Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Could it be that in 2008, the State of Illinois will provide leadership at both state and national level?
Illinois just implemented on Jan 1, 2008, a total ban on smoking in public places. This is good government that will step up and protect innocent people from effects of tobacco smoke. Long overdue. If we get the total ban on driver cell phone use, will a ban on smoking in vehicles be next? Passengers of smoking drivers, such as children, are innocent victims that cannot otherwise be protected.
Nippon is right in that cell phone user simply didn't raise a stink and the cell phone companies knew quite well that any such law will give them a ready made market for the hands free upgrade on their new services. I pretty shallow victory for whoever sponsored it. It is a lot like wetting yourself wearing dark pants. It might be a warm feeling but it isn't what you want.
A good example of the effectiveness of education is the declining smoking rate in this country. Its slow and gradual but nonetheless positive. On the other hand laws provide the immediate gratification that you've done something but in the long term they accomplish zip. What amazes me is that people still cling to the illusion that legislation is effective. Are we living in the same country?
Rocky
-Loren
I think you've pretty much grasped the concept. I wouldn't eliminate the red lights because they serve the purpose of coordinating traffic. I'd also keep speed limit signs but they would be advisory in nature. I'm not sure why this is so far fetched. You seem to think that the risk of a fine and a couple points on your insurance is a far greater deterrent than the risk of a serious accident. Will we have more accidents. Probably but we'll also have less cops chomping down their donuts while they sit at a speed trap. We won't have red light cameras who's primary purpose is to extort money.
BTW, one of the western states, I think Montana, did away with speed limits for awhile on their highways. It didn't result in the carnage you are predicting. The Autobahn didn't used to have limits. Every now and then we have big power outages where the traffic lights don't work. Here's a situation where it would be impossible to get a ticket for running a red light yet people don't do it. Hmmm... You seem to share the mindset of our current batch of legislators in that people are incapable of judgement.
As far as taking away someone's license goes. I've heard a rumor that the car will still start even if the driver doesn't posess one of these things.
I never advocated getting rid of all laws just most of them. If a driver is in an accident that is determined to be his fault there will be consequences. Whether it was due to him falling asleep, talking on a cell phone, being drunk, whatever, is irrelevant.
If you see someone who's left lane camping, yakking on the cell phone, holding up traffic and making a dangerous situation, and not paying attention to the world around them then yeah, single them out. But if you happen to glance in someone's car and see them talking on the cell phone, but they seem to be paying attention to the road around them and aren't bothering you, then leave them alone.
You can't apply blanket statements to everybody. Some people can drive just fine while using the cell phone, eating, testing their tilt steering wheel like Chevy Chase did in National Lampoon's vacation, etc. Others will get more distracted and will create a dangerous situation.
Sounds good but I would put the drivers through six times.
1.) no distractions
2.) talking on a cell phone
3.) talking to someone in the car
4.) operating electronics (radio, CD player, Nav system)
5.) with a full cup of coffee with no lid in the hand.
6.) with a back seat full of unruly 6 year olds.
Then lets compare the results.
To make things more interesting test # 3 could have either Bobcat Goldthwait or Gilbert Gottfried as the passenger.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Why not, everyone can come here in February, we could conduct the test then go over to the Auto show. Sounds like a great ideal.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Both erratic drivers were not on cell phones.
All those I saw on cell phones were driving in a proper manner and their driving didn't raise any eyebrows.
The last person I saw on a cell phone was a blonde in a SUV (Oh my a triple threat) as I was waiting to make a right turn on red. She was part of cross traffic coming from my left and made a right turn onto the street I was on. She made the right turn flawlessly even though she was a blonde on a cell phone driving an SUV.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Oh c'mon, now you're just making things up! :P
Just gray felt for about 1/2 mile on both sides should do it.
If nothing else, I would fee ever-so-warm & cozy whilst driving.
And may I just add kudos to kapbot & hypnosis44 for 1) admitting you've done bad, bad things while driving, and 2) contributing some darn interesting posts.
This is becoming an intriguing thread.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
1.) no distractions
Sounds good.
2.) talking on a cell phone
Impact of Cell Phone Conversations On Driving
Profiles In Driver Distraction: Effects of Cell Phone Conversations on Younger and Older Drivers
3.) talking to someone in the car
When talking to a passenger, even one not yet of driving age but old enough to have situational awareness, the passenger will "shut up" during peak workload. Also, if you stop talking, they will have an understanding why.
4.) operating electronics (radio, CD player, Nav system)
Everything but Navigation
Destination Entry while Driving: Speech Recognition versus a Touch-Screen Keyboard
Common Automotive Navigation System Usability Problems and a Standard Test Protocol to Identify Them
5.) with a full cup of coffee with no lid in the hand.
There is only so much I can do to help the population :P
6.) with a back seat full of unruly 6 year olds.
Reasonably valid point...some distractions are challenging to control. I would suggest learning to discipline the child. Secondly, as long as its a dangerous behavior, why not let him juggle knives too and play with matches? Just because some factors are difficult to control doesn't mean there should be no attempt to minimize others, thats the slippery slope fallacy.
Then lets compare the results.
BDDT...how do you think I knew about all those reports?? :P
Let me know if I can provide any additional information
Driving Simulators
I would look at Ford's, University of Iowas (aka NADS), and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Center (aka UMTRI).
Good Stuff :P
What a contemptible lie. I and at least one other here have mentioned that our situational alertness as a passenger at times is null. And just because the person you are talking to won't understand why you quit talking doesn't mean you have to keep talking.
In all reality how many times has your passenger stopped talking when traffic got heavier? My experience is that its rare.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
As far as reaction time is concerned there are situations where this is not as critical. A highway with no cross traffic and good separation between vehicles is an example. People make comments like, "what if a 6 year old ran in front of you while chasing a ball"? I'd be very surprised to see this on I-95 or for that matter any non-residential road. And if it ever did occur I would tend to question the parent's judgment for letting their child out on an interstate to play with his ball. But I've never been a parent so what do I know?
tpe: Kids are kids. You can teach, yell and scream at them not to go in the street. But if they are caught up inthe game they are playing, they forget things like this. To me residential roads are far more dangerous then interstates.
"I'd be very surprised to see this on I-95 or for that matter any non-residential road."
I'm not sure what your point is.
That would support my contention that its poor driving habits that cause all of this.
As far as reaction time is concerned there are situations where this is not as critical....
I know, I have a friend who lives down state, I go down I-180 which is a spur off of I-80 in the middle of nowhere Northern Illinois. I travel this road for about 6 miles to the exit and I would say that about 1/3 of the time I see no traffic on this Interstate. Add to the fact that this road goes nowhere near any home how much attention do I really need on this road? The only time I would ever need a quick reaction time is if something fell from the sky right in front of me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Read the rest of the report. That was posted to show the lack of difference between hands held and hands free. That report is made up of the data of about 20 different studies, some using a passenger converstation task, some not. Of the ones using a passnger conversation task, there was no procedure for the experimentor (passenger) to stop the conversation during a peak workload time. In fact, Gugerty et al (2003) increased the demand on the driver by playing a link letter game at a higher speed to represent cognitive loading. This isn't a realistic test of a passenger conversation.
Snakeweasel,
How do you really feel about it? :P And thanks for your anecdotal input, that helps a lot statistically, I'm sure.
You haven't been reading my posts if you have to ask that question.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Impact of Cell Phone Conversations On Driving
Started reading "Impact" Meta Study and need more time to complete it. Maybe the answer is there already and I will find it to this question: Does it matter that participants in a "cell phone while driving test" know that they are in a test?
If all test particpants know ahead of time that they are particpating in a test and maybe told of reasons and objectives, would it be human nature that they would strive to adjust their behavior and thought processes to perform at higher level? Don't humans most usually strive to do well in tests - whether academic, physical or whatever?
Everyday typical driver using a cell phone would not raise their thinking/behaviour/performance levels without purpose or motivation. How do we know what an everyday driver using a cell phone and not in a "test" mode can do?
I don't use my phone in the car, much. But the few times I have it was only to answer and respond and quickly hang up. I have to wonder however if the police will cite themselves when they use a hand unit to talk to dispatch? Or if I get a Hand held CB type radio, family band like so many use in th emalls now, from radio Shack can I keep one close to me and talk on that? Will pilots flying into California have to stop talking while flying? (thinking) No pilots and race car drivers use hands free units. So the police and Fire department that use those shoulder mounted hand units will be in violation? Maybe I could design a cell phone that looks like a Starbucks cup or a Big Mac? Now if we can just get them to pass a law against singing with the radio or talking to a fellow passenger we won't have all these accidents? With all the real problems we have on the road this just seems like a lot of smoke.
Yes as soon as any subject knows that their results are being measured that subject will alter their behavior.
If all test particpants know ahead of time that they are particpating in a test and maybe told of reasons and objectives, would it be human nature that they would strive to adjust their behavior and thought processes to perform at higher level?
No, it would be human nature to get acceptance. In a case like this it would be human nature to do things to get the acceptance of those who are conducting the test. So if I were to explain the test to a group of subject starting with the phrase "I want to show how dangerous cell phone use is in a car" the results would be different than if I said "I want to show how cell phone use in a car is not dangerous".
So participants of the test will not strive to perform better, but would strive to give the tester the results the participants think the tester wants.
This is one reason why two studies on the same thing can give opposite results.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Taking away a drivers license for those which are a danger to society in the way they drive is a first step. I agree, some will still get behind the wheel to drive. Step two is to incarcerate them.
-Loren
This type of information is only provided after they have completed the study. When the participant comes in, they are typically told "we are evaluating a new interface to use a cell phone in the car" or something like that. There have been ocasions where what they are initially told is so far from the truth it requires special consideration from the IRB (you aren't allowed to lie to people involved in studies except certain circumstances).
Actually, the Fed Gov told them they would lose their highway funds if they didn't have a speed limit. It had nothing to do with the behavior of people on the road.
Typically yes, thats how it should be but sometimes the instructions are given that will taint the results, be it intentional or not. Thats why instructions and information given to subjects have to be very carefully worded.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Agreed, but it is false logic to assume that wasn't the case or make a blanket statement like "the results are such because the experimenters were pushing a commie-pinko propaganda" or something.
Most studies include the script for every word read to the participant. This is very important in making sure the study is consistent. That said, the adherence to the script is often subject to how much the experimenter drives this point home to the assistants (read: undergrads).
I never said any such thing, I just made the comments to correct what was posted that participants will react in a set way. I still haven't seen the hard evidence from any study and would like to see it before condemning or promoting any study. Until then I will take them with a grain of salt.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Speaking of memorable arguments, a fishing chum from the rock-ribbed State O' Maine once explained to me why the statistics associating drunk drivers with fatalities were entirely spurious.
"Did you know," he said, "that when alcohol is a factor in a pedestrian fatality that the statistics don't make any allowance for whether the drunk was the pedestrian or the driver? Do you mean to tell me you've never seen a drunk pedestrian?"
Yep. The last one was talking on a cell phone.
So what are you saying? You provided us with an unrealistic report? It sounds to me that you are stating this report is realistic in terms of cell phone conversations but not in terms of passenger conversations. Wow, why would someone trying to compile legitimate data perform such a study? Are you sure that their cell phone conversations were realistic? Of course you're sure because it supports your beliefs. It sounds to me that you apply a filter to the information you take in. If it agrees with your already established point of view then if must be legitimate. If it doesn't then you need to find a way to dismiss it. Very objective on your part. BTW, I was being sarcastic with that last remark.
ATLANTA -- A lovesick 16-year-old girl crashed her car into an oncoming vehicle in a suicide attempt, counting down the moments before impact in text messages sent to the female classmate who spurned her, authorities say. The girl survived; a woman in the other car was killed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000484.- html
Most people I see tailgating me are not on cell phones, or eating, drinking or anything noticible like that.
Also that damage might not have been her fault, or she might not have even been in the car when it happened.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Really, no one who has driven for any length of time has not done something incredibly stupid, either due to poor judgment or just plain stupidity. Myself included, and everyone reading and/or participating in this thread.
My point is that the consequences of said actions are potentially addressed by laws already on the books. If you cause a wreck, or endanger others, or just yourself because you divert your attention from your primary task, there are already laws and regulations on hand to punish you.
Example: You see me talking on my cell as you pass me on the freeway. Later that night you turn on the local news and recognize my car on top of the flaming heap resulting from a major traffic pile-up. Does that mean my cell phone usage was at fault? What about the Jack Daniels, crack pipe and th 40oz'er behind the seat you didn't see? What about the moron who crossed three lanes of traffic at 30 mph from the on ramp so they could drive in the left lane?
If I cause a problem, bust me for lack of attention, following too closely, driving too fast for conditions, failure to yield right of way, having a "Calvin peeing on another brand" bumper sticker, whatever. If I goof up and cause a real problem for another driver, or drivers, it's my fault because I wasn't placing the full amount of concentration on the potentially extremely dangerous activity I have willingly engaged in.
People just have to take the operation of a motor vehicle more seriously than most do, apparently.
I am saying they didn't have enough data to make the conclusions they did for that part of the report. There are other studies they reference that do various tasks to simulate a conversation on a cell phone. The part that I have issue with is that for conversations with people in the vehicle, they didn't realistically simulate the behavior of a passenger.
Are you sure that their cell phone conversations were realistic? Of course you're sure because it supports your beliefs.
Read the reports referenced, some of them use an activity to represent cognitive loading, some use conversations about pre-established things ("how old are your children or siblings, what is your address, what color is your house/car"...to more challenging tasks "count by 8s"). My issue with the report was they didn't have enough data on passenger (non-pilot) performance to say what they said.
It sounds to me that you apply a filter to the information you take in. If it agrees with your already established point of view then if must be legitimate. If it doesn't then you need to find a way to dismiss it. Very objective on your part.
Wow, yes, lets just rely your data, oh wait, you haven't presented any, thats right, you are just going off anecdotal experience. That is much more objective than controlled research. I sit corrected.
Cell phone studies are pretty common (and sponsored by the government, auto manufacturers, cell phone service providers, AAA, etc), but if they go against your agenda, then I will dismiss them from now on.
That is true. But, it is after the fact. Punishment of drunk drivers and drivers using cell phones that cause death or injury will not bring back the dead and will not restore injured persons to pre-injury condition.
Something more needs to be done. Something proactive. Proactive in the case of drunk driving meant law enforcement bodies increasing focus and education on the problem as well as concerned citizen groups such as MADD expending efforts to reduce drunk driving. Beer and liquour manufacturers also helped by including tv messages about designated drivers and responsible drinking.
Without attention and a proactive approach, whether legislation or education, driver cell phone misuse will not be reduced by just punishment when accidents occur.
Because of issues with multi-tasking and the phenomenon that when you are under pressure to perform a secondary task, you perform both better (yes I know, I am looking for the study link, relax), it might actually help people drive better under low workload situations.
Now driving on snow and ice in the dark during evening rush hour on curvy surface streets, that would be a good time not to use the phone. The issue is whether or not people can make that decision on their own...
We note that, while the magnitude of the reaction time effect was relatively small (an average delay of 130 ms), this represents a mean value, around which there is considerable variance. Accidents are often caused by "worst case" performers under "worst case" circumstances (Wickens, 2001), at the tail end of the distribution, where reaction time delay can be expected to be considerably longer.
That's a pretty important comment. It makes two important points:
1) The mean delay time was only 130 milliseconds. That isn't trivial, but that is not very much time under most circumstances where reaction time is critical. (Traveling at 60 mph, that translates into under 12 feet traveled.)
2) The variance around the mean was significant. The summary concludes that it's really only the "extreme" drivers who are causing accidents while using their phones, not the majority.
We can debate the meaning of this latter point, but the wide variance tells me that the phone is but a symptom of the cause. The average person can use the phone with minimal effect, many others can use the phone with virtually no effect (those who are affected to a below-average degree), while others are greatly distracted by their phone usage to the point that they actually have accidents.
Which brings it back to the points that some others here are making: Some people are just horrible drivers, and it would seem that it those specific drivers are utterly incapable of using phones, while others can use their phones with little or no problem.
What's missing from the studies is an analysis of the "base case". In other words, how would these same bad drivers conduct themselves when they aren't using phones?
I don't have data to back this up, because the studies I've seen don't conduct the research needed to address this, but my guess is that these "extreme" drivers are unsafe at any speed. If it wasn't a phone that they could use to distract themselves, then they'd easily find distractions by other means, be that with their coffee cups, burger wrappers, conversations with passengers, changing radio stations, running mascara, etc., etc., etc.
In my mind, it's a mistake to presume that removing the phones will inspire bad drivers to keep both hands on the wheel, stay focused, use their turn signals, drive in a lane appropriate to their speed, and so forth. They'll continue to screw up, and we will start blaming their coffees, Ipods, and newspapers, when we should have been blaming them from the onset. Good driving is based in attentiveness, predictability and courtesy, and some folks are simply lacking in all of these qualities.
They classified near-misses and collisions. Hitting the curb would show up as a collision, but all the incidents were reviewed and scored for the analysis.
100 Car Naturalistic Driving Study
They had outtakes from this at a conference I was at last year, it was pretty eye opening.
Honestly, I am coming from a different angle than that. I see it a bit differently, as what I believe to be an obsessive concern by some to eliminate anything that might include an element of risk. Some people seem to think that the world is a very dangerous place, and that every corner has to be padded before we can go outside to face it.
In the process, the effort is often directed toward imposing simple solutions that deal with easy symptoms, instead of dealing with the big-picture underlying causes that are much more difficult to explain and are a lot harder to solve without upsetting people.
In the case of the phones, it's an easy thing to attack because we've all seen an example of somebody on a phone driving poorly, so it's easy to blame the phone, regardless of the person. It's a poltically expedient answer that makes the voters feel good, even if it ultimately didn't accomplish anything. Telling some people that they simply shouldn't drive at all, period, is not an easy story to sell, and surely won't help anyone to get elected.
I dont think that anyone can deny that. You cannot create a law to force people to not fall asleep while driving (I recently lost a friend who went off the highway and struck a tree and died coz he dozed off). You cannot prevent people from looking back to talk to the passengers with any law.
All the same let me tell you about something that they do in my industry, comsumer financial lending. There is no model in the world which can predict with 100% accuracy who will deafult on your loan and who will not. But one good way of looking at things is - can you reduce 80% of the defaults by identifying a high risk 20% of the population? If yes, then that is a reasonable trade-off.
You argument does hold sense. But think of it this way.
1) Dozing off at the wheel because youre tired is as deadly as driving while drunk
2) There are many people in other countries (as many of my latin american friends tell me) where they drive way more drunk and yet are in general just as safe
Would you use the above 2 arguments to say the drunk driving law makes no sense and should be repealed? Would you be comfortable hitting the road and asking your family to hit the road in such a scenario?
Just because we cannot stop ALL forms of bad driving and distraction does not mean that we should make absolutely no efforts to clamp down on activities which a) have high potential to cause damage b) are easily enforceable
Using the analogy of your industry and applying the phone ban concept to it, the solution to preventing loan defaults would be to stop loaning money to everyone. If you don't loan any money to anyone, then nobody can default, of course. (It wouldn't be good for business, but at least the payments wouldn't be missed.)
The lending industry doesn't address the default problem by outlawing the lending of money. Instead, it assigns a level of risk to borrowers, and doesn't allow everyone to borrow the same amounts or on the same terms. The people who are less trustworthy are treated differently from those who are more trustworthy, and the very worst folks can hardly borrow a thing.
The same rationale should be applied here. Just as we don't shut down the entire consumer credit industry because of a few people who won't or can't pay properly, why should we ban phone usage entirely because of a few people who can't or won't drive properly? You are allowing the lowest common denominator to set the rules for everyone.
A ban sidesteps the real problem, by treating everyone the same and by leaving the bad apples on the tree. You end up with the same quantity of bad drivers, and the roads won't be any safer.
The question you raise is whether phone usage is, by itself, a predictor of accidents. I am not entirely sure of the answer, but I am not sure that I am seeing the linkage between phone usage and accidents in the research.
I do see that there are a few people who are quite incompetent with their phones, it's impossible to deny that, given the research. But I am guessing that those same people are incompetent without them. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, I definitely don't want the bottom dwellers to make the laws for the rest of us.