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
Driving while talking with a cell phone to your ear and hands-free is the equivalent of a big bully coming up to you, pretending to sucker punch you within millimeters of your face. While the bully never touched you, it would not be a pleasant experience and you would probably file charges.
In my opinion, that is what it is like to drive next to a cell phone talker, not to mention texter. They may swerve out of their lane, you might avoid them and life goes on. No harm, no foul, right? But why have a bully pretend to sucker punch you or a driver almost side swipe you? Why does one need to put up with such boorish and inconsiderate behaviors?
The bully should both be dealt with and the cell phone talker should be singled out above other drivers who fail to control their vehicles for whatever reason, except DUI.
Find one post where I ever claimed cell phones are not dangerous. I never said that.
You miss the point.
You're avoiding the point. Which is while there are numerous activities that can be dangerous if done while driving, talking on a cell phone ranks right up there with intoxication as being one of the most dangerous. So yes, they should be singled out.
As to the cold meds I guess you would agree then that it would be OK to simply put a warning on a cell phone. After all, that is apparently fine for cold meds.
Interestingly enough, if you check your cell phone owner’s manual, I can almost guarantee that you'll find a statement cautioning you that talking while driving "may be dangerous". The cell phone companies know full and well that it's dangerous and are obviously trying to shield themselves from any future litigation.
-Frank
Let's not just pick the low-hanging fruit.
In my neck of the woods, my observations are distracted soccer moms are in the teeniest of percentages of drivers I have had problems with. Cell phone distracted drivers are the highest percentage of drivers causing bad behaviors and avoidance maneuvers. This explains my point of view.
Cell phone talkers are great low hanging fruit only because there are so many of them driving erratically and causing other drivers grief.
If it weren't for the studies that indicate a cell phone users drives like they are intoxicated I might think you would be right.
Your anecdotal material is nice, and so are studies which always are conducted with the expectation of a given result.
The really bad drivers I see are not having any link to talking - they are simply inept. Maybe greater driver training is the key here, not lame secondary laws which target one idiocy while the rest are assumed to be OK because some "studies" don't target them.
I flat out disagree. The really bad drivers are talking on cell phones and are inept at the same time. This is why laws are needed to protect the innocent. It's really okay to summarily dismiss the studies. We after all are having a discussion.
My empirical observations btw, are in line with just about every study.
Do you have something to point to this? It's quite common to see a very bad driver who isn't yapping.
Where are the laws to "protect the innocent" (laying it on really thick there) from the irresponsible who feel the need to play with food, smokes, ICE, and other toys? Why not make simple distracted driving the crime? Would that make it too hard, or does eliminating the ability to cherry-pick a distraction somehow endanger public support for the laws?
If we take the definition of a bad driver as drivers who aren't driving defensively, there are quite a few of them. Included in that are the yappers. One can't drive defensively and talk at the same time, studies have proven.
Show me a study that proves the latte drinker drives like they are drunk for the duration of the latte and we can talk. All distractions are not equal. BTW Taking your eyes off the road to look at the back-seat is not distracted driving, it's irresponsibile driving.(You might as well leave the drivers seat and climb in the back seat and hope for the best.) Distracted driving is your eyes are looking at the road, but your brain is on something else. If you are on the cell phone, your brain is acting as if you are intoxicated.
Has there ever been a movement to remove other distractions? No. Who funded these studies? Show me one with credibilty where all contributors financial and otherwise are documented. When you seek a result, you find a way to make the numbers work.
I have to ask this again, why not make simple distracted driving the crime? Why is this such an obstacle for people who are otherwise so authoritarian?
I agree simple distracted driving should be a crime. The law allows for use of hands-free devices and I agree with the law in certain areas holding a phone should be fined.
There is no more to say about it. I do not think people should drive while talking, yet the law allows this. I think people caught holding the phone and talking or texting, should be given severe fines even if somehow they manage not smash up their fellow drivers or run them off the road.
Who funded these studies? Show me one with credibilty where all contributors financial and otherwise are documented
Hmm... who exactly would have the means to fund a study biased against cell phone usage? The Organization of Driver's for Safer Public Roads? Oh wait, they don't exist. On the other hand, I'm quite certain that the cell phone industry with its deep pockets would jump at funding any study which proves talking on a cell phone while driving isn't dangerous. Do you think that the evidence might be so overwhelming to the contrary that they can't find anyone willing to back their point of view?
-Frank
Kdshaprio - take a good long look at the next cell phone talker you see. follow him or her a ways - some how I bet the bad driving continues even if the conversation stops...
Despite the onslaught of cell phones and increasingly crowded highways accidents have decreased and I don't recall seeing any empiracle proof anywhere where cell phone bans have actually reduced fatalities or even accidents after they were put in place. The fact is, besides making people feel better, they don't work.
Yet, everyone has annecdotal evidence (myself included) of a situation where they have seen a careless driver on a cell phone. It is what you don't see that are the real problems. Heck, sometimes it is rather nice to be driving beyond someone and seeing their hand to their ear....at least you know what they are doing. More children die every year because parents don't buckle their kids in car seats properly then anyone would attribute to cell phones, yet there is no outcry. Why? Because other driver's don't view themselves as being impacted by it. Shame on us.
I am all for safer highway, safer cars, and more fuel efficient vehicles. Anyone on this forum who drives a large SUV (I don't) is probably placing other drivers more at risk then you ever would using a cell phone. Small, fuel efficient cars are no match for a soccer mom in an SUV.
Phones are not going away anymore then you can stop people from talking. I do, however, beleive in increasing awareness...not just for the hazards of phones, but for safer driving in general.
Want laws? Then make one that addresses ALL distractions.
a. It avoids the fact that cell phones, due to their negative effect on cognitive reactions, are far more dangerous than any of the other distractions
b. It virtually guarantees that nothing will be done period since it would be impossible to legislate or enforce a total driver distraction ban
Hmm . Maybe you guys are smarter than I thought.
You know, some really smart tobacco industry insiders who knew the truth, for years were able to prevent the public from learning about the health risks associated with smoking. Of course their cause was greatly helped by the masses of smokers who didn't want to know the truth. Now we have millions of people totally hooked on using their cell phones who don't want to believe that there could be anything dangerous associated with them.
-Frank
"are far more dangerous than any of the other distractions "
Opinion combined with tenuous studies.
The tobacco story is bull...100 years ago people called cigs "coffin nails"...the industry refused to admit there was a problem, but this did not stop people from knowing it, no matter if they wanted to face the facts, just as some don't want to face the facts about the problem of inattentive driving in general. Some people like to take the easiest path while other problems remain. To have people put down the phones while they continue to eat, play with toys, tend to passengers, smoke, and so on is no solution.
I am still waiting for the explosion of casualties from this epidemic that shows the yapping is worse than all other distractions. I won't hold my breath.
Thanks for the great illustration of why hands-free cell phones should also be banned
Because other driver's don't view themselves as being impacted by it. Shame on us.
Why? I'm a strong believer in personal freedoms and personal responsibility. You don't want to buckle your seatbelt or wear a helmet on your motorcycle? Fine! Just as long as I (society) don't get stuck paying for your hospital bills. Same as cell phones, if it was just your life that you were endangering I'd be okay with it. It's when your actions endanger my life and others that I have a problem with it.
-Frank
Now some have suggested that cell phone use is as dangerous as drinking and driving. If that were the case and drinking and driving suddenly went up 1000 percent you would expect a big rise in highway deaths, but the FARS rate is going down at the same time cell phone usage was going up. That study has been done and for this discussion it is water under the bridge. So let us continue with the drunk driving contention. When it was decided to make DWI laws I don’t remember a separate law for being drunk on beer and another for being drunk on wine and a third for being drunk on Whiskey. So if cell hand held cell phone use is a driving distraction isn’t it covered under the driving while distraction law? Just like Beer is covered under the DUI law? And texting is covered under the driving while distracted law?
The question is simple, why of all the distracted things drivers might do and should be held responsible for is it so important to write a specific law to cover only the one aspect of cell phone use like hold your hand up to your ear?
Is the sky falling?
Driving safely requires skill, knowledge, attention to the task at hand, and a good attitude. It appears to me from personal experience that most of these are lacking in the vast majority of today's drivers. For some, the car is a portable office. For others it is a dining facility. For some it is a library and for others it is a powder room. Some drivers believe they are on a racecourse and the drivers around them are the competitors. Some drivers believe that they are the auxiliary to the police and they must make sure that other drivers drive slower and stay behind them. Some drivers just don't care or are oblivious to safe and effective driving. Some drivers just cruise in the left lane and have no concept of staying over and reserving the left lane for passing. Some drivers never seem to use their turn signals; others use the signal at the last minute as if it helps them turn or change lanes. Some drivers can't read the traffic signs - they either can't read or can't read English. These examples and more are why we have such problems.
Americans need to become serious about improving traffic safety. Tens of thousands of fatalities per year is outrageous. We can start with proficiency in reading and particularly reading English. Add to this mandatory continuing driver education, just like what is required to maintain an electrician's license or a real-estate broker's license. Traffic law violation penalties should be changed from revenue generating fines that are less painful the wealthier you are to a points system that leads to license suspension when enough points are accumulated. Driving while suspended should result in a mandatory minimum one year in jail for the first offense and increase for subsequent offenses. Some new laws are needed, such as a ban on all phone conversations while driving in addition to any other appropriate legislation for other unsafe behaviors. The law enforcement and judicial system must be improved to make the laws effective, instead of being ignored.
With tougher licensing requirements and continuing education I think we could clear the situation right up. A little stricter system would not be too high of price to pay for the increased safety and decrease in injury and fatalities.
The problem with your logic is that accidents and deaths should have spiked significantly with the increase of phones - even if the specific reasons for any given accident are not captured the rate should have increased over all if they are and dangerous as implied.
The fact that accident rates have not spiked seems to indicate that that even with way increased use does not lead to more crashes.
I think we all agree that there are bad drivers that need attention. But to single out cell phones users won't increase safety. They end up being laws that feel good, but in the end that bad driver is still a bad driver - cell phone or no cell phone? :shades:
The feel good part is that they pass a law against hand held cell phones when the very studies they used to indicate that drivers were driving distracted showed "no" difference between holding a phone and hands free. The very people that were distracted with their had to the side of their head are still talking and when they want to hear better they put their hand over the ear piece to block out noise. So it is like passing a law against murder but only if it is done with a gun. Using a knife takes another law and poison takes another law. There is a ban against hand held cell phone use so what was the response? Blue tooth sales have to be up 500 percent. The ban only effects hand position. It is like trying to cure a cold by passing a law against sneezing.
Percentage wise? None. The FARS has been going down since about 1995 even with the increase of cell phone usage increasing. So something else must be the problem and that something else is as has been suggested, attitude. Seven cup holders in a car indicates what people and manufacturers expect, a car is a rolling office, living room, and kitchen. Banning cell phones 100 percent will only give technology another target to try and get around. Like someone mentioned before people have now replaced their Thomas Brother maps with GPS systems. The directions say not to program a GPS system while moving but people are doing just that. There is no expectation that your fellow driver is paying attention only that you need to try and avoid them.
If you don't need to ban other distractions why cell phones? If distractions or distracted driving is a problem then ticket people for driving while distracted. That is what the police will have to do for texting and for programing your GPS. That is what they should ticket for when someone is eating and they drift into your lane or run into the back of your car because they just dropped a shake in their lap. Happened to me about a year ago while I was stopped at a light.
I believe the laws can be general rather than specific and people should have to be responsible for all of their actions not just the ones that hit the publicity spot this week.
Not sure how germane this is to the discussion, but spitting on sidewalks was banned in many US states 100 years ago to stop the spread of TB. People thought the disease was spread that way. California repealed their spitting law in '84 at the behest of Willie Brown, who was all too familiar with spittoons from a childhood barbershop job. But the result of all those laws is that spitting is way down and generally viewed with distaste. (spittoono.org)
While the phone studies may not be conclusive, we could expectorate that a cell law could also lead to more civilized driving.
Where there is a division of opinion in this forum is the rational. Let's say you were cut off, the cops saw the action and initiated a traffic stop. Does it matter if the driver was agressive, distracted or drunk? Let's just focus on the end-result and forget the cause? Right? Would murder work the same way? Forget this first degree, second degree stuff. DUI forget the .08 level, it's all or nothing.
There are those who want to make this a black and white issue. Cell phones usage while driving is an insidious driver issue. There is not easy answer.
If review comb through the NHTSA website, how many car crashes a year are reported? What are the statistics the FARS database gives with regard to cell phone usage and for how long a time period?
Yes, but to a much lesser extent. The driver when off the phone, has the ability to keep the vehicle in lane. Stopping is gradual and not an all or nothing proposition. Acceleration keeps pace with traffic. They do not enrage drivers around them as much.
The claim is that drive and talking is just like driving drunk. Well if that were true I would expect accidents to sky-rocket - but for some reason they have not.
Also even without stats for you and I you can bet the insurance industry has looked at this. If cell phones were really that big of a trigger they would have figured out a way to charge more for it.
So in general if cell phone use = drunk driving, and cell phone use has increased likely 10 fold over the last 20 years there should be at least a bump in the accident rate. Hell, with cell phones, iPods, portable GPS, etc over the last 10 years there should be a bump in the accident rate.
Maybe the bigger distraction is those drivers craning their necks to see what everybody else is doing? :shades:
I am certain the folks applying make up had some issues with lane control...even before they had phones.
Not to turn this into a you missed my point, no you missed MY point. But I was very clear, what statistics can you glean from NHTSAs FARs database? Zippo maybe? With the millions of car crashes a year lopping drunk driving and probably some others off the top, that leaves a lot of crashes A fair share of them by far has speed has the cause, but maybe cell phone usage was a contributing factor?
Maybe it's impossible to read the paper, put on makeup, and eat lunch at the same time, so all of those other distractions have been given up in favor or cell phone usage. (Although there are enterprising drivers that do everything in the car except for drive safely). Maybe if people put down the phones the crash rate could be cut in half.
Nobody knows for sure and that is my point.
Not like it does today and not the way a driver who is more interested in the conversation than driving. The fact that drivers "black-out" according to studies is not a good think for road. All bad driver behaviors are not created equally. There is nothing worse than a cell phone using driver engaged in a conversation, other than a drunk driver.
As to the seat belt laws and helmet laws, that is a whole other conversation, but I do think children need added protection.
Society does pay for all these accidents. If you have insurance, we all pay for it. If you are a tax payer, you pay for it anyway because we live in a place where no one gets refused for medical treatment.
Unfortunately, you can nearly link every action to the impact it has on someone....if you carry your argument to it's completion, we should shut down all roads. After all, every driver is a potential threat to you. But, society has decided that it is apparently worth the risk and expense so we can have the freedom to move about.
There are some huge bennefits to cell phones in cars. I have a daughter who will be driving in a few years an I must admit I don't want her texting or talking on a cell phone. As her experinece improves and as she goes out on her own, she will do want she wants. But, I would insist that she carries a phone with her. They provide great security especially for a teenage girl.
I also believe (though can't prove) that cell phone have reduced drunk driving and wreckless driving. I rarely see people weaving in and out of traffic or driving excessively anymore. Cell phones have empowered everyone to be a potential cop.
Huh? No one is condemning cell phones. But when your so called right-to-use has the potential for impinging on my comfort and safety time for some action.
If you want to hold the phone to your ear and blab in the privacy of your home or on the street have at it. But when you are in the car, drive the car.
There are some huge bennefits to cell phones in cars
Nobody is saying one shouldn't carry a cell phone in a car. Of course in an emergency make a call. I wonder how many cell phone usering drivers have real emergencies, such that they need to make a call. "Honey, don't forget to pick up pizza on your way home".
I also believe (though can't prove) that cell phone have reduced drunk driving and wreckless driving. I rarely see people weaving in and out of traffic or driving excessively anymore.
Really? My thought is the driver is so dumbed downed by using the cell phone, they can't weave in and out. They can only stay in lane, doing 15 under the speed limit. It doesn't really matter what lane, pick one? I have noticed just the opposite, with regard to aggressive driving behaviors, which is why I believe cell phone legislation is a good thing.
We need a federal law, to be applicable in all Major League Baseball stadiums, to prohibit spitting by ball players. Umpires and officials on the field would be empowered to levy a fine immediately, which would be ejection from the game. Players caught spitting and also wearing a neck chain would be ejected and would also be barred from the next game.
"Specific" laws targetted at car cell phone use are needed to focus attention and change behaviour. While average drivers can readily understand that turning around to discipline kids is a dangerous distraction, they are unaware that talking on the cell phone really is a dangerous distraction and is like driving drunk.
Laws, enforcement, and information campaigns on tv/radio about the dangers of drivers and cell phones are needed.
Maybe instead of a fine, some mandatory class time would be a more effective deterrent to inattentive driving?
"While average drivers can readily understand that turning around to discipline kids is a dangerous distraction"
But they refrain from such actions about as little as people refrain from talking while driving. The only rear-end accident I ever personally saw happen was a wonan turned around, tending to the kid in the back.
The campaign must cover all distractions, rather than looking at only one, when the sheeple will then continue to do all others.
Yeah, but for every person turning around to discipline their kids there are 10 more talking on phones. As I said previously, it could be you are in the only area of the North America where the penetration of cell phone using drivers is actually less than latte drinking, cd fumbling, make-up applying and disciplining soccer mom drivers. That would explain your point of view.
According to gov't the penetration rate is what? About 30%?
The only recent crash I've witnessed was a cell phone holding driver in a Jag smash into smaller car as both tried to occupy the center lane at the same time. I couldn't tell of the other driver was on the phone, but the Jag was. I wonder how important the call "really" was?
Can't be so serious here. Have to lighten up.
The campaign must cover all distractions, rather than looking at only one, when the sheeple will then continue to do all others.
OK, but with emphasis on cell phones. If Obama elected, there will be enough money collected in massive tax increases to fund these tv/radio campaigns.
I can see one tv spot already. A guy leaving a bar after a few beers and then getting into driver's seat. Spot then cuts to driver on cell phone, then next a split screen showing beer guy and cell phone guy. Narrative says, "Did you realize that driving while talking on cell phone is like driving drunk?"
Steve- Ooh good one! I almost spit out my soda when I read your post
Especially when combining distractions, I would say there are more people screwing around otherwise than yapping on the phone while driving. Yet there has never been a meaningful movement against distracted driving in general - only mindless cherry picking of the easiest evil.
And the braying masses might believe that commercial too.
Well it's certainly easier to convince someone when you're telling the truth :P
From the same place you get to report that you see as many lane departures from disciplining soccer moms as cell phone drivers.
Especially when combining distractions, I would say there are more people screwing around otherwise than yapping on the phone while driving.
Similiary for this anecdotal observation.
Yet there has never been a meaningful movement against distracted driving in general - only mindless cherry picking of the easiest evil.
The easiest to spot and the worst as a danger to the motoring public. Makes sense to me.
You seem to ignore all scientific recorded data on the previous studies done and instead prefer your own anecdotal observations. Talk about the pot...
"Scientific recorded data" is only worth as much as those who collect the data. When you create an experiment with an expected result, you tend to find that result. It's a little hard to believe some woman eating a bowl of ice cream while she blindly steers her SUV is somehow better than a phone yapper. It is hard to believe that all of the other distractions combined are still not as much of an issue as phone yappers. And it's a little hard to believe that phones are so very dangerous - rather than discourteous - as they have proliferated so much this decade yet casualties have not.
Face it , not everyone is going to blindly submit to the idiocy of targeting only one distraction while other idiots are allowed to roam free. Deal with it, you have no recourse otherwise.
I'm referring to virtually every study of this ilk. My observations about who exhibilts what bad behaviors on the road are just observations. But anecdotally cell phone users appear to be the worst.
"Scientific recorded data" is only worth as much as those who collect the data.
You can take that up with entities who performed these studies and either believe they are valid or not. You can believe what you want.
It's a little hard to believe some woman eating a bowl of ice cream while she blindly steers her SUV is somehow better than a phone yapper.
That is why it is important to read these studies to understand what has been found out about the way the brain operates. Because it's a little hard to believe does not mean it's true. A few short years ago, it was a little hard to believe the world was round.
Face it , not everyone is going to blindly submit to the idiocy of targeting only one distraction while other idiots are allowed to roam free. Deal with it, you have no recourse otherwise.
You are certainly welcome to influence your legistators.
Typical for the overcompensating authoritarian.
Okey dokey then.
You are free to believe what you want as well. That's why this is such a great place :P
The "studies" can claim what they wish, but actions on the road do not support the claims. Nobody can explain why casualties have not increased with the massive proliferation of mobile devices, especially among young drivers where the penetration rates are far higher than in the population in general.
My legislators have made phone yapping a secondary offense. In the county where my mother lives, population about 100000, a whopping 4 tickets were issued for this during the first month of enforcement. It's an irrelevant waste of legal time and public information resources.
Wow, what a convincing argument! Totally discount any evidence that doesn't support your position and then demand someone produce studies that would support it.
-Frank
they can be a source of humor.
last winter i saw a guy who was stuck in the snow, yakking on his phone, he just would drive forward until the wheels started spinning, the backed up until the wheels started spinning, then forward, backward, forward, backward, all the time talking on the phone.
i was stuck in traffic on the other side of the road for about 5 minutes before i lost interest.
today in the same location, now a gas station convenience store that closed last week, a guy standing at his car with the hose in the filler neck, just standing there talking away!
The studies being mentioned so far are pretty worthless, and those who tout them take said studies as gospel and pretend to be experts...but when asked for other info, they can never ante up.