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
How many fatalities and crashes due to failure to control vehicle? I'll bet ya' people who crash their cars due to inattention really wish they were paying attention.
That's a good point. My typical drive involves a stretch of road where the posted limit is 55 mph yet the speed of traffic is 65 mph. I think it's a reasonable assumption that most people have a strong desire to reach their destination safely. So why are they driving faster than the posted limit? Now there are times where adverse weather conditions cause people to actually drive considerably below this posted limit. Is it possible that drivers with an average amount of common sense are capable of determining for themselves what is and isn't safe?
Just couple of weeks ago, a guy driving a Wrangler decided to use inside shoulder on a freeway (in Irving, TX) to overtake but side swiped a Taurus on the left lane which then clipped an Explorer in the middle lane which flipped over a few times and killed the driver. Not sure if cell phone was involved anywhere but this shows that sometimes just one may be enough.
But speaking of accidents, how often do we see traffic slow down on the other side of a divided highway when there is a mess on one side? Quite often, right? Those rubber necks also represent typical drivers. And at least one accident that I witnessed about a year ago could be attributed to that. A person, driving in left lane decided to brake to take a peek on the other side of a freeway, and gets rear ended by another resulting in a chain reaction and a multi-car mess. Fortunately, I was two lanes over.
Even though most people slow down during heavy rain or whatever, it doesn’t really indicate prevalence of common sense on the road. They tend to do so, either after getting almost blinded by massive amount of water or having experienced a bit of hydroplaning or sliding around. That is why it is not unusual for me to get stuck in traffic jams in the evenings after a rain that happened a few days since the last.
Speaking of speed, I think it is wrong to assume that higher speed is worse than going slow. I tend to go slower when distracted, like talking to the passenger. When I drive fast, I’m more alert and focusing on the road.
It is, but many are not capable of doing so. One example of drivers' lack of capability is during snow or ice conditions. One can always find vehicles off the road, in ditches, in crashes, etc when drivers don't use sense and good judgement and exceed their own and/or vehicle's capabilities.
"Does he cause accidents"....That is an interesting question. And, the answer is emphatically No. It is the immature and impatient drivers in a hurry that lack judgement who might make poor decisions when they encounter this type of driver. "Angry"...Another sign of immaturity.
We all encounter senior people driving below the speed limit. I as others also encounter drivers who do not appear to be senior age that drive 5-10 under the limit.
I suppose what matters is the maturity of any driver to hold his/her emotions when encountering these slower drivers. Get around them in a safe manner.
Have to remember that "Speed Limit" means a limit and not necessarily the speed to drive. I will acknowledge that a driver is obviously responsible for constant awareness of traffic around them and should not interfere with flow. Rules of Road in my state say: "When minimum limits are not posted, drivers should not drive so much slower than the maximum limit that they interfere with the normal movement of traffic".
I live in an area of mostly 2-lane roads and every once in a while encounter a slow driver. Many of these appear to be senior age. I do not recall "ever" seeing one of them holding a cell phone to their ear.
I will gladly "handle" in a mature and compassionate way a slow senior driver, or non-senior for that matter, every day rather than drivers talking on cell phones. The slow drivers are much less of a threat to me and other family members who drive than are cell phone drivers.
Would guess though that there are federal or state laws that prohibit intercepting private conversations (not cell) of persons in a vehicle on a public road. But if not, we probably don't need a law anyway. Too many laws already.
Isn't Bluetooth intercept like an eavesdropper sitting behind two people in a train or bus and listening in? Or listening to the couple in the next booth at a restaurant? Or, pulling up to traffic light in summer with window open and listening to a couple in next car (window open) and listening to their conversation?
Perhaps road intercept of Bluetooth with certain equipment is premeditated whereas restaurant, train, bus, etc is incidental. But, roads are public spaces.
The point I was making about the slow driver was that some people are slow without a cell phone. It was in response to the example of the woman in the SUV.
Maybe the better question should be why have people targeted hand held units? Do the studies indicate they are any more distracting than hands free units?
Being slow and occupying the faster lanes is a nuisance whether it is due to cell phone or not. My example of the lady in SUV wasn’t exactly that of a slow driver. She was driving 50 mph on a 40 mph street and once on 55 mph street, she was still cruising at 50 mph. It was like being on cruise control disregarding the demands of different roads and speed limits.
Maybe the better question should be why have people targeted hand held units? Do the studies indicate they are any more distracting than hands free units?
Dump studies, use common sense. Cars are meant to be driven with both hands, three if you have manual transmission. I may not use both hands when cruising, but definitely while turning, changing lanes, merging onto highways and of course, to turn on/off the turn indicators. How exactly do you think a cell phone driver accomplishes all these, while driving? Perhaps that explains part of the reason why the lady just stayed on left lane
In my opinion, hand held units should be targeted due to the frequency relative to other types attention shifting behaviors. A cell phone user is fairly easy to spot, either the familiar head cocking or hand hold phone to the ear, driving erratically, moving outside the boundaries of the lanes. Doesn't seem to be tuned into driving. Sometimes not recognizing danger signals and then POW fender crusher; which I've seen.
That is why hand held units should be targeted. Talking on the cell phone is not a distraction, and I don't label it as such, it's an attention shifter.
All the studies I've seen acknowledge that the act of dialing is an additional distraction associated with a handheld cell phone. However the time involved is trivial compared to the time spent on the conversation. And, by all accounts, the distraction caused by the conversation is the same whether you are using a handheld or hands free unit. It makes sense. Why would simply putting your hand to your ear interfere with your driving ability. I know that I'll get criticized for this but I rarely drive with both hands on the wheel, that's what armrests are for. Whether my hand is on the armrest, or against my ear is irellevant. In fact sometimes I have my elbow propped on the edge of the window, which automatically results in my hand being next to my ear. I guarantee you that this does not represent a safety hazard.
The people that choose to ignore these studies and so vocally advocate the ban of handheld devices in favor of hands free probably use a hands free phone in their vehicle.
BTW, when I see someone driving below the speed limit they typically have a deathgrip with both hands on the wheel and their faces seem almost pressed against the windshield. They clearly have an elevated level of apprehension when it comes to their ability to safely operate a vehicle. If they don't have much confidence in their own driving skills then who am I to disagree with this self assessment. So in addition to the hazard they are creating by driving slower than the flow of traffic there are probably other factors present that make them an even greater hazard. I was driving behind one of these people a couple months ago. They were doing 30 mph in a 35 zone where the traffic typically runs at 40-45 mph. It was a little agravating because there were no suitable places to pass. Fortunately we were approaching a stop sign where I turn off. Interestingly this person in front of me maintained this steady 30 mph right through the stop sign and never appeared to be looking anywhere but straight ahead.
While most might use one hand for long stretches of time (I do too, the second hand is generally used for support at times), there are situations that require greater attention and both hands available to drive. Besides, how do you turn on the turn-indicator if you steer with one hand? I'm guessing you don't care for that stalk as much as you do for telephonic conversation. Then it might not matter. Also, do you still use one hand going down a circular ramp? Merging with the traffic as you accelerate...? When its raining? When conditions are icy? There are good reasons to have both hands available to drive. If you disagree, tell that to those who profess defensive driving techniques.
That said, I think cops should focus more on drivers who change lanes without indicating than for speeders going 10 mph over on open highway.
They don't know any better. All types should be targetted. As has been discussed here numerous times, the distraction is the "conversation" and not the signals/control that the brain sends to the hand to hold the phone to the ear. And, of course, initializing a call on hand-held is very distractful.
On listening in, recall that some politician in D.C. (was it Gingrich) had his cell conversations intercepted by a married couple that had targetted him. They got some kind of goods on him that caused him problems. The married couple were not prosecuted and were heros to some elments of the (kooky) media.
It's interesting different symptoms in different areas. In my area it's generally because the driver has attention shifted in favor of the cell phone and is not paying attention to driving. When they realize they are slowing down, they floor the car and then slam on their brakes.
Are amputees capable of operating a vehicle safely and defensively?
They need a properly equipped vehicle, but can have two hands on the wheel, which provides much better control than one hand.
Is that your opinion or a fact? Every state drivers manual I read, and I have read a few, tells us to keep our hands at 10 and 3, including defensive drivers courses I've taken. So I support your right to have your opinion, but it goes in contrast to everything I've read and seen about driving.
Does it mean you will crash if you steer with your knees, of course not. You don't need a lot of control unless you are in an emergency situation, where your mind and body are working together to prevent you from getting into a crash or worse.
Driving with one hand at all times is not a safe style, and definitely not when greater control is needed. You may not care but it goes back to the fundamentals of defensive driving. You did not answer some of my questions, so I will bring them up here again.
1. Do you use one hand when driving in rain/snow?
2. Do you still hold on to your cell phone when you drive in rain/snow?
For the California Highway Patrol, 10-2, 9-2 or 8-4 are all approved positions, and one police chief out there recommends 7-5 to really keep away from the airbags (link).
Then there's this guy: Triple amputee loses key to freedom: driving.
The question about holding onto my cell phone in the snow or rain is really about whether I would use my cell phone in these conditions because I assign no danger to the act of holding on to the phone. The answer is that if road conditions required a higher level of attention then I would not be using my cell phone. It is extremely rare for me to use my cell phone while driving anyway so this has probably never come up.
What kind of adaptive devices does a person with one arm need in order to get a license to drive? Maybe it's dependent on the state but I knew someone in So. Carolina that had one arm and I didn't notice any difference in his car. He did have an automatic transmission. Is that the adaptive device you are talking about?
Daylight savings time keeps getting in the way. :confuse
Terrible story about the amputee, all the way around. This is a case where the government should step in to help.
edit: I actually hold the wheel at 9:30 and 2:30. I don't think I meant 10 and 3, rather 10 and 2.
Studies show the act of holding a phone, however small, diverts attention from the road. That you assign no danger to this act gives me as much confidence, as someone who has a case of beer and thinks he/she is fit to drive.
Actually, driving performance studies and on-race-track studies say otherwise (hold on, I'm searching for the links). Its obviously foolish to drive with your knees, so I am not going to address that one (flat tire, pot-hole, dip in road, animal running out, etc) but even driving one handed shows a substancial reduction in vehicle control (try making a 90 degree right turn with your left hand). Driving with one hand is taking a risk, although the majority of the population feels its an acceptable one somehow.
The "look ma no hands" driving is different than the issues associated with driving using a hand held phone. Proponents of the law argue that physically holding the phone while using it makes it a visual/manual task which has greater cognitive loading and uses more sensory bandwidth than not holding the phone. Those opposed to such limitations argue that the distraction is based on the cognitive load of the conversation and it really doesn't matter if the driver is holding the phone or not.
Do you see the contradiction that I do? If you see no reduction in degree of attention, why would you not continue using cell phone under situation that requires greater attention?
And driving with one hand under rain/snow conditions is okay? How exactly do you define conditions that require greater attention? Let us start there.
PS. You can google search on adaptive devices for amputees that allow them to drive. Here is a link.
I don't think that I could make a 90 degree turn holding onto the wheel with both hands. Certainly not a sharp 90 degree turn. I suggest you try it.
I've never driven on a racetrack so I don't know how much effort is involved in steering. I don't think it's all that applicable to highway driving. I could make the point that Navy pilots land on aircraft carriers using only one hand on the stick. It seems that requires a high level of control but again it isn't applicable to normal highway driving.
Most vehicles that I've driven have an armrest on the driver's door and one in between the driver's and passenger's seat. I've never heard anyone make much of an issue about these even though if your using them its unlikely that hand is on the steering wheel.
No I don't see the contradiction. For me driving with one hand does not represent a distraction or a reduction in attention. I never said that using a cell phone did not represent a reduction in attention, in fact I've said the opposite. However it has nothing to do with having one hand on the wheel. So let's say I have a hands free unit that I'm talking on. I will still have one hand on the wheel because that's the way I drive. Now let's say that the driving environment changes and requires more of my attention. I will discontinue the cell phone conversation but feel no need to put my other hand on the wheel.
The rhetoric about acceptable risk, is just that. Until one actually kills someone because of diverted attention I would suspect most people won't know any better.
Well that's the crux of the whole issue isn't it. Defensive driving is about thinking to cause the least amount of damage and injuries to everyone on the road, even if that means protecting bad drivers from themselves. It involves putting your pride and macho in the back seat, which as you've indicated your right to do everything on the road but drive is for the taking.
"I think the efforts to try and legislate common sense and good judgement are futile and a complete waste of time and resources."
That is what I disagree about and continue to disagree.
"It's best to allow natural selection to take over."
Ahh now I understand. You are advocating we should all be allowed to carry guns and use the weapon in self defense thus preserving natural selection.
At least those of us who advocate some restraint and defensive driving now understand the mindset.
As far as everyone carrying guns goes that might not be such a bad idea. If given a choice between two societies, one where everyone carried a gun and one where only the criminals carried guns I think I might opt for the first choice. Sure there would initially be a lot more shootings but when the dust settled a pretty good weeding out process will have taken place.
Correct there are no guarantees in life. But our Lord helps those who help themselves. He even helps those whose mindset is bent on self-destruction.
Sure there would initially be a lot more shootings but when the dust settled a pretty good weeding out process will have taken place.
Sometimes that is my mindset, but then on the other hand there would be many, many more jails needed.
That's not only off topic but inappropriate, slightly offensive and absolute BS. People that help themselves are rightfully rewarded for their efforts. They can take full credit and don't need any magical outside help. People that choose not to help themselves should incur the consequences.
I don't believe it's inappropriate or offensive, and certainly you are under no obligation to reply. It's a figure of speech, meant to say that even the unlucky can get lucky.
The conversation clearly has degenerated.
I see guys (don't recall seeing women) driving with left hand apparently on wheel and right hand clearly visible stretched across the top of seat. They will especially be dangerous if they are talking on hands-free cell phone, which I can't discern. I try to get distance between me and them.
I also see guys driving apparently with right hand on wheel and left hand dangling out open window with cigarette. Not on interstates, but on slower stop and go suburban roads. If you can't see their right hand, maybe it is not on the wheel and they are actually using knees.
While driving and talking on cell with hands-free device with both hands on wheel is dangerous, talking on phone and driving with one hand just adds to the danger.
I wonder how many cell phone drivers toss away their cell phone while taking a turn, changing lanes or merging onto or off a highway. They don't. In most cases, they become the responsibility of defensive drivers, to watch out for some unusual activity on the road.
Another place inattentive/engaged drivers cause issues, sometimes without realizing is, while turning left at lights. In most cases, they fail to maintain their lane (if there is more than one lane turning) and usually end up in someone else's. Could it be due to use of only one hand to turn? Only ignorance? Inattentiveness?...
Even if you drive with just one hand, I hope with it comes the disclaimer "for most part". Because I do too, on open freeways (although my right hand generally rests at 5 o'clock position for added support).
Driving with one hand is anti-defensive driving technique regardless of the level of attention, but to be prepared for sudden loss of control (such as strong winds, hydroplaning or driving over a pothole etc).
1. I can drive one-handed with or without cellphones, therefore cell phones cannot be an issue.
2. Amputees drive one-handed, therefore cell phones cannot be an issue.
3. People will do what they want, therefore laws shouldn't be written since they can't be enforced.
4. Fatality rates are going down, therefore cell phones either don't have an effect or have a positive effect on fatalities.
5. People don't need cell phones to be distracted.
6. A moment of inattention tuning the radio can result in as much of a tragedy as cell phone usage, therefore wby do we need a separate law?
7. Police and pilots use the radio apparently without any issues, if they can do it, I can do it. Police radio and plane to tower communications are obviously the same nature as most cell phone calls.
Did I leave any out?
Cell phone drivers aren't the kind who would be: eating, putting make up on, conversing, driving lazily on the left lane disregarding traffic behind...
They only talk over the cell phone, rain or shine.
My wife and I had a discussion about this the other day while I was driving through heavy metropolitan traffic. We literally used the phrase "Single them out" with respect to drivers that seemed to be causing momentary interruptions in the flow of traffic.
Throughout the hour and a half drive, almost every vehicle that "jiggled" the ebb and flow of traffic was a cell phone user! There was a couple of drivers that were not observed using the cell to be fair, but one of them was an elderly lady that seemed to be quite terrified just to be on the expressway.
This was a real eye-opener for my wife, she despises cradle-to-grave legislation... "Life isn't fair and mundane nit-picking laws won't help" (her phrase).
After our informal straw-poll observations of the interstates, she conceded it may be time for laws on the books.
Chicago has law against driver using hand-held phone. Article in newspaper last Sunday said that Chicago Police issued 25,432 tickets over last 2 years for this violation. At least one city in US is showing some leadership and responsibility to improve safety.
Those caught fiddling with an MP3 music player or texting on a mobile at the wheel could also face the charge.
Those who kill while using a mobile phone will face 14 years behind bars under the charge of causing death by dangerous driving."
Drivers risk two years in jail for using their mobile phones
However, I'm not of the opinion to jail someone who didn't cause an accident or fatality. A healthy, revenue enhancing fine will be appropriate for drivers who use portable electronic devices in a manner inconsistent with the law.
However, if a portable electronic device user causes an accident or death while using said device in a manner inconsistent with the laws, a different scale of justice should be applied.
Jail time should never be given for non-fatality crashes. IMO.
The whole cell-phone-while-driving-is-my-God-given-right... Is an American thing. The rest of the world had no problem recognizing the obvious impaired nature of a cellphone using driver and squashed it.
We have dead text-messaging-teens in NY and STILL have motorists that claim they can handle a cell phone and a steering wheel at he same time.... It's just so sad and stupid.
I'm still waiting for that explosion in casualties as wireless market penetration maxes out.
It may already be here and you(we) don't know it, because there is no real base of granulalarity on deaths caused by inappropriate use of portable electronic devices.
UK using cell time for cell abusers is a good plan. Better than hanging for stealing as they have imposed in the past. I think we should have at least graduated fines for cell phone drivers. Start at $500 and double it each time. Plus points to increase their insurance. See how long mommy and daddy cover the fines for cell phone addicted teens.
ITRAD