The simple point was of all the distractions listed by the DMV or CHP in my state you decided the ones that were six times more likely to cause and accident, by their studies, were worth risking. Why should they be exempt from your disdane of what your fellow driver is doing? I agree the activities seem to be something we as a society have decided are an acceptable risk. Still even when posted as a distraction people eat while driving. as well as several other things we are told not to do.
You are the one bemoaning the cell phone laws. It seems your state is doing a lousy job of communicating to the public. On one hand it initiates laws, on the other hand it fails to disclose the issue it made the laws for. Your beef is with your state and it's inability to communicate between govt agencies, not me. I'm only the messenger, you need to get involved with your state and find out where the disconnect is.
"And by the way Nav systems can be adjusted while driving"
All nav systems can have some adjustment while driving, like radios. But there is a limit as to what can be done while in motion.
What I am saying is trying to stamp out each and every distraction by banning one at a time is wasteful and time consuming. Hand held cell phones have not proven to be any more distracting than hands free with the exception of having both hands on the wheel.
That's partially incorrect. First, it has been proven holding the cell phone plus conversation is worse than just the conversation. Secondly, there is a potential loss of vehicle control due to: 1) mind number and 2) lack of one hand on the wheel. When the next "big" distraction comes along, I will likely be supporting laws for that also.
I thought I had seen studies that said that having an "active" conversation on a cell phone was the distraction, and it didn't make any difference whether the phone was hand held or not.
Look, cell phones are hear to stay. They will never, ever be banned in such a way that the law could ever be enforced. My cell phone works congruently with my OnStar. How would anyone ever know that i was on a phone call or singing to music on the radio?
Technology similar to cell tower(s) tracking and/or passing off your call to next cell tower could be used to enforce ban on drivers talking on cell phone. If you are talking and driving, your cell phone is generating a transmission to antenna at cell site. That transmission could be picked up by an antenna and monitoring device in a police car showing phone number, signal strength, etc.
A side benefit to total bans would require enforcement equipment in police cars. Perhaps American companies, such as Motorola, would benefit from design, engineering and manufacture of these devices. Good for the economy. Another benefit would be additional revenue to cities, counties, states across the US in capturing and giving tickets to the offenders.
"I thought I had seen studies that said that having an "active" conversation on a cell phone was the distraction, and it didn't make any difference whether the phone was hand held or not."
You are absolutely correct. I don't tend to have long discussion on the cell phone but even I realize it can be distraction. And because of that I tend to pay even more attention to may surroundings while on the phone. Having switched to hands free hasn't changed my calling or receiving habits. But even in the studies Kdshipero has posted they say the conversation is the distraction. Based on those studies banning hands free will not address anything. All it will do is make another law that isn't relevant to real world problems. It might be another revenue generator for law enforcement but it will not solve anything.
we are going to have to learn to live with the technology that we are developing as a society and we are never going back to "the good old days." They developed ABS because so many people couldn't learn to modulate their brakes to avoid sliding into another object with the brakes locked up. We will mandate ESC in 2012 so people that start to lose control in a corner or avoidance menuver will get computer assistance to correct and save them from an accident. These were positive advancements to address the problem of accidents. Banning cell phones is like treating the symptoms rather that the disease. It will also pull resources from law enforcement that could be doing something useful to the rest of society. IMHO :confuse:
There is one study I remember reading that talked about the additional detrimental effect of holding the cell phone to the ear. But they also concluded the effect is small compared to the overall conversation. However, IMO, that could be the amount or brain power that saves your life.
I have 115 sales people and $50M worth of business that rely on me. When I used to drive 60,000 miles per year, using a cell phone was not an option, but an absolutre requirement. In the near future, phones will become even more important especially since we are on a verge of a major labor shortage.
Absolutely outrageous to have businesses having employees conducting business in an "as matter of fact" fashion on cell phones while driving. If this is either written, or unwritten policy/practice, woe be the day when a driving employee on the phone kills or severely injures a pedestrian or other driver. There are plenty lawyers that will take that company to the cleaners, and rightfully so.
I don't tend to have long discussion on the cell phone but even I realize it can be distraction. And because of that I tend to pay even more attention to may surroundings while on the phone.
OK, so you and all other users on this board are very attuned, analytical and consciously adjust their driving while talking. But, we on this board are a tiny, miniscule minority of drivers in the US. To what extent, if any, do cell drivers across the US realize that there is a diminishment of driving capabilities while using the phone "and" then try to adjust their driving style to compensate. And ,what amount that do try to compensate, still end up weaving, blocking traffic, etc.
Have you ever had longer, or more intense, conversations while driving and then when ending the call can't recount things along your path during the conversation?
"There are plenty lawyers that will take that company to the cleaners, and rightfully so."
People doing business realize this. When a UPS truck has an accident today one of the first things the company does is cover the sign on the side of the truck because people look for deep pockets. Anytime one of your employees has an accident there are people out to take your company away from you. That is why you have to have lawyers as well. I only had a fleet of 12 trucks and a car and every accident we ever had went to court. People simply wouldn't settle for insurance. I am no longer in the business and I breath easier at night. But we had two way Nextels in all of our trucks. With the cost of fuel and what we paid our drivers and the cost of the vehicles time was money.
People will get used to driving and talking on cell phones or whatever we end up with because that is how it always works. But no matter what law you pass people will get distracted and have accidents. The accident rate per mile driven was just as bad before cell phones as it is now. And the accident rate per mile driven hasn't increased with the addition of cell phone distraction. But I am sure the blue tooth people are very thankful for these laws.
The implication is you mind and body need to be available to drive the car. Nobody has their eyes straight ahead 100% of the time, and nobody has their hands on the wheel 100%. We look in our mirrors and use our turn signals for example. But holding the phone while having a conversation is tying up your mind and body from driving.
Anytime one of your employees has an accident there are people out to take your company away from you. That is why you have to have lawyers as well.
The key point is whether or not the company imposed a policy or practice on the employee that diminished that employee's driving capabilities.
Not related to employees driving and using a cell phone, but an obvious example of company responsibility - An employee attends a company sponsored party, has too much alcohol at the party and then while driving home from the party causes a crash/accident resulting in injury/death. The company likely would be found responsible and liable.
I think we all realize it is a distraction. What some of us are saying is it doesn't need its own separate law. We also question it being more of a distraction than "anything" else we do while driving. Have I ever had a longer conversation? Sure, once while out on the freeway at about 2:30 in the morning a friend of mine called to make sure I was staying awake on a drive to central California. Not longer than the conversations I used to have on the CB when I was a truck driver. You do realize that many of those 80,000 pound loads driving next to you on the interstate still have those two way radios? Better than when I was driving and some of them are now using Ham because it is easier to get than it once was. And of course they can now bounce off of cell towers with some of the ham units.
Still if cell phone use has increased by at least 100 percent why aren't we seeing an increase in accidents? If it as distracting as some have posted, some say as much as drunk driving, what is offsetting the activity? You add as many drunk drivers to your daily commute as cell phone drivers you would see some increase and that hasn't happened. In the places were cell phones have been banned you would expect to see a drastic decrease in accidents, and that hasn't happened.
What in your opinion has kept us from seeing some evidence that cell phones cause accidents? Why haven't insurance companies been all over this new threat?
Why haven't insurance companies been all over this new threat?
Because it's very difficult to prove that some one was talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident and even harder to prove that's what caused the accident.
There are two pretty much indisputable facts:
a. Talking on a cell phone is a driver distraction
b. Talking on a cell phone has resulted in accidents (to include fatal ones)
The crux of the issue is that no one really knows what percentage of accidents are the result of talking on a cell phone.
Why haven't insurance companies been all over this new threat?
As politicians reply to questions not about their record or position, "You will have to ask them".
Perhaps insurance companies could derive extra revenue, for profit and to cover losses, by asking drivers to sign statement every six months affirming whether or not they use cell phone while driving. Those using would have a higher premium. If you made a false statement and say you don't but are caught (accident, crash, otherwise) using one, insurance coverage would be terminated.
Still if cell phone use has increased by at least 100 percent why aren't we seeing an increase in accidents?
One theory would be that except for cell phone use, accident/injury/death rate would be a lot lower given the improvements in: vehicle design (handling, tires, suspension, traction, stability, crushability, amount of air bags, etc), emergency response time, paramedic improvements, emergency room procedures, medicine, surgery, highway signals, highway barriers, highway markings of diamonds on road surface and yellow warning signs, and on and on since the advent of cell phone use in early 80's.
"One theory would be that except for cell phone use, accident/injury/death rate would be a lot lower given the improvements in: vehicle design (handling, tires, suspension, traction, stability, crushability, amount of air bags, etc), emergency response time, paramedic improvements, emergency room procedures, medicine, surgery, highway signals, highway barriers, highway markings of diamonds on road surface and yellow warning signs, and on and on since the advent of cell phone use in early 80's. "
If that theory were valid then the places where cell phones were banned would have a decrease in their accident rate comerserate with the decrease in cell phones. Have any place reported a sudden decrease in accidents after the implementation of such laws? If not why not? Some states have had time to measure these results.
If that theory were valid then the places where cell phones were banned would have a decrease in their accident rate comerserate with the decrease in cell phones.
Don't believe that there is any state that has a total ban.
Understand that 14 states have a total ban on using cell phones by school bus drivers. If cell phone use is not a serious driving distraction as some here contend, why ban it?
Absolutely outrageous to have businesses having employees conducting business in an "as matter of fact" fashion on cell phones while driving. If this is either written, or unwritten policy/practice, woe be the day when a driving employee on the phone kills or severely injures a pedestrian or other driver. There are plenty lawyers that will take that company to the cleaners, and rightfully so.
Our policy permits the use of phones because it is legal assuming the phone is used IAW the law. And, even when the phones are used we require our drivers to use hands-free devices. We are a Fortune 500 company with laywers on retainer who write these policies. I can pretty much guarentee that every other company works in this same fashion.
Can we get sued? Hell, you would not beleive the crap we get sued for, but no one can charge that our cell phone policy is neglegent when it is consistent and even tougher then the law.
Know why when drug companies test drugs they do double blind tests? Same thing is applicable here. You can say a sample size of 2, 3, 4 or 25,000 is relevant or irrelevant depending on the study. But non-PHD statisticans like you or me saying it is relevant or irrelevant...is in itself irrelevant. We are arguing conclusions that cannot be made.
Technology similar to cell tower(s) tracking and/or passing off your call to next cell tower could be used to enforce ban on drivers talking on cell phone. If you are talking and driving, your cell phone is generating a transmission to antenna at cell site. That transmission could be picked up by an antenna and monitoring device in a police car showing phone number, signal strength, etc.
A side benefit to total bans would require enforcement equipment in police cars. Perhaps American companies, such as Motorola, would benefit from design, engineering and manufacture of these devices. Good for the economy. Another benefit would be additional revenue to cities, counties, states across the US in capturing and giving tickets to the offenders.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the Soviet Union collapse? You have got to be kidding.
Hell, you would not beleive the crap we get sued for, but no one can charge that our cell phone policy is neglegent when it is consistent and even tougher then the law.
It doesn't have to be proven the cell phone policy is negligent...only that it is allowed.
Sometimes I think people watch too much TV. Everyone seems to think that every law enforcement agency is like CSI or Numbers. You just need to call your local police sometime for assistance. They don't show up with finger print equipment at the ready and there is no one back at the office at the ready to trace a cell phone. Yes we realize we are monitored in many things we do, including out internet conversations. But getting those records to court is a whole different and expensive matter.
Then there is the officers themselves. How many do we believe will be on the prowl looking for cell phone drivers. We have had speed limit laws for ever and yet what percentage of them are caught?
Today hands free cell phones are legal and the number of cell phone users are climbing. By the time an attempt is made to ban them there should be lots of lobbiests and voters flooding their representatives with letters to dissuade any more restrictions. Our government is after all capitalistic and the cell phone industry is a taxable money generating industry. No one has ever attacked the fast food industry even if it is listed right next to cell phones as a major distraction. Can you see our government shutting down drive threws?
I believe every driver on our highways must be responsible for their actions and if something they are doing causes an accident they should be held to that responsibility. I just don't believe every other driver should be punished because some people can't use their cell phones responsibly.
Our policy permits the use of phones because it is legal assuming the phone is used IAW the law. And, even when the phones are used we require our drivers to use hands-free devices.
If your company, and others, have employees conducting business while travelling on public roads then some type of rent or fees ought to be paid to State DOTs for priviledge. These yearly fees would be used for road/bridge building and maintenance.
As I understand, each of us who drives and have drivers licenses are granted priviledge to "only" operate vehicle on public road. Drivers license was never intended to grant conduct of business on a road.
The fee might also be tied in with a license explicitly stating that the State acknowledges that there is added risk for using a phone while driving and the State is absolved of any responsibility for crashes/accidents that might be caused by licensee when using phone while driving. A fee of $200-$500/year would seem fair. States would have to coordinate and there would be reciprocity. Fee structure could be set according to single state travelling/business talking, to regional, to national.
Perhaps some of us could email our State's Governor and Secretary of State about this matter.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the Soviet Union collapse? You have got to be kidding.
We already have traffic light cameras, speeding cameras, cameras in shopping malls, stores, govt buildings. These are PUBLIC places. Each State's rules of the road for drivers licenses already has many dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of rules and regulations that we need to abide while driving. Patrol cars, cameras, perhaps cell phone transmission monitoring in the future, are merely means to monitor conformance and determine violations.
Here's another link. I guess we'll have to track down each individual state law to determine what "total" means - in Connecticut it's a prohibition against using a handheld mobile phone, unless you have a learner's permit, in which case it's a total ban. I assume hands-free phones are ok.
Oops, add Utah and Washington to the list - here's a recent link that says 6 states have a handheld ban.
There is no state that completely outlaws conversation via cellular device. A few states have bans against holding the phone to your ear, total bans on new drivers, bans against texting etc.
"We are doing it from a public safety point of view," said Dandekar, who took a call on her cell phone Monday while driving to the Capitol. "This is a public safety issue."
If your company, and others, have employees conducting business while travelling on public roads then some type of rent or fees ought to be paid to State DOTs for priviledge. These yearly fees would be used for road/bridge building and maintenance.
As I understand, each of us who drives and have drivers licenses are granted priviledge to "only" operate vehicle on public road. Drivers license was never intended to grant conduct of business on a road.
The fee might also be tied in with a license explicitly stating that the State acknowledges that there is added risk for using a phone while driving and the State is absolved of any responsibility for crashes/accidents that might be caused by licensee when using phone while driving. A fee of $200-$500/year would seem fair. States would have to coordinate and there would be reciprocity. Fee structure could be set according to single state travelling/business talking, to regional, to national.
Perhaps some of us could email our State's Governor and Secretary of State about this matter.
You surely can't beleive this. No offense, but do you honestly want to live in a society like this? I would be willing to bet that besides you, not one other person is going to write any governor about this.
Ever heard of Interstate Commerse? Ever wonder why they are called Interstates? These roads were created 100% with the intention to do business.
We already have traffic light cameras, speeding cameras, cameras in shopping malls, stores, govt buildings. These are PUBLIC places. Each State's rules of the road for drivers licenses already has many dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of rules and regulations that we need to abide while driving. Patrol cars, cameras, perhaps cell phone transmission monitoring in the future, are merely means to monitor conformance and determine violations.
And many of these technologies are being challanged and loosing as invasion of privacy and other things. Many of the speeding cameras are being pulled because you can't arrest a car. Some of this technology is OK, but some goes too far.
Ever heard of Interstate Commerse? Ever wonder why they are called Interstates? These roads were created 100% with the intention to do business.
Glad you mentioned Interstate Commerce which you obviously support, and so do I. You are well aware that this involves shipment of goods on public roads and that shipping companies have to be licensed and pay large fees for priviledge of using public roads and that drivers must have CDL license. So, since shipping goods already is well regulated and has fees, others who use highways and public roads for business such as drivers/employees conducting cell phone business calls while driving should also be regulated and pay fees. Employees conducting business calls on public roads should be required to have a special license to do so.
I am not sure what to think of this. Not to mention, this would be completely unenforceable. The governement can't even control the internet let alone touch something like this.
Besides, how the heck can you distinguish the difference between a personal call and a work call, let alone the many that fall somewhere in the middle?
This is a real slipperly slope on many levels. For instance, most people drive to and from work and many may use the phone to do business while in their own cars on their own time. They are covered under their own insurance policies too and the insuance companies when in an accident, do not ask why your were driving.
My wife is an outside sales rep and supplies her own personal vehicle. By law and by company policy, driving to and from the office, or to her first apt, is not considered work, and there is not mileage reimbursement. Yet she may use the phone to do company work.
Who knows....perhaps your suggestion, if it could, may even address these issues, because many of us are stuck covering ourselves with our own personal insurance policies.
If I am driving to work today, using the phone, and get in an accident, it is 100% on me and on my insurance and at my expense.
how the heck can you distinguish the difference between a personal call and a work call,
The lawyer is going to look for all the pockets - that may include getting the phone logs to see what number the driver was talking to. If the driver was talking to a work number, the employer may very well be added as a defendant. IRS mileage regs probably don't have much to do with tort law.
Resistance to new technology and a wish for simpler times but in reality things never revert to the good old days. Humans have always moved forward and learned to use the technology they develop. Once we have had the opportunity for instant communication it is pretty hard to take it away from us. No body drives without distractions. No one even tries to drive without distractions. People have had food, conversed with passengers, and corrected children, slowed down to look at accidents as long as we have had cars. In fact more than likely before we have had cars. We hold hands with our loved ones while driving. We change radio stations while driving. We remove a jacket while driving because it gets too hot, an act that required you to remove your seat belt briefly. And no one would suggest a specific law banning any of these activities. Saying that none of these distractions are as bad as cell phones is simply a cop out because many of these problems have been going on much longer than we have had cell phones. To say that cell phones are more distracting than CB in big rigs is another cop out. A big truck could do a lot more damage than a car.
Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it. It is just sad to see so many willing to dive into Orwell’s book so willingly. It is true that when we give up freedom for security we deserve neither. If we can’t learn to use the technology we develop maybe we don’t deserve the technology. I for one just don’t feel my fellow citizens are that slow. There may be a learning curve but we will learn it like we have any other technology.
Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it. It is just sad to see so many willing to dive into Orwell’s book so willingly. It is true that when we give up freedom for security we deserve neither.
Honestly, you are being a bit overdramatic. Having a cell phone law on the books is not up any security or liberty, in fact it adds to security and peace of mind.
Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it.
In some places you can get arrested for it. Singing and talking out loud is legal as long as one is not violating local noise laws.
If we can’t learn to use the technology we develop maybe we don’t deserve the technology
Why don't you be the first to lay down your technology?
My wife is an outside sales rep and supplies her own personal vehicle. By law and by company policy, driving to and from the office, or to her first apt, is not considered work, and there is not mileage reimbursement. Yet she may use the phone to do company work.
I would guess that your wife is not represented by a union. If she were, there probably would not be the expectation to use phone in personal car to conduct business. A union would probably require compensation from the company. Companies take advantage of their employees in many ways, expecting them to take work home, do work on personal time, be on-call per pager/cell phone, make business calls in personal car, etc.
For instance, most people drive to and from work and many may use the phone to do business while in their own cars on their own time.
This is stupidity on part of employees.
They are covered under their own insurance policies too and the insuance companies when in an accident, do not ask why your were driving.
Insurance companies maybe should start asking policy holders if they use cell phone in car for business. Holder would have to sign statement stating yes or no. Cheaters would risk cancellation of policy if found out they lied.
Insurance rate would be higher for phone users to cover added risk. Those of us who don't use cell phone while driving, whether personal or business, should pay a lower rate than the users. We non-users should not have to subsidize policy rates for those that drive with diminished attention.
Saying that none of these distractions are as bad as cell phones is simply a cop out
Talking on a cell phone, changing radio stations, eating food, removing a coat, etc, are all things that distract from the act of driving. What you’re choosing to ignore is that talking on a cell phone is far more of a cognitive distraction while the others are mainly a physical one.
Is talking on a cell phone in public rude?
Personally I think it is but I don’t have a clue what talking on a cell phone in public has to do with the topic at hand :confuse:
Your point about resistance to new technology is valid though. In fact, I’m quite sure that this whole debate will be pointless in the not too distant future. By then our cars will be driving themselves (as in the movie “I, Robot”) so you will be able to talk as much as you’d like :P For those who might be skeptical, intelligent cruise control, accident anticipation emergency braking and crash anticipation systems are already available
If we can’t learn to use the technology we develop maybe we don’t deserve the technology.
"learn to use" -- You might add, "learn to use responsibly". Think that vast majority of folks would not think to make a cell phone call while watching an opera live, or a live play, or in a pew during church or synagogue service. That is responsible and considerate. Yet, maybe many of these same people would think nothing of conducting a personal or business conversation while operating a motor vehicle deadly missile that ranges in weight from 3000-6000 pounds while driving on a public road. These folks have to be trained, or otherwise educated, on responsible use.
This is similar to use of alcohol. Responsible use at home, restaurant, etc is ok, but open liquor container or drinking in vehicle is not. Most every driver already knows this. But, most drivers using cell do not know about added risks and dangers they pose to others.
Nobody is trying to prohibit use of cell phone or use of technology. It is responsible use that is the issue.
And yet with all of the cell phone use going on accidents have not increased? we can chart how many deaths are alcohol related. How many are speed related. How many are food eating related but not how many are cell phone related? We can have a posted study by the CHP that says changing the radio or CD or correcting children or eating in the car is Six times more likely to cause you to have an accident but they can't give us a number to go with cell phones? Do we have a clue to what responsible cell phone use might be? Do they take it into account? How about late at night on your way to Vegas or State line when you need minimum attention to hold you lane? You can drive at .07 alcohol but not use your cell phone? Not that people will care what the law says when you know there are no cops around.
They used some of the studies that have been posted here to ban hand held cell phones yet those very same studies indicate the "conversation" not the phone is the distraction. There were both hands free and hand held units when the law was passed but they missed this one little fact? Are they telling the driving public that holding your hand to your ear is the distraction? Obviously the conversation is not a concern if the law makers decided we could still use a hands free unit. There is no other conclusion that you can draw. The very idea that people will keep both hands on the wheel is absurd unless we are will to pass a both hands on the wheel law.
Is cell phone use a distraction? Yes. Have they increased accidents. Doesn't seem so. So what is the problem?
I will not contend that cell phones are not a distraction. But I will contend that some people can and have been using cell phones while driving successfully for may years. And there is very little reason to punish the people that seem to be able to drive and conduct business because of the people who can't. (just my opinion.)
Unless someone has a study showing an increase in accidents that directly relate to cell phone use then this whole debate is simply opinion and we are all free to ignore each other opinion. We may be forced to upgrade our technology to circumvent the restrictions placed on it but as they say, where there is a will there is a way. For now we can upgrade to blue tooth or built in hands free or On-Star. But the law hasn't stopped anything. And after all is said and done, we are still using the cell phone while driving.
The lawyer is going to look for all the pockets - that may include getting the phone logs to see what number the driver was talking to. If the driver was talking to a work number, the employer may very well be added as a defendant. IRS mileage regs probably don't have much to do with tort law.
Completely impossible to prove. Most calls are to other cell phones. Just because ypu call someone you work with, does not make it a work call.
Years ago, all cell phone bills were itemized. We don't even submit itemized bills anymore.....the company just pays for an entire group plan with a pool of minutes.
The lines between work and personal are completely blurred especially with so many self employed people and people who work from home. I am on call 24/7, for example. My former boss used to be my best friend....we talked all the time.
I would guess that your wife is not represented by a union. If she were, there probably would not be the expectation to use phone in personal car to conduct business. A union would probably require compensation from the company. Companies take advantage of their employees in many ways, expecting them to take work home, do work on personal time, be on-call per pager/cell phone, make business calls in personal car, etc.
Neither of us have or would ever work for a union. The vast majority of the public does not either. If unions would do as you say, no one could stay in business and we would be buying our air from china.
I think what you are drawing towards is a mentality of work issue. Ask a union worker what they earn and they speak in $/hr. Ask someone who takes ownership of their own results, and they speak in much different terms....something a union emplyee will never understand.
I have virtually no lines drawn in my life between work and personal. I have had weeks were I have worked 100 hrs + and no one counts my vacation. I take comp time as I see fit and I leave when I want....when I can based on work load. Having this flexibility means being available. Virtually everyone I know and associate with works like this.
Communication devices gives me this flexibility.
Labor shortages are on their way folks.....we need jobs that are flexible.
And yet with all of the cell phone use going on accidents have not increased?
Hmm. Maybe because the accident rate is already 30% due to cell phones. Without the underlying metrics, there is no way to statistically correlate cell phone usage vs accident rate, try as one might to make the case.
"Given that many employees have cell phones and use them while "on the clock," often while driving employer-owned vehicles, the risks of accident, and of potential liability for the employer, are apparent. Who gets sued? If the accident results in serious bodily injury or death, it’s the employer’s deep pocket that is reached."
I didn't look to see how the case turned out, but just getting sued is painful enough, what with all the legal fees.
Oh, that law firm (back in '01) recommended "A well-written cell phone policy should firmly prohibit employees from using their cell phones while driving as long as the car is moving."
To heck with the studies....all you need is one hard-clad empiracle case that can correlate a reduction in accidents or fatalities to cell phone laws. There is your case PERIOD. Once evidence like that exits, then you have a true basis for an argument and more laws.
Then, you have to consider the true cost of the law and the downsides. Yes, cell phones provide a benefit. Yes, cell phones probably have even saved lives.
I have noticed that over the years, that I see less and less examples of people driving wrecklessly. Cell phone users call 911 on people and I really do think that this has had a positive impact on would-be wreckless drivers. Hell, some women on the news who was drunk used a cell phone to report herself to the police last week....yes, an extreme case.
So, in order to fair to society, once we can prove the true cost benefit of cell phone laws, you have to consider the net true cost to society and then make legislation.
Laws cannot, nor should be a knee-jerk reaction. Look at all the problems the Patriot Act has caused. The law makers need to do their homework upfront which will make a law harder to dispute later.
But, that still does not change the point of this thread which is "should cell phones be singled-out?"
Quite honestly, law suits and litegation will probably go much further in changing behavior then many laws.
This is not certainly the only case like this and compnies like us are big targets.
We had a driver three years ago get T-Boned by another car. The other driver had a suspended liscense and fled the accident. He quickly returned with a budy who jumped into the car and behind the wheel. The driver then climbed in the passenger seat and feigned injury.
The police arrived (called by our driver) and wittnesses reported the entire incident and what the other driver had done. That still did not stop the driver from trying to sue us for $60,000 even though our guy was not at fault. Last I heard it cost us more then that to fight the case and the driver was eventually found guilty of fraudulant behavior, but I often wonder how many companies would have just paid the money because it was cheaper then to fight.
Companies have deep pockets and will always be targets for lazy, low-lifes who think there income needs to be a handout. Then again, there are certainly ligitimate situations where companies are liable.
Comments
You are the one bemoaning the cell phone laws. It seems your state is doing a lousy job of communicating to the public. On one hand it initiates laws, on the other hand it fails to disclose the issue it made the laws for. Your beef is with your state and it's inability to communicate between govt agencies, not me. I'm only the messenger, you need to get involved with your state and find out where the disconnect is.
"And by the way Nav systems can be adjusted while driving"
All nav systems can have some adjustment while driving, like radios. But there is a limit as to what can be done while in motion.
What I am saying is trying to stamp out each and every distraction by banning one at a time is wasteful and time consuming. Hand held cell phones have not proven to be any more distracting than hands free with the exception of having both hands on the wheel.
That's partially incorrect. First, it has been proven holding the cell phone plus conversation is worse than just the conversation. Secondly, there is a potential loss of vehicle control due to: 1) mind number and 2) lack of one hand on the wheel. When the next "big" distraction comes along, I will likely be supporting laws for that also.
Technology similar to cell tower(s) tracking and/or passing off your call to next cell tower could be used to enforce ban on drivers talking on cell phone. If you are talking and driving, your cell phone is generating a transmission to antenna at cell site. That transmission could be picked up by an antenna and monitoring device in a police car showing phone number, signal strength, etc.
A side benefit to total bans would require enforcement equipment in police cars. Perhaps American companies, such as Motorola, would benefit from design, engineering and manufacture of these devices. Good for the economy. Another benefit would be additional revenue to cities, counties, states across the US in capturing and giving tickets to the offenders.
You are absolutely correct. I don't tend to have long discussion on the cell phone but even I realize it can be distraction. And because of that I tend to pay even more attention to may surroundings while on the phone. Having switched to hands free hasn't changed my calling or receiving habits. But even in the studies Kdshipero has posted they say the conversation is the distraction. Based on those studies banning hands free will not address anything. All it will do is make another law that isn't relevant to real world problems. It might be another revenue generator for law enforcement but it will not solve anything.
we are going to have to learn to live with the technology that we are developing as a society and we are never going back to "the good old days." They developed ABS because so many people couldn't learn to modulate their brakes to avoid sliding into another object with the brakes locked up. We will mandate ESC in 2012 so people that start to lose control in a corner or avoidance menuver will get computer assistance to correct and save them from an accident. These were positive advancements to address the problem of accidents. Banning cell phones is like treating the symptoms rather that the disease. It will also pull resources from law enforcement that could be doing something useful to the rest of society. IMHO :confuse:
Absolutely outrageous to have businesses having employees conducting business in an "as matter of fact" fashion on cell phones while driving. If this is either written, or unwritten policy/practice, woe be the day when a driving employee on the phone kills or severely injures a pedestrian or other driver. There are plenty lawyers that will take that company to the cleaners, and rightfully so.
I had to rename the thread title in this reply - parting words just sounds too deadly. :P
OK, so you and all other users on this board are very attuned, analytical and consciously adjust their driving while talking. But, we on this board are a tiny, miniscule minority of drivers in the US. To what extent, if any, do cell drivers across the US realize that there is a diminishment of driving capabilities while using the phone "and" then try to adjust their driving style to compensate. And ,what amount that do try to compensate, still end up weaving, blocking traffic, etc.
Have you ever had longer, or more intense, conversations while driving and then when ending the call can't recount things along your path during the conversation?
People doing business realize this. When a UPS truck has an accident today one of the first things the company does is cover the sign on the side of the truck because people look for deep pockets. Anytime one of your employees has an accident there are people out to take your company away from you. That is why you have to have lawyers as well. I only had a fleet of 12 trucks and a car and every accident we ever had went to court. People simply wouldn't settle for insurance. I am no longer in the business and I breath easier at night. But we had two way Nextels in all of our trucks. With the cost of fuel and what we paid our drivers and the cost of the vehicles time was money.
People will get used to driving and talking on cell phones or whatever we end up with because that is how it always works. But no matter what law you pass people will get distracted and have accidents. The accident rate per mile driven was just as bad before cell phones as it is now. And the accident rate per mile driven hasn't increased with the addition of cell phone distraction. But I am sure the blue tooth people are very thankful for these laws.
Yes, maybe that was a better title.
The key point is whether or not the company imposed a policy or practice on the employee that diminished that employee's driving capabilities.
Not related to employees driving and using a cell phone, but an obvious example of company responsibility - An employee attends a company sponsored party, has too much alcohol at the party and then while driving home from the party causes a crash/accident resulting in injury/death. The company likely would be found responsible and liable.
Still if cell phone use has increased by at least 100 percent why aren't we seeing an increase in accidents? If it as distracting as some have posted, some say as much as drunk driving, what is offsetting the activity? You add as many drunk drivers to your daily commute as cell phone drivers you would see some increase and that hasn't happened. In the places were cell phones have been banned you would expect to see a drastic decrease in accidents, and that hasn't happened.
What in your opinion has kept us from seeing some evidence that cell phones cause accidents? Why haven't insurance companies been all over this new threat?
Because it's very difficult to prove that some one was talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident and even harder to prove that's what caused the accident.
There are two pretty much indisputable facts:
a. Talking on a cell phone is a driver distraction
b. Talking on a cell phone has resulted in accidents (to include fatal ones)
The crux of the issue is that no one really knows what percentage of accidents are the result of talking on a cell phone.
-Frank
As politicians reply to questions not about their record or position, "You will have to ask them".
Perhaps insurance companies could derive extra revenue, for profit and to cover losses, by asking drivers to sign statement every six months affirming whether or not they use cell phone while driving. Those using would have a higher premium. If you made a false statement and say you don't but are caught (accident, crash, otherwise) using one, insurance coverage would be terminated.
Still if cell phone use has increased by at least 100 percent why aren't we seeing an increase in accidents?
One theory would be that except for cell phone use, accident/injury/death rate would be a lot lower given the improvements in: vehicle design (handling, tires, suspension, traction, stability, crushability, amount of air bags, etc), emergency response time, paramedic improvements, emergency room procedures, medicine, surgery, highway signals, highway barriers, highway markings of diamonds on road surface and yellow warning signs, and on and on since the advent of cell phone use in early 80's.
If that theory were valid then the places where cell phones were banned would have a decrease in their accident rate comerserate with the decrease in cell phones. Have any place reported a sudden decrease in accidents after the implementation of such laws? If not why not? Some states have had time to measure these results.
Don't believe that there is any state that has a total ban.
Understand that 14 states have a total ban on using cell phones by school bus drivers. If cell phone use is not a serious driving distraction as some here contend, why ban it?
Our policy permits the use of phones because it is legal assuming the phone is used IAW the law. And, even when the phones are used we require our drivers to use hands-free devices. We are a Fortune 500 company with laywers on retainer who write these policies. I can pretty much guarentee that every other company works in this same fashion.
Can we get sued? Hell, you would not beleive the crap we get sued for, but no one can charge that our cell phone policy is neglegent when it is consistent and even tougher then the law.
You need to be more realistic.
Ever heard of spin? - lol
A side benefit to total bans would require enforcement equipment in police cars. Perhaps American companies, such as Motorola, would benefit from design, engineering and manufacture of these devices. Good for the economy. Another benefit would be additional revenue to cities, counties, states across the US in capturing and giving tickets to the offenders.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the Soviet Union collapse? You have got to be kidding.
It doesn't have to be proven the cell phone policy is negligent...only that it is allowed.
Yeah. LOL.
Do you know how the government is already monitoring us? This should not be a surprise.
Then there is the officers themselves. How many do we believe will be on the prowl looking for cell phone drivers. We have had speed limit laws for ever and yet what percentage of them are caught?
Today hands free cell phones are legal and the number of cell phone users are climbing. By the time an attempt is made to ban them there should be lots of lobbiests and voters flooding their representatives with letters to dissuade any more restrictions. Our government is after all capitalistic and the cell phone industry is a taxable money generating industry. No one has ever attacked the fast food industry even if it is listed right next to cell phones as a major distraction. Can you see our government shutting down drive threws?
I believe every driver on our highways must be responsible for their actions and if something they are doing causes an accident they should be held to that responsibility. I just don't believe every other driver should be punished because some people can't use their cell phones responsibly.
If your company, and others, have employees conducting business while travelling on public roads then some type of rent or fees ought to be paid to State DOTs for priviledge. These yearly fees would be used for road/bridge building and maintenance.
As I understand, each of us who drives and have drivers licenses are granted priviledge to "only" operate vehicle on public road. Drivers license was never intended to grant conduct of business on a road.
The fee might also be tied in with a license explicitly stating that the State acknowledges that there is added risk for using a phone while driving and the State is absolved of any responsibility for crashes/accidents that might be caused by licensee when using phone while driving. A fee of $200-$500/year would seem fair. States would have to coordinate and there would be reciprocity. Fee structure could be set according to single state travelling/business talking, to regional, to national.
Perhaps some of us could email our State's Governor and Secretary of State about this matter.
Maybe not for driving while eating .... yet.
Meanwhile in Iowa, Lawmakers weigh cell phone use ban for all motorists.
There's a good map at that link of cellular bans (4 states & DC) and restrictions on use (15 states).
We already have traffic light cameras, speeding cameras, cameras in shopping malls, stores, govt buildings. These are PUBLIC places. Each State's rules of the road for drivers licenses already has many dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of rules and regulations that we need to abide while driving. Patrol cars, cameras, perhaps cell phone transmission monitoring in the future, are merely means to monitor conformance and determine violations.
Did not realize that CA, NY, NJ, CONN have "total" bans. Was article correct?
Oops, add Utah and Washington to the list - here's a recent link that says 6 states have a handheld ban.
"We are doing it from a public safety point of view," said Dandekar, who took a call on her cell phone Monday while driving to the Capitol. "This is a public safety issue."
You have to smile at that.
What government? The local government in San Luis Obispo County banned drive-threws because they felt they added to air pollution and congestion.
As I understand, each of us who drives and have drivers licenses are granted priviledge to "only" operate vehicle on public road. Drivers license was never intended to grant conduct of business on a road.
The fee might also be tied in with a license explicitly stating that the State acknowledges that there is added risk for using a phone while driving and the State is absolved of any responsibility for crashes/accidents that might be caused by licensee when using phone while driving. A fee of $200-$500/year would seem fair. States would have to coordinate and there would be reciprocity. Fee structure could be set according to single state travelling/business talking, to regional, to national.
Perhaps some of us could email our State's Governor and Secretary of State about this matter.
You surely can't beleive this. No offense, but do you honestly want to live in a society like this? I would be willing to bet that besides you, not one other person is going to write any governor about this.
Ever heard of Interstate Commerse? Ever wonder why they are called Interstates? These roads were created 100% with the intention to do business.
I sure hope you were joking.
And many of these technologies are being challanged and loosing as invasion of privacy and other things. Many of the speeding cameras are being pulled because you can't arrest a car. Some of this technology is OK, but some goes too far.
Glad you mentioned Interstate Commerce which you obviously support, and so do I. You are well aware that this involves shipment of goods on public roads and that shipping companies have to be licensed and pay large fees for priviledge of using public roads and that drivers must have CDL license. So, since shipping goods already is well regulated and has fees, others who use highways and public roads for business such as drivers/employees conducting cell phone business calls while driving should also be regulated and pay fees. Employees conducting business calls on public roads should be required to have a special license to do so.
Besides, how the heck can you distinguish the difference between a personal call and a work call, let alone the many that fall somewhere in the middle?
This is a real slipperly slope on many levels. For instance, most people drive to and from work and many may use the phone to do business while in their own cars on their own time. They are covered under their own insurance policies too and the insuance companies when in an accident, do not ask why your were driving.
My wife is an outside sales rep and supplies her own personal vehicle. By law and by company policy, driving to and from the office, or to her first apt, is not considered work, and there is not mileage reimbursement. Yet she may use the phone to do company work.
Who knows....perhaps your suggestion, if it could, may even address these issues, because many of us are stuck covering ourselves with our own personal insurance policies.
If I am driving to work today, using the phone, and get in an accident, it is 100% on me and on my insurance and at my expense.
The lawyer is going to look for all the pockets - that may include getting the phone logs to see what number the driver was talking to. If the driver was talking to a work number, the employer may very well be added as a defendant. IRS mileage regs probably don't have much to do with tort law.
Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it. It is just sad to see so many willing to dive into Orwell’s book so willingly. It is true that when we give up freedom for security we deserve neither. If we can’t learn to use the technology we develop maybe we don’t deserve the technology. I for one just don’t feel my fellow citizens are that slow. There may be a learning curve but we will learn it like we have any other technology.
Honestly, you are being a bit overdramatic. Having a cell phone law on the books is not up any security or liberty, in fact it adds to security and peace of mind.
Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it.
In some places you can get arrested for it. Singing and talking out loud is legal as long as one is not violating local noise laws.
If we can’t learn to use the technology we develop maybe we don’t deserve the technology
Why don't you be the first to lay down your technology?
I would guess that your wife is not represented by a union. If she were, there probably would not be the expectation to use phone in personal car to conduct business. A union would probably require compensation from the company. Companies take advantage of their employees in many ways, expecting them to take work home, do work on personal time, be on-call per pager/cell phone, make business calls in personal car, etc.
For instance, most people drive to and from work and many may use the phone to do business while in their own cars on their own time.
This is stupidity on part of employees.
They are covered under their own insurance policies too and the insuance companies when in an accident, do not ask why your were driving.
Insurance companies maybe should start asking policy holders if they use cell phone in car for business. Holder would have to sign statement stating yes or no. Cheaters would risk cancellation of policy if found out they lied.
Insurance rate would be higher for phone users to cover added risk. Those of us who don't use cell phone while driving, whether personal or business, should pay a lower rate than the users. We non-users should not have to subsidize policy rates for those that drive with diminished attention.
Talking on a cell phone, changing radio stations, eating food, removing a coat, etc, are all things that distract from the act of driving. What you’re choosing to ignore is that talking on a cell phone is far more of a cognitive distraction while the others are mainly a physical one.
Is talking on a cell phone in public rude?
Personally I think it is but I don’t have a clue what talking on a cell phone in public has to do with the topic at hand :confuse:
Your point about resistance to new technology is valid though. In fact, I’m quite sure that this whole debate will be pointless in the not too distant future. By then our cars will be driving themselves (as in the movie “I, Robot”) so you will be able to talk as much as you’d like :P For those who might be skeptical, intelligent cruise control, accident anticipation emergency braking and crash anticipation systems are already available
-Frank
"learn to use" -- You might add, "learn to use responsibly". Think that vast majority of folks would not think to make a cell phone call while watching an opera live, or a live play, or in a pew during church or synagogue service. That is responsible and considerate. Yet, maybe many of these same people would think nothing of conducting a personal or business conversation while operating a motor vehicle deadly missile that ranges in weight from 3000-6000 pounds while driving on a public road. These folks have to be trained, or otherwise educated, on responsible use.
This is similar to use of alcohol. Responsible use at home, restaurant, etc is ok, but open liquor container or drinking in vehicle is not. Most every driver already knows this. But, most drivers using cell do not know about added risks and dangers they pose to others.
Nobody is trying to prohibit use of cell phone or use of technology. It is responsible use that is the issue.
They used some of the studies that have been posted here to ban hand held cell phones yet those very same studies indicate the "conversation" not the phone is the distraction. There were both hands free and hand held units when the law was passed but they missed this one little fact? Are they telling the driving public that holding your hand to your ear is the distraction? Obviously the conversation is not a concern if the law makers decided we could still use a hands free unit. There is no other conclusion that you can draw. The very idea that people will keep both hands on the wheel is absurd unless we are will to pass a both hands on the wheel law.
Is cell phone use a distraction? Yes. Have they increased accidents. Doesn't seem so. So what is the problem?
I will not contend that cell phones are not a distraction. But I will contend that some people can and have been using cell phones while driving successfully for may years. And there is very little reason to punish the people that seem to be able to drive and conduct business because of the people who can't. (just my opinion.)
Unless someone has a study showing an increase in accidents that directly relate to cell phone use then this whole debate is simply opinion and we are all free to ignore each other opinion. We may be forced to upgrade our technology to circumvent the restrictions placed on it but as they say, where there is a will there is a way. For now we can upgrade to blue tooth or built in hands free or On-Star. But the law hasn't stopped anything. And after all is said and done, we are still using the cell phone while driving.
Completely impossible to prove. Most calls are to other cell phones. Just because ypu call someone you work with, does not make it a work call.
Years ago, all cell phone bills were itemized. We don't even submit itemized bills anymore.....the company just pays for an entire group plan with a pool of minutes.
The lines between work and personal are completely blurred especially with so many self employed people and people who work from home. I am on call 24/7, for example. My former boss used to be my best friend....we talked all the time.
Neither of us have or would ever work for a union. The vast majority of the public does not either. If unions would do as you say, no one could stay in business and we would be buying our air from china.
I think what you are drawing towards is a mentality of work issue. Ask a union worker what they earn and they speak in $/hr. Ask someone who takes ownership of their own results, and they speak in much different terms....something a union emplyee will never understand.
I have virtually no lines drawn in my life between work and personal. I have had weeks were I have worked 100 hrs + and no one counts my vacation. I take comp time as I see fit and I leave when I want....when I can based on work load. Having this flexibility means being available. Virtually everyone I know and associate with works like this.
Communication devices gives me this flexibility.
Labor shortages are on their way folks.....we need jobs that are flexible.
Hmm. Maybe because the accident rate is already 30% due to cell phones. Without the underlying metrics, there is no way to statistically correlate cell phone usage vs accident rate, try as one might to make the case.
Is Liability for Employee Cell Phone Use the Next Target for Litigation?
I didn't look to see how the case turned out, but just getting sued is painful enough, what with all the legal fees.
Oh, that law firm (back in '01) recommended "A well-written cell phone policy should firmly prohibit employees from using their cell phones while driving as long as the car is moving."
Here's another link that may be of interest.
Then, you have to consider the true cost of the law and the downsides. Yes, cell phones provide a benefit. Yes, cell phones probably have even saved lives.
I have noticed that over the years, that I see less and less examples of people driving wrecklessly. Cell phone users call 911 on people and I really do think that this has had a positive impact on would-be wreckless drivers. Hell, some women on the news who was drunk used a cell phone to report herself to the police last week....yes, an extreme case.
So, in order to fair to society, once we can prove the true cost benefit of cell phone laws, you have to consider the net true cost to society and then make legislation.
Laws cannot, nor should be a knee-jerk reaction. Look at all the problems the Patriot Act has caused. The law makers need to do their homework upfront which will make a law harder to dispute later.
But, that still does not change the point of this thread which is "should cell phones be singled-out?"
This is not certainly the only case like this and compnies like us are big targets.
We had a driver three years ago get T-Boned by another car. The other driver had a suspended liscense and fled the accident. He quickly returned with a budy who jumped into the car and behind the wheel. The driver then climbed in the passenger seat and feigned injury.
The police arrived (called by our driver) and wittnesses reported the entire incident and what the other driver had done. That still did not stop the driver from trying to sue us for $60,000 even though our guy was not at fault. Last I heard it cost us more then that to fight the case and the driver was eventually found guilty of fraudulant behavior, but I often wonder how many companies would have just paid the money because it was cheaper then to fight.
Companies have deep pockets and will always be targets for lazy, low-lifes who think there income needs to be a handout. Then again, there are certainly ligitimate situations where companies are liable.