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
It's not the drivers who understand what it means to drive a car I'm worried about, But the reason the roads are not safer are the number of available distractions are growing and certain drivers don't believe they can't drive safely while multi-tasking.
So, what do you drive?
And, stop comparing cell phone users to drunk drivers. It is a moronic comparison. If you really believed in making the roads safer, you would be more focused on the totality of all factors rather then just concerned about taking away everyone's First Amendment right to have a conversation.
Cell phones are hear to stay. You can't remove them from a car, because the cell companies will always be a step ahead of the knee-jerk, reactive laws.
Want safer roads? Then lets get serious and limit the age of drivers to between 20 and 80 years old. Let's limit vehicle size to 4,000 lbs. Those two changes alone would probably reduce fatalities by 10 times what any cell phone law could do.
Not a moronic but a scientific comparison. Perhaps it would be more productive if you acknowledged the similarities in driver impairment
Want safer roads? Then lets get serious and limit the age of drivers to between 20 and 80 years old. Let's limit vehicle size to 4,000 lbs.
You won't get any argument from me on either count.
-Frank
You won't get any argument from me on either count.
I will second that.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That's a diversion with no relevance to the topic.
Cell phones are hear to stay.
Yep and is that why cell phones for years have been including cautionary disclaimers in their instruction manuals. Maybe they know something
weyou don't.Want safer roads? Then lets get serious and limit the age of drivers to between 20 and 80 years old.
I'll be waiting to hear from you how this goes.
It is the commonly accepted standard of highway safety, and it has been declining for decades. And the trend in raw fatalities is not "upward" either. Long-term, the trend is down, considering that in raw numbers vehicular-related fatalities peaked in 1972, when there were fewer cars and drivers on the roads. And even short-term, the trend in raw fatalities is down.
kdshapiro: 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.
When you are advocating the ban of a behavior - in the case, the use of cell phones while driving - you must give reasons why, and "I don't like it," or "I think the roads are less safe," are not sufficient. You must show hard proof that this is causing the roads to become more dangerous. In order for "lawmakers" to enact a law "for legitimate issues" you must show its legitimacy as to how the behavior in question is making the roads less safe.
At least, if said lawmakers are doing their job, and not reacting to hysteria from the ignorant and uninformed.
Given that the standard measurement of highway safety shows that roads are safer than ever, the evidence is stacked against you before you even get out of the gate.
kdshapiro: 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 one car could hit a tree, and cause a fatality. Not all accidents involve two vehicles.
kdshapiro: 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.
The measurement has nothing to do with the elevation of the roads where fatal accidents occur - if that is what you mean (although it's difficult to decipher the exact meaning of that sentence).
kdshapiro: 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.
You have no proof that it is derived at "too high" a level to accurately gauge safety. If so, you need to write to traffic safety experts and researchers in the federal government, state government and academia and inform them of this startling find.
Given that they use this figure all the time to gauge highway safety, I'm guessing that it's not "too high" for them.
We aren't rebuilding all of our roads every year. If anything, most of the big improvements were made well over a decade ago.
Emergency response times -and improved treatment en route to the hospital - have been improving for decades. Most of the big changes occurred over a decade ago.
Air bags were the biggest safety advance of the last 20 years. They have been standard in new vehicles for at least the last 15 years.
Cell phone use has boomed within the last 10 years - so I would think that if it were to have a negative effect on safety, it would have overwhelmed at least the first two of those three trends (given that there still may be a fair number of cars with less safety equipment on the roads, especially in warmer climates where rust isn't a big issue).
No, it is your standard not mine. This number basically measures the number of fatalaties resulting from a collision where the occupants die within x hours /divided by the weighted average in the NHTSA test stable of cars normalized.
Let's break this down shall we? The number of fatalities is a measure of driver training, road design, car design, ems response, emergency communications, medi-vac effectiveness and triage effectivness and more. It has little to do with how many people die instantly in a collision. Better medical care is a huge contributory factor to fatalities has zero to do with road safety. The "fatality rate" may be one indication of safety, but it's sure a poor one.
When you are advocating the ban of a behavior - in the case, the use of cell phones while driving - you must give reasons why,
I already give reasons they haven't changed.
You have no proof that it is derived at "too high"
Go onto the NHTSA website and read their article on how the VMT is calculated.
Perhaps driver airbags were standard on all models 15 years ago but passenger airbags, side impact airbags, air curtain roll-over protection, ABS brakes, electronic Stabilty Control, ad nausem were certainly not widely available :P
-Frank
But, only in last 5 years have vehicles gotten multiple bags on side to supplement those in front.
Also, mainly due to testing of vehicles by IIHS and their prodding have manufacturers in last 5 years made significant structural improvements in vehicles to reduce amount of serious injuries and deaths.
Perhaps legislatures can ask Cell phone companies and their equipment/software manufacturers to develop new features to add fees for making cell phone or texting calls while in a moving vehicle.
Current technology monitors movement of cell phone in use through signal strength/direction. The cell tower/base has to know where a phone is moving and when to get ready to "pass" the call to the adjoining cell.
So, it is conceivable that necessary hardware/software could be developed to add an accounting mode to a moving cell phone. If one is on cell phone in a car parked in a parking lot the signal will stay essentially the same and there is no need to pass the call to an adjacent cell.
For moving cell phones, there could be a surcharge of say $1.00 per minute. The state highway department would get 50 cents and the cell phone service provider would get 50 cents. This would discourage use of cell phones in moving vehicles by either the driver or passenger(s).
The software would also be able to distinguish when a vehicle is stopped. So, if someone intitiated a call while moving and was on phone for 5 minutes and then stopped the car in a shopping center parking lot and continued for 5 more minutes of talking, the billing would only be $5.00.
The surcharge is similar in a way to $4/gallon gas in that it encourages more responsible behaviour such as smaller more efficient vehicles. Surcharge on moving cell phones would also encourage responsible behaviour in that people would plan their lives better to make calls from homes/offices/businesses OR stop their vehicles in a safe and legal spot to make cell call or do texting.
Let's all write to our state legislatures to move this idea along.
-Frank
Yeah, how about doing that?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Why stop there?
Let's get technology that will ban speed, monitor heart rates, and make sure everyone is eating Cherios.
Some of you people seriously need to move to North Korea. I think you would be happier there.
It's on it's way already.
Why stop there?
Let's get technology that will ban speed, monitor heart rates, and make sure everyone is eating Cherios.
It's not scary, it's smart. Surcharge would change cell driver's behaviour. Frivolous and other calls would be made mostly in parked vehicles, homes, offices, stores, etc. Highways and roads would have far less drivers using cell phones. Not too many people would want to pay an extra one dollar per minute while driving. Those that could afford a dollar a minute would still make calls while driving, but probably not as many. Calls to 911 and other emergency road numbers would be exempt from this surcharge.
We need to get this idea moving with insurance companies, cell phone service providers and state legislatures all across the U.S. As pointed out previously, phone service companies could split revenue from surcharge with state dots. This whole idea is a win-win-win: for drivers and passengers, phone companies and state highway departments.
Actually, it is closer to being from the left, who like more taxes. Mind you, this is not a tax, but like a user fee to use your cell phone while driving. This is a good alternative to a total ban which many have pointed out would be hard to enforce.
Perhaps Obama might like this surcharge plan if the Surcharge were split up 3 ways: telephone companies, state dots, redistribution of dollars to poorest class of unworkers.
But it doesn't matter, as this foolhardy idea will not come to fruition.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422441,00.html
And from Faux News, no less.
If it's not from the Seattle Slimes you don't believe it?
That's exactly the type of response I would have expected, thanks for not disappointing.
Nick Williams, a teenage train enthusiast, told CBS2 in Los Angeles he exchanged three text messages with engineer Robert Sanchez Friday afternoon. Williams, who considered Sanchez a “mentor,” received the last text at 4:22 p.m., one minute before the train wreck, according to the ocregister.com report. Williams' claims have not been confirmed.
When I see evidence, I will judge.
Keep up your dreams of a neocon authoritarian police state.
So how do you deal with the fact that the liberal-leaning Communist News Network is carrying the same story? :P
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/15/train.collision/index.html
Leave it to a left winger.
It's a nice story, but more needs to be known.
Today I almost got hit in a parking lot by a woman in a Forester who was holding an iced coffee and tending to a kid in the back seat at the same time. At least one of those two should also be banned. Maybe some kind of coffee cup could be devised that doesn't allow liquid to be removed while a car is in motion :P
Cell phone usage and now texting, has been the cause of some unfortunate spectaular fatalities, and is now allegedly being linked to the worse train crash in US history.
I'm sure you would be fine if the pilot of a jet you were on, started texting just before touchdown, since you seem to place more priority over anecdotal information than many years of studies.
And I avoided another idiotic cell phone user. As previouly mentioned, your area probably doesn't have any cell phone usage, contrary to statistics of the rest of the country. That could only explain why you only perform emergency manuevers on latte drinking, hocket moms and no one else.
Don't forget to ban screaming kids in the back seat. Maybe rain too. Do you know how distracting rain is when driving? An even larger distraction is snow. Yep, we need to ban snow. Now!
The most importatant ban would be people over 60. Maybe over 55 but I'm only 20 years from that.
Targeting phone usage while ignoring virtually every other distraction is simply a waste of legislative effort and LEO time.
Your supposed studies are hardly better than "anecdotal information"
My area is undoubtedly one of the most wired in the nation, hell, several wireless companies are based within several miles of my home.
I have enough trouble trying to figure out what a neocon is Fin. :shades:
Cell phone users should be targeted because they are by percentage the most dangerous in the country. More then makeup applying, lunch eating, newspaper reading drivers. Your area is the exception, it has the latte drinking, child disciplining hockey moms as the highest percentage of dangerous drivers according to *your* anecdotal observation. And I don't really believe that to be the truth.
But here in the real world, people won't put down their cell phones and cause congestion and aggressive driving as people attempt to pass them left, right and center.
You are probably better off, saving your breath and doing some research.
That's an opinion...and that's certainly no justification to put all the eggs in that basket and to ignore all others.
"And I don't really believe that to be the truth"
Irrelevant.
"But here in the real world"
You don't live there.
Your bait is as smelly and stale as your claims :P
Your right, we should target the latte drinking, child disciplining soccer moms who live in your area. Sounds like you don't live on planet earth either. :P
Your bait is as smelly and stale as your claims :P
I'm not making claims, I'm basing an option of law enforcement on people who have already made the claims.
BTW, you never answered my question, would you care if a pilot on a jet you were a passenger on, starting texted while in the middle of a landing? Since according to your posts, you do not believe the studies.
"I'm basing an option of law enforcement on people who have already made the claims"
You're making claims.
"BTW, you never answered my question"
I didn't realize you were in a position to hold me to that. Oh yeah, you're not. Comparing landing a passenger jet to driving a car is such a ridiculous red herring to begin with, I won't fall for it. Try harder.
If this turns out to be true, and that it was cause for inattentiveness of the engineer, then this will be the "Tipping Point". Responsible drivers (not cell users) in CA and around the nation will demand that their legislatures put in laws totally banning cell phone use while driving. They will then add other techno gizmos to the totally banned while driving such as Navi systems. Navi will only be able to be used when car transmission in park and parking brake engaged.
Back to train crash - if engineer was texting, doing personal stuff while in charge of his train, then wonder how accident victims and their families will bring lawsuits. Will the telphone company cell phone service provider(s) that enabled that texting also be part of the lawsuits. If so, this is be beginning of the end of drivers using cell phones while driving.
We're having a discussion and I asked a direct question. The reason you won't answer is because allowing a pilot to text while landing flies against every grain of common sense of which at times your posts are totally devoid of.
You're lack of an answer is proof you''d be a fool to be a party to that situation should you know it was going to happen and therefore your posts are not believable.
You need to go back and study the scientific evidence instead of propogating anecdotal evidence as fact and dismissing scientific evidence as nonsense and leave the latte drinking, child disciplining, soccer moms alone.
You of course are entitled to your own opinion, if one could even call it that.
"You need to go back and study the scientific evidence"
You mean a questionable at best so-called study that equates yapping with driving drunk, while the casualty stats show no evidence of such an impact?
You're not in a position to tell me what I "need" to do, you would be well advised not to do so in the future. Take your yellow illogical chickenhawk authoritarianism elsewhere.
Don't make us call you on it. :P
Actually I can do whatever I want. You of course are free to ignore or respond. Note the free to ignore point. Illogical? At least my thoughts are based on some published scientific studies, not the "stick my finger in the wind and let's see how this goes" method.
The stats on the roads simply don't support the studies. The reality of driving is the reality I seek. That's the logic, what really happens when mobile devices reach market saturation and proliferate to most consumers. It's that simple.
You can have the last word, it suits you well.
Not an edmunds host, the "host" of common sense. :P
It's a red herring because it will never happen, because it is too dangerous to divert attention to non-aircraft matters. So there must be something to all of these studies.
You mean a questionable at best so-called study that equates yapping with driving drunk, while the casualty stats show no evidence of such an impact?
Sure and you could say the same thing about smoking and a diet heavy in junk food. Years ago there was no evidence smoking was bad for you. In fact, smoking did never guarantee you would get lung cancer or suffer a heart attack. But you did up your chances of shortening your life.
You could also eat all the junk food you want. Did you see Supersize Me? You may never gain weight or suffer ill effects, yet the negative effects of a diet high in saturated are well documented.
Texting and non-approved electronic device interaction should be outlawed immediately with heavy fines. A ban on using hand held cell phones should go nationwide.
My question is, how can they definitively prove this as the cause? Looking at the exact times of the text messages and the exact time of the crash?