can't do the right thing, behave appropriately.
The unsung heroes are the drivers that decipher the "statistical" and are quite aware of the task at hand and act appropriately. So many drivers that see the situation developing, see the other driver weaving, intoxicated, or, on the cell phone in a heated argument, weaving.. Don't say you haven't seen it.
The unsung heroes are starting to be outnumbered.
Big "aha" there is that we're talking about after the call is placed. I won't dispute the fact that the conversation is a distraction (especially as it's one with an unseen participant, but that's a whole 'nother can of fat, slimy multiple-process worms), yet that's nothing compared to the actual manual dialing of the call!
At some point, the mfrs will either be legislated into "blue toothing" cars themselves, a la the VSC law, or people will nationally legislate themselves into hands-free only.
I don't however see vehicle operator tele-communication going away. It's somehow become our "right".
Even if using a blue tooth connection integrated with the vehicle, there is still key pressing involved in navigating the phone book to select the number to dial.
"Hands free" needs to be better defined.
True enough.
After having toyed with voice recognition in a BMW 3-series, I would say that kind of system is the way to go. You can tell it to dial a known number by name, or just say the number. I'd certainly like to see that as a minimum standard for car-based telephony.
Perhaps it will be the next ABS phenomenon, and catch on as standard equipment over a huge range of vehicle choices as a market response. One can hope...
In addition to the other points raised, if someone is killed in an accident while using a cell phone, I doubt that he or she had time to turn off the cell phone and hide it before the collision.
The police are going to examine the cab of the vehicle closely, especially if it is a fatal accident involving a tractor trailer on an interstate highway.
Hope you didn't get stuck on a highway or anything.
The highways are littered with thousands of dead people? Wow - I missed that on my commute to work this morning.
Sorry, but hyperbole is no substitute for facts, or knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
A few facts - one, the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled has been declining. Two, it has been declining even as cell phone use has exploded.
There are fewer corpses along the highway since cell phones became popular. Which undercuts your whole argument.
You might find research more productive - along with knowledge of the subject matter at hand - instead of name-calling.
ponderpoint: I think the Department of Transportation should launch an immediate program for fact-finding, and all accidents with emergency/non-emergency response, the police will HAVE to inquire about cell-phone use in conjunction with the incident with a driver surrendering the cell-phone if they refuse to comply. After the cell is checked for recent calls, it is returned to them.
If the driver is dead or seriously injured, cell phone use can be deducted from either the records (which can be subpeoned if necessary), or from the position of the cell phone, as I seriously doubt that the driver had the time to hide it or turn it off before the crash.
If the driver is not dead, then he or she can hide the cell phone, rendering the entire line of questioning pointless. If the other driver suspects cell phone use caused the accident, he or she can, once again, subpeona the cell phone company records of the offender for the inevitable civil trial.
So I'm not quite seeing why we need a big bureaucracy to gather this information.
ponderpoint: If you just happen to know an airline pilot, casually ask him at what time they feel most at risk when they have to go to work.
You already know the answer.
I know an pilot for one of the big national carriers. He has no problem driving, or flying.
So your point is....?
It wasn't fun...our street is a steep hill (well, steep for Pennsylvania - it wouldn't bother a Bay Area resident!). The borough only plowed enough to allow a good coating of ice to develop.
I couldn't get the car out of the parking space for two days.
True, being dead makes it much more difficult to cover up actions, however, since few fatalities are single vehicle crashes, there is, perhaps, a possibility that the fatality was in the other vehicle that was clobbered by the proccupied cell phone user.