Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

lilengineerboy

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that driver distraction and inattention contribute up to 30 percent of crashes each year."

Which includes: eating pizza, tuning the radio, smacking children, fighting with spouse, picking nose, plucking ebrows, watching adult videos on DVD players, drinking coffee, talking on the phone, reading a map, programming an aftermarket nav system, tying shoes...

lilengineerboy

A few more -
NADS
(that's really what its called) / NHTSA & University of Iowa


I still can't find a picture of Mercedes' simulator.

Most universities/companies use a fixed base simulator with a built up cab, or BUC, like this one at University of Michigan.

xrunner2

You are just making excuses for and trying to justify cell phone drivers' irresponsible behaviour. Just try this sometime. In suburban and/or shopping center areas, observe (I know, slight distraction in observing, but don't stare or dwell) drivers' faces. What percent of all drivers observed are eating pizza, smacking children, fighting with spouse, picking nose, plucking eyebrows, reading a map VS. talking on the phone. In a number of years of observing, really casually "noticing", I very rarely recall seeing smacking children, picking nose, etc. I do see "every single day" numerous, numerous instances of drivers holding cell phone to ear AND usually being a pain in the a** to other drivers around them. These selfish, inconsiderate drivers many times are holding up traffic, not as aware of conditions around them. They are the jerks.

kdshapiro

Can you prove your "factoid"? Can you assign percentages to all of them. Because I can add, standing out of the sunroof, adjusting the mats in your car, moving your seat back and forth, shifting, adjusting the mirrors. I would really be interested in knowing how many crashes are caused by picking your nose vs talking on a cell phone.

kdshapiro

Your conversations are falling on deaf ears. It amazes me that after all of the studies people still say: prove it that talking on a cell phone leads to more crashes than picking your nose.

The only thought I can offer, is my nose doesn't come with a disclaimer that picking your nose while driving can lead to serious consequences. But my cell phone manual does.

lilengineerboy

You are just making excuses for and trying to justify cell phone drivers' irresponsible behaviour.

No more so than any other distracted driver's irresponsible behavior.

In suburban and/or shopping center areas, observe (I know, slight distraction in observing, but don't stare or dwell) drivers' faces. What percent of all drivers observed are eating pizza, smacking children, fighting with spouse, picking nose, plucking eyebrows, reading a map VS. talking on the phone.

Wow, so you found people talking on the phone. Go into the men's room, and observe how many gents are peeing (again, i would take your advice and not stare or dwell)...now you found people peeing; what is your point? We have lots of data that implies a large number of drivers are on a cell phone at any given time.

lilengineerboy

Your conversations are falling on deaf ears. It amazes me that after all of the studies people still say: prove it that talking on a cell phone leads to more crashes than picking your nose.

Not deaf ears...if they were deaf, then a cell phone would be a moot [mute?] point. :P

The only thought I can offer, is my nose doesn't come with a disclaimer that picking your nose while driving can lead to serious consequences. But my cell phone manual does.

That is an oversight by the big guy upstairs, when the supreme one created humans, there was still a concept of personal responsibility. Perhaps when my next child is born, I will have to sign a waiver for that.

lilengineerboy

Can you prove your "factoid"? Can you assign percentages to all of them. Because I can add, standing out of the sunroof, adjusting the mats in your car, moving your seat back and forth, shifting, adjusting the mirrors. I would really be interested in knowing how many crashes are caused by picking your nose vs talking on a cell phone.

A Virgina Tech grad student did a bunch of research on the task times for invehicle tasks, I don't know if she included eyes off road time for it or not...I think it was somewhere around 2000 or 2001...you can google for it.

vinnyny

I'm not sure why we non-statisticians keep reverting to calls for statistical evidence that drivers using cell phones are more dangerous than drivers who are not. I don't need numbers to tell me that the more activities I engage in while driving, the less attentive I can be to my primary duty of driving safely.

I also don't need statistics to tell me that dialing a cell phone or texting is more distracting than picking my nose while driving. Why? Because I can pick my nose without taking my eyes off the road. (For those who will argue that I must take my eyes off the road to make sure that I've flicked the booger off completely, I'd respond that I still don't need to look away from the road as long as when I'm dialing or texting). The same applies for eating a hamburger, changing the radio station (done hands-free on the steering wheel), or flipping to a new song on the I-pod. I won't even try to address the idiots applying make-up, reading books, or painting their nails because they should have their licenses revoked on the spot.

Every time I take my eyes off the road, the risk of having an accident increases. It's called common sense--something we used to have in this country.

kdshapiro

That study did not include cell phones, which at that time 8 years ago, had a vastly different penetration rate. Cell phones conversations according to every study are different because your eyes could be on the road, but your brain isn't processing the information effectively.

kdshapiro

Every time I take my eyes off the road, the risk of having an accident increases. It's called common sense--something we used to have in this country.

Truer words were never spoken. I recently found out two "new" drivers, new is defined as driving less than 5 years, had thankfully, minor, car crashes adjusting the radio. Taking your eyes off the road, even for a few seconds can have unintended consequences.

As far as cell phone usage and texting, the tragic train crash in LA, which the NTSB blamed squarely on texting, and now many railroads are banning cell phone usage in general for working train employees, should put to bed the notion the cell phone usage is no harm no foul in the context of this conversation.

For those who say prove it, that unfortunate train wreck is the proof.

lilengineerboy

That study did not include cell phones, which at that time 8 years ago, had a vastly different penetration rate.

That study was cited as a reference to the time required for every other in-vehicle task, the majority of which have been deemed an "acceptable risk" by both legislation and the motoring public.

Cell phones conversations according to every study are different because your eyes could be on the road, but your brain isn't processing the information effectively.

This argument has a logical flaw. Every study did not say that, and every study used different criteria to measure driving performance. Speed maintenance, lane keeping, and most surrogate measures of situational awareness were comparable. Response time to a stimulus, while the driver was performing certain visual/manual intensive tasks, was the main difference.

Oh unless you are referring to the study where for "normal conversation" they had people talking about abortion, 9-11, and taxes, because that is definitely representative of the conversations most people have while driving every day.

Even when asking ridiculous questions over a simulated cell phone while driving (how many windows in your house, how many days since your birthday) the affect was negligible.

lilengineerboy

Truer words were never spoken. I recently found out two "new" drivers, new is defined as driving less than 5 years, had thankfully, minor, car crashes adjusting the radio.

Yup, and this is something legislation and the motoring public has defined an acceptable risk, that is they feel it is "safe enough." The experience you gain as a driver is knowing when you can take your eyes off the road and when you can't.

Taking your eyes off the road, even for a few seconds can have unintended consequences.

A few seconds is a pretty long time. With a glance at about 250 msec, that is a long time to be staring off into space. As far as the visual demand of driving, I think you are overestimating the visual demand. The more literature on the occlusion method (the person wears goggles that occlude the driving scene a percentage of the time, depending on study type), the less visually demanding driving appears to be.

As far as cell phone usage and texting, the tragic train crash in LA, which the NTSB blamed squarely on texting, and now many railroads are banning cell phone usage in general for working train employees, should put to bed the notion the cell phone usage is no harm no foul in the context of this conversation.

Except for that is, well, a bunch of BS. So some trained professional responsible for controlling a piece of machinery that has a stopping distance measured in miles failed to do his job and that is a cell phone's fault? I don't think so. To borrow a line from the late Charlton Heston, cell phones don't kill people, people kill people.

One high profile case that is obviously not the norm (if it was the norm, it wouldn't be news, nor high-profile).

And I don't think the argument is that cell phones/texting are "no harm no foul." I think the argument is those that can't make a good decision about when is and when is not an appropriate time to use a phone should be penalized and the other 9 million cell phone users should be left to go about their business.

kdshapiro

Even when asking ridiculous questions over a simulated cell phone while driving (how many windows in your house, how many days since your birthday) the affect was negligible.

With neglibile being defined as legally intoxicated by some studies.

kdshapiro

Yup, and this is something legislation and the motoring public has defined an acceptable risk, that is they feel it is "safe enough." The experience you gain as a driver is knowing when you can take your eyes off the road and when you can't.

Yes I agree. I hope the parents find their insurance increase "acceptable".

Except for that is, well, a bunch of BS. So some trained professional responsible for controlling a piece of machinery that has a stopping distance measured in miles failed to do his job and that is a cell phone's fault? I don't think so. To borrow a line from the late Charlton Heston, cell phones don't kill people, people kill people.

The NTSB and FAA both disagree with you in what constitutes acceptable behavior controlling large machinery. 'Nuff said.

And I don't think the argument is that cell phones/texting are "no harm no foul." I think the argument is those that can't make a good decision about when is and when is not an appropriate time to use a phone should be penalized and the other 9 million cell phone users should be left to go about their business.

I disagree. For my safety I do not want you operating your cell phone next to me while driving 60 mph in heavy traffic. The era of personal responsibility is way past, which is why government needs to step in. And don't spout any of this "acceptable risk" BS. That is not to me an acceptable risk.

lilengineerboy

With neglibile being defined as legally intoxicated by some studies.

Actually, it was as study about that study that defined it as being legally intoxicated. Even within the original study, the one published in the medical journal, mentions that they do not feel the experiment was robust enough to guide public policy, nor that the sample was representative of the population at large.

kdshapiro

I do not believe that is what the study said. Do you want to start posting links so we can get this squared away?

lilengineerboy

Epidemiological research has found that cell-phone use is associated with a four-fold increase in the odds of getting into an accident – a risk comparable to that of driving with blood alcohol at the legal limit.

It said that one research method (which is generally considered flawed for human factors/behavioral type studies) found an odds factor that is comparable with another odds factor.

vinnyny

Funny, we're right back to research studies and statistics. Human beings only have so much capability. The more we do at one time, the less well we do all those things. Simple math. The layman's definition of "multi-tasking" applies to driving while performing other activities: doing lots of things--poorly.

I know it's more fun to present dueling research findings, but this really is common sense.

lilengineerboy

Funny, we're right back to research studies and statistics. Human beings only have so much capability. The more we do at one time, the less well we do all those things.

I agree with this point. There is a finite amount of processing capacity, most models of cognition (with the exception of network-QHP) support a single channel processing area at some point.

And the bottom line is that human beings don't need 100% of their processing power to drive the overwhelming majority of the time. Measures that increase driver workload are mostly associated with traction (driving on ice/snow/fresh gravel/mud) is more challenging. Even traffic is considerably lower down on the list. Curves increase workload at the onset and exit (when you have to turn the wheel and then turn it back straight), and even that doesn't require 100%.

The layman's definition of "multi-tasking" applies to driving while performing other activities: doing lots of things--poorly.

I know it's more fun to present dueling research findings, but this really is common sense.

Or, the difference between opinion and anecdotal evidence, and facts.
Facts:

According to the CTIA-Wireless Association, over 250 million Americans now subscribe to a cellular-phone service. That, if factored against the latest U.S. Census population clock as of Tuesday evening, places the penetration rate at 82.4 percent -- which, I assume, is its highest point ever. In ten years, that number has more than quadrupled from 55 million subscribers in 1997.

That means more phones.

With an estimate that at least 10% of all drivers are on the phone at any given time.

I believe the term used for that was Simple math.

Year over year, another 10% reduction in highway fatalities...with another drop in crashes as well...

Yup, safer roads, more phones, sounds like Armageddon out there.

kdshapiro

And the bottom line is that human beings don't need 100% of their processing power to drive the overwhelming majority of the time. Measures that increase driver workload are mostly associated with traction (driving on ice/snow/fresh gravel/mud) is more challenging. Even traffic is considerably lower down on the list. Curves increase workload at the onset and exit (when you have to turn the wheel and then turn it back straight), and even that doesn't require 100%.

Is this an observation or a scientific fact? If by this you mean drivers can devote 100% of attention to driving for 5 seconds and then devote 100% of attention for 2 seconds to changing the radio....there is clearly a gap as to what we believe constitues the definition of safe driving.

With the NTSB blaming the unfortunate LA train disaster on texting...with the engineer only needing to look ahead and not worry about drifting, the issue is clear. With the FAA banning pilots engaged in a landing pattern under 10000 feet with strict cockpit rules, seems they understand about the dangers of "multitasking" while performing ones primary job function. Maybe you wouldn't mind the pilot texting or chatting on the cell phone while landing a jumbo jet where you are a passenger, but I would.

Doesn't seem like a lot of us really "get it" though, which is why the response is all rhetoric.

lilengineerboy

Is this an observation or a scientific fact?

Fact.

If by this you mean drivers can devote 100% of attention to driving for 5 seconds and then devote 100% of attention for 2 seconds to changing the radio....there is clearly a gap as to what we believe constitutes the definition of safe driving.

If changing the radio setting takes 100% of your attention period, you shouldn't be driving at all, or you have some ridiculous, miserable to use aftermarket system.

What I mean is drivers don't usually have to devote 100% of their attention to driving. The issue is bandwidth in the processor, and driving under normal circumstances doesn't overwhelm it.

With the NTSB blaming the unfortunate LA train disaster on texting...with the engineer only needing to look ahead and not worry about drifting, the issue is clear

The train engineer ran a red light. That was the cause of the crash. The other thing is just by the fact that its newsworthy makes it a rare occurrence. If it was common, it wouldn't be newsworthy, would it?

With the FAA banning pilots engaged in a landing pattern under 10000 feet with strict cockpit rules, seems they understand about the dangers of "multitasking" while performing ones primary job function. Maybe you wouldn't mind the pilot texting or chatting on the cell phone while landing a jumbo jet where you are a passenger, but I would.

While I realize you aren't bringing this up as a discussion point since its totally out or scope, it does kind of illustrate my point. While the 15 minutes on either end of a 7 hour flight might qualify as "peak workload" for a pilot, what about the other 6hrs and 30 minutes when the plane is on autopilot anyway and the pilot's workload is very close to nill? Multitasking might be the only thing keeping them awake.

I used to think the sky was falling when cell phones first came out and that the roads were going to turn into rivers of blood and civilization was going to crumble as we know it, but the more I read, the more I experience, and the more I research, I realize that's just not happening.

I think the way to deal with driving while distracted is by secondary enforcement. If you make good decisions about when and when not to use your devices, the laws won't affect you, but if you make poor decisions, there will be hefty burdens in the legal system.

Doesn't seem like a lot of us really "get it" though, which is why the response is all rhetoric.

Its more that certain people think that everyone else is just like them, the same abilities and limitations. They believe what they want to believe, even with evidence to the contrary. Then they complain about lack of data. Then they complain when the data is presented. Thankfully, this country allows everyone to express their views and opinions.

stever

There were two other incidents in '08 that also were cited by the California PUC when they passed an emergency rule prohibiting cell use by rail transit workers a few weeks after the Metrolink crash.

"While the accident investigation is not complete, initial investigation indicates that the Metrolink train’s engineer failed to stop for a red signal and was using his personal cell phone throughout his on-duty shift until seconds before the collision occurred.

Other evidence indicates that accident risk increases when those who control vehicles use personal wireless devices."

CPUC

It'll probably take another 6 months or so for the final NTHSA report on the Metrolink wreck to be completed.

vinnyny

And the bottom line is that human beings don't need 100% of their processing power to drive the overwhelming majority of the time.

While most humans probably don't need 100% of their processing power to drive most of the time, the least able among us are also the least likely to differentiate between good times to dial and bad times. (You know, the 17-year-old who is still struggling to stay between the lines while regulating his/her speed.) While Mozart and Einstein were geniuses who probably had a lot more processing power than most humans today, I wouldn't want either of them writing symphonies, solving complex equations, or using cell phones while driving if they were alive today.

According to the CTIA-Wireless Association, over 250 million Americans now subscribe to a cellular-phone service. That, if factored against the latest U.S. Census population clock as of Tuesday evening, places the penetration rate at 82.4 percent -- which, I assume, is its highest point ever. In ten years, that number has more than quadrupled from 55 million subscribers in 1997.

That means more phones.

With an estimate that at least 10% of all drivers are on the phone at any given time.

I believe the term used for that was Simple math.


More meaningless statistics. Crystal meth use is up as well. It also has a higher penetration than ever before. Using your assumption about cell phone use and applying it to crystal meth: X% of all crystal meth users are on meth while driving at any given time, and applying your same improved highway safety assertion, one could conclude that drivers who are high on crank aren't any less safe than sober drivers. Statistics can be made to say whatever the user wants them to say. Hence the phrase: "Statistics lie and liars use statistics". (No offense intended).

over year, another 10% reduction in highway fatalities...with another drop in crashes as well...

There are lots of reasons for the decline in highway fatalities, not the least of which are improved automobile safety equipment and better highways. Cars get better every year--better able to avoid a crash and better able to mitigate injuries in the event of a crash. Highway signage and road markings continually improve. The only factor that never really improves is the human being driving the vehicle.

My argument is that the number of highway fatalities continues to decline IN SPITE OF poorer performing drivers.

lilengineerboy

While most humans probably don't need 100% of their processing power to drive most of the time, the least able among us are also the least likely to differentiate between good times to dial and bad times. (You know, the 17-year-old who is still struggling to stay between the lines while regulating his/her speed.)

Why do you keep bringing up special cases and applying them in aggregate?

Are you advocating laws on just these drivers? Most states have those in process already.

More meaningless statistics.

In the real world, we call this "data." Its how informed decisions are made. You learn about an issue, research it, collect data, and make a decision about it. Or you can act out of ignorance and fear, but after the last 8 years, people aren't such fans of that anymore.

There are lots of reasons for the decline in highway fatalities, not the least of which are improved automobile safety equipment and better highways. Cars get better every year--better able to avoid a crash and better able to mitigate injuries in the event of a crash. Highway signage and road markings continually improve.

And until last year, vehicle miles traveled increased, the number of vehicles on the road increased, the number of immegrant drivers increased, etc. And so far, very little has been done to help a car AVOID a crash, just mitigate them.

The only factor that never really improves is the human being driving the vehicle.

Even that isn't exactly correct. If you look at skills and training, things like hand eye coordination, opportunity cost of task switching, etc that doesn't seem to be the case. Aging hurts the process, but driving skills compensate to a degree.

My argument is that the number of highway fatalities continues to decline IN SPITE OF poorer performing drivers.

So why don't we do something about the poor performing drivers? What does that have to do with cell phones?

kdshapiro

The train engineer ran a red light. That was the cause of the crash. The other thing is just by the fact that its newsworthy makes it a rare occurrence. If it was common, it wouldn't be newsworthy, would it?

He ran a red light because he was texting and not driving the train. Rare occurence, yep, like a plain crash.

While I realize you aren't bringing this up as a discussion point since its totally out or scope

It's not out of scope, the FAA realized a long time ago, piloting heavy machinery requires a concentration to the task at hand. You still didn't respond to my observation/question, do you mind if the pilot or co-pilot texts or uses the cell phone while landing? I don't expect a response, because only a fool would say yes. (not a red herring either, very germane to the conversation)

Its more that certain people think that everyone else is just like them, the same abilities and limitations

If one wants to prove a point go to the racetrack. In the meantime, road safety and traffic laws have to be designed and built around the lowest common denominator. Even if it means trained race car drivers have to drive at the speed limit and not the speed they are capable of driving at.

They believe what they want to believe, even with evidence to the contrary.

So true.

Then they complain about lack of data.

I'm finding a solid basis of factual data never stops anyone from forming a conclusion. Do you?

Then they complain when the data is presented.

I would think most of the participants in this discussion would like to see a solid basis for a rational argument.

Thankfully, this country allows everyone to express their views and opinions

I heartedly agree.

xrunner2

Missing the point. Driver cell phone use is highest percent of distraction of drivers compared to other silly examples of distractions of pizza eating, hitting kids, putting on makeup, etc. Very easy to observe this in every day driving.

xrunner2

There were some studies cited in the earlier posts on this board that showed that driver reaction/reflex time was reduced if the driver was talking on the cell (hands-free or hand-held). That is the issue. Why should we "responsible" non-cell using drivers have to even encounter any driver who is not giving full attention to his main responsibility of operating a motor vehicle? Every responsible driver should expect that all other drivers on the road are not on drugs, DUI, are not sleepy, and are devoting their full mental capacaties to driving. Drivers talking on the cell phone are diverting their attention from driving and are adding extra risk to injury to every other vehicle or pedestrian they encounter. These drivers are selfish, irresponsible and immature.

xrunner2

"Acceptable risk" and " Safe enough"? I should not have to accept your added risk on the road just for your perceived need to have to use a cell phone while driving.

Safe enough? How long before another technology gadget is introduced and becomes popular and drivers will insist they absolutely have to use it while driving? They will say that it only partially distracts from driving and, after all, humans are equipped to "multi-task". No big deal. They will say, why don't police go after drivers who are "really" distracted, such as swatting kids, eating pizza, smacking a bee, etc.

lilengineerboy

While I realize you aren't bringing this up as a discussion point since its totally out or scope

It's not out of scope, the FAA realized a long time ago, piloting heavy machinery requires a concentration to the task at hand. You still didn't respond to my observation/question, do you mind if the pilot or co-pilot texts or uses the cell phone while landing? I don't expect a response, because only a fool would say yes. (not a red herring either, very germane to the conversation)

It is an example of peak workload. I don't think I want someone cleaning reactors at a nuclear power plant on their phone either. I also noticed you completely ignored the rest of the flight time other than those 15 minutes at landing.

If one wants to prove a point go to the racetrack. In the meantime, road safety and traffic laws have to be designed and built around the lowest common denominator. Even if it means trained race car drivers have to drive at the speed limit and not the speed they are capable of driving at.

Speed limits are being addressed in a different forum. Laws have to be designed around the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is what they are there for. If one wants to live in a Police State, Virgin Atlantic can provide a short journey "across the pond."

kdshapiro

It is an example of peak workload. I don't think I want someone cleaning reactors at a nuclear power plant on their phone either. I also noticed you completely ignored the rest of the flight time other than those 15 minutes at landing.

Actually included is takeoff also. However, a plane can be put on autopilot or even flown by copilot at cruising altitude. Can't put car on autosteer and autospeed. Driving a car is peak workload at all times behind the wheel. It is true that driving at 60 mph in packed freeway conditions demands a different type of driving then let's say 25 mph down an empty country road in clear conditions. Although you can still end up in ditch or hit someone or something driving 25 mph, if you give up your control of the vehicle by swatting the kids, eating pizza or losing yourself in a conversation on the ol' cell phone.

Speed limits are being addressed in a different forum. Laws have to be designed around the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is what they are there for. If one wants to live in a Police State, Virgin Atlantic can provide a short journey "across the pond."

Talk about a red herring. Our goverment can enact any laws they feel is justified. However the speed limit analogy was used to counter your analogy of peoples abilities.

lilengineerboy

"Acceptable risk" and " Safe enough"? I should not have to accept your added risk on the road just for your perceived need to have to use a cell phone while driving.

Its not my perceived need. There is just not a lot of rationale for anything else.

How long before another technology gadget is introduced and becomes popular and drivers will insist they absolutely have to use it while driving? They will say that it only partially distracts from driving and, after all, humans are equipped to "multi-task".

So it is about fear, the unknown...what next? I am planning on waiting until we get there and seeing if its a problem before worrying about it. When cell phones came out, there was mass hysteria... then navigation systems came out, there was mass hysteria...that is why on an OEM system you can't put in the address while you're driving and all the aftermarket ones you can (at least with the Alliance members). Still, no end of the world, no day of judgment...

lilengineerboy

Driver cell phone use is highest percent of distraction of drivers compared to other silly examples of distractions of pizza eating, hitting kids, putting on makeup, etc.

Opinion

Very easy to observe this in every day driving.

Anecdotal with additional self selection criteria...perhaps you seem to gravitate towards people on the phone, maybe tailgate a little, give them a little less room because you feel they are being "inconsiderate."

lilengineerboy

Actually included is takeoff also

My initial reply included takeoff, but you didn't mention it in this example so I didn't either. So okay, 30 minutes of a 7 hour flight are "peak workload."

Can't put car on autosteer and autospeed.

Cruise Control

So there is your speed management system circa 1945. Were you concerned that would be the end of the world when it came out too?

Steering you have to wait a little while longer, but Infiniti has the first, but poor system.

Driving a car is peak workload at all times behind the wheel.

I know from the literature you have no way to substantiate that, so I will just correct it for you. When the driver is are 15-18 (inexperienced) or over 68 or 69 (visual acuity and response time), driving a car is peak workload at all times behind the wheel. For everyone else, no.

Although you can still end up in ditch or hit someone or something driving 25 mph, if you give up your control of the vehicle by swatting the kids, eating pizza or losing yourself in a conversation on the ol' cell phone.

Oh my, I gotta sit down. You made my night. This little phrase if you give up your control of the vehicle; there is hope for mankind, there is hope for personal responsibility. When doing investigations or research and someone says "I lost control of the car" or something I just wanna smack them silly. BS, you don't lose control of a car, you, as you so elegantly stated, give up control of a car. Sure there are times when you can't get the car to do EXACTLY what you want (black ice, excessive standing water, etc) but you can usually get the car to do something better than mowing down kids at a bus stop or something.

Okay whew. So yeah, if you aren't paying attention and something changes, it could be bad. Even when studies with drivers use a peripheral detection task (you get them doing something else - like dialing a phone using an upside-down keypad or something annoying like that) and when the get into the task, you do something in the road scene and see if they notice, or flash a light in the car. In some studies, reaction times seem to be statistically significant, but the time difference in real life isn't that significant.

kdshapiro

So there is your speed management system circa 1945. Were you concerned that would be the end of the world when it came out too?

OK. Whatever.

Actually I don't care about peakload. I care about the fact the studies have shown significant driver impairment while talking, drivers exhibit significant driver impairment while driving, and I have had to dodge more cell phone users than pizza eating, kid smacking parents. Common sense seems to have taken a back seat lately.

Oh my, I gotta sit down. You made my night. This little phrase if you give up your control of the vehicle; there is hope for mankind, there is hope for personal responsibility

Just because I believe it is not a right, but a privilege to drive your car (my state thinks the same), doesn't mean I don't want tough laws enforced for those who abuse given privilege. Giving up control of your vehicle via the cell phone is an example of a set if laws that I believe should be enforced with commesurate penalities and fines. Give someone a break for the first offense when the car is not under driver control, but then let the fines and points start piling up for subsequent offenses.

I agree with previous poster, cops who catch people reading the paper, applying makeup, swatting the kids and the like, should automatically face tough penalities.

Your discussion is a smokescreen because there is not one iota of proof, driving while taking/texting on the cell phone doesn't have a dramatic effect on the ability to drive effectively.

stever

you don't lose control of a car

We debated this issue in a discussion around here years ago. The example I gave was a bee sting. The context was whether people really had car "accidents" that weren't due to their own negligence somehow. I think there are situations where you can lose control of your car through no fault of your own - your car gets struck by lightning or you get a bee sting in your eyelid.

This is distinguished from the situation where you are cruising around town and someone T-bones you out of the blue from a side alley hidden by parked cars because the driver of the other car was yakking on their cell phone.

(There was no consensus on whether a driver can have an "accident" btw).

lilengineerboy

Giving up control of your vehicle [extra stuff deleted]is an example of a set if laws that I believe should be enforced with commensurate penalties and fines.

I totally agree, in fact, in my quickie google search, so does almost every state legilstature.

I agree with previous poster, cops who catch people reading the paper, applying makeup, swatting the kids and the like, should automatically face tough penalties.

Nope, gotta actually do something wrong first. If you are picking your nose and run a stop sign or red light, then yup, tie them up take them to the edge of the village and stone them, but I do feel they should commit a crime first. Secondary enforcement is important here...you make good decisions, you get left alone...you abuse the privilege, you get taken to task for it.

Your discussion is a smokescreen because there is not one iota of proof, driving while taking/texting on the cell phone doesn't have a dramatic effect on the ability to drive effectively.

First off, I didn't include texting, you did. Secondly, you are saying my discussion is bunk because I can't prove something isn't happening? I think you have a few too many negatives in there my friend.

So, quick review...cell phone penetration at 950% over the last 10 years (that means more phones), number of vehicle miles traveled up (that means more cars on the road more often) every year except for this year (dang gas prices), Governor's Highway Safety Association says crashes and fatalities at their lowest point in recorded history (that "implies" roads are safer). Where is the crisis?

lilengineerboy

We debated this issue in a discussion around here years ago.

Yeah, I think that was me too. I get annoyed when people use the word "accident" as if it happened by chance (yet another way to walk away from personal responsibility).

The word is CRASH.

I think there are situations where you can lose control of your car through no fault of your own - your car gets struck by lightning or you get a bee sting in your eyelid.

I will give "acts of GD" as "accidents," since they are by chance (or not, I suppose...).

I am a pretty careful person, and I have a family, I wouldn't be all willy-nilly about something I didn't thing was an acceptable risk. The bad seeds need to get weeded out of the system, but that doesn't mean restrictions on the rest of us are the answer.

kdshapiro

So, quick review...cell phone penetration at 950% over the last 10 years (that means more phones), number of vehicle miles traveled up (that means more cars on the road more often) every year except for this year (dang gas prices), Governor's Highway Safety Association says crashes and fatalities at their lowest point in recorded history (that "implies" roads are safer). Where is the crisis?

Problem is I believe more than 85% of all crashes and fatalities not explictly identified as vehicle malfunction or medical emergency can be averted if drivers got off their cell phones. In other words out of the 6 million police reported car crashes most of them can be avoided if people got off their cell phones.

That's where the crisis is, the sheer number of car crashes, of which I believe is linked to the 950% increase in cell phone penetration. The country could save billions in property, casualty and medical if people got off their cell phones. People have migrated from eating pizza to eating pizza and talking on the cell phone while driving. They have migrated from putting on makeup to putting on makeup and talking on the cell phone while driving. They have migrated from reading the newspaper to reading the newspaper and talking on the cell phone while driving. They have migrated from driving the car to talking while driving.

That's the crisis.

xrunner2

A number of countries, apparently more enlightened than the US, have banned the use of cell phone by driver. Some of these: France, Finland, Denmark, Russia, Japan. We need a movement by responsible drivers and their US Reps to introduce a national law to ban cell phone use by drivers. Perhaps the IIHS and varous insurance companies can step forward and help in this regard. They could lobby in DC as well as tag messages onto their tv commercials.

lilengineerboy

Problem is I believe more than 85% of all crashes and fatalities not explicitly identified as vehicle malfunction or medical emergency can be averted if drivers got off their cell phones

I fully agree, your undocumented, unsubstantiated beliefs are a big problem!

As well, approximately 11% of all distraction-related crashes are attributed to adjusting theradio/cassette/CD (compared to 1.7% for talking/listening/dialling a cell phone).

From Chisholm, Caird et. al., and also notice that 1.7 % lumps talking on and dialing (and hanging up and picking up) the phone together so with hands free devices for dialing, its even lower.

That's where the crisis is, the sheer number of car crashes, of which I believe is linked to the 950% increase in cell phone penetration.

And you can certainly believe anything you would like, but fear as a motivator really only works in mind control in institutionalized religions.

People have migrated from eating pizza to eating pizza and talking on the cell phone while driving. They have migrated from putting on makeup to putting on makeup and talking on the cell phone while driving. They have migrated from reading the newspaper to reading the newspaper and talking on the cell phone while driving.

Chicken little, you are very funny. So people stopped doing visual/manual intensive tasks like READING(!?) while driving (a task that is argued to be 90% visual, although no one will actually say they said that in the literature, they just all cite eacth other), with a hands free, hands on wheel eyes on road task, and you complain about this?

lilengineerboy

A number of countries, apparently more enlightened than the US, have banned the use of cell phone by driver. Some of these: France, Finland, Denmark, Russia, Japan.

And a number of posters apparently like to mislead the populace and misrepresent the facts, as those countries banned HAND HELD cellular phones, with an open exception to using a hands-free device.

National and International Cell Phone Laws

We need a movement by responsible drivers and their US Reps to introduce a national law to ban cell phone use by drivers

What we need is less fear-mongering and more factual based decision making. So far, cool heads and science have prevailed.

Perhaps the IIHS and various insurance companies can step forward and help in this regard. They could lobby in DC as well as tag messages onto their tv commercials

Or they could use the time, money and resources for something that is actually in issue right now.

kdshapiro

I fully agree, your undocumented, unsubstantiated beliefs are a big problem!

They are just as unsubstantiated as your 950% increase in phone penetration not causing any issues on the road. Another "factiod".

And you can certainly believe anything you would like, but fear as a motivator really only works in mind control in institutionalized religions.

Sure and you are certainly free to believe talking on a cell phone and texting are as innocuous as eating a pizza.

Chicken little, you are very funny. So people stopped doing visual/manual intensive tasks like READING(!?) while driving (a task that is argued to be 90% visual, although no one will actually say they said that in the literature, they just all cite eacth other), with a hands free, hands on wheel eyes on road task, and you complain about this?

I would be laughing if it weren't what people actually do. The worst of the worst steer with the knee, while smoking a cigaretter with their hand hanging out of the window, holding a cell phone to their right ear. But I'm sure you've never seen it, you've been too busy avoiding pizza eating, kid smacking parents to notice the bad cell phone drivers? Right?

kdshapiro

Or they could use the time, money and resources for something that is actually in issue right now.

You mean like the 950% increase in cell phone penetration rates. All of this would be moot, if in fact there were any real statistics to the issues cell phone usage causes on the roads.

The fact the NTSB has blamed the crash on texting and a number of railroads are banning cell phone usage on the job, is good enough for me that we need to look carefully at acceptable behind the wheel activities that carries an acceptable risk.

Finally: One study from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that 636,000 traffic accidents each year -- about 6 percent of all accidents -- are caused by drivers using their cell phones, resulting in an estimated 2,600 deaths. I guess as long as one of the 2,600 isn't related to anyone you know, the risk is acceptable. :sick

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/16/cellphones.driving.safety/index.html?iref=new- ssearch

lilengineerboy

I would be laughing if it weren't what people actually do. The worst of the worst steer with the knee, while smoking a cigaretter with their hand hanging out of the window, holding a cell phone to their right ear. But I'm sure you've never seen it, you've been too busy avoiding pizza eating, kid smacking parents to notice the bad cell phone drivers? Right?

So you are mad about people that can't drive and make poor judgment decisions while driving?

lilengineerboy

All of this would be moot, if in fact there were any real statistics to the issues cell phone usage causes on the roads.

So in lieu of statistics that match your hypothesis, you make them up to scare people?

The fact the NTSB has blamed the crash on texting and a number of railroads are banning cell phone usage on the job, is good enough for me that we need to look carefully at acceptable behind the wheel activities that carries an acceptable risk.

But not walkie talkie communicators, because those are very different, right?

One study from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that 636,000 traffic accidents each year -- about 6 percent of all accidents -- are caused by drivers using their cell phones, resulting in an estimated 2,600 deaths.

Okay, if you actually read the article and not the CNN media hypeline, it says:
Two prominent studies that have investigated cell phone use while driving have concluded that the practice should not be banned. One finds that the benefits of calls made while driving substantially exceed their costs while the other finds that other interventions could reduce motor vehicles injures and fatalities (measured in terms of quality adjusted life a lower cost.

-A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the use of Cell Phones While Driving. Cohen, J and Graham J. Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, No.1, 2003.

Know your sources.

kdshapiro

So in lieu of statistics that match your hypothesis, you make them up to scare people?

When you made up stuff, I countered with a likely hypothesis.

But not walkie talkie communicators, because those are very different, right?

Yep. That's like saying pilots can't communicate with the tower.

Two prominent studies that have investigated cell phone use while driving have concluded that the practice should not be banned

I disagree with that and in a related story they said: It put the estimated annual financial cost of cell-phone-related crashes at $43 billion. So in your mind, the cell phone related fatalities aside, the financial side of the benefits of yakking away has to be much, much more than $43 billion to support the acceptable risk of using the phones.

lilengineerboy

When you made up stuff, I countered with a likely hypothesis.

Yes, citing scientific research articles from peer reviewed journals definitely constitutes making things up. Especially compared to such credible sources as CNN.

But not walkie talkie communicators, because those are very different, right?

Yep. That's like saying pilots can't communicate with the tower.

It IS A CELL PHONE

I disagree with that and in a related story they said: It put the estimated annual financial cost of cell-phone-related crashes at $43 billion.

And in the same line in the paper they said the estimated cost advantage of cell phone use at $43 billion.

While this was once an interesting debate, those who live in a world of fear seem to have more trouble digesting facts and understanding credible sources, so I think its time to take a hiatus from the forum for a bit.

kdshapiro

Yes, citing scientific research articles from peer reviewed journals definitely constitutes making things up. Especially compared to such credible sources as CNN.

Well if you consider the "factoids" scientific research and CNN reporting the news not worthy of anything, we'll have to agree to move on.

It IS A CELL PHONE

With one number to dial Kind of hard to talk to your lawyer about divorce proceedings.

While this was once an interesting debate, those who live in a world of fear seem to have more trouble digesting facts and understanding credible sources, so I think its time to take a hiatus from the forum for a bit.

Yes, it was once an interesting debate. However those who are in denial, $43 Billion and 2600 fatalities, will keep on being in denial.

And in the same line in the paper they said the estimated cost advantage of cell phone use at $43 billion.

Assuming the number is true, the net is zero, minus the fatalities and loss opportunities due to the fatalities. No wonder people want a total ban.

stever

Shall we tone down the heat in here a notch? Don't want any lurkers to decide not to jump in and burn their toes.

Thanks.