By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The difference between those activities and talking on a cell phone is that they are visual tasks while talking on a cell phone is a mental one. Talking to passengers is also a mental task and depending on the conversation, can certainly be distracting. The key difference is that passengers usually have situational awareness of the driving conditions and won't continue to chat away when that car right in front of you slams on its brakes.
-Frank
Secondly I question why some people would contend that your making a short call to confirm a reservation should be banned simply because you place your hand to your ear. If as some have suggested it is because both hands are not on the wheel 100 percent of the time I am sure you could name several things that require you to remove one of your hands from the wheel but those activities shouldn't be banned. Yes there are some people that abuse cell phones but why punish everyone because of what they do? For people that insist on a total ban I ask If you can't make a short call on the freeway heading to to Atlantic city or Vegas to confirm your reservations maybe your should consider getting someone else to drive for you? All the time?
The NHTSA figures are scientific, your conclusions are unscientific.
Still drinking coffee changing, radio stations, drinking coffee, adjusting the air conditioning and talking to passengers are listed as distractions to driving even in some of the studies you have posted.
I would like to add, looking in the mirrors and monitoring the dashboard. They all take the same amount of cognitive power away and are performed in milliseconds. So while they may be listed as non-driver activities, it is absolute BS to say they are in the same category as cell phone usage, whose studies confirm the worst. The amount of brainpower lost in sipping water vs scratching an ear is near zero, not so with cell phone usage. And it may be unscientific, but it smacks of common sense, at lot of what has been missing in quite a few posts.
So lets go back to common sense and post 1632. Defensive driving is about thinking into the future, while driving itself is lot of reflexive actions. Younger drivers do not have the experience and their minds bodies are not trained to work together in a natural way to avoid situations. The government apparantely agrees as certain laws relating to hand held cell phones are popping up. Younger drivers have to be taught their overconfidence can lead to disaster. Why do you think younger inexperienced drivers pay a fortune for car insurance?
In addition younger drivers do not understand the concept of limiting non-driver activities, they believe wrongly, they can do everything well at the same time.
Common sense has to prevail, a lot of these posts do not pass the sniff test.
You have asked us to use common sense so I will ask you, is it common sense that tells you hand held phones take more concentration than hands free? Is it common sense that tells you a Blue tooth ear piece is different than a call phone next to your ear? Is it the conversation as the suggest? If so what difference does the method of getting the conversation to your ear make? If the answer is none then the whole hand held law is worthless and a shot in the dark.
It's a fact my friend. Sipping water is not the equivalent of a heavy cell phone conversation with regard to driving. That is not an opinion, it's a fact.
But you decission as to what other distractions are safe and when are no better than anyone elses.
I made some determinations based on common sense to activities that keep my mind focused 100% while driving. If you are trying to say, looking at the dashboard, looking in the mirror, sipping water takes away from your attention, you have no business driving. It's all common sense. this should hold for every driver on the road, except for you, it seems.
The level of risk is not the question
Yes it is. As has been determined by study after study. You cannot say sipping water or reviewing the gages int he car, is the equivalent of cell phone usage. It just isn't.
is it common sense that tells you hand held phones take more concentration than hands free?
Yes. but both are bad.
If the answer is none then the whole hand held law is worthless and a shot in the dark.
Because common sense does not prevail on the roads, so laws must be made.
This is a great example of why some people want to legislate cell phone usage. The automakers and the cell phone industry are both doing their level best to make talking on the cell phone "easier" while implying that hands-free devices are "safer". This leads many people to wrongly think that there is nothing inherently "dangerous" about talking on the phone while driving and in many cases their thought process is that if it was truly dangerous there would be laws against it.
-Frank
Your right, but I pick activities that do no intefere with my driving. If there was a study that showed sipping water is equivalent to a BAC of .08, that would be the end of sipping water in the car for me. Therefore I believe sipping water poses almost zero risk to me and my fellow motorists as I do not divert attention from the road.
One cannot say the same about cell phones. Have to wonder why there are almost 19 million crashe\? I'll betcha they weren't sipping water as root cause.
I do not, nor have I ever driven on the beltway in DC. My normal trips consist of I-90 in upstate NY, I-81 in NY/PA, and I-80 in PA. I now live elsewhere, but I don't live in a high congestion area. In fact, often, I am the only car within 2 - 3 miles.
I used to routinely travel 2 - 6 hours between apts.....it really is a different kind of driving. I think I may have left you with the wrong impression, because I would never, ever make a "deep" call about a negotiation when in the car if for no other reason, that you can't stay on the phone that long w/o being disconnected when you are traveling to the ends of the world.
I used to use the phone that much, because I would simply in the car so much.
There were even a greater percentage of crashes before cell phones, what was the root cause then?
However here is just an example of a study quoted by CNN as they report on what Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and approved by the NHTSA.
The top causes of crashes: (key word is cause)
Drowsiness 22.16 percent
Dialing a hand held device 3.58 percent
Talking on a hand held device 3.56 Percent
Reading 2.85 Percent
Eating 2.16 percent
Applying makeup 1.41 percent
Reaching for an object 1.23 Percent
reaching for a moving object 1.11 percent
Looking at an external object .91 percent
Insect in vehicle .35 percent
You can find this information at. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/driving.study/index.html
Here are some quotes from that study:
Reaching for a moving object multiplied the risk of a crash or near-crash by nine times, according to the study. Reading, applying makeup, or dialing a handheld device tripled the risk.
They admitted that the most common case for the distracted driver was Cell phones but as you notice it only was listed as a cause in 3.56 percent of the accident while drowsiness was listed in 22 percent of the accidents. But wait, there is no law against being drowsy?
I like the next quote.
But long glances at inopportune moments, such as "rubbernecking" near a crash, doubled a driver's chances of having an accident himself.
Still no law against rubbernecking.
Just remember this study was done to indicate a relation to the activity people were engaged in at the time of the accident. So as you can see a study has been done and reaching for a CD or radio knob is listed as a cause of accidents as late as April of 2006.
Yes cell phones as listed as the most common distraction but they were not the only distraction contributing to the cause of an accident nor were they the number one cause.
They admitted that the most common case for the distracted driver was Cell phones but as you notice it only was listed as a cause in 3.56 percent of the accident while drowsiness was listed in 22 percent of the accidents. But wait, there is no law against being drowsy?
Hold on there young fella, yes there is or there will be. I believe the legislature is kicking around some legistlation that would address your very concern. Stay tuned.
People admited to doing all sorts of bad things, all of which defy the common sense litmus principal I was referring to.
Still no law against rubbernecking.
No but there are laws with regard to driver discipline. You can't stop people from bunching up, but you can address tailgaters, speeders, stop sign runners and the like.
So as you can see a study has been done and reaching for a CD or radio knob is listed as a cause of accidents as late as April of 2006.
That is incorrect, radio knobs were not mentioned, however inserting a cd was, which I don't need to do because I have a 6 cd changer. I'm glad you agree what I had listed, sipping water, scratching my ear is not an at risk behavior. Neither my ear, the water or radio know are moving objects. Thank goodness my other vehicles have steering wheel controls.
In closing the report closed with the notion the banning cell phones via legislation might be a good idea. I concur.
But maybe the most interesting thing was cell phones were only held responsible for just over three percent of the accidents in the study. Not 50 percent but 3.56. So we do have some concept as to how many accidents cell phones cause. At least statistically as sponsored by NHTSA.
They clearly said moving objects. I guess shifting the car falls into the category.
There is a whole list of things you can suggest specific laws for
Actually no and that is the point. There is really no correlation in the bigger sense between common actions, such as tuning the radio and scratching your ear, when you don't shift your concentration or take your eyes off the road. The cd changer if you look carefully took his eyes off the road, so did the texter. Reaching for moving objects, which I don't do, poses a much bigger hazard. So while you can try to make a claim to that effect, the link did not mention that as a cause. But it did specifially mention cell phones a number of times.
Just before they listed moving objects they listed just reaching for an object. A bottle of water would qualify. And they even gave us an idea of what percentage of accidents that distraction causes. So you now have an idea of what percentage of accidents cell phones cause. And maybe you should think about an automatic?
Since opening the window, turning on HVAC etc, qualifies for reaching for an object are you saying that people don't know how to adjust their car while driving? The preceding qualifies as reaching. Are you telling me you don't turn on the wipers, blinkers, open the window, adjust the temperature? Are you saying you have to remove your eyes from the road? I don't buy that and again the litmus test of common sense does not prevail here. My water is an inch away from my HVAC controls and I don't see the NHTSA whining about the number of injuries or fatalities resulting from adjusting HVAC. So I don't buy it. Maybe if drivers reached for objects in the back seat.
However, cell phones clearly were at the top of the list. Drowsiness is a condition that can be avoided although sometimes it's a medical issue. So I don't buy that opening the window, turning the blinker or wipers, reaching for a stationary bottle of water in the cupholders, causes crashes and fatalities in the larger sense. Cell phones are clearly the issue.
Let's use the figures you provided. About 16 million car crashes a year. 3.58 and 3.56 percent are related to cell phone use. Even though the NHTSA doesn't have any metrics on cell phone crash causes I'm going to say 7.14 percent of accidents are cause by cell phones that is: 1,142,400. 1.23% are caused by reaching for an object: 196,800. The scale is clearly different. Cell phone users incur almost 10 times the crashes as reachers. Maybe that is why the government is more concerned with cell phone users than water bottle drinkers.
I wonder how many crashes are caused by sneezing. Maybe the government should ban that as well.
Anything can cause a crash, but you can't make a law against coughing or bottle water drinking as it could be a health issue. You can make a law against cell phone usage. At least when the driver exhibits signs of drunk driving, you can pull them over and give 'em a stiff fine.
I really love debating with you, you make my job so easy. Everything you said here I agree with. You simply can't stop someone from having a conversation anymore then you can coughing. This, folks, is where we enter the a brave new world....the world where there are no more hand-held cell phones in cars (because of laws), but instead, appropriate hands-free devices. It is entirely un-enforceable to stop these conversations in a car.
BTW, if you google the history of car audio, you will see that when radios were first introduced into cars, the government delayed allowing them to be used due to safety reasons. It is really truly a miracle that people have learned to drive a car with a radio on.
I sure hope you turn yours off in traffic. Actually, when I am REALLY trying to concentrate hard on driving especially in an unfamiliar area, mine goes off. What a real predicament this must put you in as it requires you to turn the radio off. Two of my cars have radio adjustments on the wheel.
I agree, and I've said all along I'm not for draconion measures. If the driver is exhibiting signs of inattention due to cell phone usage, give 'em a ticket and stiff fine. If the driver kills someone because they are one the cell phone, empty their pockets of money.
I sure hope you turn yours off in traffic. Actually, when I am REALLY trying to concentrate hard on driving especially in an unfamiliar area, mine goes off. What a real predicament this must put you in as it requires you to turn the radio off. Two of my cars have radio adjustments on the wheel.
Mine as well. But I sure hope you never turn or it never rains in your area. According to CNN you are reaching for an object, blinker or wiper control, and can cause a car crash. I sure hope your windows never getted fogged, turning on the HVAC could be worse than driving with fogged windows.
It must be really rough, publishing information so general it can be interpeted in any which way.
Edit - I liken the cell phone studies to smoking. There is no correlation as a cell phone user you will ever get into a crash, just like as in individual smoker there is no guarantee you will get cancer. But you clearly are at odds with the probabilities of engaging in a behavior known to be problematic. You can't stop people from talking on cell phones while driving or smoking in any approved area, but there are risks associated with both of them. I daresay more than my bottle of water...much more, as shown in my previous post.
Forgive my teasing but you were the one that asked me to show a study by a recognized agency that said cell phones cause less than 50 percent of the accidents. Even if it was rhetorical.
However doesn't it make as much sense that if you are willing to empty someones pocket for talking on a cell phone and causing an accident you would be just as willing to empty them for drinking a bottle of water. Or for eating a burger that was the cause of a bit over two percent of the accidents. That doesn't sound too general to me so I wonder how you interpret it? I looked at as that is what the NHTSA said was the cause of the studied accidents and the percentages that the NHTSA assigned each distraction. You have every right to call the conclusions bunk. But notice that while using the cell phone happens more often the chances of getting in an accident when reaching for a moving object was three time higher than cell phone use, according to the study published in conjunction with the NHTSA. So they say cell phones should be restricted in one breath and some people cheer. And in the next breath the same people say reaching for a moving object is more likely to cause an accident so that is bunk?
So you do believe in spin like waterdr said?
I agree. A law should be made. You can also make a law prohibiting swatting insects, but is makes no sense to do so. You can make a law prohibiting drinking, but the 196,000 crashes, pales in comparision to the 1.8m for cell phone users as shown in my previous post.
Driving is as much common sense as anything else. You might be a different person in real life, but your posting shows no common sense and really makes we wonder where your priorities are on the road. If I'm an unsafe driver because I drink water, you are 10 times as unsafe because you talk on the phone and your posts to do not indicate you focus on the road. Big macs are not the big issue on the road, cell phones are.
However doesn't it make as much sense that if you are willing to empty someones pocket for talking on a cell phone and causing an accident you would be just as willing to empty them for drinking a bottle of water
This is an example of what I was referring to. Can you actually show a high profile case where a fatality was committed due to driver drinking bottled water, or turning on HVAC or opening window. You can take the "reaching for object" to any level of idiocy and make it so generic it turns into blowing the horn.
So let me restate my position:
1. cell phones are problematic on the road as determined by multiple studies
2. penentration rate is very high
3. laws are needed because people don't have common sense
4. laws for other behaviors are optional, I wouldn't be against them, need to address the issues.
Even if I believe drinking from water bottles is safe and you believe it is dangerous but do it anyway, that position is a bit hypocritical. If you believe water bottles are dangerous that what does that make cell phones.
Because you do not post your views about various driver behaviors, my assumption is you do not view any as really dangerous, which makes you the worst type of driver. Talk about spin.
The crux of this part of the debate is admitting that we all drive with some form of distraction. But we don't need a specific law against all of those distractions we need to enforce the laws we already have. I have never once said using a cell phone isn't a form of distraction. I realize that there is some risk involved when I answer a call and there are times I have pulled over because the conversation was more than casual. But I also admit to the other distractions that I have been guilty of and admit that I take a risk doing those things as well. Knowing it is a risk makes me more careful at deciding if my driving conditions will permit me to divert some on my attention to those other distractions.
I used to drive a Tractor trailer up and down the west coast for 13 years. Like many truckers I had a CB set and a thermos full of coffee. I managed to put on close to a million miles and not one accident. And yes I knew there were times I could talk on the CB and when I couldn't. But what I could do isn't the point I am trying to make. In all of these years I had a chance to observe a lot of other drivers and see some of the things they do in their cars. I am sure none of them felt their actions were distracting but I can assure you they could do them and drive on a race course or in a slalom. I am also sure all of those drivers thought they were paying total attention. But accidents still happened and people were still responsible.
We are not going to agree on this subject because of our different experiences and feelings on good verses bad laws. But do me a favor. When you are looking for your preferred studies show me what decrease in the accident rate these cell phone laws are making. I would be interested to see if the accident rate drops 3.56 to 7 percent in California in the last half of 2008. If it does drop by 7 percent you are right and by the number of accidents you attributed to cell phones it should be easy to see. But if you are wrong then it was as I suggested a wasted law that only made people feel they were doing something.
I disagree, additional laws are needed to deal with cell phone abusers.
When people cite studies saying a person can't drive on a race course or through a slalom course because they are on a cell phone and so that justifies a total ban on cell phone use I am sceptable.
Only you are saying total ban.
And if someone is eating or drinking and they hit my car is my car any less damaged than if they were on the cell phone?
I's the percentage of penetration.
The crux of this part of the debate is admitting that we all drive with some form of distraction. But we don't need a specific law against all of those distractions we need to enforce the laws we already have.
For all I care, those addiitonal laws could be put on the books, but we need these laws for cell phones.
But do me a favor. When you are looking for your preferred studies show me what decrease in the accident rate these cell phone laws are making. I would be interested to see if the accident rate drops 3.56 to 7 percent in California in the last half of 2008. If it does drop by 7 percent you are right and by the number of accidents you attributed to cell phones it should be easy to see. But if you are wrong then it was as I suggested a wasted law that only made people feel they were doing something.
We do not know, until cell phone is inserted on the NHTSA records as a root cause, we simply will not know. As a former driver, I'm sure you could appreciate what would happen if you caused many fatalities because your driving skills were asleep at the wheel due to cell phone usage. CB was a different story. If that were a real distraction planes would be falling out of the sky and cops would crashing their cars.
There have been multiple truck accidents lately I really would like to understand the causes, cell phone yes, cell phone no.
If accidents don't drop after the ban it will be proof the law wasn't needed. That is common sense.
If accidents don't drop after the ban it will be proof the law wasn't needed. That is common sense.
Is DUI eliminated? How many years did it take to even stablize the number of DUIS?
Actually the VT study did satisfy me. It drew the same conclusion everybody else. As far as the bottle of water thing, I disagree your interpetation of the conclusion as it applied to that point about objects, but it's really irrelevant because everybody does it. Everybody reaches for something in the car. Those who reach are those who believe it's dangerous, those who don't and those that don't care. And I submit, there are "ways" to reach, which put your life in jeopardy and "ways" to reach that have no effect on your driving.
Cell phones are another issue, "everybody" does it but the effects are obvious in a lot of drivers.
Maybe CA operates under a different principle on earth, but I doubt it.
You even made my point when you commented on the effects of the CB set. You said if it were as bad as cell phones you would expect planes to fall out of the air and trucks to cause carnage all over the road. In other words you would expect to see some results from increased cell phone use. You would expect to see an increase in accidents involving trucks. Well today there has been an increase in cell phone useage by truck drivers to the same level as the rest of the driving public and still the rate hasn't increased anywhere close to the rate of cell phones. Think about it. What you expected to see simply didn't happen. On the other hand if hand held cell phones cause 3-7 percent of the accidents "when" they are no longer in use there should be some reduction in the number of accidents. If not you need to look for a different root cause. I believe you will discover what I did all those years on the highway. Some people are simply bad drivers, with or without a cell phone. You might be able to get people to go hands free but you can't make them better drivers.
Yes, but CBs are not cell phones. Usage, conversation,mode and effect on your brain is entirely different. Do you want your pilot calling wife on cell phone, to find out about dinner as plane is going to land? Why not? Do you want the pilot communicating with the tower?
Well today there has been an increase in cell phone useage by truck drivers to the same level as the rest of the driving public and still the rate hasn't increased anywhere close to the rate of cell phones.
And how do you know that? And how do you know the number of truck accidents are not going up? Might want to do some research, the results may surprise you. Take a look at FARS.
Why fight it? The laws they pass will pass and we will be talking on hands free for years to come till we have a better system. I don't think I will see many hand held units after July 1 this year and if I do they won't get a ticket unless they break another law first. When and if they do they will get a $20.00 fine and it doesn't even count as a moving violation. It is like a fix it ticket. I believe it is a foolish law and you don't. To each his own. I will buy a Latte with an extra shot in your honor tomorrow morning and promise not to drive till I finish it. But I will not promise not to get On star and a navigation screen with my next car.
I did not know you were "Dr. Shapiro" and a nurologist. That is truly amazing.
Nearly every time you make a post, you prove my point for me. So, what you are saying is, there are some conversations where the risk is acceptible and others where the risk is not for a pilot, yet you fail to see this for a driver or a car. Know what? I will do you a favor. No need to reply so you can quite while you are behind.
You can quote FARS, it's very useful. There is no statistical correlation between fatalities and cell phone usage because at the lowest level this information is not captured. If it is not captured all you are doing is assuming. If you are saying cell phone usage isn't the death knoll as some as said, you don't know because this information is not available. When you assume. At least I am honest and believe that it is better to be conversative and have altered my driving behavior over the last few years. I am no great guru, just have a lot of common sense and don't believe it is my given right to chat on cell phones while driving. It is safe to drink water and turn on HVAC and open the window. That's my leap, if it weren't we'd all be dead, because 100% of drivers take their hands off the wheel to adjust something.
Why fight it?
I'm not. I'm for additional stiff fines where the driver was driving like a drunken sailor on the road. I believe it should be a primary offense, with license revocation for new drivers.
To each his own.
Bingo. That is the American way.
I will buy a Latte with an extra shot in your honor tomorrow morning and promise not to drive till I finish it. But I will not promise not to get On star and a navigation screen with my next car.
Bully for you, however I'd rather you skip the phone and drink the latte while driving. Amen to the On star and navigation screens. I use vz-nav.
No sooner had a picked-up the phone, I have the Maple Grove police behind me. I had my flashers on, so I figured he pulled over to see if we were OK.
This was the conversation:
"Is everything OK sir?"
"Yes....I just need to take a call from my wife, we got separated and I am a bit lost."
"Sir, there is a $95 fine for stopping on the side of the road unless your car is disabled or there is another emergency. I need to ask you to move the car immediately."
That is the last, the very last time I will ever pull over to use the phone. I give up.
That is the last, the very last time I will ever pull over to use the phone. I give up.
Is good input for 11 year old girls, to say OK to use while driving? When they are 16-18 year old drivers, they will emulate.
Need more details. Was this in a city, village that has laws on books (not necessarily posted) about parking procedures? What are rules of road for state that you were in for parking? The official "Rules of Road" for my state has tips for cell phone use, one of which is: "Pull off the road to dial or complete a conversation".
So does mine, but I know there are roads it is impossible to pull over. However, if one must answer the phone, one must do it legally. My wife hold the phone when I drive so I don't need to deal with it. If I were waterdr I would have had my kids answer the phone.
The local's finest must have been right around the corner and saw me stop, because the guy was behind no sooner then when I stopped.
There is no way in hell everyone can possibly know all the little nuances of all the communities as far as stopping and standing on a street.
To be honest....now that I think about it.....I am going to do what I think is safe and prudent in any situation, and I really don't care what the cops say. Seriously, if I had to do it all over.....besides my earlier post, I would stop again and deal with the cops if I get pulled over accordingly.
But, I will say, that I will be much more hesitant in the future to pull over.
What are the odds: Car Accident (YouTube video)
Will that make any difference if you run into a Peterbuilt while talking on the cell phone?
"Your odds of being in a car wreck in the next year are one in 16. Maybe it's time to put the cell phone down? Prof. Jeff Rosenthal tells you to slow down, stop using your cell phone and don't drink and drive. And drive a bigger car. " I even indicated it was with a touch or hyperbole.
But as a parting shot, the hand held law in my state "exempts" Heavy duty truck drivers with push to talk hand held phones. Great laws aren't they? (allow me to indicate that is a bit of humor as well.)
Yes the Tahoe sucks fuel but it will tow the trailer I am buying. The Focus wouldn't tow a steamer trunk.
PTT is not full-duplex conversation and therein may lie the difference. Similiar to CBs and police radios.
Well we still have hands free so I guess we can settle for that.
Looks like the roads are getting even worse. I sure expect to see a huge increase in accidents and I hope everyone stays home.
They shouldn't go away. What should go away is irresponsible usage.
Looks like the roads are getting even worse. I sure expect to see a huge increase in accidents and I hope everyone stays home.
Don't want people to stay home. Want financial compensation for injuries suffered due to cell phone user. As you allude to, it's the percentages relative to other bad driving behaviors that warrant specific laws. I'm not for Pork Barrel Legislation, which is why I favor narrower focused laws, when they can be enacted.
Why limit it to three? Anyone owning Verizon, AT&T or similar stock should be pleased when everyone, including children, has at least one cell phone with lots of paid-for minutes type plans. Look at all of the boon to economy for building more cell infrastruture - towers, mobile switching centers, phone stores, etc., not to mention added revenue from more minutes billed.
As soon as kids start going to school, kindergarten or maybe pre-school, they should have an upt-to-date cell phone. And, kids should not be deprived of latest and greatest such as blackberries. Now that I think back, I don't know how I survived as a kid or a teen without having a cell phone. Oh my gosh.... the difficulties and hardships my era endured.
One thought that just occurred. With more and more kids having cell phones, what are implications for safety when kids are riding bikes and talking on cell phones. Do we need a new board, "Should cell phone bike riders be singled out?"