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
No, they don't. These aren't accidents, accidents are by chance. These are crashes.
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 coming at him and the woman facing backwards apparently discipling the kids.
Oh good, so lets add more things to distract the driver. Maybe we should add televisions in the sun visors.
Besides, you can also make equal arguments that phones provide an added level of safety too for lots of different reasons.
Eh, in very very few situations do they add safety. I did use mine briefly a number of times tonight to report cars in the ditch to the authorities.
(on that note...from another thread...number of cars in ditch = 7, number of cars on roof= 0, number of SUVs in ditch =5 number of SUVs on roof = 3)
Oh good, so lets add more things to distract the driver. Maybe we should add televisions in the sun visors.
And that is EXACTLY the point I have been making. You can't single-out phones. Anything that destracts a driver adds risk. Hell, I smacked a curb today while reaching for my sun glasses. I could not see crap, so I needed them. I dropped my classes on my lap, reached for them, and hit a curb. No damage....just pissed. And to think, my cell phone was never involved.
I drove a company car for 15 years as a sales rep. Fleet managers understand driver's safety better then anyone and fleet drivers like me, who drive for Fortune 500 companies have probably had more driver's safety training and awareness then just about anyone.
10 years ago, we were fobidden to have cell phones in our cars. They had to be in the trunk. Then, within a few weeks we had two serious accidents. One driver slid over an icey embankment and the car sat upside down for hours while the driver was trapped. He could not call for help because the phone was in the trunk.
Then we had a driver got rear-ended on an interstate as he was using the phone on the side of the road....sure, a less then smart thing to do, but as he was required to do.
Miraculously, the policy changed and phones were allowed in the cars, but my employer requires a hands-free device. This policy, though hard to enforce, remains in affect to this day.
"Oh good, so lets add more things to distract the driver. Maybe we should add televisions in the sun visors."
Don't we already have a Navigation system coming standard on many vehicles with a 6 inch screen and a picture of the road you are on and a moving icon showing you just where you are? Will we need three new laws? One for hand held cell phones, one for hands free cell phones and one for navigation systems? Some of the new Sirus type systems might need a new law as well. Anything with a menu that requires you to make a selection. After all you can't read a menu and look at the road at the same time.
Why is a driving while distracted law any harder to accept than a DUI law? We don't need a driving while drinking beer law and another driving while drinking Vodka law. We don't need a driving while under the influence of Pot and another one for driving under the influence of Quailudes and another for Coke. I don't believe we need a law covering each separate distraction we have.
If the conversation is the problem what difference does the method of hearing and talking make. A hand to your ear or a ear piece in your ear? If you can drive with a ear piece and talk what makes a hand more distracting?
And that is EXACTLY the point I have been making. You can't single-out phones. Anything that destracts a driver adds risk.
That is a logical flaw, just because you can't fix everything doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix anything. Another example would be emissions controls on cars. Cars still pollute, why ad a catalytic converter? With all the other sources of pollution, why pick on cars at all? Because it made a dramatic change in air quality in metro areas, IE it helped a lot. Are there still other sources? Yes, but did it reduced the impact.
Then we had a driver got rear-ended on an interstate as he was using the phone on the side of the road....sure, a less then smart thing to do, but as he was required to do.
Miraculously, the policy changed and phones were allowed in the cars, but my employer requires a hands-free device.
Was he sticking out into the lane? Was the guy that hit him drunk? I don't think a parked car would call for a policy change. How many collisions had been avoided by not driving while on the phone?
You wouldn't believe how regulated those are getting from the manufacturing side. OEMs and suppliers have to meet all kinds of standards for how long tasks take, what can be done while cars are in gear, what can be done at what speed, etc.
Anything with a menu that requires you to make a selection. After all you can't read a menu and look at the road at the same time.
I very much agree, and there are models from human-computer interaction that can estimate exactly how much time it takes to perform a task via a menu (visual search/manual selection). This is pretty heavily documented in SAE, AAM and J-SAE. Eyes off road time is pretty bad.
If the conversation is the problem what difference does the method of hearing and talking make. A hand to your ear or a ear piece in your ear? If you can drive with a ear piece and talk what makes a hand more distracting?
I don't know, I think your chief legislator is getting kickbacks from cell phone manufacturers because now they sell more hands-free kits and bluetooth ear pieces. Think of it as an economic pkg for the phone companies.
I've seen you on the road. You were the person who was tailgating without any lane discipline. I know, you are the exception to the rule...your brain can actually multi-task while driving. :confuse
Common mistake is to view every distraction as being equal and to counter with lets make a law for every distraction conceivable.
Changing the radio station requires just as much brainpower as a heated argument with your spouse, on the phone. Well all know that for a fact. Right?
Chewing gum and driving is OK. But, can you walk and chew gum and avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks and talk on cell phone with a customer about details and be on sidewalks of downtown Chicago or New York at 5 PM without bumping someone or being obnoxious to other walkers?
Taking hands off steering wheel - I doubt that anyone, even a cell phone using driver having hands-free device would use left hand to open window and eat a cookie with right hand at same time.
I have seen a lot of stupid things, but by far the most prevalent behavior is hand-held electronic portable device usage. For every person holding a coffee in left hand and shifting with right hand, I can count 500 using electronic portable devices. For every women putting on makeup I can count 750 people using electronic portable devices.
It might be the other way around in CA. Maybe 750 parents actually risk their necks by turning around to discipline their kids for every cell phone user.
Hyperbole at best. You have seen the behavior described but there is no outrage at the distraction? Starbucks sells coffee every morning at at least three drive through in my area. People aren't waiting till they get to work to drink it or to munch on their cookie or sweet roll. Micky Ds and Jack sell breakfast sandwiches and hash browns yet we don't have a law restricting the distraction of trying to hold a Mc Griddle in a wrapper and not getting butter on your tie or shirt.
Still what is the difference between talking on a hand held unit or a hands free unit?
I don't know, that might be a slight exaggeration but not by much. Certainly there are lots of drivers drinking their Starbucks or eating their Egg McMuffins while driving but one out of every four drivers isn't doing that (and I swear cell phone usage can approach that level of use). Besides, It takes a couple of seconds to take a swig and put the drink back down. How many cell phone conversations only last that long?
Still what is the difference between talking on a hand held unit or a hands free unit?
In regards to the level of driver distraction... none.
-Frank
Yes sir. By reducing every distraction to the least common denominator you can effectively discredit cell phone laws, since switching radio stations causes the same loss of brain power and distraction as an intense conversion. However there simply is no proof of that.
Luckey? Maybe. Ever made a mistake? Sure thing. But, you ain't paying high insurance rates because of me.
BTW, I was on the cell phone the entire way home from work tonight.....I am lucky to be alive.
I learned its much easier to eat the 2 cheeseburger meal while driving than a Big Mac.
1 - First, there are some people on this forum who need to move to China so you can have all the restrictions you want.
2 - Apparently there are a whole bunch of people who must not be very coordinated and who think everyone else is just as bad.
3 - I can no longer recognize the difference between sarcastic comments and others in this thread - lol
4 - I will continue to operate my car while using a phone as I see fit and generally IAW the law.
5 - This argument is going nowhere.
6 - Thank God the poeple who live in the Twin Cities thus far have common sense.
7 - You can't legislate technology. Pass whatever law you want....communications technology will other find away around it.
People cite Germany's safety record on the autobahn as shining examples of modern engineering, yet their cell phone laws are fairly draconian. Maybe there is actually a lesson to be learned here, rather than the: "I'm gonna do, what I'm gonna do" attitude.
I am frankly happy we are 2,000 miles apart.
We are talking about cell phones....no reason to get personal.
I guarentee you that I am a much better citizen then most people you know. So, the next time you say that you are glad to be 2,000 miles apart from me, know this....I am a verteran, I am an eagle scout, I have been invited to the White House for my wife and I personally raising over $500,000 to fight childhood cancer. We are both advocates for sick kids. I can guarentee, I am probably as good of a neighbor as you would ever have and God forbid, if you need my services, you would wish I were I closer.
I also believe in personal liberties and wore a uniform for 16 years including risking my life in a combat zone. Am I perfect? Heck know. But, if I am the kind of person you wish to have 2,000 miles away, I would be amazed to meet the type of people that you wish to have between you and me.
Yet one is legal and one isn't? Is that a law that has one ounce of merit? Isn't that the point of this whole debate? The law makes no effort to be practical or reasonable. But I am sure it makes some feel good.
We are talking about cell phones....no reason to get personal"
First, I didn't compare you to a drunk driver. I compared your I'm gonna just do what I want attitutude to the attitude of a drunk driver. Second. I didn't get personal, since you said, your gonna do what your gonna do, that comment is open for commentary and opinion.
"I guarentee you that I am a much better citizen then most people you know. So, the next time you say that you are glad to be 2,000 miles apart from me, know this....I am a verteran, I am an eagle scout, I have been invited to the White House for my wife and I personally raising over $500,000 to fight childhood cancer."
You sound like a model person and thank you for serving our country. But please don't talk on the phone and drive while you are next to me on the highway. Odds are in your favor you are not paying attention to the task at hand, which is driving in a defensive manner. It's not only about you keeping yourself safe, it's about you keeping others safe as well.
What will you do if your State enacts a total ban on driver cell phone use at some future date? The Illinois Secretary State is mulling a law of this nature. If done, perhaps your Secretary might do likewise. Will you violate State law?
You seem a model citizen, and thank you for your service to our country.
Actually he was referring to the study that concluded that talking on a cell phone while driving reduced the driver's reaction time to the equivalent of a driver with a .08 BAC.
You may be a model citizen in most regards, but if you can't even recognize the fact that talking on the cell phone impairs your ability to drive safely, then I too would prefer not to share the road with you.
-Frank
Cell phone technology will adapt to these laws no matter what. Besides hands-free devices, there are also voice activated blue-tooth devices where it is completely impossible to tell the difference between a normal conversation, and one on a cell phone. Thusly, any law completely banning a phone would be completely impossible to enforce and why I think it is rediculous to even try.
Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to ask the question is phones should be singled-out......I say no.
Would some of you favor an IQ test for drivers? What if it could be linked that drivers with an IQ below 100 have a greater chance of being in a wreck? Hey, it's all in the name of safety, right? Certainly, that would be silly.
Laws need to be based on fact, have a benefit, not violate civil rights, and be enforceable. Cell phone laws do not meet all of this criteria.
And, for point of clarification.....are you singling me out for:
A - Using a phone at all even if I use a hands free device or,
B - Using the phone if only holding it.
I would accept this challenge if you are saying "B", but not "A". I can certainly distinguish the difference between holding a phone to your ear and just having a conversation.
Last I checked, cell phone usage is through the roof, roads are more crowded then ever, yet deaths are on the decline. Would deaths be even lower w/o cell phones? Perhaps, but prove it.
If you want to stop cell phone usage, there is only one, logical and legal way to do it. Have insurance companies refuse to cover people who cause accidents that were using a phone.
Remember Chevy Chase in Christmas Vacation? I don't know about you guys, but seeing a super-model in a red, Ferarri convertable would probably be the equivalent of a BAC of 0.40. Anyone want to stop that? - lol
Still think I am nuts? Here is a result of a of an NHTSA study:
- "Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times; reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times; dialing a hand-held device (typically a cell phone) by almost 3 times; and talking or listening on a hand-held device by 1.3 times."
Hummmm....the plot thickens.
You can't single-out phones.
Seriously, is someone going to die if you don't answer? My brother is a doctor and he does not even use one of these.
But, despite that, I still don't think you can target them. I think smoking is idiotic too, but I think laws that ban them are equally wrong. I wonder how many smokers out there think cell phones should be banned for safety reasons....kind of ironic isn't it?
Actually you make a good point. Laws targeting cell phone usage while driving and smoking in public places have one thing in common -- both groups of people who engage in both of these behavior don't see anything wrong with it.
Ask Dub Schwartz!
Such as, men who cheat on their wives, people who cheat on their taxes (hey, there's a slippery slope), or the a-holes that ran Enron into the ground. Even Skilling is sticking to his claim that he did nothing wrong.
Most smokers I know wish they could quit.....cell phone users live in denial that they need to quit - lol
There is no doubt cell phones are (can be) obnoxious and usage can be illegal (NYC theaters) in certain situations. Annoying is different from dangerous.
Today, another cell phone using driver (and more importantly me) was spared a crash because I wasn't on the cell phone when they drifted abruptly into my lane. So I agree some people need to disengage and more importantly understand when to use them and when not to.
Driving on a barren 6-hour drive through WI and IL allows for an great and only opportunity to catch-up on calls and get back to people.....and a nice way to keep from falling asleep.
Trudging through a crowded four-lane highway in rush-hour traffic is a completely different situation. I often times will not answer the phone when I think there is added risk and I will generally resort to driving in the slow lane rather then the hammer lane when I do.
I also try to consider the purpose of the call....obviously speaking to the hospital when my daughter was hospitalized for 6 months is one thing, but taking a call about nonsense if something different.
This is one of the reasons why you can't single-out cell phones. I completely am in favor of distracted driver laws, but do not support laws that ban cell phones.
This is a good point. There are times when people are driving that the primary task workload is so low that a secondary task can actually improve primary task performance. There are times when driving workload doesn't require 100% of the capabilities available.
This is one of the reasons why you can't single-out cell phones. I completely am in favor of distracted driver laws, but do not support laws that ban cell phones.
I don't think its necessarily about a ban, since they can't seem to write a law that makes sense anyway, but I am a fan of secondary enforcement. If you screw up driving while on the phone, you get an extra spanking.
What would happen if you crashed the car because you became upset with the conversation? Did you pull off the road to have the conversation. This is why I am in favor of some type of laws for cell phone usage laws. I'm not lobbying for Draconian laws, but something.
In addition, studies have shown, contrary to conversations on the board that, holding a cell phone to your ear does slightly dimish even more of your brainpower. Not to mention:
1. the inablity to freely look in mirrors.
2. the loss of one hand on the wheel.
3. the inability to drive defensively.
I actually had a very similar situation, I called my folks to check in and give an update on a job interview I had and learned my mother was in the hospital. I said hold on and pulled over at a safe spot and had the rest of the conversation. I knew there was no way I could drive and ask the right questions and think of what I needed to say and control my emotions all at the same time.
I am pretty hyper vigilant about primary task performance because I am trained in this field, but I don't know if I would expect a fellow motorist to have the same response. One of my co-workers used to have "discussions" with an ex-wife while driving; that just sounds frightening.
By what percent? I call fertilizer. Post that study. The one that says the holding of your hand to your ear is the cause of the distraction.
Two choices:
1. Do your homework or,
2. Search back through the littany of posts.
I also gotta throw the BS flag on that one. No one has done a study comparing handheld vs hands-free devices as the relate to driver distraction (they should though).
As for your other points:
1. the inablity to freely look in mirrors.
Even the chunkiest cell phone from the early 90s wasn't big enough to impede your view of the mirrors.
2. the loss of one hand on the wheel.
Holding a cell phone to your ear does you require you to steer with one hand so your ability to react in an emergency situation is going to be compromised (just the same as if you were holding a drink, food, etc).
3. the inability to drive defensively.
That's mostly a cognitive process and again, the simple fact of holding a object to your ear isn't what's distracting, its the conversation being conducted that can cause driver distraction.
-Frank
Most people have to turn their head, so I submit holding the phone with your hand, or as some people do cranking their neck, impedes the ability to freely look in the mirrors. Additionally, I postulate when one is holding the phone and having a conversation, looking in the mirror is the last thing on ones mind.
Holding a cell phone to your ear does you require you to steer with one hand so your ability to react in an emergency situation is going to be compromised (just the same as if you were holding a drink, food, etc).
I do drink coffee in the car, but I don't hold the coffee cup for that reason. In moderate to heavy traffic both hands are on the wheel. However, holding a coffee cup while impairing ability to react does not bog down the mind as a cell phone conversation.
"That's mostly a cognitive process and again, the simple fact of holding a object to your ear isn't what's distracting, its the conversation being conducted that can cause driver distraction."
I disagree, it's a combination cognitive process and potential motor reflex. Driving defensive is both the ability to forward think and potentially react. Neither action is at 100% when you are having a conversation holding the phone to your ear.
Taking you hand off the wheel, for example to shift the car, is not the same as holding the phone to your ear, or taking a sip of soda or coffee. There is absolutely no way this can be rationalized into all hand removal from the wheel is of the same bad variety as cell phone holding.
Au contraire, I see virtually no difference between them. Try this test, hold a cell phone to your ear but don't make a call. Does the simple fact that you're holding an inanimate object in one hand have any effect at all on your cognitive driving abilities?
In fact just "holding" a cell phone is less distracting than some other commonly performed acts like changing the radio station since they require you to take your eyes off the road (even if it's just briefly). However, holding a cell phone does require you to keep one hand off the steering where for a much longer duration than those other activities.
-Frank
I can see your point,
Unless you decided to supersize that soft drink at the 7/11 in the afternoon on your way home and the cup is too big for the cup holder. I see people with those driving for miles. Then there is the question of having an arm rest for the driver. In many cases you take your hand off the wheel to use the arm rest. In some sections of the bigger cities the proper driving position seems to be leaning on the arm rest with one hand draped over the wheel and drive with your wrist. But no one would suggest we make a special big Gulp law or an Anti arm rest law.
And contrary to what some might think you have to see someone trying to eat a taco while driving before you can say it is any less distracting than holding a phone to your ear. The paper used to wrap the Taco looks to be about 8 x 11 and is most often covering a good portion of someone's face as the drive down the highway. Still no special law.
Yes to holding a cell phone to my ear. Not switching the radio, not holding a soda, not shifting the car, not beeping the horn. I sort of thought you would rationalize all things being held in your hand as being as being an equal driving distraction.
In fact just "holding" a cell phone is less distracting than some other commonly performed acts like changing the radio station since they require you to take your eyes off the road (even if it's just briefly
Yes just holding a cell phone, but not holding a cell phone to your ear. I do not have to look at the radio to change stations so for me it doesn't count. Maybe we shouldn't scan the right, rearview and left side mirrors every few seconds. After all we are talking our eyes off the road, if just briefly.
This is why when I see someone speeding, I just get out of the way. How many of you stay in the left lane and apply your braks to play traffic cop? We are not the law, the law is the law and no one ever really knows what is going on in a car or why someone might be in a hurry.
The use of cell phones most certainly adds risk to a driver. Much of this risk can be mitagated and reduced by common sense and using technology properly. Cell phones provide HUGE benefits to society and most people are willing to accept the added risk as the benefit is much higher.
I, for one, believe that most people can walk and chew gum at the same time. If someone is not capable of holding a conversation while driving, then they should not be driving.
I know someone wants to say "how would you feel if you had been in a serious accident during that trip home because of a phone", so I will spare you the question and ask it myself. The answer.....what do you think.....I would feel like hell. But, taking acceptible risks is part of life. If you want to be safe, then "just say no" and don't drive.
We have all heard that most accidents take place within a mile of home, yet we continue to take our kids to school, go to work, drive to church, and pick-up milk on a saturday morning.....all activities not worth risking our lives for, but we do anyway.
For those that think cell phones should be banned....don't use them. But, when you find yourself in a life-dependant situation and need to use it, you may change your tune.
You might have well have said, if you don't like the fact I drink and drive stay home. It's an acceptable risk for me to be drinking. I'm sorry for you personal situation, however, you will do what you are going to do and that is the end of the conversation.
If I find myself in a situation where I must use the phone, I will pull over and use it. I disagree with the part about huge benefits to society, I'm not better off than I was 20 years ago with the advent of the cell phone. In fact I'm worse off for it.
Is this not the way life is sometimes?
I wonder how many of the "I want to ban cell phones" crowd ever exceeds the speed limit?
Come on, be honest....ever gone 1 mph over? Is that not risking lives?
My observation is that no one ever goes the speed limit all the time. We all know that speed kills, yet it happens all the time......from all of us....including those that want to jail cell phone users.
I don't know about you, but I would never favor technology which would prevent someone from speeding, ever, nor from having a conversation.
You got the wrong conversation. Cell phones divert mental processing power from driving. Going one mile over doesn't. You are right about there being an acceptable level of risk to alcohol, and maybe there should be for cell phones also.
Unfortunately there is really no measurable way to do this. People on the phone do not realize how badly they drive. I saw an accident a while back where two cars crashed in the middle lane, nobody was watching, and one was holding the cell phone to the ear with the shoulder. Totally avoidable car crash.
Somebody has to be off the cell phones to keep the roads safe. It might was well be me. I'll watch your back.
I don't know about you, but I would never favor technology which would prevent someone from speeding, ever, nor from having a conversation.
Actually it's coming.
Except for forums like this board, where posters on both sides of the issue are very analytical, don't think that vast majority of cell drivers think much about the effects of talking on phone and driving. Perhaps 90+ percent of cell phone using drivers never think about, much weigh, risk vs rewards (benefits) of talking and driving. Most people don't know or realize they are adding risk when using the cell phone while driving.
Most states have a BAC limit of 0.08, yet we are banned from having a drink while driving. Can't have open liquor containers in car. Isn't that unreasonable? Can't people be trusted to drink while driving, so long as BAC does not exceed 0.08.
Why is government so oppresive with alcohol use in car. Wouldn't it be reasonable to let drivers decide if they wanted to have a cold can of beer in summer months while driving home from work? One can would be far less than 0.08. And, after all, drivers 21 and over are adult, are responsible and can weigh risk vs rewards of a cold beer while driving. These might be the same drivers that like/have to use cell phone while driving.
If beer drinking were to be allowed while driving, would expect that there would at least be a law in all states requiring that the beer drinking driver would have to use a hands-free phone while making calls. Would not want the driver to juggle a phone and can of beer. :P