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
I would like to elaborate. The fars database is the only real world tool in the US that tracks this stuff, so I am a fan of the statistics. What I am not a fan of, is how the numbers are twisted in an attempt to prove a point. If the NHTSA can't make the determination with any certainty about cell phone usage with their PHDs and scientists, how are we going to? One way or another.
BAC studies have been done for years and years and there are volumes of data on it. There has not been the same amount of statistics on cell phone injuries and crashes. My opinion is to be safe rather than sorry. Some sacrifice of "personal" liberty in the interest of driver cooperation does not seem unreasonable. Especially if you can kill me by your actions or by my common sense, I stay off the phone to avoid you.
This is become a thread of opinions not facts. I'm all for everyone discussing their opinions. There are clearly some facts, but the conclusions are opinions.
In closing, the NHTSA does say something about cell phone usage, they advise us NOT TO!
True. A lot harder to get a conviction from someone accused of driving distracted (i.e eating a Big Mac) when the evidence has already been eaten. Food for thought. :sick:
I think it unreasonable to suggest laws for all distractable behaviors while driving. The goal should be to remove those which are most likely to result in an accident. Those are drinking, being under the influence, drugs, and cell phone use.
I think that you'd be surprised by how little I use my cell phone while driving. I'd guess my total time is less than 10 minutes per year. I do realize that there are distracted drivers out there posing a threat. I'm less afraid of these people than I am of those that are so quick to pass laws restricting what responsible people can or cannot do.
I guess I'm afraid of people who take away my personal liberties. People who might want to control what I hear or see(not talking about profanity) on TV, radio, or in the newspaper. (I'll include seat belts and helmets in this. And why won't the government let me use whatever drugs/narcotics I want in the privacy of my own home.)
I'm not afraid of people who pass laws, in which, I believe is for the common good. Drunk driving and cell phone use comes under this. While I have read the NHTSA stance on cell phones I partially agree. When a widespread social behavior becomes problematic the goverment should be there to step in.
While I don't do drugs, wear my seatbelt, don't drive a motorcycle the government has stepped on my personal freedoms. To prevent you from killing me, this pales in comparison.
I know we'll never agree, so we should just agree to disagree.
Probably true but answer this simple question. Do you really believe that a piece of legislation banning the use of cell phones while driving will result in our roadways being safer? If the answer is no then I really don't understand how you can feel so passionately about this issue.
Plus it would make it easier for me to sue the distracted driver for damages if the police report shows that the driver was ticketed for operating the cell in violation of state law when they hit me.
I can't think of any negative unintended consequences off-hand for banning cell use while driving. We can permit people to call 911 if they see a drunk driver or house fire while they are driving around. Otherwise, pull over to call.
I doubt it. While there might be records to show when a cell phone call was taking place there won't be exact records that show when the accident took place. Anyway, I'm not a big fan of our litigious society. I wouldn't support legislation on the basis of how it might assist in a lawsuit.
As far as determining who was negligent in an accident I don't see this as being all that significant. In most cases it's not that hard to determine who was at fault. I'd like to think that talking on a cell phone is not an automatic determination of fault. For instance, if someone runs a red-light and broadsides me but I happened to be on a cell phone at the time, would I be at fault?
My best guess is that more and more states will implement laws that restrict the use of cell phones while driving. There will be no evidence that these laws accomplished anything but we will have now gone from having a zillion laws to having a zillion and one laws.
Ok, here's a link from the Insurance Information Institute that cites recent developments. There are lots of indicators that drivers need to be educated about the dangers of driving distracted, and fining drivers for cell phone use would be one educational method.
How about this - every cell phone plays a 10 second message about the dangers of driver distraction every time you press Send or answer the phone and it also requires you to key in a 6 digit random code to enable you to Send or Receive a call.
Make it mildly irritating to use the phone while at your desk or walking down the aisle at the grocery, but so frustrating to use while driving that you'll ignore the phone.
And you thought all those "I Accept" screens on NAV systems were bad. :shades:
The laws won't eliminate cell phone usage either. And as Steve mentioned, now their are laws against watching movies. Why aren't you in arms about that one? Why aren't you complaining about seatbelt laws? Or the fact you need to belt in your child? After all it's a slim chance you would get into an accident. Right? An acceptable risk as it were. I would think these laws cut into your personal freedom just as well.
I don't know where it ends, but as I see having laws on the books regulating cell phones for the safety of all isn't such a bad thing.
Same here. Although, just to reiterate I am all for laws that protect you from me and me from you.
I can go along with that but I would apply a few more restrictions. First, it can't be just another version of a law that already exists. Second, there must be a proven danger, not just a perception. Last, it needs to actually improve the condition that it was targeting.
"On average, inpatient hospital care costs for unbuckled crash victims exceed those who are buckled by $5,000. The injured victim pays only about 15% of medical costs out-of-pocket. The remaining costs – the vast majority – are paid by a combination of tax supported public health care programs and private insurance coverage." link
I can see a cell use ban being supported by similar savings to the taxpayer (that means me and my wallet).
I believe that you think that "open liquor" container law for vehicles is unnecessary. If we did not have that law, would you be in favor of drive-through restaurants selling a can of cold beer to a driver (and any passengers)? After all, as long as a driver is below 0.08 blood alcohol level, he/she is not drunk. Guess that most every person could drink just one beer and not get to 0.08.
Think of the injustice to drivers in south most times of year or midwest in summer who are derprived of a cool beer beverage on a hot or warm day. Why should government run our personal lives in our vehicles. We should have freedom to do what we want in our vehicles as long as we hurt no one. Isn't it a private matter and personal choice? Why has government intruded with these pesky laws inhibiting our freedoms and liberty.
Let's say that driving w/o a seatbelt has a negative impact on our health care system. What about people that lay out on the beach? It's common knowledge that they are increasing their odds of getting skin cancer. That can't be good for the system so let's ticket them. Let's also fine people for being obese, smoking, riding motorcycles, rock climbing, etc., etc.. I'm sure I could come up with a very long list if I wanted to. My point is that I don't agree with this rational.
Laws targetting specific things that must not be done by drivers, such as watching DVDs or talking on cell phone, are needed to focus public attention and to change/control behaviour of drivers.
Without attention/publicity of a new law banning cell phone, most drivers never would even think they have an impairment. Why would it occur to them? They are otherwise mostly "law-abiding" persons, but they just don't know any better. New laws and publicity and enforcement will educate them and help to change their behaviour.
This is similar to seat belt laws. Without laws and enforcement and publicity, many drivers would still not be using seat belts. When people just don't know any better, something had to be done to help protect them and also to help reduce medical insurance costs and lessen impact on hospital and other medical services.
In spite of publicity and seat belt laws, there are probably still some drivers out there that won't use the belts because they claim they don't want to be trapped in their vehicle in case of an accident/crash.
I agree with that 100%. I could stop by a bar on the way home from work and have a beer or I could drink it in the car. I see absolutely no difference in terms of the negative impact this might have on society. If you can explain to me how one is more dangerous than the other I'd like to hear it. As far as passengers drinking I've never been able to figure that out. Can't a passenger in a limo drink? BTW, if a 180 lb man drinks 1 beer he will have a BAC of approximately .02%, well below the legal limit.
Why should government run our personal lives in our vehicles. We should have freedom to do what we want in our vehicles as long as we hurt no one. Isn't it a private matter and personal choice? Why has government intruded with these pesky laws inhibiting our freedoms and liberty.
I suspect that you're being facetious but again I agree with this 100%. The key is as long as you're not hurting anyone.
That is not the way our judicial system works. But in that vein, cell phone driving is not distracted driving, imo, certainly no more than watching a DVD or driving drunk. I do not believe all violations can be lumped into one law that is at 100,000 feet called "bad driving" or "illegal driving". The reason for the different laws is so stop abuses at the court for the meting of justice.
By your logic, the judical system could lump all motor vehicle violations into one law called the bad driving act. DUIs, failure to yield, tailgating etc, all forms of distracted behavior would be lumped in here. The maximum penalty is $10,000 fine and 5 years jail time. How would you feel if you got a ticket for failure to signal and wound up by being fined $10,000. Don't think it will happen? That's exactly what will happen if the laws and penalities weren't specific enough.
So, if four 21-year old guys, each weighing 180-200 pounds are out on a Friday night driving around/crusing in a car/suv, should be OK to have a cooler with 2-six packs in vehicle as long as each guy "responsibly" drinks only 3 beers. That puts each guy at 0.06. Again, why is government so intrusive about having an "open liquour" law? Can't a guy do what he wants in his or buddie's vehicle on a Friday night? And, also each guy is responsible to society by putting empties in a paper bag in the car (not throwing out window).
I suspect that you're being facetious but again I agree with this 100%. The key is as long as you're not hurting anyone.
Or, to preclude possibility of hurting someone.
That's changing too (link), and city buses in some places (Europe anyway) already have seatbelts (I think school kids there commonly ride city buses and not dedicate school buses). Don't see people using them, but they are available.
Lots of tax dollars has been spent educating people about skin cancers, gravity sport dangers, helmet law enforcement, etc. People do get fined in some places for rock climbing accidents btw (or charged for the cost of rescues).
But like you say, it's hard to say how much worse (or better?) the tax burden would be if everything was laissez faire.
WHAT????? I keep getting blasted with information from a database saying injuries and fatalities in auto collisions are declining in spite of all these vehicle miles traveled...how do you think that happens? People just suddenly learned to drive better?
Airbags work much better when the object they are trying to protect is where they think it is. If the person bounced out of the seat and is hovering on the roof, the side airbags aren't going to help a whole lot, etc.
School buses are designed on the egg create principle. The seat back is impact absorbing and they are designed to catch and deflect children. Most buses wouldn't have just seatbelts, they would need child seats because most of their ridership is under the height/weight requirements for a typical seat.
Why No Safety Belts?
"On school buses, occupant protection is provided by "compartmentalization," not safety belts. Compartmentalization is the name for the protective envelope created by strong, closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing high seat backs that protect occupants in the event of a crash.
School buses also have other features that contribute to the high level of safety they provide each occupant. Features such as emergency exits, roof structure, fuel systems, and body joint strength make the bus stronger, larger, heavier, and safer than most other vehicles on the road today."
On average, 9 kids a year die on board in school bus related crashes and its debatable if the seat belts would've prevented this type of injury.
That is the sole purpose, just a bonus, and while I am not a fan of frivolous lawsuits, if someone is negligent and "adversely impacts" my life, the easier it is for me to seek compensation from that party, the better.
There will be no evidence that these laws accomplished anything but we will have now gone from having a zillion laws to having a zillion and one laws.
Are you concerned we will run out of paper?
Of the 9 fatalities on average per year, there is no data that shows that a seatbelt would actually help in these circumstances.
Again, this is what the public defines as acceptable vs unacceptable risk. For my kid, I would drug/criminal check the driver, close all the roads on the bus's route to the general public, and have a police escort. At this point, they pretty much only do this for the president and he hasn't yet achieved that position, so I will have to content myself that school buses are one of the safest methods of travel on the road today.
I missed something with the slippery seat comment though, were you talking about the vinyl seats on school buses?
Right - good points about the various kid sizes, but if they slide off that vinyl seat in a wreck, they are no longer compartmentalized.
I think they are pretty much expected to slide off the seat, its the seatback of the seat in front of them that keeps them compartmentalized.
At least they can call Mom and Dad from their cell phone on the wrecked bus.
But to get back on topic. What I object to is passing a law simply because we don't enforce the laws we already have. And if the additional law is even harder to enforce than the law it supplements or will what chance does that law have of being enforced? We aren't telling people cell phone use is bad. We aren't saying cell phones use is distracting in these new laws. We are saying using a hand held device is distracting, period. Even to indicate that the message will transfer itself to hands free phones is wishful thinking at best. what the law is telling people is quite simple, if people can see you are on the phone it is against the law. If they can't tell you are on the phone it is not against the law. This is nothing like a DUI law, and by the way DUI has been expanded to cover other substances that can be tested for, at least in my state.
So looking simply at the law that would effect me. In California sometime in 2008 I will no longer be able to hold my hand to my ear but I will still be able to make and receive calls in my car as long as I have an ear bud or Bluetooth or a quality speaker phone? If I am just too lazy or don't care or realize that the chances of getting caught are pretty slim that a officer can see me then I might get pulled over and fined $20.00? The only message I can see in that law is don't put your hand to your ear. If you were a Nextel customer your phone would never have to be near your ear in the first place. Onstar uses cell phone technology as I am sure more systems will be offered like onstar. So there is no message being sent about cell phones that will educate people that they are a distraction. The only thing it is telling us is that after 2008 you could get pulled over for having an ear ache because an officer thought you might be talking on the phone.
I know this sounds a bit silly but the issue has gotten silly. Step back a bit and see what these laws do as opposed to what some hope or wish they would do. Cell phone bans are more like spitting in the wind.
This topic has come up before on other threads. There was a poster that seemed knowledgeable who said that airbags were designed based upon the premise that the driver and/or passenger was not wearing their seatbelt.
Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly that wearing a seatbelt is a wise move and I always do it. It seems that we are increasingly passing legislation designed to protect people from themselves. I think it's a futile effort. There is such a thing as natural selection.
I'd be laughing if:
1. I wasn't witness to an accident caused by a Jaguar driver that caused an accident because the phone was in use, and
2. Over the last several weeks, executed avoidance maneuvers from idiots using cell phones.
So yeah, this has gotten real silly.
Okay, do you think that these violations can be lumped into 1,000 laws? I don't know this for sure but I suspect we have at least that many driving laws already on the books. Let's try to consolidate a little.
Yes if they all responsibly drank 3 beer each then none of them would be above the legal limit. I could personally care less about whether or not the passengers drank responsibly. Now if the driver decided to pound 8 of those beers he would be way above the legal limit and we do have laws that cover that.
Airbags are optimized for a seated belted occupant that is exactly where the airbag thinks it is (hence all the seat mounted sensors in newer vehicles). Mercedes' "Pre-Safe" even moves the seats to better position the occupants for airbag deployment in the event of a collision. Todays airbags have multi-stage deployments, it knows if an occupant is belted or not (or at least if there is something heavy and unrestrained on the seat), and can discharge accordingly.
There is also some type of feeling that the airbag is a soft pillow that catches and protects the occupants while cradling them. An airbag is more like a burlap sack exploding in one's face at several hundred miles/hour. Being belted and at least 10" from the wheel supposedly greatly reduces the chance of injury (beyond minor burns) from the airbag.
Which is more than you have found. If you put yourself in the camp that claims cell phone use is making the roads more dangerous, you need to produce evidence supporting this, and it will take more than a researcher's opinion to counteract trends in fatalities, injuries and crashes over the years. Especially when there is strong evidence that goes against your theory, given the number of cell phones in use today.
lilengineerboy: Reported crashes
And, as shown under state laws, if there is a fatality, injury or a certain amount of property damage, it must be reported.
lilengineerboy: Your thesis is "this one study indicates fewer collisions/injuries/fatalities so cell phones must not be bad"
Please read more carefully. This wasn't a study. It was the annual report by NHTSA.
I said before: If something is proclaimed to be a hazard, there must be proof that it is actually a hazard, before we use scarce law enforcement resources to enforce any law that either bans or seriously limit it. So far, no proof has been forthcoming.
Oh, its a terrible law. It was pushed through by lobbying from cell phone manufacturers and someone with little understanding of cognition who was in too many terminator movies. Laws like that make me agree with Grbeck and TPE.
Yes, it has. There are a large number of studies that show that driving performance is degraded while (and shortly after) drivers use cell phones. They have been listed here and discussed ad nauseum.
You are citing one reference at 10000 feet that says for everything in the United States going on overall mixed together, fatalities and injuries fell.
Other than the safety of my family, I really have no vested interest in the outcome, I get paid either way
That sentence needs to be rewritten to be accurate:
"What I am not a fan of is any numbers that prove incorrect the point I am trying to prove."
There, now it's accurate.
If anyone is frantically trying to twist or ignore statistics on this thread, it is you.
kshapiro: If the NHTSA can't make the determination with any certainty about cell phone usage with their PHDs and scientists, how are we going to? One way or another.
Except that throughout this discussion YOU have been arguing that cell phone use is bad, and, advocated that their use while driving be banned, even though you now admit that NHTSA can't make a determination on their effect on traffic safety.
And, for the record, no one is arguing that cell phone use makes roads SAFER. We are merely saying that there is no proof, as of today, that they have made the roads more dangerous.
Oh yeah, the quaint old-fashioned notion of personal responsibility :P Seems like fewer and fewer people believe in that anymore
I find it hard to argue with the logic that it makes no difference where the alcohol was consumed but rather the amount that was consumed that matters. Heck it wasn't THAT long ago that it was still legal to have an open container!
Maybe one day enough people will become disgusted enough with our overly litigious society that they'll vote the Libertarians into national office :surprise:
-Frank
Maybe this will be similar to cigarette smoking bans. Years ago, smokers could light up anywhere. They said they had a right to smoke, no matter that they were poisoning their lungs and the lungs of an "innocent" nearby non-smoker.
There is an analogy to drivers using cell phone saying they have a right to do so. They fail to realize they are on "public" roads shared by others - many others who object to their safety being diminished by impaired cell phone drivers.
With smoking first came bans within the workspace. Smokers had to go outside. Now, some companies won't even allow that on or near their property. Then came smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. Finally, in my state, next Jan, total ban on smoking in public places. Smokers can still do so in their own houses, or in back yard if spouse objects. As an aside, it is conceivable that there will be laws against one or both parents smoking in their house if they have children, especially toddlers. There is evidence of very harmful effects on toddlers from smoking parents. Perhaps violation of law will be termed a type of "child abuse".
So, similarly with cell phone bans. It started with the hands-free only laws, but it will not end there. Next step will be total ban to use while driving and "hands-free" term will be tossed into scrap bin just like "buggy whip".
And none of them have shown that those degredation of driving skills have resulted in more deaths, injuries or fatalities.
lilengineerboy: You are citing one reference at 10000 feet that says for everything in the United States going on overall mixed together, fatalities and injuries fell.
And since "everything in the United States going on overall mixed together" includes dramatically increased cell phone use, we note that it has apparently had no negative effect on highway safety.
Cell phone use exploded well after air bags and anti-lock brakes became common (they have been common for well over a decade), so that tends to cast doubts on improved safety equipment is masking the effects of cell phone use.
Most safety devices are passive in nature, so they don't prevent the crash from happening in the first place. And we have replaced large numbers of passenger cars with lumbering SUVs over the past decade, which are hardly an improvement in handling and braking.
Yet crashes are still down.
lilengineerboy: Other than the safety of my family, I really have no vested interest in the outcome, I get paid either way
My only vested interest is making sure our laws actually address real problems. If Officers Poncherello and Baker are pulling over someone for cell phone use while driving, that is taking them away from other duties.
Ok, now let me try to rewrite your sentence.
I don't fully understand how to perform this type analysis or the numbers so what I wrote as educated opinions may just an opinion.
"If anyone is frantically trying to twist or ignore statistics on this thread, it is you."
I think not.
"Except that throughout this discussion YOU have been arguing that cell phone use is bad, and, advocated that their use while driving be banned, even though you now admit that NHTSA can't make a determination on their effect on traffic safety."
Now you got it.
"And, for the record, no one is arguing that cell phone use makes roads SAFER. We are merely saying that there is no proof, as of today, that they have made the roads more dangerous."
You keep missing the point. We've been down this road before. There is enough evidence all over the world, such that 48 countries or so have enacted legislation regarding hand held cell phone use. I don't have to prove anything. It's already been proven to certain lawmakers.
I'm sure you've answered this before but refresh my memory. Do you actually believe that hands free cell phones are safer than hand held cell phones?