Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

snapcracklepop

I generally agree with you, that driving while on a cell phone is just another distraction. It is against the law in DC, unless you use a hands-free device. While this may not be 100% better, at least you are able to have both hands on the wheel.

lilengineerboy

I generally agree with you, that driving while on a cell phone is just another distraction. It is against the law in DC, unless you use a hands-free device. While this may not be 100% better, at least you are able to have both hands on the wheel.

I also agree, that way the driver has the most risk of getting his inner arms burned by the airbag when he crashes with his hands on the wheel as opposed to having his eyes and brain on the driving task.

robertsmx

We are dumbing down our brains, while we let our cars park themselves, while we talk on the phone.

And I thought helping a friend solve a crossword puzzle over phone was an exercise fit for the brain even as one cruises down the boulevard. Parallel parking is such a trivial task.

Now that I think about it, I'm wondering why a guy in front stopped at a stop sign and stayed there (with no cross traffic) until I honked. He then turned right, and so did I. Only to find him again move over to the left lane (I've no clue why he wouldn't use middle or right lane), drive at 30 mph on a 40 mph street for the next quarter mile until I got to my left turn lane. Yes, he was busy conversing on the phone, perhaps working on his sudoku skills.

snapcracklepop

Yeah, I have had people in front of me like that too, but I have to admit, I have been one of those people before! Talking on the cell phone really does distract you... and it isn't fun to be on the road sometimes with people who dazing off into space!

xrunner2

But you make a good point about F-1, NASCAR and other racing. They do use cameras. But don't they use two way communication as well?

Yes they do. Would you equate the discipline, focus, training and experience of a Jeff Gordon, Helio Castroneves or Alonzo to be able to talk specifics about race car parmeters to their engineer/manager with the "casual driving attitude" of the average driver on US public roads?

xrunner2

Nice post. Great points.

Would like to see the term "multi-tasking" fade away as pertains to driving. There is no such process/procedure done by human brain. It could be replaced by a more accurate term such as management of "rapid volume serial tasks" or similar.

robertsmx

Exactly. Not only are these race drivers "trained", but they aren't chit-chatting. Everything they converse is about driving and the "happenings" around. And the happenings don't happen to be providing a cake/bbq recipe to a friend.

boaz47

So are you saying that training would make a difference? Like maybe with police officers?

kdshapiro

Yes, police officers should be more than trained, in fact over trained. The average person cannot be "trained" to drive safely and chit-chat at the same time. The brain simply does not function that way.

boaz47

"The average person cannot be "trained" to drive safely and chit-chat at the same time. The brain simply does not function that way."

Not even with a passenger in the car?

kdshapiro

Aren't we talking about the driver talking on a cell phone in this thread not talking to passengers. Obviously we don't know how many accidents are contributed to inattentiveness due to chit-chatting with passengers, but the premise of the thread is not that.

robertsmx

Its not just training, it is also what it is about. A race car driver is unlikely to be discussing recipe of a birthday cake, more likely everything pertaining to the race, track and the car itself.

Cops are just as likely to be distracted, but they should have proper training since it is a part of their job. OTOH, the rest of the folks on the road...

nippononly

a meeting today in which the meeting leader's daughter was hit head-on by a woman who was reaching back to sort out her two kids at the time of the accident - she drifted into oncoming traffic.

When will the legislation banning that be passed?

Luckily, everyone survived, but the daughter will live her life now with back problems, and had to be in physical therapy for more than 3 months.

Singling out the cell phones is just a chicken-poopy way for politicians to look like they are doing something for their constituents.

kdshapiro

It's a horrible thing. But my guess is the percentage of people who get into an accident reaching into the back to sort out the kids is rather low compared to people who cause issues on the road by using cell phones. Hence the need for legistlation.

While criminal charges may not be filed against the woman who caused the accident, some liability should be assigned through the civil court system.

ponderpoint

Don't even give it twenty years - Fixed camera sites on the sides of city expressways (traffic cameras have already aided in investigations), cameras in police cars (already arrived in some locales) and camera systems appearing in the high end luxury cars at first (probably) to aid in crime prevention.

The "Big Brother" scenario argued my many always lacks the point that cars exist almost exclusively in public areas while operating and ALL persons associated with that public area are required to operate with the safety of others in mind. Cars have the illusion of creating private space... right up to the point of impact. It would be nice to have a record of exactly what happened... the perfect witness in a PUBLIC place.

boaz47

Still don't we have to consider the legal aspects of a reasonable expectation of privacy and of course that pesky 5th amendment?

Changing our laws is a cumbersome thing while technology can change over night. Here in California Hand held Phones in vehicles will become illegal next year. It took several years to pass such a law and more than two years to start to enforce it. However hands free will still be acceptable and so many manufacturers are making cell phones standard in some cars. My friend just bought a brand new Denali and it has both On-Star and a navigation system with a built in cell phone. The navigation screen is about 6 inches by 6 inches and has a built in back up camera. And yes you can play with the nave system while the car is in motion. You can put it in GPS mode and zoom in and zoom out and scan left and scan right and change between screens. I know because he showed all of this to me while driving in Lake Arrowhead around winding mountain roads.

Makes a hand held ban seem a bit like spitting in the wind now doesn't it?

lilengineerboy

The navigation screen is about 6 inches by 6 inches and has a built in back up camera. And yes you can play with the nave system while the car is in motion. You can put it in GPS mode and zoom in and zoom out and scan left and scan right and change between screens.

I think the task they are worried about while driving is destination entry. So long as the task takes less than a certain amount of eyes-off-road time to select, there is no concern over it. If the driver deems it necessary to stare at the thing for hours on end, that isn't the device's fault (RE: Toyota hybrid screen).

kdshapiro

Your point is what? I can stare at my radios for hours at a time and hope I don't get into an accident. My prediction is GM will be sued at some point for this. The number of people staring at a Denali GPS is still light years behind number of people using cell phones.

boaz47

I am only pointing out how ludicrous it is to assume you have put a stake through the heart of distracted drivers by banning hand held cell phones. It does nothing and doubly nothing if the talking on the cell phone is still permitted with a hands free and if the conversation rather than the phone is the problem. The law was a simply waste of time.

boaz47

I knew what the origional concern was. But with voice dial you don't have to take your eyes off the road even with a hand held device. But with the screen on the Denali you can expand or contract the view on the screen and even move from left to right or up and down to see how far you are from your destination. Then you can switch between screens to other options that have printed instructions on that very same screen. All while in driving down the road. If taking your eyes off the road were such a big issue you would expect the people to pull out their soap box and actively campaign against CD changers where you have to read which CD you have and what song you wish to select, as on multipal CD changers. where is the attempted ban on iDrive systems on BMWs?

This whole argument was moot even before they banned hand held cell phones. Distracted drivers will find a way to be distracted. But then who is going to attack fast food or Coffee cups.

kdshapiro

"I am only pointing out how ludicrous it is to assume you have put a stake through the heart of distracted drivers by banning hand held cell phones"

The number one distraction on the road leads the pack, behind disciplining kids in the back seat, eating MacDonalds while reading the paper, using the Denali GPS...etc. Keep getting back to why Germany with it's safe roads makes it a crime to use a hand-held cell phone if the engine isn't off.

They obviously know or believe something a number of us don't. We should take a page from their books.

I'm introducing some legistlation to deal with disciplining kids in the back seat and using a Denali GPS. Can't have too many distracted driving laws. Oh please don't drink coffee in the car, in California it will soon be illegal.

Also, don't smoke in your car with the kids, it's already illegal in some juristrictions.

lilengineerboy

Just because there is more than one problem doesn't mean that problem shouldn't be handled.
Its illegal to smoke inside a public building in California. Is that the end of cancer? No. Does it help me breathe and not smell like an ash tray after I go bowling? Yes. Is it a viable start to addressing that issue? Yes.
Its illegal for a minor to ride a bicycle without a helmet in California. Is that the end of head injuries from cycling accidents? No. Is it a viable start to addressing that issue? Yes.
My car won't start. The gas tank is empty. I put gas in the tank. The car still wont start. Did I correct the whole problem? No. Did I fix an obvious limiting issue? Yes

boaz47

Lets see if cell phone use goes down. If hand held units were the problem at all or simply a visual target. Will banning hand held cell phones do anything? My guess is not. But I like your example. All you did was put gas in a car that won't run.

According to the studies addressed in this forum the phone wasn't the problem. Some have said the conversation was the problem. Then they decided it can't be the conversation because we have passengers that talk to us while we are driving. So it must be the fact that the person on the other end of the conversation can't help when a problem comes up because they can't see it. So it is the conversation by a person on the other end of the phone. Yet what does that have to do with hand held phones verses hands free phones? The answer is nothing. Hand held or hands free the conversation is the same. So the law addresses nothing the very studies the people here are quoting mention. So it is just like spitting in the wind. It doesn't address even the first part of the perceived problem. And it isn't likely it will with death rates per mile going down and cell phone use going up. Even if it is hands free cell phones.

lilengineerboy

According to the studies addressed in this forum the phone wasn't the problem. Some have said the conversation was the problem

I totally agree.

Then they decided it can't be the conversation because we have passengers that talk to us while we are driving. So it must be the fact that the person on the other end of the conversation can't help when a problem comes up because they can't see it.

More/less yeah, I think the issue is with moderating the driver workload.

Yet what does that have to do with hand held phones verses hands free phones? The answer is nothing.

Again I totally agree. I read your original question as "are cell phone laws a good idea," and not "does California's cell phone law make sense?" I think the answer to the first one is yes (through secondary enforcement, like I've mentioned before) and the answer to the second one is NO (it is propagated by cell phone manufacturers to sell more headsets).

So it is just like spitting in the wind. It doesn't address even the first part of the perceived problem. And it isn't likely it will with death rates per mile going down and cell phone use going up. Even if it is hands free cell phones.

I totally agree, the California law is totally and utterly lame.

boaz47

We agree then. The California does nothing and so it was a waste of time. It made some people feel good and that was it. we have laws that cover driving while distracted. As long as I have been driving that law covers such things as spilling coffee in you lap, reaching for a child to hit in the back seat and any number of other actions we take for granted while driving. If fault can be assigned then typically a ticket is written or payment is made for causing the accident. While injury accidents and deaths going down by even a few percent it is just hard to believe we need to add to a law that covers such things as driving distracted because of a cell phone. Cell phone use must have gone up as much as 1500 percent and yet there is no resulting increase in the percentage of accidents? Sounds like cell phone are just one distraction among many.

So yes, the California law was a waste of time and money.

lilengineerboy

We agree then. The California does nothing and so it was a waste of time. It made some people feel good and that was it. we have laws that cover driving while distracted.

Oh its worse than nothing. It gives people a false sense of security and it puts more money into the hands of the cell phone industry and their lobbyists because now people have to buy the hands free pieces that may or may not do anything.

As long as I have been driving that law covers such things as spilling coffee in you lap, reaching for a child to hit in the back seat and any number of other actions we take for granted while driving.

Some of those distractions are being covered by secondary enforcement laws in various states. If you are driving on a straight highway in good weather in light traffic, who am I to say you can't chat too. Sometimes driving just doesn't require a lot of attention.

Sounds like cell phone are just one distraction among many.

True, and having 99 distraction is still better than having 100.

kdshapiro

According to the studies addressed in this forum the phone wasn't the problem

Incorrect. Studies have shown holding a cell phone to your ears decreases the brain power necessary for driving. Even if it's "just a little", that margin may save your life.

Then they decided it can't be the conversation because we have passengers that talk to us while we are driving

Incorrect. A phenomenon called situational awareness is the difference between a cell phone call and talking to a passenger.

"Hand held or hands free the conversation is the same"

Incorrect.

Your interpertation of the results of the same studies that are available is clearly different than mine. And using Germany as an example, much different than theirs. Driver distriaction is a big problem, weaving, tailgating due to cell phones should be addressed with separate laws due to the high percentage of drivers using cell phones. The problem is the ripple effect these bad drivers create in heavy traffic.

The penalities should be upped in terms of fines...not points when a driver is ticketed for distrated driving owing to cell phone usage. Drivers caught texting while driving should be given the same treatment as a speeder exceeding the limit by 20 mph.

boaz47

Look to Germany for any social or moral direction. Still as Cell phone users increase they become more of a political force and eventually they will turn the heads of our politicians. Much like prohibition we have the power to overturn an unpopular law. I for one look forward to a time when all of the public can voice their opinion on this issue. As it is right now, I have a hands free that came with my upgrade so the California Law doesn't apply to my cell phone use. And even if I still had a hand held the 20 dollar fine is less than a parking ticket and doesn't count as a point against my drivers license. It will cost the state more in Police time to enforce it than the fine itself.

ponderpoint

"Still don't we have to consider the legal aspects of a reasonable expectation of privacy and of course that pesky 5th amendment?"

I think the 5th is still alive and well but some people get a little mixed up on the privacy issue because, once again, cars create that wonderful sense of seclusion as the sound system plays your favorite music, the automatic climate control keeps things cozy or cool... Don't kid yourself - this is an ILLUSION of privacy! The problem is that driving is the same as walking down the sidewalk.... You're NOT on private property and WILL be, at times, under scrutiny if you start doing things that affects others in a detrimental fashion.

An old lady "wobbles" in front of you as you progress towards the storefront on a public street and you have to literally hop a little sideways to avoid her. Do you flip her off and scream obscenities? I'm pretty sure that everyone in the immediate area would start assessing your mental state. So why does somebody do it while driving? Take it up a notch, now you're the one wobbling around because you're drunk and bowl over the old biddy on the sidewalk and break her hip - don't worry, the cops are on the way.

Enjoy the cars hi-fi, it's climate control, hell - even go ahead and have a "roadpop" or two for the long drive home (wouldn't recommend it), but please don't think for a minute that you're on some long winding PRIVATE road to wherever you're going..... geez.

Reasonable expectation of privacy - I completely agree, but an expectation of privacy while driving on Interstate 95 is laughable.... Bring on the cameras - PLEASE!

boaz47

Yes, but the courts will still have to assess what a reasonable expectation of privacy is. If you are in your car and only your best friend is with you there is no reason not to expect that any conversation you have is private. Therefore a car isn't allowed to be "bugged" without a court order. A open phone booth isn't allowed ot be tapped without a court order.

I know it is harder than simply saying you are in the public. Remember OJ shouting a declaration of guilt that was overheard while he was being interviewed in jail? While a guard was able to hear what he said it was not admissible because the court said, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I would think the same thing would apply with a Cell phone in your car. Without a court order it would be difficult for anyone to know if you were talking on your cell or simply listening. The fact that your cell phone is on and someone calls you would only prove you were receiving information but any outgoing transmission could easily be nothing more than white noise or even road noise.

It might be worth the court challenge if people would simply put a cell phone to their ear after removing the Chip. If you are cited it might be possible to claim false arrest or harassment. The proof in court could be a disabled cell phone.

But as someone pointed out in my state it has only increased blue tooth and other hands free options as well as in-car cell phones. The cell industry isn't crying the blues I am sure.

gagrice

Motorists caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving could be jailed for two years under tough new guidelines issued today by prosecutors.

Drivers who adjust sat-navs, tinker with MP3 music players such as iPods or send text messages at the wheel could also face prison sentences.

Prosecutions will be brought if by using the equipment a motorist is judged to have posed a danger to other drivers, such as causing another car to swerve.

Using a hand-held mobile while driving was outlawed in 2003, but it is estimated that half a million motorists flout the ban each day.

Existing guidelines restricted prosecutors to pursuing only a charge of careless driving, for which the maximum fine is £5,000 along with up to nine points on a motorist's licence.

But under the new rules, drivers could be charged with dangerous driving, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in jail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nmobile120.xml

fintail

England is such a ridiculous joke anymore...but I must admit, it is a sly distraction from their real problems.

Oh yeah, last night I got cut off by a guy who was clearly talking on a bluetooth headset...

gagrice

From my vantage point high above the maddening horde of little cars, cell phone usage is the biggest distraction. Jail may be overkill. As you say the UK & much of the EU is in dire straits.

xrunner2

It might be worth the court challenge if people would simply put a cell phone to their ear after removing the Chip. If you are cited it might be possible to claim false arrest or harassment. The proof in court could be a disabled cell phone.

What would be the point? If this were done in view of a pollice officer driving in a patrol car in an adjacent lane, perhaps this would be considered disorderly conduct. It was an act clearly intended to engage a police officer with some type of challenge. At minimum, assuming a ticket were given, maybe it was the driver holding a cell phone that was harassing a police officer.

fintail

I am not supporting endless yapping while driving, but jail time for it is insane, especially if not given equally to yelling at kids or eating or smoking etc while driving, and especially in light of rising valid crime and extremism in England. Not that I expect much more from the place, with their other repressive motoring laws - they haven't done much right since Victoria died, talk about a wasted fortune. The continent is a little better, but there's still more freedom on this side of the pond in most ways. Probably a better tangent for the politics forum.

robertsmx

Sometimes we don't learn unless we experience something bad. Do we? That said, it is funny you mention handheld versus handsfree. Couple of my friends use hands free devices when walking in the mall or doing groceries. It is while driving that those devices get some rest. :sick:

kdshapiro

Make the punishment fit the crime. Jail is not an equitable punishment for just yapping on the phone. However, if a crash with fatalities ensue and the courts determine distraction by cell phone usage was responsible, then jail time should be appropriate.

kdshapiro

"especially if not given equally to yelling at kids or eating or smoking etc "

At some point in my life I've some of these, and they are not the same distraction as on the cell phone. I can attest to it, because my wife is not tell me I'm driving differently or erratically. The car didn't go from lane to lane as I often see with people who are on the cell phone.

esteeze

... for not using some sort of hands-free device while talking on a phone while driving.

Headsets and speakerphone add-ons (using Bluetooth or wires) are too easily available for them to not be used by the majority of people. Yet, I still see many people holding cell phones up to their head while driving; something that really urks me...

fintail

I think it depends on the person. I once saw a woman rear end the car in front of her when tending to her kid in the back. Crunch!

kdshapiro

The word "tending" implies looking away from the road and concentrating on other things than driving. That's not the same as "talking". People who drive to the front while looking to the rear and get into an accident, don't get my sympathy.

fintail

I guess I don't see many people keeping attention forward when dealing with people to the side or behind. The same with minding to a cig or a drink.

kdshapiro

When I talk in the car, my face faces the road not turning my head to talk to passengers. That in my mind is dangerous.

fintail

Yep, that's the key, turning away from the windshield. I don't beleive it matters what activity is involved, it's the movement of the eyes and head. I am sure you and most people here try to look away as little as possible. Sadly, it seems people with any degree of situational awareness are becoming rarer.

p0926

Yet, I still see many people holding cell phones up to their head while driving; something that really urks me

Personally, I think (and several studies have determined) that driving and talking on a cel phone is dangerous. Period! But... since preventing it isn't realistic, I'd rather drivers not use a hands free device. At least that way it's easier to tell that you're dealing with a distracted driver and take proper defensive measures :P

-Frank

fintail

I believe as of Jan 1st, WA state will enact a law making it illegal to text while driving. Of course it is a fairly toothless secondary law - you can't be nabbed for the texting alone, but it can be added to another violation. I wonder if anyone will care.

robertsmx

Speaking of texting, I was following a guy going 40 mph in a 55 mph zone in his pickup in the left lane (of three lanes). I was expecting him to speed up but after realizing he wasn't going anywhere but texting someone as I could see his lit cell phone, I decided to overtake from the right (middle lane). And while I was overtaking him, he hit the median badly but recovered.

But that doesn't compare to this.

kdshapiro

Unfortunately the naysayers are going to turn around and do a web search on:

1. casualties due to inattentiveness by tending to kids in back
2 .casualties due to inattentiveness by changing the station
3. casualties due to inattentiveness by eating a burger and fries
4. casualties due to inattentiveness due to conversations with passengers

Somehow all of these activities are done in the same percentages as cell phone usage.

fintail

Funny, I love it when people hit curbs.

Last night I got behind a guy in one of those overcladded early 90s Grand Prix coupes, who was in the left lane of a 40mph zone going about 28-30. He was yapping on the phone. Rather than bother passing on the right, I just hit the brights a few times, and he moved over, and then slowed way down...but of course didn't pull over.

gagrice

That is when a Hummer one is handy. Push em in the ditch and drive on.