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
However, it's a brilliant idea to crack down on just one problem and not give any attention to the myriad of other problems in the world of distracted driving. Genius. Got any WMD you wanna sell me? :P
There's a very good reason to crack down on just one problem, that's because that one problem is so dangerous.
I can cite scientific studies that have determined that talking on a cell phone while driving is the equivalent of having a BAC of .08. I would hope that any rational person would agree that represents a clear and present danger to the driving public.
Rather than attempting to discredit those studies or simply discounting them, can you cite a study that backs up your claim that all distractions are equally bad?
-Frank
you may not see the reasons recorded but you would see a change in rate would you not - unless that perceived behaivor while rude is not that dangerous?
According to your opinion, based on a tenuous study that has results simply not validated in real world driving.
"I would hope that any rational person would agree that represents a clear and present danger to the driving public. "
If those results were reflected in actual incident statistics, you know, what actually happens on the road. They are not.
"Rather than attempting to discredit those studies "
I don't have to do so, the numbers from the roads discredit the studies. It is this simple. With the massive proliferation of wireless devices in the past decade, especially among inexperienced young drivers, there should be an explosion in casualties to follow the explosion in phone yapping (if yapping makes one drive like a drunk). Nothing of the sort exists.
"can you cite a study that backs up your claim that all distractions are equally bad? "
Give me the money and I will make one. I can't afford you, right... so you must have piles of dough laying around :P
If I understand you positions - Cell phone users are very dangerous and are causing all kinds of death and destruction on our highways. They must be stopped. However we can't use accident and highway death statistics as they don't track/contain the individual reason for each particular wreck - so we have to take it on faith that cell phone users are causing mayhem on our highways.
Wow!
I agree that the data cannot be used to gage very specific percentages e.g. 23.5% of deaths are due to X. Nor can we say that Dunkin donunts related deaths decreased .03% compared to last year - But you don't need that level of detail to see what is or is not happening. Look at the overall increase or decrease over time.
The flaw here of course is the overall rate of accidents and deaths. If cell phone users are as dangerous and widespread as claimed the rate would have to increase. Given that the rate (at least the death rate) has decreased then the MASSIVE increase of cell phone use has had minimal impact on accidents and deaths.
That is a huge problem with your argument you know. The suggestion that massive amounts of people are driving and talking ( over 200 million people have cell phones in the USA now) yet the overall death rate is DROPPING and has been for 10 years.
So given all that you all want to pass laws that will have ZERO impacts on the statistics used to measure safety?
Is that really what you believe? If what you say is true how can the death rates not be taking off? :confuse:
Your entire position is just an opinion, a bad one IMO, but an opinion nevertheless. You don't have to defend it. My conclusions are based on studies and I don't have to prove the studies are valid. You can prove they are invalid.
Wow!
Well, that's a great attempt but no cigar. Cell phones are proven to dimish cognitive driving ability. IMO, the issues born out of the cellphone studies are legimate and cause undesirable driver behavior. So while it is legal to use a hands-free and in some places illegal to hold the phones to your ear I support the latter and wish more states did that. Texting and other portable electronic device interaction should be illegal in all states and heavily fined if caught.
As for the lawful cell phone use in the car, it needs to be treated the same if necessary as other irresponsible driving behaviors and fined accordingly.
As for the statistics, the fatality rate IMO says nothing as you don't know the number or percentage of contributory effects of cell phones in accidents or fatalities. It's not the death rate cannot be taking off, it's the death rate may be reduced by x% if we got people off the phone.
The fact the fatality rate is going down while DUIs are going up is an example of the way these "facts" can be cited to prove a point incorrect. Maybe the deaths per mile has decreased but it's a far removed and derived statistic.
I don't have to actually prove anything, there have been millions spent in research all deriving the same basic conclusion.
That's not proof. Proof was provided many times over in very early posts here that there were many improvements in the associated conditions of driving that have cut down number of deaths/injuries after crashes/accidents or to prevent crashes in the first place. Such as: vehicle handling/brakes/suspension/stability control, vehicle crush resistance and integrity, many air bags, better road design in terms of safety barriers if going off the pavement, improved response time of police/emt, improved medical procedures in hospitals, improved medicine/drugs, improved transport times to hospitals, etc, etc, etc.
The death and injury rate would be even lower if cell phone use by drivers were banned. See recent study by Illinois DOT regarding accidents/deaths/injuries caused by cell-phone using drivers. One death is too many if caused by an impaired cell-phone using driver. To accept any amount of deaths caused by cell phone drivers is to admit that you would not mind being t-boned in the driver door by a cell phone using driver.
You don't have to prove anything because there is nothing to prove - the numbers on the road say it all. Millions are spent on useless junk all the time, this is just another case.
The death and injury rate would also be lower if the mindless distractions of smoking and eating in cars, playing with ICE, etc were banned. The rates would almost vanish if there was a 40mph speed limit or cars governed to such a speed. So what? One death is too many if caused by any distracted driver, and cracking down on one simple distraction while ignoring the rest will produce negligible results. To accept any amount of death caused by distracted drivers is to admit you would not mind being t-boned by a smoker/eater/drinker/errant soccer mom/gadget tender/etc.
What opinion is that? That cell phone enforcement bans are barking up the wrong tree? I disagree. And while I wouldn't ask a cop to single out a cell phone user over a DUI, in the scheme of things drivers who manipulate and hold portable electronic devices should be singled out and fined accordingly.
The death and accident rate could be a lot lower if people put these things down.
What constitutes "a lot", can you quantify this, or is it just more alarmist rhetoric?
I think it's great. Our roadways continue to get safer.
Anti-cell phone activists will say, "the numbers would have been even better w/o cell phones". Maybe so. The bottom line is that if you felt safe driving 20 years ago you should feel even safer now.
In the scheme of things cell phone users should be targeted appropriately. The money thing I'm okay with. Get stopped, Pay fine. Build coffers.
What constitutes "a lot", can you quantify this, or is it just more alarmist rhetoric?
Hmm. Alarmist? Okay, whatever. Maybe I am making anectodal conclusions based on a lack of data, but that's a common problem on this board, but what is worse, it is mostly unrecognized.
I wish that were the case. The roads are not safer, I don't feel safer. The number of fatalitaties are on the increase. Alcohol related involvment is a high percentage. Cell phone penetration rate is high.
It's the definition of alarmist. The conditions on the road simply do not support the conclusions of a few precarious "studies".
Regarding a rise in fatalities, what is this rate of change compared to the increase in cars and drivers?
There are many ways to cut statistics for fit your conclusion. The expression statistics lie comes to mind here.
If one cares about the big picture, there should be a massive campaign against distracted driving, to where it is made into a societal taboo. The current ideal of mindlessly targeting one while ignoring all others will turn it into nothing more than a source of revenue, and with the way the laws are written here anyway, it won't even be much revenue.
Can you please describe to this board the crash and fatality statistics as report on NHTSA regarding latte drinking, soccer mom disciplining drivers? I thought so.
So let's just carry on with a focus on cell phone using drivers then, not at the expense of terrorism or deadly situations. But let's target the cell phone user because studies show, they drive like the are drunk. And they tend to drive worse than latte drinking, book reading, makeup applying, lunch eating, newspaper reading drivers. I say crack down on them to, but the first ticket goes to the cell phone user.
What is reported to the NHTSA is irrelevant. As I have said many times before, the situation on the road does not support this "study" that the braying alarmists among us love to embrace.
"And they tend to drive worse"
Please note when statements are your opinion.
I'll leave it at this - let's come back in 10 years and see what targeting phones and nothing else creates. I'll wager it has virtually no impact on the state of idiotic driving.
No more statements to you, I will hold out this time. Have fun.
It's tough to misinterpet the conclusions of these studies. You are welcome to discount the studies and form your own conclusions.
What is reported to the NHTSA is irrelevant.
This conversation is irrelevant then.
what targeting phones and nothing else creates.
That's your idea. Can't do that any more than ignoring patients in an emergency room. However I do agree with you cell phone users should be ticketed if:
1. there are no terrorism threats and,
2. no DUIs
3. no emergency siturations.
Find a cell phone user holding a phone to their ear where prohibited by law and ticket them. And then do something useful with the revenue.
Oooh gotta love that objective comment. Let's see, thus far your arguments have consisted of:
a. Either totally ignoring or discounting scientific studies
b. Relying on anecdotal evidence (but only that portion that supports your position)
c. Obfuscation and diversion whenever the opposition makes a valid point
d. Questioning the oppositions motives, intellect and objectivity
d. Insulting the braying alarmists... oops I mean opposition :P
Brilliant!
a - Either totally ignoriung or discounting EMPIRICAL evidence.
Items b through d I would leave as they are as a brilliant decription of your point of view.
empirical:relying or based solely on experiment and observation rather than theory the empirical method; relying or based on practical experience
If we are basing this conversaion on empirical observeration then all comments still hold true. Cell phone talkers and cell phone users are the most hazardous out of the latte drinking, newpaper reading, eye plucking-make up applying, whopper eating, soccer mom disciplining crowd.
The live free and kill someone crowd click here doesn't quite have this one right.
Once again, YOU have missed the entire point of this thread. The thread is NOT about..."are cell phones dangerous", but "should they be singled-out?".
Thanks for the definition, but you should read what you wrote. If you truly cared about finding the truth you would be asking for studies about other distractions and real, empiricle PROOF that shows that cell phone laws don't reduce the fatality rate. Hows that for empiricle? Fact it, no one knows how many accidents are attributed to one distraction or the other. So, unless you are the All Mighty, you don't know either.
Not one person here has stated that cell phones are safe. I am saying you can't single them out without calling out all distractions. I also prefer to live in the US where we have freedoms and all freedoms do come with a cost.
I am a business owner, and I drive a lot of miles, both in town and on the open highways and interstates. I also keep and use a cell phone a lot during my travels. I cannot even think of what my days would be like without my cell phone. However I've also found through my own experiences that holding the steering wheel in one hand and a cell phone in the other, possible even trying to take notes along the way, while still maintaining the safe control of my vehicle is virtually impossible. That's why I've added a headset and I plug it in, right after buckling my seat belt, before I ever put the car in gear. I've since gotten used to being able to safely talk on the phone while driving. I can answer any calls and have a conversation without taking my eyes off the road ahead. If I need to make a call, however, I always wait until I'm at a complete standstill prior to dialing the desired phone number. One other thing I've done is to take along a handheld digital recorder with me so that I don't have to use a pen and paper to take notes.
Now that I've added my humble opinion, you can carry on with your unproductive sparring.
Thanks for proving that some people have lives and need to be able to use technology to manage it and can do so w/o being compared to driving drivers. And, for showing that even the morbid cell phone user is smart enough to balance the risk and find ways to "safely" operate their vehicle.
Besides, anyone who drives over the speed limit, drives an SUV, eats, smokes, bites their toe nails has NO business being on this board criticizing you for your legal activity. Not until there is a willingless to accept a ban on any behavior in a car not focussed, 100% on driving.
(See, I am back to my unpreductive sparring)
Great, so now we're into you have missed the point, no my friend you have missed the point. Yes, they are dangerous and they should be singled out in relative pecking order to what is happening on the road.
That's the problem opinions such as yours, it's an all or nothing proposition. No gradation. Maybe it should be illegal to have any BAC level in your blood while driving also. Would you be for that.
Empirical - derived from experiment, experience, and observation rather than from theory or logic
I didn't include that since while my personal experience and observations prove that cell phone using drivers are dangerous, I recognize that others apparently have reached a different conclusion based on their personal experiences and observations. Also note that empirical evidence is not based on theory or logic :P
This is a great post, because you just described most of the "anti" cell-phone group on this forum.
That's an excellent example of item C - diversion
How about cosmetics. They're more dangerous than cellphoning. Be sure to check the French word for cosmetic and applying thereof in the article. :P
Makeup is more dangerous than cellphones
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It is the case. By the commonly accepted measurement of highway safety, the roads are safer than ever before.
kdshapiro: The roads are not safer, I don't feel safer.
You are entitled to your opinion as to whether the roads are safer, but you are not entitled to have your opinions accepted as fact, which is what you are trying to do with the first part of your sentence.
The roads are safer, but you appear to not know the trend regarding traffice fatalities over the past few years, which is why you typed this incorrect sentence...
kdshapiro: The number of fatalitaties are on the increase.
Incorrect. In 2001, the number of fatalities stood at 42,196. It hit 43,005 in 2002, went down in both 2003 and 2004 (to 42,836), went back up to 43,510 in 2005, and went down to 42,642 in 2006. Fatalities have went down again for 2007 to 41,059.
So, you are incorrect in stating that the number of fatalities is on the increase. They are not.
And measuring fatalities by 100 million vehicle miles driven - the true way to measure how safe our roads really are - shows that this figure has fallen steadily, with one exception, since 2000.
In 2000 it stood at 1.55 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven; by 2006, it was 1.41 fatalities per 100 million miles driven. (The one exception to the downward trend happened in 2005, when the rate increased to 1.46, up from 1.44 the previous year).
kdshapiro: Alcohol related involvment is a high percentage.
Which has nothing to do with cell phone use.
kdshapiro: Cell phone penetration rate is high.
And yet fatalities are declining, and the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled keeps declining. Using logical reasoning - which I highly recommend - would lead one to conclude that cell phones, however annoying they may be, are not making the roads less safe.
Proof, please. And I don't mean "this paper says that people talking on the cell phone take their eyes off the road for more than five seconds," which has been the extent of your "proof" in the past.
And betcha you can't show me how cell phone use has resulted in higher fatalities, or increased the fatalities per 100 million miles driven.
kdshapiro: The live free and kill someone crowd click here doesn't quite have this one right.
You apparently missed this sentence: "Authorities say Preuss had been driving drunk and was speeding." (emphasis added)
The last time I checked, no one on this site is advocating drunk driving, which is the real cause of this fatal accident.
There are a number of non-driving activities that probably has a higher probability of catastrophy than cell phone usage, but the frequency of occurence is less. The soccer mom who turns around for an extended period to discipline the children is a receipe for disaster, Certainly more dangerous than using a hands-free. But:
1. I don't know how many idiotic soccer moms actually do this because the whole family could be killed and,
2. the penetration rate for cell phone usage is estimated to be fairly high.
It's not the danger level, it's the numbers.
I disagree, the number of fatalities is going up, the number of duis are going up. The roads are not safer.
You are entitled to your opinion as to whether the roads are safer, but you are not entitled to have your opinions accepted as fact,
Agreed, by one measurement the roads are not safer.
Incorrect. In 2001, the number of fatalities stood at 42,196. It hit 43,005 in 2002, went down in both 2003 and 2004 (to 42,836), went back up to 43,510 in 2005, and went down to 42,642 in 2006. Fatalities have went down again for 2007 to 41,059.
Yes, it's up and down, we'll see what it's like in 2008.
And yet fatalities are declining,
In the interim for one year. But since you still don't know the contributory effect of cell phone usage.
NB - I think one can expect the combo of faltering economy and high gas prices to show many people are driving less. I expect the number of fatalities to be way down due to the aforementioned reason. Can't get your own auto into a collision on public transportation. Problem is those idiotic cell phone users will still be out.
I disagree, the number of fatalities is going up, the number of duis are going up. The roads are not safer.
You are entitled to your opinion as to whether the roads are safer, but you are not entitled to have your opinions accepted as fact,
Agreed, by one measurement the roads are not safer. In addition, IMO, the number of emergency maneuvers has been the most in recent memory avoiding idiotic cell phone users. So my empirical observersations are in line with research and IMO the roads are not safer.
Incorrect. In 2001, the number of fatalities stood at 42,196. It hit 43,005 in 2002, went down in both 2003 and 2004 (to 42,836), went back up to 43,510 in 2005, and went down to 42,642 in 2006. Fatalities have went down again for 2007 to 41,059.
Yes, it's up and down, we'll see what it's like in 2008.
And yet fatalities are declining,
In the interim for one year. But since you still don't know the contributory effect of cell phone usage.
The number of fatalities has been going DOWN, with some blips along the way. Unless you can somehow explain that 41,509 is higher than 42,642 (the total number of fatalities for 2006), let alone 43,510 (the total number of fatalities for 2005).
kdshapiro: Agreed, by one measurement the roads are not safer.
Sorry, but no. By the commonly accepted measurement - fatalities per 100 million miles driven - fatalities have been in a downward trend for years.
There is no proof that the roads are not safer. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of how road safety is measured, and it's best not to display this lack of understanding among the better informed.
kdshapiro: Yes, it's up and down, we'll see what it's like in 2008.
First, you said that fatalities have been INCREASING. Which is incorrect.
Given that raw fatalities have shown double-digit decliness in many states for the early part of this year, the logical conclusion is that fatalities will continue to decline in 2008.
kdshapiro: In the interim for one year.
Fatalities have been declining for the long-term, and fatalities per 100 million miles driven have been declining continuously, with one exception, for years.
kdshapiro: But since you still don't know the contributory effect of cell phone usage.
Neither do you, and you bear the burden of proof, as you are advocating legislation to ban it. And what you think you know, or feel, is not sufficient.
kdshapiro: NB - I think one can expect the combo of faltering economy and high gas prices to show many people are driving less. I expect the number of fatalities to be way down due to the aforementioned reason. Can't get your own auto into a collision on public transportation. Problem is those idiotic cell phone users will still be out.
And with that paragraph, you have just shown that you accept the measurement of fatalities per 100 million miles driven as the true gauge of highway safety, even if you can't admit it. (And I guess you are willing to concede that the spikes in the number of raw fatalities coincided with a strong economy, which encouraged driving, particularly pleasure driving?)
This figure adjusts for the number of miles driven, and the number of vehicles on the road. That is why it is considered the one true ACCURATE measurement of highway safety.
Sorry no it is a metric, not a common standard. Fatalaties have been climbing with some blips.
Neither do you, and you bear the burden of proof, as you are advocating legislation to ban it. And what you think you know, or feel, is not sufficient.
Don't need to prove anything and what I know and can contribute is very sufficient and relavent., only to enact a law that in the lawmakers purvue is for legitimate issues.
And with that paragraph, you have just shown that you accept the measurement of fatalities per 100 million
I did? I'll bet you can jump the Grand Canyon. Since I'm not Karnack, we'll have wait and actually see what happens. It's common sense ( alot of what is missing here), if there is one car on the road, you can't get two cars involved simultaneously. Less congestion should make for less deaths, but this is not always the case.
That is why it is considered the one true ACCURATE measurement of highway safety.
Wrong it is the one and only way to discuss fatalaties per road mile, that is it. It is an ACCURATE as figure as any other metric. It does not measure how safe the roads are only how many people died per mile at a 50,000 foot level. Since the VMT is derived it is too high level to actually gauge safety, it is useful when *YOU* want to know how many people died per mile though.
BTW, cell phone using drivers still should be singled out.
Well it is one measurement of highway safety.
As has been pointed out, there are a number of factors that no doubt have contributed to the slight downward trend in fatalities. Better constructed cars with multiple advanced safety features, better designed highways, improved emergency crew response times, etc.
Does anyone know what the overall accident rate is and what's the trend?
The question really is, how many fewer fatalities/accidents would there have been had cell phones not been invented? Unfortunately, there isn't any accurate data on the subject to enable us to answer that question.
-Frank
(nice use of seatbelts too)
And on the same blog page:
Intel and Clarion Show In-Car Internet Applications
Where is the outrage? Data on age and accidents is pretty defined. I wonder how much safer the roads would be if we banned all drivers under the age of 20? Seriously, unlike the shabby cell phone statistics (which could be much better or much worse in reality) here is something that you can sink your teeth in. Or, do we just blame the higher fatality rate on cell phones because we think younger drivers use them more? (Eventhough, younger drivers have accounted for way more then there fair share of wrecks since the Model T).
Here in California, they got very worried when they realized their brand new shiny cell phone law didn't specifically forbid texting while driving, and they got this big advertising campaign going where they said it should be strongly discouraged, police would be on the lookout for distracted drivers, blah blah blah...
Truth is, they know they won't catch the texters unless they are weaving all over the road, which the experienced ones won't be, as anyone who is used to texting will be able to touch-type while the other hand rests on the steering wheel.....
Yup, this was an important blow for public safety on the roads, this idiotic handheld cellphone ban. OK, my 2 minutes of ranting is over, everyone back to your multitude of still-legal driver distractions....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Great point! Especially about young drivers texting and the like. There is plenty of outrage here that started with some road fatalities that made national news, with laws in effect that limit the privileges of new drivers and identify new drivers externally. New programs are being put into place to co-exist with existing programs.
Sorry to hear your state isn't doing anything.
Or, do we just blame the higher fatality rate on cell phones because we think younger drivers use them more?
Yes. It's inexperience coupled with willful diversion. There is a reason new drivers insurance rates are through the roof.
-Frank
In many places in Europe you can't get a DL until you are 21. They take driving seriously and fines are exorbitant. They also don't drive 6,000 lb suburban murder weapons (SUV's).
Anyone look at our roads lately? I used to live in SoCal....the land of the large 2WD SUV with just one passenger. I never could understand that. We could do so much more for highway safety in this country by limiting the tonnage of vehicles on the road....get the most dangerous groups off the highway.
Is society ready to pay this price? Not likely.
While I don't favor cell phone bans, I certainly would favor restrictions on new drivers assuming the data supports.
Cell phone usage has been shown to cause the driver to drive as if they were intoxiciated and that is "irregardless" of their age.
In some places in Europe there are also steep fines for holding a cell phone to your ear while the engine is running.
As our fellow poster fintal says...nice diversion by lumping in SUVs into the conversation. If law enforcement doesn't focus in on bad drivers what do you want them to do. Play tiddly-winks?
The LOL comes because of course California is locked in a bitter party-line dispute over the budget, which is now going on 7 weeks late. As a result, the governor has said he will veto any legislation coming out of the legislature until they pass a budget. So the texting law will be vetoed. LOL! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)