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
Yes. I'm talking true hands-free, not BT earpieces or wired headsets. I believe the act of dialing and holding the phone either with your hand or your head cocked 45 degrees for whatever reason, is an automatic distraction.
Interesting. Once again you tend to draw your own conclusions despite what data and studies indicate. Do you have a hands free system built into any of your vehicles?
"Once again you tend to draw your own conclusions despite what data and studies indicate"
First of all, who said I'm drawing my own conclusion? You, my friend are jumping to conclusions, which is why this conversation at times goes nowhere. How do you know I haven't polled my friends and associates and gotten their feedback on cell phone usage and all I'm doing is reporting the results.
Secondly, I don't need a hands-free, as I don't talk in the car. If I do talk in the car, it is with the car in park.
Thirdly, if you read the studies, the act of dialing, the act of holding, the act of talking all contribute to distractions, but not all contribute equally.
There were two non cell phone accidents in my small community this week that lend themselves to parts of this discussion. One was a small fire that disabled a car in a narrow stretch of highway 18 near my house. People complained that the disabled vehicle was left on the side of the road too long and was more than likely the cause of three other cars running into each other at the same site the vehicle was sitting. I guess we need a law that disabled vehicles need to be moved within the first thirty minutes of being disabled. There is no cell service at the site of the accident. The second accident was with a non cell using driver of a Tracker that drifted out of his lane to hit a school bus, yes friends a school bus, and caused the school bus to hit the side of the mountain. Neither had cell phones but I wouldn't propose a law "requiring" them to have one as some people suggest for the converse of that same situation.
Life is a risk. A good friend of mine was killed last year on a Motorcycle because he was leaning over too far and high centered the bike on the kickstand. I would propose a ban on motorcycles either. I am pretty sure we can find more statistics on motorcycle accidents and the related medical costs to society than we will ever find on cell phones. Yet in some cases we seem to understand acceptable risk.
All studies indicate the conversation is the biggest distraction. I'm not aware of any studies that assign much risk to holding the phone. Dialing is definitely a distraction, albeit short lived. However most phones have voice dialing and this wouldn't apply to answering calls.
You didn't quite answer my question. You said that you don't talk while you're driving. That's commendable. The question was, do any of your vehicles have built-in hands free cell phone capability?
What does it matter? The whole hands-free vs handheld debate is merely a clever smoke-screen created by the cell phone providers to divert attention from the fact that talking on the phone period causes a loss of cognitive awareness :P
-Frank
I absolutely agree. I am someone that thinks, with good judgment, it is possible to safely use a cell phone while driving. I make no distinction between hand held or hands free. I can't find any credible source that does make a distinction between the danger caused by hands free vs hand held. This is one of the things that surprises me about this thread. In terms of safety(deaths, injuries, et al), what does it matter whether its hand held or hands free?
Did you know that a car crash can occur in the blink of an eye. In the time it takes you dial the phone, you could be dead. In addition, the laws in some states require you cannot dial or answer a phone without taking your hand from the steering wheel. So voice dialing is in essence a violation unless you can press a button on the steering wheel.
To answer your question, I do not have a built-in optional handsfree integrated bluetooth/nav unit in my cars.
NB. The reputable studies clearly indicate the act of dialing, holding and talking all contribute to road distraction. Holding the phone and talking is worse than talking hands-free. But both are bad.
Wrong. If you want to kill yourself go ahead. I'm okay with that. If you are intent on killing me that is not acceptable risk to me.
As you like to define acceptable risk, is putting your newborn on the front-seat while driving. Right? After all there is a good probability the odds you will not be in an accident and won't hurt the baby, is probably less than what could happen if you were talking on the phone not paying attention and didn't see the truck, like those teenagers.
Go ahead, live for the moment, take off your seat belt, don't wear your helmet, tug on supermans cape or whatever, but don't drive obliviously next to me on the phone.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
The person who you are conversing with on the cell phone doesn't see the semi and is merrily chatting away. In fact, you, the driver, might not even be aware the semi is coming toward you in the same lane.
Yes we know how quickly an accident can happen. It takes the same blink of an eye that you might have blocking your view with a big gulp or a lifting a Starbucks to you mouth and tilting your head back slightly to take a drink. It takes no longer to touch the answer button on most hands free phones than it would to set your AC or CD player. In fact with most hands free units with blue tooth the automatic answer feature picks up by the third o forth ring without touching anything. Any State that has a law requiring you to keep both hands on the wheel all the time would be a state without AC, or manual shift cars.
From all of these posts can we gather that you have stopped using hands free units? You do not allow your family to talk while driving? You never allow eating in the vehicle but absolutely never will the driver eat or drink anything? No one will change a CD while the car is in motion? Your kids always follow your instructions? Forgive me if I am a bit in awe of that idea.
Is it also a correct assumption that you are saying you don't care if they can or do enforce these laws just so long as they have them?
Your trying to rationalize all distractions occur with the same frequency. They don't. At least in my area, the are few drivers eating lunch, but just look around to see the number merrily chatting away on cell phones.
"From all of these posts can we gather that you have stopped using hands free units?"
Yes, you can gather I don't talk on the phone except when stopped, with the car in park.
"No one will change a CD while the car is in motion? Your kids always follow your instructions? Forgive me if I am a bit in awe of that idea."
I have a 6 cd changer, never need to change while driving. Kids do not talk on phone or change cds while driving along with a number of other distracting things. Loss of driving priviledges would result and they are good kids who have seen some of their friends total their cars.
"Is it also a correct assumption that you are saying you don't care if they can or do enforce these laws just so long as they have them?"
What I said was how much enforcement can the police enforce simultaneously? Making the roads safe is just as important as terrorist patrol activities.
Are you of the opinion, if laws can't be enforced they should be removed from the books? If that is the case, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands laws necessary for civilized society would go away.
Yes. Recall seeing articles in newspapers concerning laws no longer needed that are finally removed. Think many go back to conditions, things, that society no longer faces such as horse and buggy use on roadways in vast majority of U.S. and in large cities and towns.
Understand that various laws still are needed in those communities of U.S., such as Amish, to regulate their horse and buggies and also to regulate vehicle encounters with horse/buggy traffic.
As conditions change and inventions come along and are put into use, law-abiding societies do have an obligation to respond with laws to protect citizens from the condition or use of the invention if these would compromise citizen safety.
Decades ago, no one would have predicted that a phone could be used in a car, much less that it would be a safety threat.
Decades ago, no one could have predicted a group of thugs would hijack and aircraft and crash them into a building.
Agreed that laws need to keep up with society.
If one is responsible enough to get a hands free device, they should be responsible enough to ensure that when they gulp down a big gulp, it is safe to do so. Besides, I don’t see much of an issue with handsfree. And I hope these handsfree people aren’t the ones also texting while driving.
Like I said earlier, people with coffee or whatever are unlikely to be taking a sip while turning, or exiting/merging onto freeway. But I don’t see cell phone drivers hanging up for those critical moments.
Agreed. Once in a while, I will get a Starbucks and drink some of it in the store or at a table outside. But, usually have an amount left over. Will finish it when stopped at intersections, or when arriving at parking lot of a store. In contrast, I frequently encounter drivers holding and talking on a phone and making turns at intersections.
Really? How is it that these people talking on cell phones are actually capable of staying on the road? You state the passenger has situational awareness but now seem to be stating that the driver does not.
Decades ago they did have CB radios. I don't see a big difference.
Agreed that laws need to keep up with society.
The relevance of this comment escapes me. Are you saying that we need laws against hijacking aircraft and crashing them into buildings? Obviously we do. However these hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and might not have been totally familiar with what is and isn't illegal in this country.
Yes, I do admit to drinking soda/coffee while driving. For the most part it is in the cupholders, as I usually sip at lights or while stuck in traffic. In contrast cell phones users never put it down. Again, you are trying to equate all distractions and diversions of attention as being equal. They are not. As steve point out, why are there laws against watching movies in the front seat?
"Do you see people eating a Big Mac while driving? "
Extremely rarely.
"Do you believe they put it down once they start?"
What do you believe?
"I doubt it and that has been a problem a lot longer than cell phones"
It's the frequency by percentage of drivers of cell phone usage vs Big Mac gulping.
Are you saying in Saudi Arabia crashing an airplane into a mosque is legal?
The relevance of the comment is the need for society to keep up with the times as in the expression, post-9/11 society.
Cell phones are just another example of the need to keep up with the times in certain areas.
There is. Have used both CB radio and phone while driving and phone conversation needs much more concentration such as discussing items with a client or customer. With CB, transmission, except for rambling talker trucker, for sender might be: "Got one rolling eastbound at the 56". Or, "Clean and green back to the 70". Or, "Westbound, what's it look like over your shoulder?". That is short and brief, not onging like a cell phone conversation.
Secretary of State in my state published a brochure about distracted driving and did not mention CB radio. There is a special paragraph highlighted in the brochure titled "Cell Phones" stating (do not yet have law in state that bans drivers using cell phones):
"Using a cell phone while driving increases your chance of getting into a crash by 400 percent. When dialing a phone number or engaging in intense conversation, you are not watching the road like you should. A "hands-free" apparatus is helpful, but it can't prevent you from becoming involved in a conversation and losing concentration. Your best defense is to pull off the road and stop in a safe place before using your phone."
That is 400 percent increase in chance of crash by cell phone user.
Decades ago they did have CB radios. I don't see a big difference.
So if there is no difference, why would anyone expect to see a change in crash statistics? :confuse:
Give me a break. It's so friggin' easy to prove. All you have to do is drive down streets with a camera photgraphing drivers. See how many people are talking vs eating a big mac.
"We have shown studies that do indicate that more people do eat or drink coffee while driving than use cell phones."
But again, this is not proven to cause an issue with driving in general as does cell phones. More people probably fiddle with the radio than use cell phones, but so what?
"But I don't remember any suggesting we need a law to cover this offense."
We don't, but we need one covering cell phones.
The premise of trying to make taking a sip of coffee equivalent to dialing, holding the phone to your ear and talking in-depth conversation for 15 minutes is laughable at best. If you really believe that taking a quick sip of coffee is the same amount of distraction as talking for a long period of time, I'm sure there is no more to say.
Where did that number come from? I've seen studies that state at any given time 6% of the drivers on the road are on cell phones. You couldn't possibly raise this many peoples likelihood of a crash by 400% without it being reflected in real world data.
A "hands-free" apparatus is helpful
Is that just a personal opinion? If not I'd like to see your source. That is certainly not the NHTSA's position.
That wouldn't be singling out cell phone drivers (alone). Besides, I didn't know there had to be a choice between a Big Mac or a cell phone. How about both? (and putting make up on as well). :P
Holding a phone to your ear induces another level of distraction, according to studies. While I'm not a fan of cell phone usage on the road, a hands-free according to studies is the least distracting.
That would only be a valid point if the level of usage of these devices had remained constant. The CB radio fad was fairly short lived and had already run it's course prior to cell phones coming on to the scene. And the number of people with cell phones presently is over 300 times what it was 20 years ago.
What studies? Provide a link. Every study that I've seen indicates that there is a neglible difference at best. Since we're talking about Big Macs it would be the equivalent of a dietician recommending that you order yours without lettuce in order to lose weight.
I'm not going to prove it to you. If that is that important to you and the topic, you want you can prove the opposite to the board, meaning there is no difference in driver distraction between hands-free and holding the phone to your ear. Either way, if it is that important, "prove it".
I found that study claiming a 400 increase in your likelihood of being in an accident. I believe it was conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway safety (IIHS). There methodology was to look at phone records for people involved in crashes and determine what percentage of these people were on the phone within 10 minutes of the crash. They now looked at these same people to determine what percentage of them were on the phone during this same period the prior week. Apparently the percentage was higher in the group that crashed. So they concluded this indicates a link between cell phone use and increased probability of a crash. It almost sounds reasonable.
Here's the main problem I have with this approach. While they may be able to determine whether or not these people were on the phone the previous week they can't determine whether they were driving. Driving definitely increases your chances of being in an automobile accident and driving also increases your likelihood of being on a cell phone. So the conclusion regarding increased risk is completely invalid.
I think that we'd all agree that the percentage of people on cell phones at an airport is extremely high. I think we also know that drink prices in an airport bar are also extremely high. We could use the same methodology to conclude that talking on a cell phone increases your risk of paying an exorbitant price for a drink.
Where did that number come from? I've seen studies that state at any given time 6% of the drivers on the road are on cell phones. You couldn't possibly raise this many peoples likelihood of a crash by 400% without it being reflected in real world data.
Must be legit. Published by the Secretary of State who has responsibility and accountability, unlike anonymous posters on this board. If it were not legit, then those with vested interest in selling cell phones and service minutes would have cause for legal action against Secretary for publishing false info.
Looks like poor attempt at application of statistics/probability.
I do not think the 6% is accurate today. The number would appear to much bigger. If only 6 out of 100 drivers were on the phone, I would be happy.
That means those 6 were around me and the other 94 drivers are keeping an eye on the 6.
TOP 10 THINGS WE DO BEHIND THE WHEEL
1. Adjust-change radio station or CD player: 82% 2. Drink beverage: 80% 3. Talk on cell phone: 73% 4. Eat snack: 68%5. Eat meal: 41%6. Daydream: 31% 7. Drive without shoes: 28%8. Experience road rage: 23% 9. Listen to books on tape/CD: 21% 10. Smoke: 21%Source: Survey of 1,200 drivers for Nationwide Mutual Insurance. Margin of error 4.5 percentage points
USA today 1-22-2007 And yes more people seem to be drinking coffee than talking on the phone despite what you think you see. So I wasn't kidding you. Even with a 4.5 percent margin of error people are still assessing the risk they take while driving when deciding driving doesn't take both hands on the wheel or 100 percent of their concentration. Looks like you will need at least 9 more laws on top of driving while distracted.
Again, the point that is being missed the amount of time on the diversion. I do admit I change my radio station often, but I don't even have to take my eyes off the road to do it. Not to mention the whole act takes about 3 seconds and I only do it when the road is clear. That is a substantial difference to a 15 minute phone conversation, that is dialed where the phone is held to your ear.
I cannot find a study that says radio changing or even nose picking amounts to the same distraction level cell phones. Both are distractions, associated with different levels of inattentivity to the road.
I "drink" coffee while driving, yet the cup only hits my lips about twice in a half an hour. That is how a lot of people drink coffee. You drink coffee when you have a coffee cup in the cup holder. But a typical coffee cup is not held to the lips for 15 minutes at time. So this study is one of the bogus one.
I'll bet you more people pick their nose then drink coffee. So what.
"Looks like you will need at least 9 more laws on top of driving while distracted."
Sorry, I fail to see your point. Maybe we also need a law against nose picking.
That's amazing. I guess if you had pointy ears like Mr. Spock you could potentially dial the phone with them. For most people they will just be mashing a bunch of buttons at the same time.
You refuse to let go of this belief that hand held devices are more dangerous. I can provide links to several studies that say otherwise. Would this be a waste of my time? I suspect it would because your opinions seem pretty rigid and not necessarily based upon any actual data.
Yes, I did, but I'll chance the 3 second risk with virtually no loss of concentration on the roads. I never said changing the radio station diverted the same amount concentration from driving as dialing the phone or engaging in a conversation.
I do believe you are attempting to prove every distraction is exactly the same. I don't think a reasonable person would believe that.
And I hope you are not claiming same.
Not my belief, shown in studies, even if the margin is slight there is a difference. At the very least holding the phone removes one hand from wheel. Cocking the head makes for an unnatural driving position, where imo, it makes it rough to really focus on driving.
"I can provide links to several studies that say otherwise"
Okay, you go and then I'll go.
Is distracted driving a problem? If so why are people picking this one specific distraction over others? How are you going to even get on the road next year when Microsoft has the successful launch of the dash mounted computer with windows CE in the BMW 7 series? If you read the article you will see that are making a deal with GM for dash mounted computers as well. Sun Micro systems plans to join in the dash mounted computer race as well.
Maybe life was simpler when we all had horses because they could be trained to go home with little or no imput from the distracted driver looking at the landscape around them. Today people are simply learning to use new technology and we are in that learning curve before it becomes common place.
As has been pointed out by some many before no one is saying cell phone use isn't distracting. What is being said is that the driver should be responsible for when they feel they can manage the distraction. Just like eating a meal or eating a snack or consuming a beverage is a choice in when one can manage the distraction. I have even read reports that indicate there are some attempts to address the issue of eating, drinking, smoking while driving because they are distraction. I wouldn't be in favor of any extra laws dealing with those distractions either. Would you?
Yes and so. You disagree. You believe can drive with only 50% of your brain or less focused on the road? 25% can be reading, 10% enjoying a Big Mac, 15% talking on the phone? And then you can still drive safely?
"Is distracted driving a problem?"
According to everyone yes.
"If so why are people picking this one specific distraction over others?"
Because a lot of people on cell phones drive as if they are drunk?
"How are you going to even get on the road next year when Microsoft has the successful launch of the dash mounted computer with windows CE in the BMW 7 series?"
You'll have to sign a disclaimer similiar to many NAV screens that reads in part: "The manufacturer shall be held harmless for damages or deaths resulting in preparing presentations, review spreadsheets and drafting proposals while driving" :confuse
"Today people are simply learning to use new technology and we are in that learning curve before it becomes common place."
Until you kill someone with some egregious action, you'll probably never get it. (Not that I have, but that is what I want to prevent)
It is a matter of assessing risk. You freely admit to adjusting the radio while driving so you freely admit to not concentrating 100 percent on driving at some point. You can't have it both ways.