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
The process of making laws and prosecuting offenses revolves around "splitting hairs." That's the way the system works.
kdshapiro: While there are different flavors of "murder", killing someone because you were on the cell phone and ran a light or stop sign because your attention was diverted is still murder, even if it is called negligent homocide.
The reason there are different flavors (the correct term is "levels") of homicide is because there are different degrees of culpability and intent, even if the action results in the death of a person. Again, this is the way the criminal justice system works, and has worked long before anyone posting on this site was born.
The legal system does not share your view that a fatality that results from cell phone use while driving constitutes "murder," nor will it ever share that view.
If you doubt that - answer this question. Has anyone who caused a fatality while driving drunk ever been sentenced to death, or to life in prison without parole?
kdshapiro: A car is no different a weapon than a gun or knife. You have to use it responsibly or either get your priviledges revoked or your freedom taken away.
Which we already do...driving privileges are already taken away for driving under the influence, fleeing from the police, even having a certain number of points on a driver's license for various offenses.
kdshapiro: I reject some of your assertions, cops do not having to deal remains from highway fatalities.
Whether you reject them is irrelevant.
Incidentally, according the figures posted on this very thread yesterday, highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled are at record lows, despite increased cell phone use, so the police are having to deal with fewer fatalities despite more cell phone use. Which suggests that there are more productive ways to improve highway safety.
kdshapiro: I think they would welcome measures that gives them the teeth and opportunity to keep the roads safe. Maybe it works that way in Penn. but here in the real world.
I deal with the real world on a daily basis...not just posting my thoughts on an internet message board.
It's easy to say what one thinks that cops think (without asking one, unless we are calling the Psychic Hotline before posting), that laws should be changed in a certain way (without having to navigate the legislative process) or penalties should be upped without a thought to how the law will be enforced.
Everyone has an opinion, which is their right, but the smart ones sort through those opinions to find the diamonds among the rocks.
kdshapiro: I know the cops would have welcomed giving those unfortunate teenagers who died while driving and text messaging a huge fine and have them think twice about their actions, than to call their parents to tell them their daughters have died in a totally preventable car crash.
Except that I already said that I supported banning texting while driving, so I don't know what the argument is here.
Actually, there is a logical error in that argument. We have no way of knowing if there would've been additional fatalities had the laws not been in place. Not smoking reduces your risk of cancer, but it definitely doesn't eliminate it.
I actually think a lot of this thread is irrelevant. Man isn't perfect, laws aren't perfect.
"Except that I already said that I supported banning texting while driving, so I don't know what the argument is here."
I think there is a fundemental disagreement about how many laws, how much fines. I don't think a law(moral, civil or criminal) has to be effective to be on the books. I am not for laws that seek to control private behavior between people, but I am for laws that allow the civil/criminal system to deal with inappropriate behavior by others that can affect me.
You're correct. And by adopting that rational we can really never know whether we made a good or bad decision based upon the outcome. We only know whether a situation got better or worse, look at the variables that changed and then make assumptions.
How do you know that not smoking reduces your risk of cancer? Probably because studies have looked at a groups that do smoke and noticed an increased incidence of cancer. At this point you're making assumptions and also making the same logical error you accused me of. Maybe this group that smoked would have had an even higher rate of cancer had they not smoked. I agree that's pretty far fetched. But when a law doesn't achieve the desired result to assume that the situation would have gotten worse without the law is pretty far fetched. Especially when there are so many examples of the situation not getting worse in states that didn't enact these laws.
I feel very confident that had these 3 states shown some of the biggest improvements in fatality and injury rates the proponents of these laws would have been quick to take credit.
The numbers are what they are. They can be interpreted in different ways. Some of these interpretations are more plausible than others.
Looking at stats at NHTSA, see that NY, NJ and Conn rates were up 1.5, 3.3, 8.3 resp. Perhaps these rates would have been much higher than they were if cell phone ban were not in effect. The cell phone ban helped to keep rates down.
23 states had their rates go up and 8 states were higher than Conn and their rates were:
Vermont 19.0
Hawaii 15
Wyoming 15
Delaware 11
Maine 11
West Virginia 9.6
Kansas 9.3
Arizona 9.2
Those states with higher rates than NY and NJ were:
Alabama 5.2
Maryland 6.0
Montana 4.8
Seems like Washington DC rate reduction of 23 percent was significant. If main variable was cell phone ban, and no other variables cited, such as all speed limits cut 15 MPH across the board on all roads, or very large amount of added patrol cars/radar cars on roads 365 days in 2006, etc, then one can see positive correlation between cell phone ban and 23 percent reduction.
Yes, Missouri rate dropped by 13. Do we know what was going on there in terms of specific enforcement program initiated in 2006. Wisconsin went down 11 percent. I happen to know that there is very heavy enforcement efforts on the interstates there. Was that causative?
Yes, it was for illustrative purposes. You can show correlation but not causation. Maybe these people lived next door to a nuclear power plant under high tension lines and had home x-ray machines.
But when a law doesn't achieve the desired result to assume that the situation would have gotten worse without the law is pretty far fetched. Especially when there are so many examples of the situation not getting worse in states that didn't enact these laws.
What is the average age of drivers in each of those states compared to the national average? How about miles traveled (California is a big state...)? How many unlicensed drivers/uninsured drivers are in each state? How strong is seatbelt enforcement in each state?
I feel very confident that had these 3 states shown some of the biggest improvements in fatality and injury rates the proponents of these laws would have been quick to take credit.
And they would be inline right behind the people for speed enforcement, seat belt enforcement, and stability control, who I am sure will also take credit. Perhaps even L. Ron Hubbard would take credit, since he would feel "pure" people drive better. :P
The numbers are what they are. They can be interpreted in different ways. Some of these interpretations are more plausible than others.
I concur, and when you have a study that is that confounded, it is very hard to even show correlation, let alone causation. I don't think it would even be possible to write a valid hypothesis to test that theory.
We're talking about the difference in a particular state between 2005 and 2006. I doubt the demographics or driving styles in a state changed significantly in one year.
I agree that no definitive conclusion can be drawn from the data. The fact remains that total highway fatalities went down nationally. When you look at the 3 states and DC that had mandatory seat belt laws you see that their fatalities and fatality rate went up collectively (2507 to 2566 +2%) there's no way you can conclude that this law has saved lives. You can speculate what would have been but it isn't supported by any data.
I'll try to find the link but I seem to remember a comment from a spokesman for the NHTSA that thought these laws could potentially be dangerous. The NHTSA position is there is little difference in the distraction caused by a hand held device compared to a hands free one. So these laws might send the message that hands free devices are safe. Leading to more useage and a sense of complacency. Again, speculation that can't be proven but coming from an agency who's agenda is safety.
I totally agree with this. Dialing is a visual/manual task (unless using voice) and that is heavy loading while driving, but holding the phone itself may or may not be. The cognitive distraction from paying more attention to the conversation than to driving is the issue.
I think there should be secondary enforcement for using a cell phone while driving. If someone is using it responsibly, managing their driving task and workload, and not posing a threat, I see no reason to modify their behavior. However if someone is driving poorly while using their cell phone (and receives a moving violation or citation) then eh, nail their butt to the wall.
We'd have to know the level of enforcement in the prior years to make a definitive judgment.
Interesting that Texas was down, but it raised the speed limit to 80 mph on certain highways.
And Pennsylvania was down, even though enforcement (outside of the central and western portion of the Pennsylvania Turnpike) continues to be sporadic, and most people drive 75 mph, despite the 65 mph speed limit.
Until it is proven that it can be done safely, get off. Very simple.
Has anyone even tried? People do a lot of things in their normal day to day driving that they wouldn't do while taking a driving test.
More people are using cell phones than ever, and, as has been shown by the latest fatality figures, our roads are safer than ever.
In an ideal world, everyone would focus on driving. But then, much of our driving environment - ridiculously low speed limits, vehicles that serve as rolling isolation chambers - do not encourage drivers to pay attention to the road. This is a much bigger issue than cell phone use.
Go to Germany, and you don't see people yakking on the cell phone. Of course, you do see them driving at 100+ mph on the Autobahn.
Over here we have people who virtually wet their pants at the thought of driving over 65 mph, so it's hard to push for rational traffic laws that encourage people to focus on driving. Good grief, just encouraging left-lane campers to move into the slow lane makes some people throw a hissy fit, because that means someone may be driving faster than 65 mph.
They initially claimed that the fatalities would rise by 6,400 per year. They were about 6,398 fatalities short, and fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven actually DROPPED. Someone should have eaten a healthy size portion of crow, but that would be tantamount to admitting that they clearly had no clue what they were talking about.
That's kindly hard to do when blabbering on the phone while driving, for some of us (including engineers)...
There are some states that have had more fatalities, most states have less fatalties. Safer roads doesn't mean less people dying, it means less accidents, less road rage, etc. Cell phones, as studies have shown, contribute to a loss of driving attention, which in turn contributes to accidents and possibly road rage and other anti-social behaviors on the road.
So it's great the roads are safer because mostly fatalities went down, but I contribute a reduction of the numbers to better designed roads, better designed cars, better and faster medical care, and mostly drivers who are willing to stay off the phone so they can get out of the way of those who are on the phone.
I do not contribute safer roads to an assumption that driving while dialing, texting or talking on the cell phone, as you are implying, does not distract the driver. I believe if people were to heed this advice a wholesale reduction in fatalities and accidents could be acheived.
There needs to be years or study, like DUI, before this can be measured, but these laws pass the litmus test of common sense.
Yet, three of the states with an increase in fatalities are also states that have taken the strongest action against cell phones. Which undermines the call for legislation against cell phone use while driving.
kdshapiro: Safer roads doesn't mean less people dying, it means less accidents, less road rage, etc.
When the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven has declined, then safer roads DO mean fewer people are dying. The main measure of highway safety is how many people are killed, and that number - both in raw numbers and fatalities per 100 million miles driven - went down in 2006, which means that fewer people died on the road.
You also contradict your initial assertion later in the same post with this sentence:
"So it's great the roads are safer because mostly fatalities went down...
If fatalities "went down," as you admit, then fewer people are dying.
kdshapiro: Cell phones, as studies have shown, contribute to a loss of driving attention, which in turn contributes to accidents and possibly road rage and other anti-social behaviors on the road.
But they don't, as the figures show, increase fatality rates.
kdshapiro:...and mostly drivers who are willing to stay off the phone so they can get out of the way of those who are on the phone.
And your proof of this is found where? Citation, please.
kdshapiro: I do not contribute safer roads to an assumption that driving while dialing, texting or talking on the cell phone, as you are implying, does not distract the driver.
I never said that it doesn't distract the driver, so you must be referring to some other poster. I said that driving while talking on the cell phone does not appear to be making the roads more dangerous, and, so far, this is borne out by the latest traffice safety statistics.
And, for the third time, I said that I support banning texting while driving.
1988 (before cell phones)
42,130 fatal crashes
2,233,000 injury crashes
4,611,000 property damage only crashes
2,026 billion vehicle miles travelled
2005 (near cell phone saturation)
39,189 fatal crashes
1,816,000 injury crashes
4,304,000 property damage only crashes
2,990 billion vehicle miles travelled
Whether or not these cell phone bans pass the litmus test of common sense they fail to pass the reality test. It's called a paradox. IMO actual results should take precedence over expected results.
Not really. Seems like faulty logic here.
Have you looked into what else is going on in these three states? Are there other factors in play, such as reduced amount of police patrols/enforcement due to local and/or state budget cuts? Were there a significant amount of additional illegals (not knowing English) coming into these states and driving wihout testing/licenses? Many other factors could explain increases.
What specifically were the "strongest actions against cell phones"? Were laws passed totally banning use of cell phone including hands-free types or were the laws made to outlaw hand-held and allow hands-free?
As a previous poster mentioned, perhaps laws that endorse hands-free were contributory to unsafe driving because the states/cities that passed them gave an endorsement for this dangerous behaviour. Could this have translated into higher death rates?
Drivers who had or started using "hands-free" then mistakenly felt that they could so called "multi-task" and unknowingly to them were a menace on the roads.
Agree. There were some very early posts on this board that cited studies/actual tests that showed talking on cell phone while driving impaired reaction time. Someone also posted some type of tests similar to slalom that showed that those drivers talking on phone were knocking down pylons and not as good as when driving cell phone free.
It would be interesting to see some of the sports-car driving schools in the U.S. conduct tests whereby a slalom set up would test drivers while using a cell phone and without a cell phone. Conversations in tests would be designed to require drivers to concentrate and would be taped/recorded and would be analyzed second-by-second (actually split second) against car's actual movement (also taped) on the course.
How many of the pro-cell phone while driving users would bet that their driving performance would not deteriorate while using the cell phone? Any takers?
No it means there is recourse against those who cause issues on the road.
"then safer roads DO mean fewer people are dying."
We have a basic disagreement into the meaning of the word "safer". For example, a driver who gets t-boned and suffers catastrophic injuries so that he/she requires medical care for the rest of their life probably would not agree with your definition of safer as I don't. Yep, they didn't die, but if the driver who caused the collision, was on the cell phone at time of accident, society should be able to force the compensation of this poor individual.
"And your proof of this is found where? Citation, please."
It's right next to the page, where you imply cell phone usage is a non-issue due to "safer" roads. Which I content roads really aren't safer, fatalities aren't a measure of safety, they are a measure of death.
"I never said that it doesn't distract the driver, so you must be referring to some other poster. I said that driving while talking on the cell phone does not appear to be making the roads more dangerous,"
And your proof, citation please?
I'm contending that if people put down cell phones, a whole raft of issues relating to commuting in the modern world would be resolved, including a wholesale reduction in fatalities and crashes. People do not want to be bored and to drive anymore. It will take more crashes similiar to the unfortunate one, where 4 teens were killed before a MACPU (mothers against cell phone usage) group is formed and talking while driving is treated as the anti-social behavior that it is.
"Property damage only" only represents "reported, tow-away" crashes, so if you think this is actually capturing all of the collisions by year, I disagree.
Whether or not these cell phone bans pass the litmus test of common sense they fail to pass the reality test. It's called a paradox. IMO actual results should take precedence over expected results.
Hmm I guess none of that was due to seat belt laws, air bags (which weren't required in 1988), or various other vehicle safety systems. Because insurance deductibles are higher, there are far fewer collisions being reported. This also skews data.
The logic of that argument is flawed. A hypothesis will not support a double negative. I personally don't think cell phones are public enemy number 1, but at the same time, the claim made above wrt cell phones is flawed.
I'm simply providing data. It doesn't support your firmly established beliefs so you are making up speculative scenarios to refute the data.
The numbers for these property damage only accidents is compiled from police reports, not insurance claims. Also, I don't know how airbags or seatbelts would reduce the number of these accidents.
I agree with you, the facts are:
1. the number of fatalities overall went down,
2. some states went up,
3. some states went down.
Everything else is speculation. :confuse
"The numbers for these property damage only accidents is compiled from police reports,"
I see his point, only those collisions reported are included. There will never be anyway we will know the real number.
The NHTSA realizes that these numbers are not exact, that's why they round some of them off to the nearest 1,000. Do you have some reason to believe that they aren't at least very good estimates? For the accident rate not to be going down these numbers would really have to be off by a lot over the past 20 years. By a lot I mean at least 50%.
I am showing how the data has been confounded. I haven't made any claims based on any "beliefs."
The numbers for these property damage only accidents is compiled from police reports, not insurance claims.
Actually, if you read the report, it is based on a randomly sampled subset of 6.1 milion police reported collisions, not even every police reported crash is included, let alone the unreported crashes.
Also, I don't know how airbags or seatbelts would reduce the number of these accidents.
I am sure I am mis-understanding this, but just to clarify, you don't understand how seatbelts and airbags reduce fatalities and injuries?
Whether or not these cell phone bans pass the litmus test of common sense they fail to pass the reality test. It's called a paradox. IMO actual results should take precedence over expected results.
This statement is one I disagree with, as that conclusion cannot be drawn from the data you stated.
You need to rebut the point raised.
I'll repeat it: Fatalities rose in the three states that have taken the strongest action against cell phones, which appears to undermine the argument for this type of law, or at least show that it is not effective in reducing fatalities.
kdshapiro: We have a basic disagreement into the meaning of the word "safer".
In an earlier post you complained about splitting hairs, and now you are doing it yourself.
Everyone agrees that for roads to be considered "safer" than the year before, fatalities must have declined, which is what happened. Injuries declined, too.
You're disagreement with the meaning of the word "safer," as applied to roads, extends not just to me, but to virtually every agency that measures highway safety.
kdshapiro: For example, a driver who gets t-boned and suffers catastrophic injuries so that he/she requires medical care for the rest of their life probably would not agree with your definition of safer as I don't.
Except that there is no proof that increased cell phone use is making this happen; if anything, statistics show that this scenario is less likely to happen, based on the latest results for 2006.
Read this sentence from the NHTSA report:
Most significantly, fatalities of occupants of passenger vehicles—cars, SUVs, vans and pickups—continued a steady decline to 30,521, the lowest annual total since 1993, Secretary Peters said. Injuries were also down in 2006, with passenger car injuries declining by 6.2 percent and large truck injuries falling by 15 percent, she said. (emphasis added)
So, according to the NHTSA, the scenario you outlined is less likely to happen.
Whether the measurement is number of in injuries, or fatalities, the roads are safer.
kdshapiro: Yep, they didn't die, but if the driver who caused the collision, was on the cell phone at time of accident, society should be able to force the compensation of this poor individual.
Which has absolutely nothing to with whether roads are safer or not.
What you are discussing is compensation for people AFTER the accident, and I don't see anyone arguing against that concept. Automobile insurance has been around for decades, and the entire body of tort law is based on the concept of making injured individuals whole, and came with the original colonists from Europe.
What you are advocating has been part of our judicial system since the first Europeans stepped off the boat.
Of course, the plaintiff must prove that the cell phone usage caused the accident to receive any extra compensation because of this. But is true for ANY accident, regardless of the alleged cause.
kdshapiro: It's right next to the page, where you imply cell phone usage is a non-issue due to "safer" roads. Which I content roads really aren't safer, fatalities aren't a measure of safety, they are a measure of death.
And the number of deaths is a measure of our highway system's safety. You can contend whatever you want, but if you want to be taken seriously by those who understand how to accurately measure highway safety, you'll have to drop that contention.
The latest NHTSA report - by the government agency charged with tracking highway safety - shows that roads are safer than ever before, and merely saying that they aren't is not a sufficient rebuttal.
Unless the random sample is flawed, and I see no indication of that here, the data can be considered accurate.
If it weren't and insurance companies were paying out more in claims, I'm sure that we would hear about it.
lilengineerboy: I am sure I am mis-understanding this, but just to clarify, you don't understand how seatbelts and airbags reduce fatalities and injuries?
He said that he didn't see how airbags and seatbelts would reduce accidents, not fatalities and injuries.
Airbags and seatbelts are passive safety devices that protect the occupants from injury or death AFTER the accident has occurred. They do not prevent the accident from happening (such as traction control or antilock brakes would be expected to do).
You haven't shown anything. You've simply offered a possible way that the data may have been confounded. And this possibility just happens to support what you think the data should be.
Actually, if you read the report, it is based on a randomly sampled subset of 6.1 milion police reported collisions, not even every police reported crash is included, let alone the unreported crashes.
So your position is that had every report been looked at the accident rate would have been higher. In addition there are more accidents going unreported than there were in 1988. I'm providing data and you're countering with unsupported speculation.
Also, I don't know how airbags or seatbelts would reduce the number of these accidents.
I am sure I am mis-understanding this, but just to clarify, you don't understand how seatbelts and airbags reduce fatalities and injuries?
Yes you are misunderstaning this. I said "these accidents". This was within the context of talking about property damage only accidents. Again, I don't see how seatbelts or airbags would reduce "these accidents".
Okay. Let me repeat. It allows allows some recourse against drivers who cause injury or death on the road.
"Everyone agrees that for roads to be considered "safer" than the year before, fatalities must have declined, which is what happened. Injuries declined, too."
Actually there are less deaths, not safer. how do you know injuries really declined? There are a lot of unreported incidents.
"Except that there is no proof that increased cell phone use is making this happen; if anything, statistics show that this scenario is less likely to happen, based on the latest results for 2006"
That's my counter point to your implication that cell phone usage don't affect death or injury rates. Based on the studies to date, it's logical to assume a large part of crashes and fatalities could be the result of cell phone usage.
"Which has absolutely nothing to with whether roads are safer or not."
Actually it is the point. The roads are not safer, they are fairly dangerous and thanks to road, car engineers, fast helicopters and great doctors the driving environment is safer. For sure new drivers, in general do not seem to get the message. If not for a lot of observant pubic who didn't use their phones, I believe we would see death and injury rates rising. Someone has to keep their mind on driving, hopefully.
"And the number of deaths is a measure of our highway system's safety"
It's a testament to better vehicles and better doctors. If people drove like they drive today in vehicles of 15 years ago, the death rate would skyrocket. People sure aren't doing what they need to do to keep themselves and loved ones safe.
"The latest NHTSA report - by the government agency charged with tracking highway safety - shows that roads are safer than ever before, and merely saying that they aren't is not a sufficient rebuttal."
Calling something safe and being safe are two different things. I don't buy the bunk the roads are safer, they aren't. People are dying less not because they are better drivers, far from it, it's because their air bags, crumple zones, barriers, evac procedures and medical care are better. We need to get people back to the basics of driving which will have a ripple effect. A good start is getting the heck off the phone.
Unless the random sample is flawed, and I see no indication of that here, the data can be considered accurate.
If it weren't and insurance companies were paying out more in claims, I'm sure that we would hear about it.
Insurance companies wouldn't pay on unreported collisions. Typically they require a police report, or they complete a report on their own. Insurance companies don't pay on unreported crashes.
lilengineerboy: I am sure I am mis-understanding this, but just to clarify, you don't understand how seatbelts and airbags reduce fatalities and injuries?
He said that he didn't see how airbags and seatbelts would reduce accidents, not fatalities and injuries.
Okay, good. I just read it too fast I guess.
You haven't shown anything. You've simply offered a possible way that the data may have been confounded.
True enough, although since I do work in this field, it is a reasonably well qualified professional statement.
And this possibility just happens to support what you think the data should be.
I have no desired outcome for the data. I get paid either way
Actually, if you read the report, it is based on a randomly sampled subset of 6.1 milion police reported collisions, not even every police reported crash is included, let alone the unreported crashes.
So your position is that had every report been looked at the accident rate would have been higher. In addition there are more accidents going unreported than there were in 1988. I'm providing data and you're countering with unsupported speculation.
Actually, I didn't provide any speculation. I merely stated that there is a very high likelihood that every collision isn't collected, and the difference could be statistically significant.
I believe NHTSA provided data collected in the FARS and GSE databases that was provided in a press release to which you graciously provided a link. Or did you directly provide the data? Because in that case I would more strongly question its validity.
This hypothesis that the number of unreported incidents is increasing is not plausible, but it is self serving. I can assure you that in most accidents there is one party that's not at fault who very much wants a police report. In our litigious society if an injury is involved the desire to have the incident reported becomes even greater. In fact it's probably more conceivable that bogus injuries are being reported.
What is your criteria for determining whether or not roads are safer? In my case if the odds of being killed, injured or even being in an accident have gone down then I consider the roads to be safer, but that's just me.
fars 2005
Do the laws in those states specifically call for additional compensation if the cell phone usage was proven to be the cause of the accident? If not, then those specific laws aren't doing anything new regarding recourse for injured drivers.
In all states, if you are injured by the negligence of another party - whether the root cause is cell phone use or simply not paying attention - and prove that the other driver's negligent behavior caused your injury, you can be compensated for those injuries. That has been part of the law since the early days of the automobile.
And it still hasn't changed the fact that fatatlities rose in those three states that have adopted stricter cell phone laws.
kdshapiro: Actually there are less deaths, not safer. how do you know injuries really declined? There are a lot of unreported incidents.
If there are fewer deaths and injuries, the roads are safer.
It says in the NHTSA report that fatalities and injuries have declined, as shown in the sentence I highlighted. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us.
And under most state traffic laws, if there are injuries involved, the accident must be reported.
Here is the law in Title 75 (Vehicles) of Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes on requirements for reporting an accident involving death or injury:
The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death of any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until he has fulfilled the requirements of section 3744 (relating to duty to give information and render aid). Every stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.
Drivers are obligated to stop and exchange information if there is an injury. I doubt that other state laws are different.
kdshapiro: That's my counter point to your implication that cell phone usage don't affect death or injury rates. Based on the studies to date, it's logical to assume a large part of crashes and fatalities could be the result of cell phone usage.
No, it is not logical to assume, when fatality rates and injuries have declined while cell phone use has increased.
kdshapiro: Actually it is the point. The roads are not safer, they are fairly dangerous and thanks to road, car engineers, fast helicopters and great doctors the driving environment is safer.
The roads are the driving environment, so you are making a distinction without a difference.
kdshapiro: It's a testament to better vehicles and better doctors. If people drove like they drive today in vehicles of 15 years ago, the death rate would skyrocket. People sure aren't doing what they need to do to keep themselves and loved ones safe.
I was here 15 years ago, and I can assure you that people did drive like they do today in the those vehicles.
I do remember that people at that time complained that the roads were so unsafe and drivers so reckless compared to...15 years before.
kdshapiro: Calling something safe and being safe are two different things.
True, but not in this case.
If the accident caused an injury, I seriously doubt that it would be unreported to the insurance company or the police.
As I've shown in a previous post, under Pennsylvania law if an accident causes death or injury, information must be exchanged so that the claim can be filed.
So I seriously doubt that NHTSA or any other tracking organization is missing many injury-causing accidents, which was the original contention.
Perhaps the crash involves only damage to the vehicles, and it is unreported. That would mean the person is not filing a claim.
If I yak on the cell phone and scrape the side of my car against a pole and decide to live with the damage, the only "cost" is living with a damaged car.
I haven't experienced any out-of-pocket expenses (except for possible loss of trade-in value, but if I were concerned about that, I would pay out of my own pocket to have the car fixed), and neither has the insurance company. I am also under no obligation to report the accident.
If I yak on the cell phone and run into the elderly lady in her Buick, and she has to go to the hospital, that is an accident that MUST be reported under Pennsylvania (and other states') law.
This hypothesis that the number of unreported incidents is increasing is not plausible, but it is self serving. In our litigious society if an injury is involved the desire to have the incident reported becomes even greater.
Fatal and injury collisions are classified differently from property damage crashes. I feel much more confident in the reported numbers for those types of accidents.
In fact it's probably more conceivable that bogus injuries are being reported.
That sounds like a totally unfounded statement "And this possibility just happens to support what you think the data should be. "
What is your criteria for determining whether or not roads are safer? In my case if the odds of being killed, injured or even being in an accident have gone down then I consider the roads to be safer, but that's just me.
I don't think that is being debated, I think the question on the floor is if roads would be safer still if there were laws wrt cell phone use.
I concur. As I said, I feel much more confident in data collection of injury and fatal collisions.
So I seriously doubt that NHTSA or any other tracking organization is missing many injury-causing accidents, which was the original contention.
I was looking at collisions on the whole, I better understand your argument; I don't see why we should exclude property damage, though. There is financial injury to having a car totaled out :sick:
Perhaps the crash involves only damage to the vehicles, and it is unreported. That would mean the person is not filing a claim.
True, and that the driver is uninsured, unlicensed or a number of other scenarios.
That sounds like a totally unfounded statement "And this possibility just happens to support what you think the data should be. "
I agree 100%. It was just meant as an alternative scenario to the other unfounded, self serving speculations that have been offered by others.
Ah, but in a collision if it is found one party was on the cell phone and gets ticketed, it makes recourse much more difficult.
"It says in the NHTSA report that fatalities and injuries have declined, as shown in the sentence I highlighted. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it with us."
Again your definition of safer is different than mine. The roads are not safer. I was around 15 years ago and people did drive a whole bunch differently because they weren't distracted by cell phones.
"No, it is not logical to assume, when fatality rates and injuries have declined while cell phone use has increased."
You have no proof either way. There are a multitude of studies on cell phones. Use a search engine to find them and what they say. You do not know if people became responsible and stopped using hand held devices while driving would result in safer, neither do I. But one would think if people put down the cell phones and paid more attention to driving, fatalities and crashes would decrease more than they have.
"The roads are the driving environment, so you are making a distinction without a difference."
Wrong. Without a backup system of fire, police and medical care, a heck a lot more people would die in severe accidents.
"True, but not in this case."
Exactly in this case.
I don't mean to be dense but just to clarify. Are you stating that when you drove 15 years ago you were as safe or safer than you are today?
Anyone who denies that talking on cellphones while driving is a road hazard does not have a lot of experience out there or is blind. Cite and deny whatever you want, but that is the truth of it. Last night coming home there was a major accident that wasted 45 minutes of my evening and a few extra bucks in gas cash. On the news they reported the cause (driver of an SUV) was squacking on her stupid cellphone when she blazed on thru the red light at the intersection and got blindsided bigtime by a dumptruck with right of way. She wasted 45 minutes of my life which sucks for me, but what happened to her sucks way worse. Other than the fact that it was white, I couldn't even recognize the make of her vehicle. It was that mangled. Oh well - I am sure if she could today she would deny the fact that cellphones are a hazard also, but since I am so sick of inconsiderate drivers yapping on those stupid things when they should be driving, I just consider her to be one less death threat that I need to contend with now. Oh yeah I forgot ... where is my humanity about the tragedy ........ what a big loss to society her self-inflicted untimely death was. Hope the person on the other end got a kick out of it, though.
1. truck drivers were more courteous and even the short haulers seemed to obey the law,
2. there were not (behemoth) cars driven by all types on cell phones wandering left and right out of the lane and tailgating due to lack of attention,
3. people were much less inclined to take out a gun and shoot you because you were in the left lane,
and I could go on. So the answer is yes there was a better sense of safety on the road than today, even given the apparent advances in metallurgy, medical care, technology, road design and search and rescue operations.
I do not share that view. That lady, the 4 teenagers are all examples of why cell phones are dangerous. Most rational people do not need any proof.
I hope the lady got a ticket, posthumously, for using a cell phone. This would help to protect the poor truck driver from lawsuits stemming from the accident.
Wrong again. Death by vehicle can be considered a criminal matter. Whether the death sentence is applied or life in prison without parole depends on the charges and the outcome of the trial.
I can't argue with whether or not someone had a better "sense" of safety since that is subjective. Some people have a better sense of safety when they drive as opposed to when they fly. It's not rational but it's real to them. Let's dispense with the word safe since it obviously has a different meaning for you then it does for me. Bottom line is the chance of being injured or dying on the highway is considerably less today than it was 20 years ago. That is indisputable.
So yeah, the laws can't protect people from themselves, but maybe real enforcement of those laws could protect others from these inconsiderate morons.
Is NY today, safer than it was 20 years ago? I would say no. While crime has indisputedly gone down, twenty years ago, there was much less of a threat from dirty bombs and terrorists. I don't think New York is safer although there is much less of a chance of getting mugged than compared to 20 years ago.