The lending industry doesn't address the default problem by outlawing the lending of money.
And neither am I arguing for outlawing driving cars because certain activities performed during driving cars ends up causing deaths! I am talking about banning a certain activity which increases the probability of causing a crash during driving.
This may end up being an argument on semantics. However, I will try to bring out the analogy a bit more clearly.
Companies loan money from lenders all the time. Lenders know that they may default. But to minimize the default rate they 1) try to weed out the really high probability defaulters 2) put covenants on the loan agreement forbiding certain activities which heighten the probability of default.
It is not different here. Talking on the cell phone does create distractions while driving and leads to an increased probablity of an accident (just like, for example, taking on lots of debt after you already have debt increases your likelihood of defaulting). Hence we are talking of removing that compounding factor, and not the base issue itself, which is driving (analogous to lending money).
The question you raise is whether phone usage is, by itself, a predictor of accidents. I am not entirely sure of the answer,
That I think is the very difference between our arguments. I dont doubt that a distraction while driving increases the probability (as opposed to definitely causes) of accidents.
Taking me as a test example, I do talk on the phone and am not the completely incompetent types who sways all over the place or slows down. I drive a stick shift and even with the phone stuck between my left shoulder and ear, everything from using turn-signals to gear shifts gets done automatically through muscle memory (though checking blind spots is a little inconvenient). However, there is no denying the fact that my concious attention devoted to driving is not even a fraction of what it is while I am not talking. I typically am looking out 3 to 4 vehicles ahead across all the lanes anticipating sudden lane changes or even a hint of a brake-light to take action. When I am on the phone, I keep drivind perfectly with the flow but cannot really recall afterwards what happened on the road during the call (which according to experts is one of the most important things to check for if you want to know whether you are alert enough or not).
And its not me, its the way humans were designed. We cannot carry out conscious multitasking. We can focus our attention on something and let out subconsious do something else at the same time. But both talking on the phone and driving require intense attention. Its not a tradeoff for anyone, not for a human at least.
I definitely don't want the bottom dwellers to make the laws for the rest of us.
In the same vein, why should drunken driving laws be dictated by the lowest common denominator? Even if you are drunk somewhat over the legal limit, as long as you dont face any sudden incident during your drive, you will be safe. being drunk (moderately) just increases your reaction time. If you dont face anything to suddenly react to, you'se safe.
Similiarly, if I talk on the phone, as long as everything is fine, its fine. But given that office hour traffic is almost bumper-to-bumper travelling at 75mph on the interstate, I may just miss out that sudden brake light 4 cars ahead and be involved in a pile-up. Would someone who doesnt look ahead anyway be any worse off talking? No. But irrespective is talking a compounding factor? Yes it is.
And I disagree that distraction due to cellphones happens only to bottom dwellers. I think it happens much more widely. Maybe its just the top dwellers who are not affected by it (if anyone is not).
I don't wish to get too caught up in the analogies we're using, as I don't wish to debate semantics. But I'll take this part --
But to minimize the default rate they 1) try to weed out the really high probability defaulters 2) put covenants on the loan agreement forbiding certain activities which heighten the probability of default.
The first part -- "weeding people out" -- is far different from a ban. I'm actually calling for weeding people out myself, getting rid of the bad apples instead of treating everyone like a bad apple.
The second part -- restrictive covenants -- only make sense if one can prove that the behavior is inherently bad, no matter who is doing it. And that's where the research and its interpretation come in. If it can be proven that the phone usage is, in and of itself, bad, then it would make sense to ban it. But if individual behavior is the most critical piece, then a ban goes too far. In the same vein, why should drunken driving laws be dictated by the lowest common denominator?
They aren't, or least they aren't in theory. The theory behind the law is that there is a certain BAC above which no person can drive safely, based upon the effects of certain quantities of alcohol on the body. There may be differences among individuals, but everyone is impaired enough that the ban makes sense.
Debating whether .08 is too strict is for another thread, but the idea behind it is that nobody can drive safely with more alcohol in their bloodstreams, regardless of who they are. The analogy of the phone ban doesn't match up.
I drive a stick shift and even with the phone stuck between my left shoulder and ear, everything from using turn-signals to gear shifts gets done automatically through muscle memory (though checking blind spots is a little inconvenient).
I guess that I should clarify my position. I can see banning the use of hand-held phones in cars, largely because someone driving with a head tilt and fixed in a locked position to cradle the phone, or someone who has a hand wrapped around a phone, is going to necessarily suffer from severely compromised reaction times. In my mind, a ban on that is easily justified.
My question is whether hands-free phones and handhelds used with earbuds, etc. should be included. So far, I'm not sure that they should be. I would presume that not all phone usage is created equal.
The first part -- "weeding people out" -- is far different from a ban. I'm actually calling for weeding people out myself, getting rid of the bad apples instead of treating everyone like a bad apple.
I am not sure in our society it would work. I thought that Vancouver BC had a good idea. First they enforce their driving laws strictly. Second they have bill boards that read report aggressive driving behavior 1800xxxxxxx. I think if we were to self police in that manner those that get a lot of calls would lose their driving privilege. It would be easy to accumulate data in this computer age. Maybe a court appearance with a warning after 2 or 3 reports. You see someone in deep conversation not paying attention to the lights or stop signs. Report em.
I would be curious how that is working in Vancouver BC.
Well, I don't think that we need some sort of tattle-tale police state to deal with this. But focusing resources on genuine public safety issues (erratic driving, DUI), rather than on cash generation (speeding and parking enforcement, for example) might be a good place to start.
This is more of the same, but I can't tell you the countless amount of times people are doing dumb, dangerous moves while drive while on cellphone.
Sudden lane changes almost or actually crashing into another vehicle, running red lights, making turns on redlights like its green, lagging in traffic, tailgating so they don't have to watch traffic as much by just spotting the car ahead of them, and more etc.
You can tell by their posture they are engrossed in their phone call instead of navigating 3500 plus lb vehicles.
I wonder how many are killed at crosswalks from inattentive cellphone drivers.
I'm sorry for my venting here, but I drive a route of 180 plus miles per day and see many reasons everyday why cell phones should be banned while driving.
It's like watching drunks drive but maybe worse.
I hope the defenders of using cellphones while driving will drop their pride and ego and forgo using cellphones while driving. It's just common sense.
I can't tell you the countless amount of times people are doing dumb, dangerous moves while drive while on cellphone.
That goes back to my earlier question -- why do you assume that they'll be any better without their phones?
A self-absorbed, egocentric person is just that. They can engross themselves in a Big Mac, double latte, eyeliner or paperback novel while behind the wheel just as easily as they can with a phone call. I blame the user, not the phone.
What would you suggest as a remedy? Holding up traffic at a green light is going to be tough to prosecute. As is the case most of the time there is no cop when you need one. I don't know many people that are not annoyed by cell phone users. Except the ones that are chronic cell phone addicts. They need help. It is an addiction.
Debating whether .08 is too strict is for another thread, but the idea behind it is that nobody can drive safely with more alcohol in their bloodstreams, regardless of who they are. The analogy of the phone ban doesn't match up.
The latter portion of my post was devoted just to that. From my personal experience (having used wired handsets and bluetooth headsets also) and from talking around with many people and reading up journals on human behavior, I have to conclude that a human being cannot simultaneously apply concious thought and attention to two different tasks. You can either focus on driving or focus or carrying out a conversation with someone on the other side of the phone. I dont know if you have superhuman ability of being able to do both, most humans dont.
Also, driving on public roads is a privilege and not a right, as most people seem to assume. If a phone call is so important that it cannot wait, one can always pull over on the shoulder and take the call (I anyways have to do that when I ride my bike to work, more for my own sake more than anything else!). And if someone is stuck in such a predicament that he/she has to take calls while driving, I guess carpooling / taking public transport etc is the answer. It is essential because you will cause harm not just to yourself but to others too, others bing tax paying citizens who have as much ownership of the roads as anyone else.
You suggest that the analogy with drunken driving doesnt work because it seems you have had some research results prove to you conclusively that even moderate levels of alcohol make driving dangerous enough for it to be made a criminal offence. If you share that evidence with me, I may be able to point you to a similiar study which proves that humans cannot concentrate on driving and some other attention demanding task (talking on the phone, reading a newspaper etc) at the same time. Maybe that will convinve you that cell-phone usage is just as dangerous.
"That is true. But, it is after the fact. Punishment of drunk drivers and drivers using cell phones that cause death or injury will not bring back the dead and will not restore injured persons to pre-injury condition."
I agree completely with your reply, but I think that either you missed my point, or I just didn't make it very well.
All I am saying is: Who can say whether or not I will cause some form of carnage, regardless of if I am in the middle of a phone call or not? Maybe I am just a crappy driver, and the same stupid thing would happen regardless of whether or not a cell phone was in use.
I agree that some pro-active action is needed, but I think the focus should be DRIVING A CAR CAN BE FREAKIN' DANGEROUS!! USE YOUR BRAIN WHILE PILOTING A POTENTIALLY LETHAL WEAPON!!
I really think that the issues boil down to people just dont think about how serious driving a car can be. All the laws in the land can't compensate for for morons who dont give a fig about their fellow humans. Like I have admitted before, I am guilty of doing many stupid and dangerous things during my 21 year driving career. But I do like to remind myself that any given trip may be my last, my fault or not. Driving a powered vehicle of any kind is potentially life-threatening. Heck, just being a citizen of planet Earth ain't safe. I wish that the licensing process would take this idea a little further than it does. Hope this helps
All the laws in the land can't compensate for for morons who dont give a fig about their fellow humans.
Its not just morons who dont give a fig, even normal people dont because we are after all not wholly rational and to a certain extent selfish.
For all the niceties that I may spew across forums, there have been multiple occassions when after a few drinks I have felt perfectly capable of piloting myself in a car to my house a few miles away. What I am saying to myself is "Hey, I am feeling completely normal, I am a great driver who has taken defensive driving courses and rides motorcylces on tracks, I know how to drive and nothing will happen." And maybe the truth is nothing will.
But then it hits me that a DUI arrest and conviction will mean a criminal offense conviction, potentially the end of my career, a great disgrace to myself and to my family and a PITA in general. So I end up asking a friend to drop me home or hail a cab.
That is the kind of difference strict enforcement results in. You dont need to be stupid to make wrong decisions. You just need to be human.
"Its not just morons who dont give a fig, even normal people dont because we are after all not wholly rational and to a certain extent selfish."
Darn, every time I think all the bases are covered, someone come along and injects some common sense that didn't occur to me.
You are right, of course. There has been a couple of times when I didn't apply your logic to my situation. I got home just fine, but if I had been busted, I wouldn't have anyone to blame but myself. I have been the moron I refer to at times. Anyway, others have stated my feelings about singling out cell phone users better than I have. Thanks.
Ever wonder what people talk about all day on those cell phones. Must be some SAR damage being done. If I was to attempt to call a dozen people a day and chat for an hour each, I am afraid I could not find enough to talk about. How is the weather, and blah,blah,blah. I can see some business calls. And the poor person on the other side trying to rest at home, or wherever, and keeps getting calls to chat about nothing really important at all. How do people afford these marathon calling days on cell phones. And they call and receive calls while eating in a restaurant. What a peaceful way to have a meal. And others are so happy about this as well. Is this one of those compulsive things, like Internet mail, where people send FWD/FWD/FWD mails, just to have something to send? I call to say where I am, when returning home, where I am off to, or if I have questions on something I am buying or something. I wait to get home for chat on most things. Heck it is not costing per minute. And it would seem to me that a walk, or a drive would be more pleasant and relaxing without chatting. People, I would think, would want some down-time from the telephone, TV, and yes, even the computer.
The StarTrek ear thing -- Blue Tooth is really something else. At first I thought these people were simply talking to themselves. Well I guess this really is a connected world -- too connected for me. -Loren
Sudden lane changes almost or actually crashing into another vehicle, running red lights, making turns on redlights like its green, lagging in traffic, tailgating so they don't have to watch traffic as much by just spotting the car ahead of them, and more etc.
I see that all the time myself with people not on cell phones. I have also witnessed people on cell phones driving in a perfectly (or near perfectly) manner. This leads me to believe its not the cell phone but the driver.
I wonder how many are killed at crosswalks from inattentive cellphone drivers.
I would think it would be at the same rate as those killed by inattentive drivers who are not on cell phones.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Way too connected for me. Even if I answer the phone at home it is just someone wanting money. Both known and unknown. Now that you get junk calls on a cell phone, it would be horrible to kill someone while talking to some [non-permissible content removed] at Chase bank about your VISA account.
The sad part about the ban is that it is two years off and not a total ban on cell phone use from a moving vehicle. Another case of CA legislature screwing up legislation.
That is one of the most telling parts of this debate isn't it? They spend all the money on passing a feel good law that will not address the very issue they seem so concerned about. And if this law was so important to the public why not put it to a vote?
The people that are concerned will monitor their cell phone useage with simple peer pressure and common sense. The people that aren't concerned will simply, A: ignore the law unless a officer is in sight or B: if they are serious cell phone users they will simply use a hands free. They have more than a year to get used to it and for most of those people. If they are on nextel/sprint they can simply use the speaker function and they don't have to hold the handset up to their ear.
But for the ones that believe this will do some good they can puff up their chests and proclaim they have solved the problem and maybe even found the cure for the common cold. And because we now have this new all curative law maybe we can wipe a few laws we no longer need off of the books. Without hand held cell phones we won't need the following too close law. The illegal lane change law. The running through red light law. The hitting a pedestrian law. And we will no longer need to ascribe guilt to those who cause accidents. After all it is the cell phone that caused all these problems not the scattered brained driver. This law has made the road safer for us all.
Also, driving on public roads is a privilege and not a right, as most people seem to assume.
Driving may be a privilege (although in this society, it is effectively a requirement if you wish to function normally, so it really is something more than just a privilege), but that doesn't mean that it should be excessively regulated.
In a free society, we have to go with the guiding principle that everything should be legal, unless there's a compelling reason why it shouldn't be. So it's up to the anti's to prove their case for a ban, and that case should be tight.
If you share that evidence with me, I may be able to point you to a similiar study which proves that humans cannot concentrate on driving and some other attention demanding task (talking on the phone, reading a newspaper etc) at the same time
Several posts back, a "meta-study" was posted that dealt specifically with this question, and I suspect from that data that the problem lies ultimately with the user moreso than with the phone, because the variance of the impact among users is so great.
In the case of drunk driving, the physiological effects of a certain BAC on the human body are pretty consistent from person to person, something that can't be said with the phone. You can't compare alcohol, which creates a biochemical reaction that is predictable across a pool for a given BAC, with the usage of a phone, which does not create a consistent and predictable result. The studies make it clear that the average loss in reaction time is modest, and that the results among individuals varies from minimal to significant.
I say: target the extremes, and leave the rest of drivers alone. Focusing enforcement resources on an effort that will target a lot of people who don't cause problems is a waste of money and time, and will divert attention from problems that are more serious.
Way too connected for me. Even if I answer the phone at home it is just someone wanting money. Both known and unknown. Now that you get junk calls on a cell phone, it would be horrible to kill someone while talking to some [non-permissible content removed] at Chase bank about your VISA account.
Valid point, people forget why they have a cell phone. It is for my convienence, not the convienence of those who think I am now at their beck and call 24/7. My phone has voice mail...if they want to leave me a message I will check it.
Also, driving on public roads is a privilege and not a right, as most people seem to assume.
Driving may be a privilege (although in this society, it is effectively a requirement if you wish to function normally, so it really is something more than just a privilege), but that doesn't mean that it should be excessively regulated.
I agree that it shouldn't be excessively regulated, but I also agree that it is a privilege. Repeated drunk drivers lose that privilege (supposedly), people with poor driving records or too many points lose that privilege (supposedly). It is a privilege, its not in the Constitution next to free speech or something, and as such, its subject to more rules (you need a license, you need to drive on the proper side of the road, speed etc).
What I don't understand is even though everyone here is a terrific driver I am sure and can juggle knives while traveling at 88 feet/second, the guy behind me who is going to cream my Accord with my kids in it might not be in the same category. I can't believe you aren't concerned about sharing the road with these road users.
What I don't understand is even though everyone here is a terrific driver I am sure and can juggle knives while traveling at 88 feet/second, the guy behind me who is going to cream my Accord with my kids in it might not be in the same category. I can't believe you aren't concerned about sharing the road with these road users.
You're right -- I don't want to share the roads with the incompetents. I want them to lose their licenses and be banished from the roads. If someone thinks his double latte and the sports section justifies tailgating and poor lane discipline, then go deal with him, rather than the rest of us who aren't creating any problems.
But the other point is that the incompetents are few in number, and the majority who are OK should not be treated like criminals for behavior that doesn't actually create problems. If we do that, then the "privilege" argument just becomes an excuse to make unnecessary laws for no good reason. (Presumably, if driving is a "privilege", then the lawmakers have the "privilege" of regulating it arbitrarily, or because they think their simple platforms will get them more votes.)
Truckers have spent years driving with their CB radios, and somehow we don't see them careening off the road in increasing numbers because they are chatting with each other. (If anything, the CB's might even save lives because they can share information and keep each other awake.) That's a good 30+ years of data on the subject, and I am not aware of anyone who has determined this to be a problem.
This leads me to believe its not the cell phone but the driver.
In the end, it is always the driver. We are talking about compounding factors over here which may create distractions to people who would otherwise be safer without those distractions. The fact that sober drivers are involved in fatal accidents does not imply driving under influence doesnt matter.
the reality of the situation is most humans do have that capability. People have the capability to multi task, we do it all the time.
If you read the rest of my post thoroughly, you will realise that I have drawn a distinction between different forms of multitasking. We all can have dinner while watching TV, that is mutitasking. We can workout while listening to music, that is multitasking. However, we cannot simultaneously talk to 2 people on 2 different phones effectively. We cannot juggle 3 balls while reading the newspaper. I spoke of the inability oh humans to carry out the second type, not the first.
In a free society, we have to go with the guiding principle that everything should be legal,....
Before we dive into the free/libertarian society debate, a taxpayer-funded government designed, built and maintained highway is a socialistic concept (which most free-society lovers readily enjoy everyday). Given that everyone other person on the road has a stake in it, and the governance of the road is based on consensus, absolute 'freedom' of the sense people crave for cannot apply. This was not built 'the free way'. If Bubba and his buddies build a road for themselves, they are free to drive naked, talking on cellphones, with their eyes closed, in reverse or whatever way they wish. However, this is not private property. There is not 'antis' and 'pros' here. Given a democratic system, if the majority is convinced (with sufficient proof) that something is dangerous, that will be stopped.
the case of drunk driving, the physiological effects of a certain BAC on the human body are pretty consistent from person to person, something that can't be said with the phone. You can't compare alcohol, which creates a biochemical reaction that is predictable across a pool for a given BAC, with the usage of a phone, which does not create a consistent and predictable result.
I am actually not interested in hearing about studies related to cell-phones and driving but rather related to drinking and driving. Evidentally, you somehow have the strongest belief that drinking causes some sort of uniform reaction across all people. I want to know how you are convinced of that. Are there some studies you have seen on this which conclusively prove this fact? Can no one nit-pick on those studies like many people here are doing for the meta-study posted and questioning whether the delayed reaction is really worth it?
I'll tell you where I am leading to. Most people, presently, are convinced that drunken driving is dangerous and air-bags and seatbelts are safety devices simply because an enormous amount of public education has been carried out on these things for many years now (I think it was GM who pushed the 'airbags kill' line in the late 70's). Hence, you agree to those without any questions, without any demands for irrefutable proof (or a tight case).
You are completely confident that your attention devoted to sriving doesnt reduce a bit while you are talking on the phone. You are even ready to deny research findings which prove so (you can read this up, incidentally this was not about talking on cell-phones while driving but rather derived out of research into cockpit design for pilots to see how much imformation can be simultaneously processed http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051209113320.htm).
If I can summarize the stand of pro-cellphone groups
1) Stupid people will anyway crash, cell-phone or not 2) There are so many other distractions, why penalize cellphone users 3) Talking on cellphones doesnt distract from driving at all 4) Its a free country, I'll do whatever the hell I want to
For 1) If stupid people have an 80% chance of crashing, cellphones will probably make it 100%. If a stupid person darting across lanes has a 10% chance of catching a good driver off-guard, he probably has a 40% chance of catching the good driver off-guard if the good driver is engrossed in a phone conversation. We are talking of minimizing odds, no one can ever eliminate them.
For 2) Existence of other ills/crimes/faults does not in anyway minimize the gravity another. Cellphone talking is more prevalent and easier to crack-down on that chatting with a friend (like DUI is more easily established and presecuted than driving while tired and sleepy, the existence of the second also does not reduce the impact of the first)
For 3) There are too many studies proving otherwise. And be honest to yourself and carefully pay attention to how much attention you can pay to dricing while talking on the phone. Even if its 50%, that could make the difference. And really, is the phone conversation so important?
a taxpayer-funded government designed, built and maintained highway is a socialistic concept (which most free-society lovers readily enjoy everyday).
Whoa. Why are you making this a left-right/liberal-conservative debate, when this isn't being drawn along political lines?
The point about there being an absence of laws, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, is a fundamental concept of US law, no matter what your personal politics happen to be. That's the whole concept of the Bill of Rights -- that your rights are inate and not just a "gift" of the government. Everything is considered a right, until proven otherwise.
That's why the anti's have the greater burden of proof, because we presume that things should be allowed in this society unless there is a very good reason to not allow them. (This isn't just true with road rules, but with everything.) The laws need to be logical and based on reason, not arbitrary and based on whim, reelection goals or the desire to fatten the Treasury with income from fines.
If stupid people have an 80% chance of crashing, cellphones will probably make it 100%. If a stupid person darting across lanes has a 10% chance of catching a good driver off-guard, he probably has a 40% chance of catching the good driver off-guard if the good driver is engrossed in a phone conversation. We are talking of minimizing odds, no one can ever eliminate them.
Then why are you allowing them to drive in the first place? If you really care about personal safety, then the obvious solution is to take away the driving privilege of those few people who abuse it. Letting them drive with a donut and an Ipod instead of a Nokia isn't a fix, that's just trading one problem for another.
There are too many studies proving otherwise.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm pointing out that the effects are both (a) minimal on average -- not zero, but not so serious as to pose a hazard -- and (b) so widely variable that the phone is most likely not the real culprit, given that some drivers are obviously quite successful with phone usage while a few others are not.
I am actually not interested in hearing about studies related to cell-phones and driving but rather related to drinking and driving. Evidentally, you somehow have the strongest belief that drinking causes some sort of uniform reaction across all people.
Now you're building a strawman. A phone ban would be the equivalent of having a maximum BAC of 0.00, on the presumption that any alcohol usage is bad.
Given the BAC of .08, our DUI laws clearly don't say this. They presume that there is a certain amount of alcohol that one can consume that may create some sort of impairment or compromise, but one that is so low that it isn't worthy of criminalizing.
That's the question -- why do you want to criminalize phone usage because of a 130 millisecond delay? If it was several seconds, your concerns would be understandable, but now you're just splitting hairs and looking to justify a law enforcement on an activity that is generally harmless.
If you believe in increasing safety on the roads, the best answer is to focus scarce resources on stuff that will actually achieve a positive result. Since priorities are required, what violations are you willing to overlook in order to enforce this phone law that, if the studies are correct, can't be expected to do any good?
If I can summarize the stand of pro-cellphone groups
I will summarize my stand thank you.
1) Stupid people will anyway crash, cell-phone or not
No some people have very poor driving habits, those habits will not improve by banning cell phones. Those that have poor lane discipline and tailgate while chatting on the phone will have poor lane discipline and will tailgate if they are not on the phone.
2) There are so many other distractions, why penalize cellphone users
No its why penalize the 80-90%+ of cell phone users who operate their cars without ant problems because of the few that can't and most likely would have problems even if they were not on a cell phone.
3) Talking on cellphones doesn't distract from driving at all
I don't think anyone is saying that. Just saying that of all the distractions out there cell phones are not the worst there can be.
4) Its a free country, I'll do whatever the hell I want to
I think that was on the forum about increasing the speed limit.
But lets be honest you most likely have violated some law someplace simply because you didn't feel like following it. Tell me you never knowingly speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Whoa. Why are you making this a left-right/liberal-conservative debate,
Not making it one but trying to weed out the people who, in the absence of anything else, take cover behind the 'its a free soceity' argument for anything and everything. Fine, if you love a free soceity, live it. Avoid non-free soceity things (like public roads). But just dont use it as an excuse.
Everything is considered a right
No. "everything" means nothing. Specific types of rights have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Also, 'pro' and 'anti' are relative terms. I can claim I am 'pro' making roads safe and secure and minimizing all non-driving activities while driving a car on a public road and by that token make you 'anti'. Can you prove that allowing cellphones will not make roads more unsafe than they are currently, with conclusive evidence?
If you really care about personal safety, then the obvious solution is to take away the driving privilege of those few people who abuse it. Letting them drive with a donut and an Ipod instead of a Nokia isn't a fix, that's just trading one problem for another.
Revoking privileges is done in case of habitual offenders. Given that a much larger proportion of people use cellphones as compared to ipods, we are not exchanging poblems. We are attacking distractions which are on the highest end of a 'frequency of occurence' by 'potential impact' by 'enforceability' matrix. Cellsphone usage outscores ipod by many orders of magnitude IMHO.
A phone ban would be the equivalent of having a maximum BAC of 0.00, on the presumption that any alcohol usage is bad.
Incidentally, 0.08 and above means you are definitely DUI. You can still be charged with DUI at 0.01 if law enforcement so determines. And yes, I am all for a total zero tolerance policy on drunken driving. 2 beers have different effects on 2 people of same weight and gender. It is a fact.
If you believe in increasing safety on the roads, the best answer is to focus scarce resources on stuff that will actually achieve a positive result.
IMO, increasing road safety can be achieved 1) through training and rigorous testing procedures making sure that only people who really can drive are driving there 2) once these people are on the road, making sure that they are DRIVING and not doing something else
The point is not criminalizing phone usaege, the point is asking people to DRIVE coz that is the thing you are supposed to do when in a car on a road in traffic at 75mph.
No some people have very poor driving habits, those habits will not improve by banning cell phones.
But having cellphones will most definitely deteoriate their driving. And also have an adverse impact others' driving as well as safety.
No its why penalize the 80-90%+ of cell phone users ... because of the few that can't and most likely would have problems even if they were not on a cell phone.
Arent we in a cirle here. Studies clearly show that talking deteoriates EVERYONES driving ability. If you think of it in terms of a distribution, it moves the whole group to the higher risk end. Of course the ones who were beyond the previous cutoff are still beyond. But there will be some marginal new ones who will join them. And the overall probability of ALL vehicles on the road will be higher!
Just saying that of all the distractions out there cell phones are not the worst there can be.
Wasnt that my point #2 :-)
I think that was on the forum about increasing the speed limit. Tell me you never knowingly speed.
No, someone here said something about this being a free country. And BTW this is a favourite reason of many.
Incidentally, I posted on the speed limits forum in favor of increaing speed limits. I believe the road infrastructure is sufficiently capable of handling much higher speeds. We just need to make people focus on DRIVING and instead of focussing on everything BUT driving. And looking around, I find cellphones to be the biggest culprits. I would feel safer driving down the highway at 100mph with attentive drivers all around than I do at 60mph with cellphone yakking people all around.
Fine, if you love a free soceity, live it. Avoid non-free soceity things (like public roads). But just dont use it as an excuse
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You seem to believe that roads are exempted from the need for legislative reason because we collectively pay for them, which seems odd to me.
Specific types of rights have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Come now, you've missed the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, the Bill of Rights highlights only some of our rights; it's not necessary to spell out every single right in the Constitution in order to have it. Rights are inate to our being, not given to us by the State.
Incidentally, 0.08 and above means you are definitely DUI.
Right. And if the police wish to argue that you were intoxicated with less, they have to prove it with more than just a blood test. It's a very high hurdle.
Which is the point here. You want zero tolerance for phone usage, which is similar in concept to a 0.00 BAC -- any phone usage is to be punished. We don't even go to this extreme with alcohol, even though alcohol has a biochemical impact on motor skills and judgment.
The point is that the courts don't believe that every degree of impairment should be punished, but only impairment that exceeds a certain level. The influence of alcohol below a certain level is not considered serious enough to punish, except in extraordinary circumstances where it can be shown otherwise.
You're evading the basic issue here: For a phone ban to make sense, you need to show that any reduced reaction time that is associated with mobile phones is actually serious enough to create unsafe conditions.
There needs to be a hurdle or a test that doesn't turn molehills into mountains. Without a reasonableness standard, we're going to start banning passenger seats, radios, makeup mirrors or anything else that can possibly be blamed for delayed reaction times of only a fraction of a second, which is exactly the amount of delayed reaction time that the meta-study attributes to the phones.
Now driving on snow and ice in the dark during evening rush hour on curvy surface streets, that would be a good time not to use the phone. The issue is whether or not people can make that decision on their own...
I think that many cannot make the proper decision to either not making the call or finding a safe spot to stop and make the call. They will make the call anyway.
Some have given an example of driving on a rural or lightly loaded interstate in the daylight in good weather and safely making a phone call. This condition is not where the average call is being made.
From this time of year until early March, many drivers in the US will be driving the evening rush hour in the dark. Besides snow and ice, a probably more difficult time to drive is in a light rain or drizzle where folks don't slow down much, it is dark on a two-lane rural road, and there are opposing headlights glaring on the windsheild. Will some drivers make a cell phone call with these conditions while driving?
Read some off the studies on "multi tasking" and see how innefficient those people are. It is the province of the overly priviledged and under accountable."
Seriously? In the mornings, I get ready in half the time of a "normal" female, because I do stuff like brush my teeth and put on shoes simultaneously, and apply make-up whilst blow-drying my hair. It's very efficient in getting me from wake-up to out-the-door in 20 minutes. So, it's not really fair (as usual) to make sweeping generalizations. Perhaps the efficiency of multitasking is directly related to the task(s) and the person performing them.
Since you've all been hounding me for my opinion (perhaps silently), how about making the whole process of getting a driver's license in the first place MUCH more difficult? Anyone who's experienced the exam in England will gladly tell you that most driving tests in America are a cake-walk. One almost needs professional driving instruction in order to pass the exam in England.
Doesn't solve the cell phone problem, but helps ensure that those who drive while using them are more competent from the get-go.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
One of the big issues with multi tasking, at least with a single proceessor model (pretty much every model but MHP), is the cost of switching between tasks. Most of the tests I have seen are pretty abstract...like count backwards by 2s from 1000 and click this button everytime a target appears outside of the box (bad example).
And people do it all the time - what about depressing a clutch pedal with your foot while shifting a knob with your hand while turning your head to check the traffic as you merge onto the interstate? That is multitasking, and it happens flawlessly millions of times per day.
Some tasks are suited for the "multi," while others are meant to be solo ventures (say, splitting atoms). IMHO, of course.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
And people do it all the time - what about depressing a clutch pedal with your foot while shifting a knob with your hand while turning your head to check the traffic as you merge onto the interstate? That is multitasking, and it happens flawlessly millions of times per day.
But, you are already programmed for these procedures. You have done it thousands of times and your brain already knows how to process each step. No new challenges for thought processing.
Why not add into the above example that you are talking on cell phone to your building contractor about a few recent issues on the house that he/she is building for you. This conversation requires intense thought to formulate each issue, listen for contractor response and formulate your response. Some folks might also divert additional brain processing if they want to inject some emotional emphasis on some things that might not be going well. Are "multi-taskers" such as these a menace on the highway?
And people do it all the time - what about depressing a clutch pedal with your foot while shifting a knob with your hand while turning your head to check the traffic as you merge onto the interstate? That is multitasking, and it happens flawlessly millions of times per day.
Pressing the clutch pedal and using a shifter isn't multitasking because you don't think about it. Gross motor movements like pressing the clutch or going from the gas to the brake and gear selection "automatic" motions. Your body creates a motor program to say, shift from 3rd to 4th, your body calls that program to execute, and its ballistic from that point out. You didn't "think" about it, so its not really multi-tasking. At the beginning, you have to think a lot about pushing the clutch and shifting gears, like when you were a baby and had to concentrate to stand up or walk. This is a good argument for why younger drivers (who are still developing motor programs associated with driving) should have restricted cell phone use while driving.
I have seen studies that show that multitasking can be done efficiently. So whats your point?
Snake, I notice you seem to disagree with pretty much every post on every forum. Are you just playing devils advocate? Or just trying to improve the debate?
I notice you seem to disagree with pretty much every post on every forum.
You read every post on every forum here in edmunds? If you did you would see that what you said id not true, even in this debate since I agree with many on this matter. I amy disagree with you but that doesn't mean I disagree with every post.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I can't help myself. People have been talking a lot longer than they have been shifting. I will agree most people don't think at all while they are talking. So no multi-tasking going on there. If you have more than one car, people in California seem to have one for every task they preform, then you can't shift on auto pilot because one vehicle may be a five speed, on a six speed and one an automatic. Cops drive and talk. Pilots fly and talk. Race car drivers race and talk. Maybe it is like so many have said? Some drivers simply can't drive? Or are all police superior drivers. Are all pilots better multitaskers? Are race cars drivers smarter than the rest of US?.....................Yes even NASCAR drivers?
I am trying to picture a Tomcat Pilot in combat not talking with his Co-pilot because it is too distracting.
But then we can rationalize and make exceptions for anything.
Maybe they don't think while talking but they seem to get lost in their conversation. Those examples you gave are typically professional conversations dealing with the primary task. When I see the 20 something in the next lane going 65 and then 75 and then 80 and then 70 and then 75 and then 60, the conversation is probably going:
"Did you catch the latest _insert_show_name_here_?" "Yes, I can't believe xyz, did that!" "Me neither!" ... Screeeeeech! As they almost plow into the car stopping for the red light.
If the conversation is short and non-demanding:
"Hi, I'm on my way home, need anything from the store?" "Yes, milk and bread." "OK, no problem. Bye." "Bye."
And takes place under non-demanding circumstances, such as cruising on the highway at 65 MPH in light traffic with a headset that has voice dialing, then I don't see problems like this.
"When I see the 20 something in the next lane going 65 and then 75 and then 80 and then 70 and then 75 and then 60, the conversation is probably going:"
I simply see that and believe one of my wife's relatives from Iowa is out visiting and has rented a car.
I can't help myself. People have been talking a lot longer than they have been shifting. I will agree most people don't think at all while they are talking. So no multi-tasking going on there.
Kinda like people on the forums :P Again, that Horrey guy (he did work on the first paper I posted) and UMTRI have done some research about what kinds of conversations people have and the workload associated with each. "Honey, pick up some milk and bread on your way home from work" is less taxing than "I got the pictures of you and your secretary on the business trip"
"Honey, pick up some milk and bread on your way home from work" is less taxing than "I got the pictures of you and your secretary on the business trip"
That would depend, with the former if it were my wife she would be making that call as I am walking through the garage door. If its the later I have friends would would simply ask for copies so they can use it for their Christmas cards.
Now of course I am sure if my old boss was driving when I announced to him (after he fired me) that I had copies of the pay records he was hiding from the IRS that he would have crashed his car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
They do so because of the neccesity of doing so. It is not nessasary for most drivers to be connected by phone while driving. Radio use to save lives is a good thing. Driving distractions of a cell phone, I doubt can be a good thing. That is unless phoning in an emergency call to 9-1-1. With a car club, using a radio to let people behind you know of road conditions or obstacles ahead on those country roads, may indeed be a good thing. A truck driver may need a radio for a lot of usfull things including letting fellow truckers know of problems with their trucks or accidents ahead. And yes, they may be in contact with their office. If they can not talk without driving safely, or choose to talk at the wrong times when driving, then they too should be without the possible distraction. Race driver communications, and police communications by radio, obviously are required. Has nothing at all to do with chat for sake of chat on cell phones. -Loren
If you can brush your teeth and put your shoes on symiltaneously, then you should get an automatic drivers license, as driving is not half as hard to do. -Loren
I just had a woman walk into the intersection while talking on a cell phone. She did not realize she was going against a red light until I blasted her with my horn. Hope I took a couple years off her life.
Isn't chat with a passenger chat for chats sake? Are we legislating because of a problem for all drivers or only some drivers? And will that lessen the people talking on the cell phone by 2008? I simply say, it was a waste of time and paper. People that are talking on the cell phone because they have to and that are making short calls aren't the problem. People making an emergency call aren't the problem. The problem is people who don't pay attention to what they are supposed to be doing. The statement has been made many times, they lack judgment and don't feel they are doing anything wrong. By 2008 the wire free hands free will be so standard you might not even get a phone with a real hand set. Do any of us believe the people that are talking excessively on cell phones today will not take advantage of this feature to continue to talk on the cell phone by 2008? If it is a safety issue it should be one for everyone. If it is not a safety issue for everyone then we are all being punished for the ones that can't use the cell responsibly.
LOL if anyone can't provide common sense, it's legislators of either political bent.
Yesterday I had a woman in a Corolla yapping on the phone almost smack into me as she was leaving a parking lot...she got her nose into traffic, then noticed that she shouldn't have been there. Stereotype matched.
I have noticed most of the discussion is on talking on a cell phone, which is still different from initiating a call.
Initiating a call by dialing is pretty rough, as the user is typically looking at the phone (today I saw someone rear end someone while looking at their phone). Also, becuase people are so conditioned to answer the phone at home, people typically drop what the are doing and prioritize on the phone. Phone Answering Study This isn't such a safe behavior (car makers are working on technology to prevent this).
Also, becuase people are so conditioned to answer the phone at home, people typically drop what the are doing and prioritize on the phone.
I know this is oblique but here goes. Everyone has been at someone's house when the phone rings. Usually, everyone there (guests) will be quiet and the homeowner answers the call and all are silent and waiting. Same thing at a lot of stores, especially car parts stores. You can be talking to someone at the store and the phone rings, suddenly you are a second class citizen and the ringing phone is top priority. You who have been waiting in line and were talking to a person in the store now have to wait a few minutes while the phone call is answered with a lot of details. To add insult to injury, you might get another 30 seconds with the person in the store and then the phone rings again. What is this physcology?
I have had a very few bosses in the past who would not answer the phone or tell their secretary to not pass through any calls to them when serious discussions were under way with myself or other employees. This was a rare case though.
Phone behavior, both cell in the car and other places such as restaurants and regular phone in business and home is a very curious animal. We are all beholden to the phone and ma bell (or current equivalents).
Comments
And neither am I arguing for outlawing driving cars because certain activities performed during driving cars ends up causing deaths! I am talking about banning a certain activity which increases the probability of causing a crash during driving.
This may end up being an argument on semantics. However, I will try to bring out the analogy a bit more clearly.
Companies loan money from lenders all the time. Lenders know that they may default. But to minimize the default rate they 1) try to weed out the really high probability defaulters 2) put covenants on the loan agreement forbiding certain activities which heighten the probability of default.
It is not different here. Talking on the cell phone does create distractions while driving and leads to an increased probablity of an accident (just like, for example, taking on lots of debt after you already have debt increases your likelihood of defaulting). Hence we are talking of removing that compounding factor, and not the base issue itself, which is driving (analogous to lending money).
The question you raise is whether phone usage is, by itself, a predictor of accidents. I am not entirely sure of the answer,
That I think is the very difference between our arguments. I dont doubt that a distraction while driving increases the probability (as opposed to definitely causes) of accidents.
Taking me as a test example, I do talk on the phone and am not the completely incompetent types who sways all over the place or slows down. I drive a stick shift and even with the phone stuck between my left shoulder and ear, everything from using turn-signals to gear shifts gets done automatically through muscle memory (though checking blind spots is a little inconvenient). However, there is no denying the fact that my concious attention devoted to driving is not even a fraction of what it is while I am not talking. I typically am looking out 3 to 4 vehicles ahead across all the lanes anticipating sudden lane changes or even a hint of a brake-light to take action. When I am on the phone, I keep drivind perfectly with the flow but cannot really recall afterwards what happened on the road during the call (which according to experts is one of the most important things to check for if you want to know whether you are alert enough or not).
And its not me, its the way humans were designed. We cannot carry out conscious multitasking. We can focus our attention on something and let out subconsious do something else at the same time. But both talking on the phone and driving require intense attention. Its not a tradeoff for anyone, not for a human at least.
I definitely don't want the bottom dwellers to make the laws for the rest of us.
In the same vein, why should drunken driving laws be dictated by the lowest common denominator? Even if you are drunk somewhat over the legal limit, as long as you dont face any sudden incident during your drive, you will be safe. being drunk (moderately) just increases your reaction time. If you dont face anything to suddenly react to, you'se safe.
Similiarly, if I talk on the phone, as long as everything is fine, its fine. But given that office hour traffic is almost bumper-to-bumper travelling at 75mph on the interstate, I may just miss out that sudden brake light 4 cars ahead and be involved in a pile-up. Would someone who doesnt look ahead anyway be any worse off talking? No. But irrespective is talking a compounding factor? Yes it is.
And I disagree that distraction due to cellphones happens only to bottom dwellers. I think it happens much more widely. Maybe its just the top dwellers who are not affected by it (if anyone is not).
But to minimize the default rate they 1) try to weed out the really high probability defaulters 2) put covenants on the loan agreement forbiding certain activities which heighten the probability of default.
The first part -- "weeding people out" -- is far different from a ban. I'm actually calling for weeding people out myself, getting rid of the bad apples instead of treating everyone like a bad apple.
The second part -- restrictive covenants -- only make sense if one can prove that the behavior is inherently bad, no matter who is doing it. And that's where the research and its interpretation come in. If it can be proven that the phone usage is, in and of itself, bad, then it would make sense to ban it. But if individual behavior is the most critical piece, then a ban goes too far.
In the same vein, why should drunken driving laws be dictated by the lowest common denominator?
They aren't, or least they aren't in theory. The theory behind the law is that there is a certain BAC above which no person can drive safely, based upon the effects of certain quantities of alcohol on the body. There may be differences among individuals, but everyone is impaired enough that the ban makes sense.
Debating whether .08 is too strict is for another thread, but the idea behind it is that nobody can drive safely with more alcohol in their bloodstreams, regardless of who they are. The analogy of the phone ban doesn't match up.
I drive a stick shift and even with the phone stuck between my left shoulder and ear, everything from using turn-signals to gear shifts gets done automatically through muscle memory (though checking blind spots is a little inconvenient).
I guess that I should clarify my position. I can see banning the use of hand-held phones in cars, largely because someone driving with a head tilt and fixed in a locked position to cradle the phone, or someone who has a hand wrapped around a phone, is going to necessarily suffer from severely compromised reaction times. In my mind, a ban on that is easily justified.
My question is whether hands-free phones and handhelds used with earbuds, etc. should be included. So far, I'm not sure that they should be. I would presume that not all phone usage is created equal.
I am not sure in our society it would work. I thought that Vancouver BC had a good idea. First they enforce their driving laws strictly. Second they have bill boards that read report aggressive driving behavior 1800xxxxxxx. I think if we were to self police in that manner those that get a lot of calls would lose their driving privilege. It would be easy to accumulate data in this computer age. Maybe a court appearance with a warning after 2 or 3 reports. You see someone in deep conversation not paying attention to the lights or stop signs. Report em.
I would be curious how that is working in Vancouver BC.
Sudden lane changes almost or actually crashing into another vehicle, running red lights, making turns on redlights like its green, lagging in traffic, tailgating so they don't have to watch traffic as much by just spotting the car ahead of them, and more etc.
You can tell by their posture they are engrossed in their phone call instead of navigating 3500 plus lb vehicles.
I wonder how many are killed at crosswalks from inattentive cellphone drivers.
I'm sorry for my venting here, but I drive a route of 180 plus miles per day and see many reasons everyday why cell phones should be banned while driving.
It's like watching drunks drive but maybe worse.
I hope the defenders of using cellphones while driving will drop their pride and ego and forgo using cellphones while driving.
It's just common sense.
That goes back to my earlier question -- why do you assume that they'll be any better without their phones?
A self-absorbed, egocentric person is just that. They can engross themselves in a Big Mac, double latte, eyeliner or paperback novel while behind the wheel just as easily as they can with a phone call. I blame the user, not the phone.
The latter portion of my post was devoted just to that. From my personal experience (having used wired handsets and bluetooth headsets also) and from talking around with many people and reading up journals on human behavior, I have to conclude that a human being cannot simultaneously apply concious thought and attention to two different tasks. You can either focus on driving or focus or carrying out a conversation with someone on the other side of the phone. I dont know if you have superhuman ability of being able to do both, most humans dont.
Also, driving on public roads is a privilege and not a right, as most people seem to assume. If a phone call is so important that it cannot wait, one can always pull over on the shoulder and take the call (I anyways have to do that when I ride my bike to work, more for my own sake more than anything else!). And if someone is stuck in such a predicament that he/she has to take calls while driving, I guess carpooling / taking public transport etc is the answer. It is essential because you will cause harm not just to yourself but to others too, others bing tax paying citizens who have as much ownership of the roads as anyone else.
You suggest that the analogy with drunken driving doesnt work because it seems you have had some research results prove to you conclusively that even moderate levels of alcohol make driving dangerous enough for it to be made a criminal offence. If you share that evidence with me, I may be able to point you to a similiar study which proves that humans cannot concentrate on driving and some other attention demanding task (talking on the phone, reading a newspaper etc) at the same time. Maybe that will convinve you that cell-phone usage is just as dangerous.
I agree completely with your reply, but I think that either you missed my point, or I just didn't make it very well.
All I am saying is: Who can say whether or not I will cause some form of carnage, regardless of if I am in the middle of a phone call or not? Maybe I am just a crappy driver, and the same stupid thing would happen regardless of whether or not a cell phone was in use.
I agree that some pro-active action is needed, but I think the focus should be DRIVING A CAR CAN BE FREAKIN' DANGEROUS!! USE YOUR BRAIN WHILE PILOTING A POTENTIALLY LETHAL WEAPON!!
I really think that the issues boil down to people just dont think about how serious driving a car can be. All the laws in the land can't compensate for for morons who dont give a fig about their fellow humans.
Like I have admitted before, I am guilty of doing many stupid and dangerous things during my 21 year driving career. But I do like to remind myself that any given trip may be my last, my fault or not. Driving a powered vehicle of any kind is potentially life-threatening. Heck, just being a citizen of planet Earth ain't safe. I wish that the licensing process would take this idea a little further than it does.
Hope this helps
Its not just morons who dont give a fig, even normal people dont because we are after all not wholly rational and to a certain extent selfish.
For all the niceties that I may spew across forums, there have been multiple occassions when after a few drinks I have felt perfectly capable of piloting myself in a car to my house a few miles away. What I am saying to myself is "Hey, I am feeling completely normal, I am a great driver who has taken defensive driving courses and rides motorcylces on tracks, I know how to drive and nothing will happen." And maybe the truth is nothing will.
But then it hits me that a DUI arrest and conviction will mean a criminal offense conviction, potentially the end of my career, a great disgrace to myself and to my family and a PITA in general. So I end up asking a friend to drop me home or hail a cab.
That is the kind of difference strict enforcement results in. You dont need to be stupid to make wrong decisions. You just need to be human.
Darn, every time I think all the bases are covered, someone come along and injects some common sense that didn't occur to me.
You are right, of course. There has been a couple of times when I didn't apply your logic to my situation. I got home just fine, but if I had been busted, I wouldn't have anyone to blame but myself.
I have been the moron I refer to at times.
Anyway, others have stated my feelings about singling out cell phone users better than I have.
Thanks.
The StarTrek ear thing -- Blue Tooth is really something else. At first I thought these people were simply talking to themselves. Well I guess this really is a connected world -- too connected for me.
-Loren
I see that all the time myself with people not on cell phones. I have also witnessed people on cell phones driving in a perfectly (or near perfectly) manner. This leads me to believe its not the cell phone but the driver.
I wonder how many are killed at crosswalks from inattentive cellphone drivers.
I would think it would be at the same rate as those killed by inattentive drivers who are not on cell phones.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Way too connected for me. Even if I answer the phone at home it is just someone wanting money. Both known and unknown. Now that you get junk calls on a cell phone, it would be horrible to kill someone while talking to some [non-permissible content removed] at Chase bank about your VISA account.
The sad part about the ban is that it is two years off and not a total ban on cell phone use from a moving vehicle. Another case of CA legislature screwing up legislation.
the reality of the situation is most humans do have that capability. People have the capability to multi task, we do it all the time.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The people that are concerned will monitor their cell phone useage with simple peer pressure and common sense. The people that aren't concerned will simply, A: ignore the law unless a officer is in sight or B: if they are serious cell phone users they will simply use a hands free. They have more than a year to get used to it and for most of those people. If they are on nextel/sprint they can simply use the speaker function and they don't have to hold the handset up to their ear.
But for the ones that believe this will do some good they can puff up their chests and proclaim they have solved the problem and maybe even found the cure for the common cold. And because we now have this new all curative law maybe we can wipe a few laws we no longer need off of the books. Without hand held cell phones we won't need the following too close law. The illegal lane change law. The running through red light law. The hitting a pedestrian law. And we will no longer need to ascribe guilt to those who cause accidents. After all it is the cell phone that caused all these problems not the scattered brained driver. This law has made the road safer for us all.
Driving may be a privilege (although in this society, it is effectively a requirement if you wish to function normally, so it really is something more than just a privilege), but that doesn't mean that it should be excessively regulated.
In a free society, we have to go with the guiding principle that everything should be legal, unless there's a compelling reason why it shouldn't be. So it's up to the anti's to prove their case for a ban, and that case should be tight.
If you share that evidence with me, I may be able to point you to a similiar study which proves that humans cannot concentrate on driving and some other attention demanding task (talking on the phone, reading a newspaper etc) at the same time
Several posts back, a "meta-study" was posted that dealt specifically with this question, and I suspect from that data that the problem lies ultimately with the user moreso than with the phone, because the variance of the impact among users is so great.
In the case of drunk driving, the physiological effects of a certain BAC on the human body are pretty consistent from person to person, something that can't be said with the phone. You can't compare alcohol, which creates a biochemical reaction that is predictable across a pool for a given BAC, with the usage of a phone, which does not create a consistent and predictable result. The studies make it clear that the average loss in reaction time is modest, and that the results among individuals varies from minimal to significant.
I say: target the extremes, and leave the rest of drivers alone. Focusing enforcement resources on an effort that will target a lot of people who don't cause problems is a waste of money and time, and will divert attention from problems that are more serious.
Way too connected for me. Even if I answer the phone at home it is just someone wanting money. Both known and unknown. Now that you get junk calls on a cell phone, it would be horrible to kill someone while talking to some [non-permissible content removed] at Chase bank about your VISA account.
Valid point, people forget why they have a cell phone. It is for my convienence, not the convienence of those who think I am now at their beck and call 24/7. My phone has voice mail...if they want to leave me a message I will check it.
Driving may be a privilege (although in this society, it is effectively a requirement if you wish to function normally, so it really is something more than just a privilege), but that doesn't mean that it should be excessively regulated.
I agree that it shouldn't be excessively regulated, but I also agree that it is a privilege. Repeated drunk drivers lose that privilege (supposedly), people with poor driving records or too many points lose that privilege (supposedly). It is a privilege, its not in the Constitution next to free speech or something, and as such, its subject to more rules (you need a license, you need to drive on the proper side of the road, speed etc).
What I don't understand is even though everyone here is a terrific driver I am sure and can juggle knives while traveling at 88 feet/second, the guy behind me who is going to cream my Accord with my kids in it might not be in the same category. I can't believe you aren't concerned about sharing the road with these road users.
You're right -- I don't want to share the roads with the incompetents. I want them to lose their licenses and be banished from the roads. If someone thinks his double latte and the sports section justifies tailgating and poor lane discipline, then go deal with him, rather than the rest of us who aren't creating any problems.
But the other point is that the incompetents are few in number, and the majority who are OK should not be treated like criminals for behavior that doesn't actually create problems. If we do that, then the "privilege" argument just becomes an excuse to make unnecessary laws for no good reason. (Presumably, if driving is a "privilege", then the lawmakers have the "privilege" of regulating it arbitrarily, or because they think their simple platforms will get them more votes.)
Truckers have spent years driving with their CB radios, and somehow we don't see them careening off the road in increasing numbers because they are chatting with each other. (If anything, the CB's might even save lives because they can share information and keep each other awake.) That's a good 30+ years of data on the subject, and I am not aware of anyone who has determined this to be a problem.
In the end, it is always the driver. We are talking about compounding factors over here which may create distractions to people who would otherwise be safer without those distractions. The fact that sober drivers are involved in fatal accidents does not imply driving under influence doesnt matter.
the reality of the situation is most humans do have that capability. People have the capability to multi task, we do it all the time.
If you read the rest of my post thoroughly, you will realise that I have drawn a distinction between different forms of multitasking. We all can have dinner while watching TV, that is mutitasking. We can workout while listening to music, that is multitasking. However, we cannot simultaneously talk to 2 people on 2 different phones effectively. We cannot juggle 3 balls while reading the newspaper. I spoke of the inability oh humans to carry out the second type, not the first.
In a free society, we have to go with the guiding principle that everything should be legal,....
Before we dive into the free/libertarian society debate, a taxpayer-funded government designed, built and maintained highway is a socialistic concept (which most free-society lovers readily enjoy everyday). Given that everyone other person on the road has a stake in it, and the governance of the road is based on consensus, absolute 'freedom' of the sense people crave for cannot apply. This was not built 'the free way'. If Bubba and his buddies build a road for themselves, they are free to drive naked, talking on cellphones, with their eyes closed, in reverse or whatever way they wish. However, this is not private property. There is not 'antis' and 'pros' here. Given a democratic system, if the majority is convinced (with sufficient proof) that something is dangerous, that will be stopped.
the case of drunk driving, the physiological effects of a certain BAC on the human body are pretty consistent from person to person, something that can't be said with the phone. You can't compare alcohol, which creates a biochemical reaction that is predictable across a pool for a given BAC, with the usage of a phone, which does not create a consistent and predictable result.
I am actually not interested in hearing about studies related to cell-phones and driving but rather related to drinking and driving. Evidentally, you somehow have the strongest belief that drinking causes some sort of uniform reaction across all people. I want to know how you are convinced of that. Are there some studies you have seen on this which conclusively prove this fact? Can no one nit-pick on those studies like many people here are doing for the meta-study posted and questioning whether the delayed reaction is really worth it?
I'll tell you where I am leading to. Most people, presently, are convinced that drunken driving is dangerous and air-bags and seatbelts are safety devices simply because an enormous amount of public education has been carried out on these things for many years now (I think it was GM who pushed the 'airbags kill' line in the late 70's). Hence, you agree to those without any questions, without any demands for irrefutable proof (or a tight case).
You are completely confident that your attention devoted to sriving doesnt reduce a bit while you are talking on the phone. You are even ready to deny research findings which prove so (you can read this up, incidentally this was not about talking on cell-phones while driving but rather derived out of research into cockpit design for pilots to see how much imformation can be simultaneously processed http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051209113320.htm).
If I can summarize the stand of pro-cellphone groups
1) Stupid people will anyway crash, cell-phone or not
2) There are so many other distractions, why penalize cellphone users
3) Talking on cellphones doesnt distract from driving at all
4) Its a free country, I'll do whatever the hell I want to
For 1)
If stupid people have an 80% chance of crashing, cellphones will probably make it 100%. If a stupid person darting across lanes has a 10% chance of catching a good driver off-guard, he probably has a 40% chance of catching the good driver off-guard if the good driver is engrossed in a phone conversation. We are talking of minimizing odds, no one can ever eliminate them.
For 2)
Existence of other ills/crimes/faults does not in anyway minimize the gravity another. Cellphone talking is more prevalent and easier to crack-down on that chatting with a friend (like DUI is more easily established and presecuted than driving while tired and sleepy, the existence of the second also does not reduce the impact of the first)
For 3)
There are too many studies proving otherwise. And be honest to yourself and carefully pay attention to how much attention you can pay to dricing while talking on the phone. Even if its 50%, that could make the difference. And really, is the phone conversation so important?
For 4)
Build your own road and drve on it.
Whoa. Why are you making this a left-right/liberal-conservative debate, when this isn't being drawn along political lines?
The point about there being an absence of laws, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, is a fundamental concept of US law, no matter what your personal politics happen to be. That's the whole concept of the Bill of Rights -- that your rights are inate and not just a "gift" of the government. Everything is considered a right, until proven otherwise.
That's why the anti's have the greater burden of proof, because we presume that things should be allowed in this society unless there is a very good reason to not allow them. (This isn't just true with road rules, but with everything.) The laws need to be logical and based on reason, not arbitrary and based on whim, reelection goals or the desire to fatten the Treasury with income from fines.
If stupid people have an 80% chance of crashing, cellphones will probably make it 100%. If a stupid person darting across lanes has a 10% chance of catching a good driver off-guard, he probably has a 40% chance of catching the good driver off-guard if the good driver is engrossed in a phone conversation. We are talking of minimizing odds, no one can ever eliminate them.
Then why are you allowing them to drive in the first place? If you really care about personal safety, then the obvious solution is to take away the driving privilege of those few people who abuse it. Letting them drive with a donut and an Ipod instead of a Nokia isn't a fix, that's just trading one problem for another.
There are too many studies proving otherwise.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm pointing out that the effects are both (a) minimal on average -- not zero, but not so serious as to pose a hazard -- and (b) so widely variable that the phone is most likely not the real culprit, given that some drivers are obviously quite successful with phone usage while a few others are not.
I am actually not interested in hearing about studies related to cell-phones and driving but rather related to drinking and driving. Evidentally, you somehow have the strongest belief that drinking causes some sort of uniform reaction across all people.
Now you're building a strawman. A phone ban would be the equivalent of having a maximum BAC of 0.00, on the presumption that any alcohol usage is bad.
Given the BAC of .08, our DUI laws clearly don't say this. They presume that there is a certain amount of alcohol that one can consume that may create some sort of impairment or compromise, but one that is so low that it isn't worthy of criminalizing.
That's the question -- why do you want to criminalize phone usage because of a 130 millisecond delay? If it was several seconds, your concerns would be understandable, but now you're just splitting hairs and looking to justify a law enforcement on an activity that is generally harmless.
If you believe in increasing safety on the roads, the best answer is to focus scarce resources on stuff that will actually achieve a positive result. Since priorities are required, what violations are you willing to overlook in order to enforce this phone law that, if the studies are correct, can't be expected to do any good?
I will summarize my stand thank you.
1) Stupid people will anyway crash, cell-phone or not
No some people have very poor driving habits, those habits will not improve by banning cell phones. Those that have poor lane discipline and tailgate while chatting on the phone will have poor lane discipline and will tailgate if they are not on the phone.
2) There are so many other distractions, why penalize cellphone users
No its why penalize the 80-90%+ of cell phone users who operate their cars without ant problems because of the few that can't and most likely would have problems even if they were not on a cell phone.
3) Talking on cellphones doesn't distract from driving at all
I don't think anyone is saying that. Just saying that of all the distractions out there cell phones are not the worst there can be.
4) Its a free country, I'll do whatever the hell I want to
I think that was on the forum about increasing the speed limit.
But lets be honest you most likely have violated some law someplace simply because you didn't feel like following it. Tell me you never knowingly speed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not making it one but trying to weed out the people who, in the absence of anything else, take cover behind the 'its a free soceity' argument for anything and everything. Fine, if you love a free soceity, live it. Avoid non-free soceity things (like public roads). But just dont use it as an excuse.
Everything is considered a right
No. "everything" means nothing. Specific types of rights have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Also, 'pro' and 'anti' are relative terms. I can claim I am 'pro' making roads safe and secure and minimizing all non-driving activities while driving a car on a public road and by that token make you 'anti'. Can you prove that allowing cellphones will not make roads more unsafe than they are currently, with conclusive evidence?
If you really care about personal safety, then the obvious solution is to take away the driving privilege of those few people who abuse it. Letting them drive with a donut and an Ipod instead of a Nokia isn't a fix, that's just trading one problem for another.
Revoking privileges is done in case of habitual offenders. Given that a much larger proportion of people use cellphones as compared to ipods, we are not exchanging poblems. We are attacking distractions which are on the highest end of a 'frequency of occurence' by 'potential impact' by 'enforceability' matrix. Cellsphone usage outscores ipod by many orders of magnitude IMHO.
A phone ban would be the equivalent of having a maximum BAC of 0.00, on the presumption that any alcohol usage is bad.
Incidentally, 0.08 and above means you are definitely DUI. You can still be charged with DUI at 0.01 if law enforcement so determines. And yes, I am all for a total zero tolerance policy on drunken driving. 2 beers have different effects on 2 people of same weight and gender. It is a fact.
If you believe in increasing safety on the roads, the best answer is to focus scarce resources on stuff that will actually achieve a positive result.
IMO, increasing road safety can be achieved 1) through training and rigorous testing procedures making sure that only people who really can drive are driving there 2) once these people are on the road, making sure that they are DRIVING and not doing something else
The point is not criminalizing phone usaege, the point is asking people to DRIVE coz that is the thing you are supposed to do when in a car on a road in traffic at 75mph.
No some people have very poor driving habits, those habits will not improve by banning cell phones.
But having cellphones will most definitely deteoriate their driving. And also have an adverse impact others' driving as well as safety.
No its why penalize the 80-90%+ of cell phone users ... because of the few that can't and most likely would have problems even if they were not on a cell phone.
Arent we in a cirle here. Studies clearly show that talking deteoriates EVERYONES driving ability. If you think of it in terms of a distribution, it moves the whole group to the higher risk end. Of course the ones who were beyond the previous cutoff are still beyond. But there will be some marginal new ones who will join them. And the overall probability of ALL vehicles on the road will be higher!
Just saying that of all the distractions out there cell phones are not the worst there can be.
Wasnt that my point #2 :-)
I think that was on the forum about increasing the speed limit.
Tell me you never knowingly speed.
No, someone here said something about this being a free country. And BTW this is a favourite reason of many.
Incidentally, I posted on the speed limits forum in favor of increaing speed limits. I believe the road infrastructure is sufficiently capable of handling much higher speeds. We just need to make people focus on DRIVING and instead of focussing on everything BUT driving. And looking around, I find cellphones to be the biggest culprits. I would feel safer driving down the highway at 100mph with attentive drivers all around than I do at 60mph with cellphone yakking people all around.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You seem to believe that roads are exempted from the need for legislative reason because we collectively pay for them, which seems odd to me.
Specific types of rights have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Come now, you've missed the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, the Bill of Rights highlights only some of our rights; it's not necessary to spell out every single right in the Constitution in order to have it. Rights are inate to our being, not given to us by the State.
Incidentally, 0.08 and above means you are definitely DUI.
Right. And if the police wish to argue that you were intoxicated with less, they have to prove it with more than just a blood test. It's a very high hurdle.
Which is the point here. You want zero tolerance for phone usage, which is similar in concept to a 0.00 BAC -- any phone usage is to be punished. We don't even go to this extreme with alcohol, even though alcohol has a biochemical impact on motor skills and judgment.
The point is that the courts don't believe that every degree of impairment should be punished, but only impairment that exceeds a certain level. The influence of alcohol below a certain level is not considered serious enough to punish, except in extraordinary circumstances where it can be shown otherwise.
You're evading the basic issue here: For a phone ban to make sense, you need to show that any reduced reaction time that is associated with mobile phones is actually serious enough to create unsafe conditions.
There needs to be a hurdle or a test that doesn't turn molehills into mountains. Without a reasonableness standard, we're going to start banning passenger seats, radios, makeup mirrors or anything else that can possibly be blamed for delayed reaction times of only a fraction of a second, which is exactly the amount of delayed reaction time that the meta-study attributes to the phones.
I think that many cannot make the proper decision to either not making the call or finding a safe spot to stop and make the call. They will make the call anyway.
Some have given an example of driving on a rural or lightly loaded interstate in the daylight in good weather and safely making a phone call. This condition is not where the average call is being made.
From this time of year until early March, many drivers in the US will be driving the evening rush hour in the dark. Besides snow and ice, a probably more difficult time to drive is in a light rain or drizzle where folks don't slow down much, it is dark on a two-lane rural road, and there are opposing headlights glaring on the windsheild. Will some drivers make a cell phone call with these conditions while driving?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4672657.stm
Wales
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4611567.stm
UK Cabbies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/4600767.stm
Since you've all been hounding me for my opinion (perhaps silently), how about making the whole process of getting a driver's license in the first place MUCH more difficult? Anyone who's experienced the exam in England will gladly tell you that most driving tests in America are a cake-walk. One almost needs professional driving instruction in order to pass the exam in England.
Doesn't solve the cell phone problem, but helps ensure that those who drive while using them are more competent from the get-go.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Most of the tests I have seen are pretty abstract...like count backwards by 2s from 1000 and click this button everytime a target appears outside of the box (bad example).
Some tasks are suited for the "multi," while others are meant to be solo ventures (say, splitting atoms). IMHO, of course.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But, you are already programmed for these procedures. You have done it thousands of times and your brain already knows how to process each step. No new challenges for thought processing.
Why not add into the above example that you are talking on cell phone to your building contractor about a few recent issues on the house that he/she is building for you. This conversation requires intense thought to formulate each issue, listen for contractor response and formulate your response. Some folks might also divert additional brain processing if they want to inject some emotional emphasis on some things that might not be going well. Are "multi-taskers" such as these a menace on the highway?
Pressing the clutch pedal and using a shifter isn't multitasking because you don't think about it. Gross motor movements like pressing the clutch or going from the gas to the brake and gear selection "automatic" motions. Your body creates a motor program to say, shift from 3rd to 4th, your body calls that program to execute, and its ballistic from that point out. You didn't "think" about it, so its not really multi-tasking.
At the beginning, you have to think a lot about pushing the clutch and shifting gears, like when you were a baby and had to concentrate to stand up or walk. This is a good argument for why younger drivers (who are still developing motor programs associated with driving) should have restricted cell phone use while driving.
Snake,
I notice you seem to disagree with pretty much every post on every forum. Are you just playing devils advocate? Or just trying to improve the debate?
You read every post on every forum here in edmunds? If you did you would see that what you said id not true, even in this debate since I agree with many on this matter. I amy disagree with you but that doesn't mean I disagree with every post.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am trying to picture a Tomcat Pilot in combat not talking with his Co-pilot because it is too distracting.
But then we can rationalize and make exceptions for anything.
"Did you catch the latest _insert_show_name_here_?"
"Yes, I can't believe xyz, did that!"
"Me neither!"
...
Screeeeeech! As they almost plow into the car stopping for the red light.
If the conversation is short and non-demanding:
"Hi, I'm on my way home, need anything from the store?"
"Yes, milk and bread."
"OK, no problem. Bye."
"Bye."
And takes place under non-demanding circumstances, such as cruising on the highway at 65 MPH in light traffic with a headset that has voice dialing, then I don't see problems like this.
I simply see that and believe one of my wife's relatives from Iowa is out visiting and has rented a car.
Kinda like people on the forums :P Again, that Horrey guy (he did work on the first paper I posted) and UMTRI have done some research about what kinds of conversations people have and the workload associated with each.
"Honey, pick up some milk and bread on your way home from work" is less taxing than "I got the pictures of you and your secretary on the business trip"
That would depend, with the former if it were my wife she would be making that call as I am walking through the garage door. If its the later I have friends would would simply ask for copies so they can use it for their Christmas cards.
Now of course I am sure if my old boss was driving when I announced to him (after he fired me) that I had copies of the pay records he was hiding from the IRS that he would have crashed his car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
-Loren
-Loren
Is there some way to legislate common sense?
Yesterday I had a woman in a Corolla yapping on the phone almost smack into me as she was leaving a parking lot...she got her nose into traffic, then noticed that she shouldn't have been there. Stereotype matched.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Initiating a call by dialing is pretty rough, as the user is typically looking at the phone (today I saw someone rear end someone while looking at their phone). Also, becuase people are so conditioned to answer the phone at home, people typically drop what the are doing and prioritize on the phone.
Phone Answering Study This isn't such a safe behavior (car makers are working on technology to prevent this).
I know this is oblique but here goes. Everyone has been at someone's house when the phone rings. Usually, everyone there (guests) will be quiet and the homeowner answers the call and all are silent and waiting. Same thing at a lot of stores, especially car parts stores. You can be talking to someone at the store and the phone rings, suddenly you are a second class citizen and the ringing phone is top priority. You who have been waiting in line and were talking to a person in the store now have to wait a few minutes while the phone call is answered with a lot of details. To add insult to injury, you might get another 30 seconds with the person in the store and then the phone rings again. What is this physcology?
I have had a very few bosses in the past who would not answer the phone or tell their secretary to not pass through any calls to them when serious discussions were under way with myself or other employees. This was a rare case though.
Phone behavior, both cell in the car and other places such as restaurants and regular phone in business and home is a very curious animal. We are all beholden to the phone and ma bell (or current equivalents).