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
Pulled away from a stop light yesterday. The person along side me was on the phone. When I looked in the rear view mirror she was still back at the light with a long string of cars behind her. Even if the death rate has not increased, cell phones are major contributors to discourteous driving habits.
"Even if the death rate has not increased, cell phones are major contributors to discourteous driving habits."
You have managed to sum up the whole issue very nicely in these two sentences. To add to the last thought, discourteous driving habits are a major contributor to road rage.
Ahh yes, Secondary Enforcement, what I have been jumping up and down yelling until blue in the face. Let them have the freedom until they abuse it or screw up, then nail them to the wall.
I think it will work. Much safer than stopping a drug dealer.
Lol. Include all other accidents and the roads will be empty soon enough :=)
My guess the reason for the inability to show cell phones cause accidents, is the good driving of others around selfish, ignorant people, like this Lexus driver.
The most accurate measure of highway safety is how many people die. If you can prove your point, which in this many posts you haven't....please keep trying.
The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.
The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.
CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.
The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".
Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece
Some researchers have attributed the syndrome to the practice of feeding high fructose corn syrup to supplement winter stores. (wikipedia)
Sorry for the The Omnivore's Dilemma aside - back to the cells.
Rocky
I can beelieve the use of systemic pesticides polluting the pollen and nectar in plant blooms and that killing the bees. I had even gone to a systemic in my rose collection. It's gone. Won't use it now. I'll spray and it lasts a day or two instead of poisoning the flower for the bees.
The only dangerous or inattentive drivers I've seen in the last several days were on the cell phone. I've said that before. I wish I had a jammer.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Drive by and toss in a bee. That'll get 'em off the phone. It'll stop intra-car conversations, radio twiddling and scenery watching, too.
You should take your plates off first, I beelieve.
Whether you believe it is irrelevant, although describing it as "junk" doesn't do much for your credibility.
kdshapiro: The most accurate measure of highway safety is how many people die.
No, because raw numbers do not account for higher numbers of vehicles, and increasing number of miles driven by those vehicles.
Even if we go by "raw numbers," that figure peaked in 1972, so it also undermines your contention. It's best not to undermine your own argument.
kdshapiro: If you can prove your point, which in this many posts you haven't....please keep trying.
If you have a problem with the use of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled as standard to gauge highway safety, you need to take it up with the federal government and traffic safety experts who do use it.
And if you can come up with a better measurement, by all means share it not only with us, but the world at large. You will become famous beyond this site.
Many developed nations have recently reported Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), which apparently results from cell phones' radiation confusing the innate GPS of bees, those swarming critters responsible for pollinating many of the world's food crops. And let me tell you, that's not a sweet thing to think about. No fruit, no honey, no nuts, and a lot less food all around. We do know that bee hives are failing in North America and across Europe in numbers large enough--up to a 70 percent loss in some U.S. states--to alarm beekeepers and officials.
http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6176536.html
Your posts are showing some shortsightedness. There are many ways to measure things and different metrics can be used to help show different aspects of an issue.
And you might want to address the issue in my post and not my credibility, because yours isn't very high at all.
There may be many ways to measure something, but not all ways are equal. Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is still the most accurate measure of highway safety, as it takes into account the increasing number of vehicles and the increasing mileage that those vehicles are driven. This is why the government and traffic safety experts use it.
Once again, if you have a superior method to measure highway safety, please share it with us.
Fatalities...that works well for me. Just another way of looking at how many died on the road. Not prejudice the number by factoring in how many miles my neighbor drove.
This is an article that talks about the number of fatalities. It's easy to give up the VMT. Not everybody ascribes blindly to the govt's way of presenting fatalities using the VMT.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfil- - es/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/PDF/810682.pdf
What you refer to as "prejudice" is really getting a better picture on the true state of highway safety.
That article that you referenced is taking the correct approach, but note that it also lists what factor caused the fatalties.
The article is not attempting to prove whether the roads have gotten safer; it is trying to prevent future accidents from occurring, which requires looking at how they happened in the first place.
So of course it would ignore the vehicle per miles traveled rate.
But that doesn't prove that looking at raw numbers of fatalities is the superior method to measure the safety of roads.
Based on what I see in the media, "road rage" is defined pretty much anyway the advocate wants. I've seen "driving over the speed limit" defined as a "road rage" behavior, which, of course, means that we're in the midst of a road rage pandemic, as virtually everyone exceeds the posted speed limit.
Which is why it's best to look beyond the hype.
gagrice: Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles is only one measurement used by the insurance companies.
That metric is also used by the government, and traffic safety experts.
gagrice: Property damage may be even better gauge.
No, because more expensive vehicles built with more expensive materials (and using more complicated construction techniques, i.e., unibody construction versus body-on-frame construction) could boost the figure even as accidents are declining.
gagrice: What is the monetary cost to society for all the maimed and crippled folks that are not in your ONE statistic?
Not a good measurement, as more intensive medical treatments could boost costs, even as the number of accidents declines.
gagrice: I think you will find that more of the accidents caused by distractions such as talking on the cell phone while driving, are fender benders with a lower incidence of injury or death. Still costly to society and needs to be dealt with.
Except that fender benders generally don't leave folks maimed and crippled, as you were originally suggesting. If the accident is serious enough to cause those injuries, it is generally not classified as a "fender bender."
No. A different picture. Not necessarily better. Or are you somehow brainwashed into everything that comes from the gov't is gospel?
It is true the NHTSA has done some good stuff. That the fatality *rate* is the *one* and *only* measure is nonsense.
If the airline industry tried to justify plane crashes using an AMT, the American people wouldn't hear of it.
I don't believe I said that it did. I asked what was the total cost to society for those that are maimed and crippled? That is not part of the death toll. Is that on the rise or has it declined? It would need to be part of your equation that says we are doing better now with all the cell phone distraction.
I think the insurance company lawyers will wind up solving this one. Either they'll deny your collision coverage for driving while talking (and the phone logs should make proof easy enough) or they'll sue the cell phone makers and force them to have an, ahem, auto-off feature that'll disable the cell at any speed higher than walking speed.
If you thought the black market for 4 gallon toilets was big a few years back, wait till you see the price for a non-gps enabled cell that'll work while in motion. Good luck getting it activated though. :P
This coming from a poster who took as gospel in another discussion (regarding speed limits) that the increase in New Jersey's speed limit caused a rise in fatalities because...the New Jersey state government said so.
And just linked to a NHTSA study in an attempt to prove a point on this thread.
kdshapiro: If the airline industry tried to justify plane crashes using an AMT, the American people wouldn't hear of it.
First, no one is "justifying" anything, including the airlines.
Actually, the reason the government, airlines and aviation enthusiasts claim that flying is safer than driving is because...of the fatalities contrasted with the number of flights per day, and how far those flights travel.
So the American people have been hearing it for years, and must accept it, given the increasing popularity of flying as a means of travel.
I thought having some more data might help, this has both fatality rate (deaths/mvmt) and straight up fatalities. There are a few things to note:
1. The trend is definitely down, no matter how you slice it.
2. Seat belt usage, market penetration of supplemental restraints, and advanced vehicle safety systems has been rising over the last 10 years (with the biggest marker at seat belt usage).
3. There is no "distracted driver" accident classification on this form.
EDIT:
Oh and it also doesn't include no-fatal accident type. I would like to see if rear-end collisions were reduced while vehicle off road collisions increased (which is a predicted outcome of vehicles with ABS and stability systems).
Actually to be correct the FARS database said so.
'First, no one is "justifying" anything, including the airlines.'
You seem to be "justifying" VMT as a fact, it's another data point.
Actually at this data point this horse is long gone.
A great idea. Wonder what kind of fines would be appropriate, or should there be a fine plus loss of drivers license for some period.
Would think that technology is not far off to enable police departments to start getting cell phone drivers off the road.
Do I think its appropriate to be on a cell phone while merging onto a highway in heavy traffic? No. Do I think there are times where the workload from driving is low enough to allow for other tasks, yes.
Not necessary. Rules of Road in US States indicate that driver responsibility is to concentrate on all aspects of driving (vehicle operation, traffic, pedestrians, etc). Can't concentrate on driving and talk on phone at same time.
Many studies have concluded that there is no such thing as "multi-tasking". The human brain can only do one thing at a time. One cannot have a conversation on cell phone while driving and still give complete attention to driving.
Drivers who have cell phones can simply let calls go to their mail box and they can pick them up when they reach their destination or when they park their vehicle in a safe and legal spot. What is so hard about that.
I 100% categorically and totally agree with this statement. I would also say that a good percentage of the time, driving does not require "complete" attention. Studies have also theorized that competing tasks improve performance on both tasks.
The issue is the lack of understand for when conditions do permit a secondary task and when they don't.
I am surprised this topic is still going. I wonder if it will still be around in July 2008 when the California law (with its whopping $20 fine, no points on your record, and stipulation that it can only be a secondary offense; ie you have to be pulled over for something ELSE and then can ALSO be ticketed for cell phone use) I was originally referring to goes into effect. :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If someone is driving well and following the rules of the road and using the phone responsibly, they should be allowed to. If they screw up and commit a driving infraction or injure another driver or passenger, they should get tared and feathered and cooked.
Then why do we allow a stereo, climate controls, or scenery-watching? Not to mention passengers who may inadvertantly converse?
Drivers who have cell phones can simply let calls go to their mail box...
And...they could just stay home.
We count on drivers to exercise reasonable judgement while driving. There is no escape from this reality. The notion that ceasing one activity will significantly affect the overall risk of this condition is, well, not reasonable IMO.
This is not a clear cut issue of right or wrong because there are no people marching in the streets trying to ban cell phones. But once again we live in democracy so this issue will someday have to be put to a vote. It will be hard to imagine people voting for the extra funding for the equipment the' police will need to monitor cell phone activity in someones car once we go hands free. Besides if someone else is in the vehicle the task of proving the driver was talking should keep the lawyers busy for years. If they can't stop speeding, an illegal activity easy to spot, I somehow doubt they are going to have a lot of success stopping cell phone use at 20 bucks a pop. It makes an interesting topic for debate but puling officers away from gang crime, and other pressing issues just doesn't seem like the best use of our resources.
Looking at how long it took for California law to go into effect it seems pretty likely that people will be able to use their cell phones for quite a few years with little chance of a total ban any time soon.
It reminds me of some counties in Texas that once allowed open containers in the car as long as the driver wasn't drinking. Texas officers would pull a car over and the passenger would often be drinking two beers. It may not be a honest thing to do but when faced with a ticket or a fine most people resort to the innocent till proven guilty defense.
In my case going hands free has increased my phone use slightly. I still have very short conversations lasting no more than a minute or two but because I don't have to take my hands off of the wheel I do answer more calls. Because the calls most often involve sending me to a location or telling me i don't have to drive to meet anyone at a different location the in car phone calls have saved me from driving more miles than I should. It should also please you Nippon to know that my fuel bills have decreased by close to 30 percent and one month they were down by 40 percent. The fuel mileage alone has more than paid for my Smart phone and one months phone service bill.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
While currently I don't drive and talk, the law allows one to talk via the appropriate hands-free devices.