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
Trying to mask a problem with another isn't exactly a great idea, or is it?
It is quite simple. If some people can manage to eat and drink coffee without getting into an accident we assume there is no special need for a law against fast food. What possible difference can a hand held unit have over a hands free unit and a cup of starbucks coffee? Yet one is legal and one isn't.
Certainly if someone is killed due to a driver being distracted for whatever reason, you would hope that the existing laws would be sufficient to convict him/her. However, that is not always the case.
I can think of several cases right off the bat where the driver was not prosecuted even though his/her actions resulted in the death of an innocent bystander. For instance: when the accident was the result of the driver swerving off the road while reaching for something that fell on the floor of the passenger seat.
So here’s where I think laws banning cell phones while driving could serve a useful purpose:
a. They make the driving public aware that this particular act is indeed dangerous
b. They provide a means to convict someone who knowingly disregards them and ends up killing someone
-Frank
Your examples of a distracted driver you can think of already not being convicted shows the law itself won't change anything. Suppose they had a law against picking something up off of the floor besides being distracted. Would that have changed the results of the very same attempted convictions? No it wouldn't. The studies the anti cell phone people have posted in this very forum indicate there is no difference between the distraction of a hand held cell and a hands free cell. Why then select one over the other? And with death and injury rates decreasing for auto accidents while cell phone use is increasing geometrically it is a hard sell to prove distracted driving is any percentage worse. At least not from a "proof" stand point. Is it distracting, more than likely. Is it increasing accidents? Doesn't seem to be.
There are still no solid metrics on the implications of cell phone usage in accidents. Just like a driver legally under the influence might not result in an accident or fatality the same holds true with cell phones. Yet there is enough proof to show the detrimental effects of usage of hand held devices while driving.
Don't need to prove using them causes accidents, only need to prove reduced focus to the road.
If that is all it takes you could get a law passed against short skirts and windy days. If there is no increase in injuries or deaths and there is a great increase in cell phone use something isn't "proving" the distraction is causing more accidents nor more serious accidents. So it is knee jerk legislation at best. And remember your own studies indicated the conversation on either type of cell phone was equal. What makes one so dangerous and the other perfectly safe? Getting back to the point, why pick on one and not the other?
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - If you're late for work, a driver using a cell phone may be to blame. U.S. researchers said on Wednesday that people who use cell phones while behind the wheel impede the flow of traffic, clog highways and extend commute times.
"It's a bit like breaking wind in the elevator. Everyone suffers," Peter Martin of the University of Utah's Traffic Lab said in a telephone interview.
Prior studies have equated the risk of driving while talking on a cell phone with driving while drunk. Some 50 countries have banned use of hand-held phones while driving.
The drivers used a hands-free phone during half their trips and no phone in the other half. They were told to obey posted speed limits and use turn signals but the rest of the driving decisions were up to them.
What they found is that when the drivers were distracted by a phone conversation, they made fewer lane changes, drove slower and took longer to get where they are going.
Ban Cell Phones
You are mixing apples and oranges here. It's true that there is no proof that cell phone usage has caused increases in accidents. We've been through this before, and I'm glad that you are finally understanding this.
If anything, fatality rates per 100 million miles driven (we've been through this before - this is the only true measure of highway safety) are lower than ever, even with increased cell phone usage. Again, we've been through this before, and I can explain it to you further if need be.
But to then say that it's okay to ban them because, "Just like a driver legally under the influence might not result in an accident or fatality the same holds true with cell phones" - well, you run off the rails right there.
There are definite, measurable statistics on how many traffic fatalities are linked to drunk driving, and its costs on society. We also have a definite, quanitifiable, legal standard that can measure the rate of person's intoxication - blood alcohol content.
It's best to understand the nation's drunk driving laws, how they work and what is sought in their passage and enforcement before commenting on them, let alone using them as the basis to enact bans on other activities.
kdshapiro: Yet there is enough proof to show the detrimental effects of usage of hand held devices while driving.
You need to pass this two-question quiz to prove this statement correct:
1. I have a credible citation proving that cell phone usage is increasing both traffic accidents and fatalities and it can be found HERE (with citation provided).
2. If said citation does not include impartial statistics collected by a government agency that specifically cites cell phone usage as the root cause of the accident, then the absence must be explained in an essay of 200 words or less.
No. You still don't understand. Without sold statistics no conclusions can be drawn.
If anything, fatality rates per 100 million miles driven (we've been through this before - this is the only true measure of highway safety) are lower than ever, even with increased cell phone usage. Again, we've been through this before, and I can explain it to you further if need be.
If you explained it you would be making up your own explanation without any factual basis. Without metrics there is no proof either way.
You need to pass this two-question quiz to prove this statement correct
Don't need to do either, just need to prove reduced focus to driving, which has been demonstrated in multiple studies. Let me repeat..there is one study which showed focus to driving was reduced to legally intoxicated levels. That proof is good enough for me to accept these laws are on the right track.
I think I'll pass on supported this law.
If there is no increase in injuries or deaths and there is a great increase in cell phone use something isn't "proving" the distraction is causing more accidents nor more serious accidents. So it is knee jerk legislation at best. And remember your own studies indicated the conversation on either type of cell phone was equal. What makes one so dangerous and the other perfectly safe? Getting back to the point, why pick on one and not the other?
Incorrect:
1) There are no metrics to prove either way.
2) It has been shown holding the device to your ear occurs a slight penality in ability to concentrate on driving above and beyond a hands-free device. Not to mention the inablity to move your body freely to review road conditions.
Oh sure, I understand that - Even a conversation on a sidewalk while walking with a friend I would consider private.... I'm just addressing outright behavior of engaging another "citizen" in an aggressive manner because they got in the way while walking down the sidewalk, or, driving down Interstate 95. It's NOT a function of privacy, you are now held to scrutiny of the greater public around you.
Popping open liquor shorts while driving home from work - that IS an aggressive malfeasance and you are under scrutiny in a public place. After the cop states "observed suspect drinking out of what appeared to be a liquor bottle/short" and then you stating that you had a right to do this because you were in the privacy of your car is ridiculous, the Judge will fall off the bench laughing (as well as the jurors probably). It appears to be sublime/private activity but is definitely not.... Same as text messaging?... We'll see, either by witness or camera.
I think you will find text messaging/cell phone use are rapidly approaching the definition of engaging the public in an aggressive/detrimental manner but yet, appears sublime..... We'll see.
The one state that does allow an officer to list or cite a driver with distracted driving during an accident also allows that same officer to list Cell phone as a contributing factor. The reports to date indicate those officers have only listed cell phones .2 percent of the time. Seems like people in Florida must have a different cause for distractions.
Because sane people are driving and not talking and are able to avoid collisions that could be caused by cell phone distractions, such as tailgating, wandering, inconsisent driving and the like. I myself have saved the butts of these stupid drivers at least 5 times in the last few months because I was paying attention to the road.
Because you're overly simplifying the problem and trying to selectively use only those statistics that support your position :P Several studies have now shown that cell phones are a distraction (and there will be many more to come).
Personally, I would think that common sense alone would be enough to convince someone with an open mind. Anyone who doesn't honestly think that they're impaired when driving and talking on the phone is either blissfully unaware or delusional :shades:
-Frank
P.S. It also took a long to time convince the people that the earth wasn't flat
Well since we have re-hashed this discussion like 4x since July, I thought I would just refer things back there:
July Discussion on why this is an invalid assumption
The nice thing is the comments are getting so consistent, they don't even require new arguments. What is also interesting is the same arguments are brought up by the same people after being previously dismissed. I think some people are playing devils advocate.
The question is and has been should cell phone users be singled out and while I don't contest the distraction the numbers simply don't support the specific law. Even drunk driving laws are not zero tolerance. There is some drinking and driving allowed, up to .08. The contentious part of this whole law is either the conversation on the cell phone is the distraction or it isn't. If the conversation is the distraction what difference does it make if the receiver is held to someones ear or if a ear clip is used? In fact if the conversation is the problem what difference does it make if the sound is coming from a speaker in you door or dash? And the two hands on the wheel argument doesn't wash because half of the people we see driving to work every morning only have one hand on the wheel anyway. Next someone will try to ban cup holders because it encourages one handed driving.
You do know a parking ticket is more serious in California? It cost more and is easier to prove.
Yep... It's like other drivers are "absorbing" the ripples. Sooner or later there won't be any more absorption. The other day (Jan 3rd) We were going through Harrisburg, Pa southbound on I-83 coming up on the bridges.... Wife observed weaving from a red Ford suv... She's gotten into the habit of looking and trying to see the driver, and invariably says "Yep - On the cellphone!". The problem is right after this he started weaving hard and almost hit the concrete barrier! Motorists all around "absorbed" his difficulty now at driving, a few horns and then.... He did it again!!!!! My wife then ascertained that he had dropped his cellphone..... and of course it was pm rush hour.
The last time I did a statistical study on the cause of deaths from parking tickets, other than cardiac arrest due to aggravation, I do not believe one actually ran someone over. :P
The existing volume of data proves nothing because there are no accurate statistics tracking accidents caused by cell phone users. And there are no accurate statistics because there is no way to reliably prove that cell phone usage caused an accident.
If the conversation is the distraction what difference does it make if the receiver is held to someones ear or if a ear clip is used?
It doesn't
In fact if the conversation is the problem what difference does it make if the sound is coming from a speaker in you door or dash?
None
And the two hands on the wheel argument doesn't wash because half of the people we see driving to work every morning only have one hand on the wheel anyway
Agreed. Using one hand to hold the phone is no worse than driving while holding a cup of coffee.
As I've stated before, banning hand-held cell phones will accomplish very little except to enrich the cell phone industry.
However, by passing such laws, politicians can show their constituents that they are "doing something" about the problem. It apparently doesn't really matter that these laws have no teeth, pander to the cell phone industry and will do very little to make the roads safer.
Even worse, there will be no easy way to prove that these laws are ineffective since there's no useful historical accident data to use for comparison.
-Frank
Going under that thought almost all laws should be abolished. I'll cite income tax laws as one example of laws that don't deter people from cheating. As no one can get killed by a runaway tax form I see a parallel. There are laws that are necessary for the common good. You and I disagree about what constitutes the common good and I'm fine with that.
Well there's probably some benefit in that all the debate has raised awareness to the danger of talking on a cell phone while driving.
-Frank
Have they done any studies showing a decrease in accident in areas that have banned hand held cell phones?
Reduced focus and impaired reaction time. That is enough reason for laws to ban drivers on cell phones.
What is rationale that says it is ok to do behaviour in car that will lengthen reaction time and/or diminish driving attention. Seen previous posts where some have said essentially, So What if it will take me extra feet to stop my car if I am on phone.
Driving and talking on cell phone is giving driver a handicap. It seems that state dots ought to be asking what can be done to "improve" driver reaction times and attention levels and then advocate/implement corresponding changes or improvements.
I have a better idea, why don't we just ban all cars....after all, cars are the number one killer of kids under the age of 12.
You can't single-out phones.
I wonder if Mr. White is under federal inditement by the FBI as the governer is right now. Seems like IL has bigger problems and should try to take leadership in other areas, rather then just banning everything.
I am not a smoker and personally could give a crap about the habit, but these laws are getting out of hand. Where do you stop? The precedence is very dangerous if you ask me.
This is a logical error. It is along the lines of kids are going to fall and get hurt anyway so why do they need helmets when they ride bikes are car seats in the car...
It is what happens when you use analogies to create an argument instead of substantiated information or facts.
Besides, cell phone technology will just find a way around the issue. Some places have outlawed using phone already, so people use hands-free devices. Now, some of these same places want to outlaw any conversation on a phone in the car. Give me a break...where the heck does this stop?
What are you going to say to office Bob when he pulls you over? "Sir, the reason I stopped you is because it looked like you were having a conversation with yourself" and slapping a $100 fine on you because you were using a hands-free device. Why don't we just ban car stereos because people sing to themselves and then the cops won't be able to tell if you are on a phone or singing.
Don't like analogies, then find some solid arguments that prove that cell phones kill and that laws can be effective w/o breaking our civil rights.
And, by the way, kids do fall and get hurt. But we have become a society full of lawyers and litagation. It has gotten to the point where there is no longer common sense.
Case in point....let's say you get your way and cells phone are 100% illegal. You are driving one day perhaps taking your pregnant wife to the hospital and are on the phone with the Dr. Suddenly, the car is hit by a drunk driver and the worst possible outcome happens.
At court, the drunk driver is able to use the point against you that you were on the phone. Legally, it will be no different than two drunk drivers hitting eachother...both parties will be guilty.
I am fine with laws that focus on driver distractions, just not ones that single-out cell phones, so long as the enforcement requires proof that a driver was distracted and violated some other penalty. Such as, running a red light because putting on makeup.
There are man such laws on the books which appear to be unenforceable and does not stop the intended behavior. Yet I don't want them removed from the books.
Again, in the case of cell phones, the point of this thread was to ask if they should be singled-out. I say no!. You can't prove that cell phones are any worse of a destraction then anything else. If you want to ban cell phones, then you need to ban nearly every other activity that happens in a car besides driving.
If phones get banned, then you would have to logically start to ban other activities.
That is where one of the errors is...there is no logic that says that must happen. Mitigating one risk factor doesn't mean all have to be eliminated or legislated, it means there is one less risk factor.
There is "acceptable risk" and "unacceptable risk" and the public determines which one is which. Eating a cheeseburger, changing the station, etc, is an acceptable risk, while the jury is still out on cell phone usage.
Slippery slope?
Maybe the drunk driver's lawyer would say that if you were not on the cell phone that you would not have been distracted and thus would have been practicing defensive driving and therefore likely would have avoided the drunk driver's car. Rules of the Road requires drivers to practice defensive driving.
Some early posts on this board pointed out studies, tests that proved that drivers using cell phones reduce their reaction time. Add to that the diversion of attention from effective defensive driving and there is enough reason to ban driver cell phone use. Why would anybody want to foster a device/technology that reduces drivers' capabilities.
What percent of driver cell phone calls are truly a medical emergency (pregnant wife) vs calls of convenience, frivolity, business, etc., that could have been made before/after the trip? Or, could be made by stopping vehicle in a safe/legal spot?
Don't know how our car driving society had survived from 1900 through early 1980's without cell phones. :P
We were all playing with our radios -- push button pre-sets probably lowered the accident rate by 10%!
There is the whole point. What makes a hand held cell phone an unacceptable risk and the others an acceptable risk? What makes hands free acceptable and hand held unacceptable? If indeed hand held cell phones were as much of an unacceptable risk as some say then why haven't accidents increased by some percentage as cell phones have increased geometrically? But maybe more to the point why haven't accident decreased in places where hand held cell phones are banned?
Maybe the best idea would have been to put a measure on the ballot and have the people vote? That is the American way after all. If however hand held cell phones are the only unacceptable risks of all the other distractions do we still need a special law for distracted driving? Most states have a distracted driving law and cell phones are covered under it. As would be eating while driving, slapping a kid in the back seat while driving or even any new technology that might distract us in the future. The question is are hand held cell phones the most distracted thing we do while driving? If not why single it out over any other distracted practice?
We landed 50,000 soldiers and sent 5500 ships to Normandy w/o any of the above mentioned devices.
Please understand, that I am in no way a big proponent of cell phones. In fact, I think they are a pain in the [non-permissible content removed]. BUT, I don't think they can be singled-out.
Someone on a cell phone might certainly have a reduced reaction time, but so does someone having a conversation, changing a CD, opening a window, smoking, or eating. If you ban phones, might as well ban EVERYTHING! After all, it all would save lives.
In fact, let's just ban cars. Mankind did fine w/o them for thousands of years. That way we don't have to worry about cell phone deaths anymore.
Sure and maybe DUI laws could be be voted on as well. :blush. Do you actually see more drivers disciplining their kids in the back seat than using portable hand-held electronic devices? Do you actually see more burgers being eaten by drivers than on cell phones? If you answered yes to the above, I won't believe it. However, these people stay safe because people like me drive, when I'm behind the wheel, not chat.
My answer is "Yes". I saw a guy shaving today, and a lady doing her nails. At least if they were on the cell phone they might have been paying more attention.
My best friend back in 1986 before anyone ever knew what a cell phone was, we hit head-on by a women with her two kids in the back seat. The last thing he remembered was the car comming at him and the woman facing backwards apparently discipling the kids.
Accidents happen for all kinds of reasons and if you can prove to me that phones cause accidents anymore then anything else, then I will change my tune. But to date, there is nothing to this matter conclusive.
Besides, you can also make equal arguments that phones provide an added level of safety too for lots of different reasons.
The trouble is they don't and there are many studies proving it.
My best friend back in 1986 before anyone ever knew what a cell phone was, we hit head-on by a women with her two kids in the back seat.
Yes and there was also a widely publicized case there a lawyer on a cell phone, blew through a stop sign and killed some people. She later cited the didn't see either the stop sign or the car in front of her.
Besides, you can also make equal arguments that phones provide an added level of safety too for lots of different reasons.
I agree, so a thirty second call to 911 in the right lane shouldn't really be an issue if saving someones life or reporting a crime. How many people talking while driving are calling 911 and reporting crimes?
Smoking or eating (cookie, pretzel - not a McDonalds breakfast) or changing a radio station or opening a window do not require as much brain processing power as do an ongoing conversation on phone. A five-minute cell phone call while driving requires 300 seconds of attention whereas opening a window (electric) might need one second of attention to put your finger on the button.