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
People still refuse to buckle up. People eat and tend to kids and tend to their makeup while they drive. This will never stop.
UK is wasting publicly funded resorces, which it cannot afford to do. For a nation in decline, they are making a fine distracion.
Let's face it, cops can't be everywhere and public education goes a long way. But when education fails stupidity reigns supreme having the laws make a lot of sense.
It seems according to some, since the laws of physics can't be abridged all of the traffic laws should be abolished. Seems like that is balderdash to me.
Only the unjust laws need abolishment, as well as those who enact said laws.
Then why the waste of thousands of dollars per vehicle on crumple zones, airbags, ESP, VSC and CRAP? From the looks of the fatalities we have gained very little over the last 5 years for all the billions spent on dumbing down our vehicles.
I think you don't want to admit the truth. Car safety has saved a lot of lives. Distracted drivers have kept the kill ratio high. With Cell phones debatably the biggest distraction.
Given that cell phone use has increased dramatically over the last 10-15 years, one would expect that we would see either an increase in the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven or more accidents (if safety devices are preventing deaths, but accidents are still increasing due to driver distraction).
Which we have not.
As of this point, given their popularity, cell phones have not had a negative effect on accidents (which are down) or fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven (which is at a record low).
Here is a question: Would you be more comfortable having a person drive your kids around with or without him/her using a cell phone while driving?
Debatably. Indeed.
Personally, I see more danger from eating and drinking and smoking.
Which we have not.
Except we don't have data for non-tow away non-injury accidents.
As of this point, given their popularity, cell phones have not had a negative effect on accidents (which are down) or fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven (which is at a record low).
Actually, there is no way that claim can be made, correlation maybe, but not causation. It is a logistical error. It is entirely possible the gains of vehicle safety in the last 0-15 years (airbags, abs, stability control, etc) has offset the losses.
Also actual average vehicle speed is decreasing. this means more accidents are at lower speeds, and the speed differential between vehicles is lower.
Considering that we haven't seen a rise in either accidents or fatalities, common sense, not to mention the use of logical reasoning (which I highly recommend) would suggest that having police officers pulling over cell phone users is not the best use of law enforcement resources.
robertsmx: Here is a question: Would you be more comfortable having a person drive your kids around with or without him/her using a cell phone while driving?
Depends on the individual. There are some people I don't like to ride with even if they have both hands on the wheel and their eyes glued to the road.
The question was around an individual that you may be comfortable with. And it was regarding whether it makes a difference if this person uses cell phone at all times versus not, if he/she were driving your kids around. Pick one...
A: It will bother you more if this person likes to be on the cell phone while driving.
B: It won't matter to you, since you believe with cell phone on, he/she is just as safe a driver as without.
As I've explained before, accidents must be reported, even if the vehicles do not need to be towed away, at least in Pennsylvania.
Here is Section 3744 of Title 75 (Vehicles) of Pennslvania Consolidated Statutes:
"The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall give his name, address and the registration number of the vehicle he is driving, and shall upon request exhibit his driver's license and information relating to financial responsibility to any person injured in the accident or to the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the accident and shall give the information and upon request exhibit the license and information relating to financial responsibility to any police officer at the scene of the accident or who is investigating the accident and shall render to any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including the making of arrangements for the carrying of the injured person to a physician, surgeon or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary or if requested by the injured person." (emphasis added)
That looks to me as though the police are collecting information and accident reports on non-tow away, non-injury accidents (note the requirement to provide information to the police officers "investigating the accident" - which means that the officer wasn't there when the accident occurred to take the report).
Also note that there is nothing in the law that says the vehicle has to be towed away before a report needs to be filed.
If you have another interpretation, or can cite any law to the contrary, please share it with us.
lilengineerboy: Actually, there is no way that claim can be made, correlation maybe, but not causation. It is a logistical error. It is entirely possible the gains of vehicle safety in the last 0-15 years (airbags, abs, stability control, etc) has offset the losses.
We've been through this before - airbags do not prevent accidents. Accidents are still down. Second, anti-lock brakes and stability control have been around longer than widespread cell phone use, so if the widespread use of cell phones are having a negative effect, one would think that it would reverse any positive trends, or at least stop any improvement. Accidents are still down, and so are fatalities per 100 million miles traveled.
I never said that cell phones made the road safer. I merely said that there is no proof that they are making the roads more dangerous.
This hasn't stopped others from claiming that cell phone usage while driving is making the roads more dangerous, and therefore call for a ban based on that claim, even though there is no evidence to support THAT position.
The simple fact is that the roads are safer than ever, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled and accidents are down, and cell phone usage is at ever-increasing levels.
If anyone can show that cell phone usage is causing increased accidents or fatalities, I would entertain the thought of a ban, or at least severe restrictions. So far, however, no one has.
A: It will bother you more if this person likes to be on the cell phone while driving.
B: It won't matter to you, since you believe with cell phone on, he/she is just as safe a driver as without.
Robertsmx, we have a saying in my office - the first one who suggest we do something "for the good of the children" or tries to drag the kiddies into the debate - which is always done for the emotional repsonse as opposed to a response based on reasoning and logic - automatically loses, and gets ridiculed to boot.
You don't want that to happen to you, do you?
Each person has different traits and skills behind the wheel. A blanket answer is meaningless, and irrelevant to the real world.
There are some people it wouldn't bother me if they drove while talking on the cell phone. Others I wouldn't trust if they paid attention with both hands on the wheel and their eyes glued to the road. Cell phone use is a factor, but hardly the determining one, and my experience is that good drivers do not become bad ones just because they are talking on the cell phone.
If you want a simplistic answer, you'll need to look elsewhere. The real world is considerably more complicated.
The simple fact is that the roads are safer than ever, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled and accidents are down, and cell phone usage is at ever-increasing levels"
The roads are not safer than before. If the roads were safer the number of crashes and fatalities would have been going down dramatically and kept pace with new technologies, communication and ability to quickly move a patient to a hospital. The fact the fatalities are basically staying even is telling me even though cars are better, medical care is better, etc, people are doing things on the road which do not contribute to a safe driving experience. Maybe talking on the cell phone, for one.
You don't want that to happen to you, do you?
Each person has different traits and skills behind the wheel. A blanket answer is meaningless, and irrelevant to the real world.
Explain to me how exactly has "logic" transformed into emotion here? Isn't is logical for you to say that "no, it won't matter, my kids will be equally safe regardless".
Or, did I miss something? What dragged you into talking emotion?
Sounds like a government office where not a lot of useful work gets done. Our tax dollars at work.
You don't want that to happen to you, do you?
Each person has different traits and skills behind the wheel. A blanket answer is meaningless, and irrelevant to the real world.
There are some people it wouldn't bother me if they drove while talking on the cell phone. Others I wouldn't trust if they paid attention with both hands on the wheel and their eyes glued to the road. Cell phone use is a factor, but hardly the determining one, and my experience is that good drivers do not become bad ones just because they are talking on the cell phone.
If you want a simplistic answer, you'll need to look elsewhere. The real world is considerably more complicated.
Oh good grief what a bunch of hooey. But what great skill in going to such lengths to avoid a simple (yes simple) yes or no answer. I'd say someone has a bright future in the political arena :P
-Frank
LA CRESCENTA, Sept. 13, 2006 (KABC-TV) - The governor signed new restrictions for teen drivers in an effort to keep the most inexperienced drivers safer on the roads.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the legislation Thursday afternoon. The new law bans teens from driving with their cell phones and a few other devices while driving.
Accident statistics are consistently showing that teenage drivers are dangerous to themselves and others, so the governor signed a new law Thursday that attempts to keep a couple of high-tech gadgets out of the hands of young drivers.
"I think Bluetooth is fine," said high school student Trish Engle. "So many people have a hands-free cell phone right now, I think it's ridiculous to make them not able to use it anymore."
Maybe so, but the accidents are piling up because of teenage driver inattention. Thursday the governor signed SB33 into law. It makes it illegal for provisional drivers under 18 from using their cell phones, even hands-free or texting, while driving. The governor says that's already the law for his teenage daughter.
"I told my daughters, I get you the car, I'll get you the cell phone, but if I see you one time using both at the same time, both of them are gone. The car will be gone for a long time and the phone will be gone for a long time. You'll go to school with the bus," said Governor Schwarznegger.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5657121
Yep..... EXCEPT other countries whose stance on cell phones while driving is severe. The World Health Organization is still greatly alarmed that the United States has NOT kept up with the rest of the world with traffic safety (see past posts) - South Korea blew our doors off years ago with traffic safety. Pretty sad.
This is usually where somebody jumps in with that per million vehicle mile statistical mumbo-jumbo..... According to their logic - the space shuttle is an incredibly safe vehicle!
Hey, hold the launch, I gotta take this call.....
http://www.californianonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS01/7091- 40314
The governator should go a little farther. How about a law to ban a driver's use of cell phone, hand-held or hands-free, while a child or children are in the vehicle. Not only are these drivers endangering children, but they are setting a bad example. Drivers caught in the act would face severe penalties.
-Frank
Gadgetosity
There Ought To Be A Law
-Rocky
There is an Audi commercial making fun of the Japanese cars that park themselves. The Nissan product partially came out of some work done at UofM on how people park (it would seem that often times, its done by braille).
As far as the dumbing down of things, I think that was first an issue in commercial aircraft with autopilot features. Pilots get rusty with respect to responding to emergency situations and feeling what the plane is doing.
Good camera/capture technology is relatively cheap. Sams and Costco have 4-camera color/night capability systems with controller and dvr in the $400-500 dollar range for use on private residence or business. Adaption of this to vehicles could be profitable for both aftermarket suppliers as well as car manufacturers. A $400/500 carmera/dvr option in a car is a trivial amount of money compared to cost of average new car.
Many drivers doing stupid things on the road such as tailgating, agressive/intimidating tailgating on interstates, making threatening gestures and so on would alter their behaviour for the better if they knew there were possibilities that cars around them had cameras recording their actions.
An added benefit of cameras/dvr in a car is in the case of an accident/crash. If you had this and were innocent driver, the camera evidence would be useful in court for your case. Of course, idiot, immature and agressive drivers would not want to have cameras in their vehicles.
GM/Dephi Collision Avoidance
Same Deal
Its interesting to note that you seem opposed to legislation imposing penalties for distracted driving, but you are okay with a camera recording everything you do and say in the vehicle.
I think the collision avoidance attributes of cameras, as well as their ability to detect drowsy and distracted drivers is pretty key, but using them to spy on me in the car creeps me out.
Would agree that devices that would monitor drivers' eyes for drowsiness would be a great option on vehicles.
Not in favor of recording anything said by drivers, but would be in favor of video-only cameras looking forward, backward and on both sides of vehicle. Cameras have been used in racing cars to look forward, backward, toward driver, etc for many years. Check NASCAR, IRL, F1 as examples. Difference in civilian cars would be that video would be captured on dvr or similar device in car.
Seems this lawyer dad had just dropped his kiddies off at day care and was on his way to work when he thought it would be a good idea to watch some porn while driving in traffic. Sure enough, he smacked into the back of some car and was caught literly with his pants down.
I think he is still trying to explain that to his wife.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
There are some people who can chew gum and walk at the same time. I have no problem talking and driving, although I keep it to a minimum. I'm a truck driver and I talked to my wife while backing to a dock(no,no..not looking for some back patting). But I've seen members of both sexes who cannot handle talking and driving. Maybe there can be a special test for this "skill" and would become an endorsement on your drivers license?
But those are professional drivers in a setting that has little to do with driving on the road (unless you typically drive around the block to the left, perhaps
Tower of Terror
But then the video went on to say that if you do talk and drive, at least use a hands-free device. I was disappointed with this since it implies that hands-free devices are significantly safer. While it’s certainly true that the act of dialing takes your eyes off the road and holding the phone to your ear prevents you from having both hands on the wheel, the biggest danger from cell phones is the mental distraction that diverts your brain from focusing on driving. And this mental distraction occurs regardless of what type of phone you’re using.
So my question is How much more dangerous is using a regular cell phone versus using one equipped with a hands-free device? This is just a guess but I’d say that using a hands-free device reduces the overall risk by less than 10%.
So why all the attention on using hands-free devices? I think it’s just a clever (and well funded) smoke screen/marketing campaign by the cell phone industry to divert attention from the real issue that talking on the phone while driving is DANGEROUS! The industry’s motivation is obvious, if a total ban on talking while driving was implemented, it would clearly be bad for business. Instead, by focusing the issue on using hands-free devices, they reap the added benefit of getting to sell more cell phone accessories!
Plus you’ve got millions upon millions of cell phone users who don’t want to give up the convenience of talking while driving (just like the millions of addicted smokers who don’t want to quit) or deny that talking on the phone is a distraction (just like an intoxicated driver doesn’t realize that he’s impaired)
Cynical? You bet! But then look at how hard both the alcohol and tobacco industries fought to first deny then minimize the dangers of their products.
I don’t know that enacting cell phone bans is the answer either as they really aren’t enforceable. However, it would be nice to see the cell phone industry follow in the steps of the beer industry and run public service ads pointing out the dangers of DWT (driving while talking) with phases like “Talk responsibly”, “Don’t talk and drive” etc. Acknowledgement and awareness of the problem would be big first steps in reducing the risk.
-Frank
Not according to some here.