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
People can multi-task. They can't multi-process. While some people can perform great mental feats, I wouldn't want them driving in back of me while doing it. Just because someone *believes* they can drive and talk safely on the phone at the same time, doesn't mean they actually are.
None of it adaptive, or requiring cognitive processing (continually changing input requiring continually changing output), such as conversing on a cell phone while driving a car.
Again, your mind can switch back and forth between tasks pretty rapidly, and the simpler the task, the more seamless the switch, but that doesn't make it multi-tasking, and the more complicated the tasks, the more each task suffers in the processing.
It's become a silly conversation, though. Be all and end all of our automotive world is that cockpit tele-communications will sooner or later be legislated federally to be first hands-free, and then voice-operated. I'm thinking sooner than later. And an outright ban on vehicular telephony simply isn't going to happen...
the converse is just as true, just because someone "believes that you cannot drive and talk safely on the phone doesn't mean that they actually can't.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That type of thinking is exactly the reason for the legislation that is popping up all over the world. There is very little proof to support the assertion of the above comment, and an abundance of proof to support the assertion the for the most part talking and driving do not nicely co-exist. If one defines safely as not getting into an accident or worse I agree with what you are saying. But if one defines safely as being capable of focusing 98% concentration to the driving task at hand, than I fully disagree.
I have seen proof that supports the ideal that driving and using a cell phone has little effect on driving in the end. Much of it has been presented here so I will not go on with it. Needless to say that the proof is in the pudding and traffic fatalities are not going up now that a very large number of people are using cell phones and driving. Nor are accidents and injuries.
If one defines safely as not getting into an accident or worse I agree with what you are saying.
Isn't driving and not being in or causing an accident (or near misses) what driving safely is?
But if one defines safely as being capable of focusing 98% concentration to the driving task at hand, than I fully disagree.
Do you listen to the radio in your car? Do you have conversations with passengers in your car? Do you look for that store your trying to find when driving? Do you adjust your heating or A/C while driving? Do you roll down a window when driving? Do you read billboards while driving? If you do any of these you are not giving 98% concentration on your driving and you are being unsafe. Is that also true?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1. They aren't accidents, they are crashes or collisions. Accidents implies they happen by chance. This is very rarely the case.
2. Cars are much safer than previous, with "5-star" crash test ratings, 27 air bags, and stability systems that attempt to fix driver errors. This is offsetting the cost of distracted driving.
Do you listen to the radio in your car? Do you have conversations with passengers in your car? Do you look for that store your trying to find when driving? Do you adjust your heating or A/C while driving? Do you roll down a window when driving? Do you read billboards while driving? If you do any of these you are not giving 98% concentration on your driving and you are being unsafe. Is that also true?
1. As gone into previously, listeing to the radio doesn't require the same processesing as a conversation, this isn't an apples to apples comparision, and its also why society sees this as an acceptable risk.
2. Conversing with a passenger is decidedely different than conversing on the phone, and doesn't require the same processing, and the passenger can help the driver mitigate workload.
3. Looking for something while driving is part of the driving task. It was quoted that 90% of driving is visual, its expected that some of that work is going to be targeting a bogie.
4. Adjusting the temperature in a standard climate control system car is a balistic movement. That is, once the move is initiated, there is no additional processing going on. This isn't a distraction unless the driver stares halfway down the dash while making the adjustment. Also, becasue the is such a short duration event (< 2 sec)it doesn't really matter. Manual dialing on a cell phone takes considerably longer.
5. Rolling down a window, given that its a power window, falls under the same heading as above. If its a manual one, the task has to be better scheudled, but requires no eyes off road time, and is a balistic movement.
6. I am actually working on a project predicting the time to read something right now. So far, reading a sentence is also in the 2 second range, depending on the complexity.
Given the duration and processing demands of the tasks you mentioned, its pretty possible that he could still be giving 98% of his processing power to driving while completing the other tasks.
I personally feel that there are a number of times when driving doesn't require 98%+ of my processing and attentional resources. There are times when traffic is steady and light, the road is relatively straight, and weather and traction are excelent; during those occasions, I have some processing power I can devote to other things, solving world hunger, thinking of responses for the edmunds forums, etc.
I've been in this forum since almost the beginning and have read every post, your statement is clearly untrue, with the exception of one study that says if you can get with .0013 second of an accident you can avoid it, there is absolutely nothing to support that statement, and almost every study determines a driver on the phone in a conversation drives worse than a drunk driver. Since there is so much evidence presented here, I will not go on with it.
"Isn't driving and not being in or causing an accident (or near misses) what driving safely is?"
Nope. You may be avoiding an accident because every other driver around you is aware enough of their surroundings and was able to drive defensively even though your driving is offensive to most.
Even though there is a mandate for data collection, there is little hard evidence to support your statement. Since all this was already presented in the forum, I won't go over it.
One of the newer very small studies in scope, has concluded it's definitely difficult to tell whether the *root cause* is a cell phone, even when drivers admitted to cell phone usage.
Stop the CR stuff It don't fly with me. They are accidents plain and simple unless you can provide evidence that the "crash" was done intentionally it is an accident.
2. Cars are much safer than previous, with "5-star" crash test ratings, 27 air bags, and stability systems that attempt to fix driver errors. This is offsetting the cost of distracted driving.
It also offsets poor driving habits which is what we are really talking about.
1. As gone into previously, listening to the radio doesn't require the same processesing as a conversation, this isn't an apples to apples comparison, and its also why society sees this as an acceptable risk.
But it is a distraction just the same. and have you seen some of those "hip hoppers" and how they move to their "music" tell me they are driving safely.
2. Conversing with a passenger is decidedly different than conversing on the phone,
yep when you are talking to someone on the phone you don't have the natural tendency to take your eyes off the road to look at the person you are talking to. The two people that hit me because they were distracted by a conversation were conversing with someone in their car and took their eyes off the road to look at them.
3. Looking for something while driving is part of the driving task.
not everything that everyone looks at is needed for the driving task. How many times have you seen a nice house and took your eyes off the road to look at it. Ever notice how traffic in the opposing lanes slows down and looks at the accident (yes accident deal with it) far away on the other side of the highway? They don't need to look at it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You are confusing something being intentional with something happening by chance. This is why we have manslaughter charges, etc.
It also offsets poor driving habits which is what we are really talking about.
I concur that it also offsets poor driving habbits, and those of distracted drivers.
But it is a distraction just the same. and have you seen some of those "hip hoppers" and how they move to their "music" tell me they are driving safely.
Excelent stereotypical anecdotal reference. When you have something real, let me know.
yep when you are talking to someone on the phone you don't have the natural tendency to take your eyes off the road to look at the person you are talking to. The two people that hit me because they were distracted by a conversation were conversing with someone in their car and took their eyes off the road to look at them.
Again, anecdotal reference. I did find it amusing though that majically everyone that hits you is having a converstion with a passenger. As far as the looking at a passenger...remind me not to drive around you when you have someone in the car with you.
not everything that everyone looks at is needed for the driving task. How many times have you seen a nice house and took your eyes off the road to look at it. Ever notice how traffic in the opposing lanes slows down and looks at the accident (yes accident deal with it) far away on the other side of the highway? They don't need to look at it.
Okay, what is your point with this?
It seems like your main argument is there are so many terrible things going on in the car, why worry about just one, easy to legislate, easy to survive without (since people did it from 1904 through 1985 or so), item that has high demands on both proceessing and working memory? Does that sum it up?
You have way too much common sense for this forum!
Eye contact is not the reason, as you would say people who turn their heads to have conversations in the car are poor drivers doing stupid things. You can't legislate laws about people shutting their eyes while driving. lilengineerboy was referring to situational awareness. Meaning if an double-trailer 18 wheeler was cutting you off, at the time it's happening your conversational passenger would shut up as the driver was dealing with the issue. You cell phone pal has no clue of the event and is merrily chatting away.
Can't see how using a cell east of Goodland Kansas on I-70 hurts anything there ponderpoint. Calling everybody an idiot that uses one while driving is kinda harsh. When I'm running hazmat in heavy traffic that weighs in by the ton, I ain't gonna touch the cell!, so you gotta point. Sure nuff though the soccer mom is right next to me just chattin away. Not smart.
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.
Yes grbeck you're right. I think the vehicles are safer and if you go out for a drive your chances are a lot better these days so people can be assured they are better off. The other statement is kind of false though. You say there's less corpses, that just ain't true. Sure - it took more vehicles to do it and more miles but the death count IS up since 1990. If you do any serious driving, like for a living, you'll see the bodies sooner or later.
Thanks. Will have to check out this episode on Discovery.
Maybe we can get MADD to set up a subsidiary such as MACPD after they do their own tests to confirm dangers of cell phone use. We need a champion such as MADD. Obviously cell phone providers and others with vested interest in cell revenue will stay silent on the matter. Pro cell phone users on this board (cannot be a teetotaler) could volunteer to be part of group that is tested to see just how good they are at normal sober driving, driving drunk and cell phone "multi-tasking". A 3-part test. I think that I will write to MADD and ask what they can do about cell phone drivers.
Yes, I see your point. I did use the word "expressway" however. I wasn't referring to those huge stretches of highway in rural areas.
I think you inadvertently hit on something.
So, all you defenders of cell phone use - how do you feel about a trucker in one lane over, carrying stuff that is basically going to blow up if he/she gets distracted and hits something.... You OK with them chatting away in heavy traffic?
What do you think the trucker is thinking about YOU as you chat away in your deluxe mobile/SUV in heavy metropolitan traffic?
Let's ask the pros what they think - any truckers (besides you K., we can assume you are) in here?
You guys are the ones that can put this to the test, not the commuters or people arguing about their argument (I think the host will appreciate that). We need to get the opinion of the pros.
In recent years, most of the increase has been fueled by increased fatalities among motorcyclists. And judging by the accidents reported in the paper, the fatal accidents involving automobiles (or heavy trucks) are the result of driving under the influence (DUI) or driving too fast on two-lane country roads, or a combination of those two.
The simple fact is that the roads are safer than ever before - based on the recognized measurement of the state of highway safety - even as cell phone use has increased.
You guys are the ones that can put this to the test, not the commuters or people arguing about their argument (I think the host will appreciate that). We need to get the opinion of the pros.
Your post contains the words "think" and "opinion." Those words are not synonomous with "fact" or "standard form of measurement."
I never said the roads were more dangerous there slick. They're probably safer with better technological junk on cars and trucks and the roads themselves are better. I have noticed through the years that traffics gone up and I see more fender benders and accidents on my route probably because of that. Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.
I thought we're talking about cellphones and heavy traffic?
1. Dramatic improvements in vehicle safety systems have been introduced in recent years and that technology has trickled down to mainstream models. Cars are safer than ever before, hence a lower rate of vehicle fatalities. Crash rate is different than fatality rate.
2. In MC vs Car collisions, the car usually wins. Further, distracted drivers on cell phones making left turns in front of motorcyclists (or bicyclists) or just mowing them down altogether is in the same category.
Hand-held phones are safety hazards that have caused many road accidents in Europe. For that reason, the Department of Defense and most European nations have banned the use of hand-held cell phones while driving a motor vehicle.
“These laws are enforced on and off U.S. installations throughout Europe,” said Lt. Col. Deborah K. Anderson, chief of law enforcement operations at the United States Army, Europe office of the provost marshal.
“Studies show that mobile phone use in cars is unsafe,” Anderson explained. “Driving safely is a complex task and requires total concentration. Phoning distracts drivers and any distraction can make you miss hearing or seeing the cues needed to avoid a crash.”
Anderson said it is best to switch off the phone as soon as entering the car, but added that people who want to communicate while driving can:
· Buy a “hands free” device that allows the driver to keep both hands on the steering wheel. The device can also be distracting, so short duration calls are recommended.
· Use the voice mail box function and call people back when finished driving.
“It is OK if people use a hand-held phone in a vehicle if it is safely parked and the engine is off,” Anderson said. “However, penalties for having a cell phone in your hand or wedged between your head and shoulder while driving, even in slow moving traffic, are severe.”
Here’s a partial list of fines:
· Belgium - fines from €50 to €1,375.
· Germany – a €40 fine and one point against your license.
· Italy - fines from €68 to €275.
· Luxemburg - fines up to €74.
· Netherlands - minimum fine is €140, maximum is two months in prison or a €2,000 fine.
· Department of Defense – DOD policy is to assess three points against your license for on-post violations.
“People will suffer heavier penalties and can even lose their license if they caused an accident or were involved in one while using a cell phone improperly,” Anderson added.
Good enough for me. There is an extreme abundance of statistical analysis that American highways and byways, in comparison with the rest of the world, have been basically falling off a cliff lately.
Simple raw numbers of annual traffic deaths, all from readily available government data (FARS for US), show the pattern clearly using three comparison countries that are otherwise similar to the US.
1979 Fatalities 2002 Fatalities Percent Change
United States 51,093 42,815 -16.2%
Great Britain 6,352 3,431 -46.0%
Canada 5,863 2,936 -49.9%
Australia 3,508 1,715 -51.1%
If US fatalities had dropped by the same close to 50% amount experienced in the other countries, the US would now be suffering about 27,000 annual traffic deaths, instead of the actual 42,000. By not decreasing as has occurred in other countries, about 15,000 additional Americans are being killed on its roads annually
Whoops! I strayed there a bit from the subject. Still looking for cell phone use correlation. Could it be that everything got safer and also included was a general ban on handheld cell phone use? I don't know. Do You?
This question will never be answered directly by the pro-cell phone crowd, because the common sense answer is not to have the trucker, driving the truck carrying nuclear material on the cell phone.
Could you give us the source, or document, for this quote? Was it in a military doc?
www.usagschinnen.eur.army.mil/sites/local/docs/Cell%20phone%20road%20rules%20now- - %20apply%20on%20and%20off.doc
From that pdf they give you a link to its origin.
They're is an endless amount of information on American highway safety, and the sad thing is most of it is NOT good news.... There is a couple of sites with expert analysis just lambasting the NHTSA for "softening" its stance on fatalities with that "per 100 million vehicle mile" mumbo-jumbo ("G", I'm not flaming you here, it's just there and you can read it or call it junk, I'm not going to argue anymore...), they are extremely alarmed that the United States has not kept up with other industrialized nations with reducing highway fatalities.
Some of the information is dated now, but one particular piece told of the World Health Organization was making it a major topic on its agenda (the U.S. not keeping up with other nations, and in fact, slipping miserably into an abyss in comparison) and called it nothing short of a crisis.
The clear picture is that the rest of the world, especially Europe, does not have the same take on cell phones while driving as the U.S. does.
I have no idea what their cell phone/driving laws are.
We used to be number one. Quite pathetic. Go to;
www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050801_us-highway-safety-targets- - -are-too-low_op-ed.htm
See you all later, drive safe. It will be my last post for awhile....
Yeah, they are both radio devices, but the conversational usage is different as the radios in police cars are used differently conversationally than cell phones. Not to mention the physical differences in devices and dialing.
Maybe you could point to some studies about CB usage vs cell phone usage?
"Ba...looo....neee"
That's your take, not my take. Trying to discount the effect on driving while using a cell phone by saying the police and truckers use hand held radios and they are not crashing is Ba....log....na.
It simply doesn't add up. If one is OK why not the other? Those of us who have used CB, Hand held Hams, and family radios know how simple they are and how many use them for idle chit chat. It is pretty hard to believe the sky is only falling when the device is Cingular, Sprint or Verizon but not when it is Midland, Cobra, Radio shack or Swan. A device used to communicate with a unseen conversationalist can have no difference simply because the meter band used for the communication is different. There is absolutely no logic that would indicate that reasoning. So cell phones and their users must have stepped on some different toes or the safety police would be all over radios like white on rice. If the problem is the attention one pays to the conversation then the device is not the problem. The conversation has to be. Saying Cells are bad but radios are good is a do as I say not as I do logic some give their kids. The real question is why do some care about one and not at all about the other. What happened to if it saves ever one life?
I disagree and too have used CB radios extensively. When my radio have a Cobra label on it, I never had to dial xxx-xxx-xxxx for one. My radio had a huge number on it, I never had to take my eyes off the road to see what channel I was on.
"A device used to communicate with a unseen conversationalist can have no difference simply because the meter band used for the communication is different."
A multitude of studies disagrees with this opinion.
"The conversation has to be. Saying Cells are bad but radios are good is a do as I say not as I do logic some give their kids..."
That is like saying guns don't kill people, people kill people. Or said another way, if everyone on the street had a gun we'd all be better if it saved one life. We have to agree to disagree.
10-4, good buddy.
In fact it is easier with blue tooth to simply touch your ear piece and call your favorite number. Or as some have said, keep both hands on the wheel and simply ask the car unit to dial for you.
Would I want my truck driving nuclear waste carrying buddy to be in a heated emotional call on a crowded expressway doing 70+. Not if he was behind me or within 10 miles of me. You may not care if he was behind you though. It wouldn't bother me in the least if he was talking on the CB.
From what I know nuclear stuff is pretty well guarded and only transported in the strange hours of the night. The stuff I worry about is common petroleum fuels.
As far as the whole CB thing, It's just parked on 19 and there's only one button on the mike. Not the same thing as a cell. Drinking a coke from a fast food place would be more distracting, to me anyway.
I don't. Hands free for me is hitting "speaker" on my old Motorola. I imagine for most of the proletariat, it's the same sitch.
Even with hands-free legislation going into effect, which I think is not just a good, but a great thing, you will still have large numbers who won't convert until they have a departure point (new phone, new service, new car, etc.).
Yet another reason I think as part of some federal body's program (FCC maybe) it would be good to mandate not only hand's free, but also voice-recognition for any vehicular application.
I had a CB back in high school, in 1976 unitl 1978. It was the September issue of Playboy convinced me I needed to get one (those of you aged enough will remember and understand I think
Yesterday somewhere around Yuba City, I think, in CA, a guy drove his car straight into the business end of a Hummer and killed himself more or less instantly. According to the news, he was typing on his laptop at the time. Moron.
Wireless: the ultimate slippery slope...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So I will apoligise. ahead of time and back out of this discussion and allow it to be fought by the law makers and lobbiests where it belongs. Have a great day.
Nippon I was considering offering to exchange Cell numbers with you but that might be tacky.
"Hang Up And Drive!"
So that means it is OK to be on the cell phone as you are pulling out of the mall and get hit by a motorcyclist?
I have stayed away from this thread for a bit. I still cannot believe that a person that drives at all on our roads is not aware of the problem with cell phone junky drivers. It is not just dead bodies it is distracted drivers not paying attention. Cell phone use is way out in front of all other distractions from my PU truck window.
Yup, along with a few other non-issues aned tricks as well, including, that idiotic VMT (taken out of context) as a way to justify we drive more but die less.
Pay no attention to the gentleman behind the curtain!
All I know is since I've been driving is that for a given route that takes a certain amount of time to drive, there is a HUGE difference between present day and when I drove it maybe, 20 years ago. Back in '87 I might come upon one bad accident in a two month period.
Now I'm seeing one every three weeks or so! Don't even bring up fender benders!
The bad thing is they ain't on the open road, they're closer to the big cities. I think cell phones have something to do with it!
I hate to say it, but I think they should be banned, NOW!
It is different. Have a CB in the car and usually have it on when on any interstate. I use it to listen. Once in a while will hear two truckers (apparently going in same direction) who might have ongoing conversation. But, vast majority of what I hear is similar to: Clean back to x mile marker, smokey in median at z yardstick, plain wrapper eastbound at the y stick, right lane blocked at b mile marker - center and left open, etc. With radio set on "19", easy for drivers to press button to talk with very brief message and not an engrossing conversation. I would say this is still a distraction from concentration on driving, but is quite a bit less than an involved conversation.
-Frank
I could understand fixing your hair or even eating something that doesn't reqiure a fork or a knife but people shave and are on their labtops, while driving(while their car is moving)thats ridiculous to me. I have seen one guy reading his paper once in his car but he was in morning rush hour and traffic wasn't moving though.
If we are driving more (not to mention there are more vehicles on the road as well), but are dying less, than that means that the roads are safer than ever before.
We use the "idiotic" vehicle miles traveled measurement to adjust for increases in miles driven, along with increasing number of vehicles on the roads. If you have a problem with the use of this form of measurement as a gauge of traffic safety, then I'd suggest that you take it up with the federal government and traffic safety experts, althought I'd also suggest that you brush up considerably on this subject if you are going to convince anyone of anything.
If you can prove that this is an inaccurate measure of highway safety - which, through over 2,100 posts (on this thread alone - not to mention other threads dealing with traffic safety as well), you haven't - please feel free to do so.