Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

lilengineerboy

Why is it necessary (and you apparently think it is or you would simply answer the question) to do ANYTHING with a cell phone WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING?

The point I was making was there is nothing external that is explicitly necessary while one is driving. However, there are a bunch of activities that occur in a vehicle extraneous to driving that are considered "safe."

lilengineerboy

Why do you have to tune the radio while driving? Because I don't have to take my eyes or mind off the road to do it and I want to change the station?

If using presets only mounted on the steering wheel, perhaps that is true.

Why do you have to eat a cheeseburger while driving? Because I don't have to take my eyes or mind off the road to do it and I am hungry?

I would like to see you eat a Big Mac, Whopper, or $6 burger from Carls Jr while blindfolded (since you don't need to take your eyes off the road, you wouldn't need them to eat the cheeseburger, right?) and see how your shirt and trousers survive the experience.

And for those with an integrated hands free system, we can add phone tasks. No eyes off road time, excepting maybe the 500 msec glance to hit the "voice" button or "accept" buttons.

stever

If using presets only mounted on the steering wheel, perhaps that is true.

I was in a rental last week and mostly let my wife handle the portable navigation gizmo. But I found myself reading the scroll a lot on the Sirius-XM radio. The AM/FM in my van has an RDS feed but I rarely notice it since the stations don't do song and artist on it around here.

tlong

Why do we allow nav screens with MAPS on them? You need to look at that screen to read it, correct? The maps should black out when the vehicle is moving, and should have only voice prompts.

Yeah, right.

lilengineerboy

Why do we allow nav screens with MAPS on them? You need to look at that screen to read it, correct?

Which is very, very different from this thing they had in the previous millenium called maps. This was actually printed, no wait, stop laughing, on this thing called paper. No really. And the best part is they were usually about 3' x 3' and to find the street you wanted, you had to look at this long list of names that gave you a "quadrant" to look at on the 3'x 3' poster to find it. Then you had to "navigate" to that point using the "map" to create a "route." Yes, its amazing, people, obviously far more daring and dangerous than you or I, would do this, WHILE DRIVING.

Now we have "navigation systems" that will automatically route me to an address or my choosing, providing that data is entered prior to the trip being underway.

You need to look at that screen to read it, correct? The maps should black out when the vehicle is moving, and should have only voice prompts.

Given the AAM guidlines for in-vehicle navigation systems, I get the sense that you don't use one very often. Once a destination is set, it does provide voice prompts and simplified turn by turn directions.

stever

"Ontario just enacted a law that bans the use of handheld electronics at the wheel. Effective now, drivers here aren't allowed to hold a cell phone to their ear, fiddle with an iPod, touch their GPS, or even text their mothers-in-law. As part of sweeping changes to eliminate accidents caused by distracted drivers, the provincial government is cracking down on any behind-the-wheel activity that takes the driver's eyes off the road."

Shut up and drive: The menace that is mobile technology (Betanews.com)

nippononly

Do they have a law that forbids eating combo meal #2 behind the wheel too?

stever

I think eating poutine fries is a legal activity behind the wheel up there (as are Timmy's donuts). :shades:

bottgers

.....just put the dam phone down and pay attention to your driving!

fintail

Of course not, apparently only a few electronic distractions cause problems.

Ontario is like the England of Canada...they will probably try to install a grid of cameras, 10 per block, to watch every driver at all times. If the law simply relies on a LEO's word, there's a lot to worry about there.

It's funny...in NA, as far as I know, nav systems don't allow input while the vehicle is in motion (maybe in gear). In Europe, you can enter info while the vehicle is moving. Why is this? Phones are banned there too, but it is a huge social stigma to be seen driving and yapping, and it simply isn't done and likely wouldn't be done no matter the law. Driving is serious business there. If driver training was more serious here, maybe all of this would be different.

kdshapiro

I would like to see you eat a Big Mac, Whopper, or $6 burger from Carls Jr while blindfolded (since you don't need to take your eyes off the road, you wouldn't need them to eat the cheeseburger, right?) and see how your shirt and trousers survive the experience.

Piece of cake. (pun intended) In the garage in park, engine off. As far as the shirt and trousers, that's what dry cleaners are for.

tlong

Given the AAM guidlines for in-vehicle navigation systems, I get the sense that you don't use one very often. Once a destination is set, it does provide voice prompts and simplified turn by turn directions.

3 of 3 of my vehicles have GPS, and 2 of 3 are factory built-in.

My point which you failed to realize is that with a map ALSO displayed along with voice prompts, the display must be there for a reason. The screen is displayed so you can read it. It distracts the driver. Using the logic of a radio being distracting when tuning channels, certainly a nav map showing compass direction, 3-D view, speed, etc. is more distracting than a radio. So if you argue that only radios should be allowed with steering wheel controls because they are otherwise too distracting, then you should also have GPS displays auto blackout when the vehicle is moving.

BTW, I don't believe any of that, I'm just making the point based upon radios.
If we can't have any distractions while driving then we should not have seats for other passengers, as they will talk or cry while we drive. And no cupholders, either. :P

tlong

I would like to see you eat a Big Mac, Whopper, or $6 burger from Carls Jr while blindfolded (since you don't need to take your eyes off the road, you wouldn't need them to eat the cheeseburger, right?) and see how your shirt and trousers survive the experience.

Actually I've been driving for about 35 years and have frequently eaten in the car the entire time. I'm pretty good at containing burger spills, but a few accidents (food accidents) have happened. I've never had an accident while eating and have never rear-ended anybody.

Wish I could say that nobody has ever rear-ended *ME*!

nippononly

Ditto me, and I have driven while talking on the phone for 11. No accidents. Did hit a deer at midnight on a rural highway last year. Was not on the phone at the time.

lilengineerboy

My point which you failed to realize is that with a map ALSO displayed along with voice prompts, the display must be there for a reason. The screen is displayed so you can read it. It distracts the driver. Using the logic of a radio being distracting when tuning channels, certainly a nav map showing compass direction, 3-D view, speed, etc. is more distracting than a radio.

I see what you are saying, it is a valid point. Anytime you add in more information, you are likely going to increase the time to process that info. I think the "more distracting" might be a bit of a stretch as the info there doesn't change so much, its just a map. If you are actively using it to navigate then its probably still better than a paper map. If you are just staring at it because you are bored while driving, then you definitely understand the discussion point about a lower threshold for driving workload to maintain diligence to the driving task. Perhaps if you were conversing with someone, your workload level allow improved driving performance.

So if you argue that only radios should be allowed with steering wheel controls because they are otherwise too distracting, then you should also have GPS displays auto blackout when the vehicle is moving

It wasn't my argument one way or the other. I think that was another poster. My data is all based on eyes-off-road-time.

tlong

It wasn't my argument one way or the other. I think that was another poster.

Sorry about that, just too many posts to track!

My hypothesis is that it is not how many distractions a driver has, it is their attitude. Here I've been eating while driving for 35 years (most of that time with a manual transmission, too(!), and talked on the cell phone in a manual transmission car for 6 years before I got a bluetooth equipped car. I also live in southern CA where there is a ton of traffic. Yet I've never had a distraction accident, and have never had any at fault accident. I'm also a private pilot. Safety is of top importance and it is all about taking it seriously. When I eat in the car, I stay in a right lane of the freeway, I increase my following distance, and I'm ready to drop the food and make a mess if a road priority appears. And that's the same attitude I have when it is raining, when there is a lot of traffic, etc.

The problem with distractions like cell phones is that many people are cavalier and careless; they don't take great care and they don't change their behavior when they are working with potential distractions. Those people are always going to exist, and due to those people we get lots of new laws so we can be protected. Those people tend to be careless idiots even when NOT on the cell phone, and they are a hazard to everybody.

imidazol97

The screen of a GPS gives a lot of information. Most people learn more visually than they do aurally. Therefore the GPS is much more intriguing because of its wealth of visual info. Recently purchased my first, based on recommendation in the GPS thread here. I find it's fascinating to watch it keep up, recalculate, demand change of direction, etc. I understand how much more distracting it is than turning the volume up on my RDS radio with the steering wheel controls or reaching over to turn the knob. I don't read the song and artist info that flashes on the radio screen. Don't care. And I'm more often listening to talk radio.

Cellphone users become engrossed in the conversation, listening to the nuances of the words from the other end and calculating how to react for the emotional content of the conversation. I have watched drivers, primarily women, sit at a 4-way stop and not move because they had the phone to their ear. Some even were looking toward the side of the head with the phone against the ear because that was the focus of their brain at the time. I finally got tired of one and just started across the intersection ahead of her; don't think she ever knew she's waited past her turn. What's more concerning is that the women often have children in the van or car with them.

tlong

Cellphone users become engrossed in the conversation, listening to the nuances of the words from the other end and calculating how to react for the emotional content of the conversation. I have watched drivers, primarily women, sit at a 4-way stop and not move because they had the phone to their ear. Some even were looking toward the side of the head with the phone against the ear because that was the focus of their brain at the time. I finally got tired of one and just started across the intersection ahead of her; don't think she ever knew she's waited past her turn. What's more concerning is that the women often have children in the van or car with them.

Unfortunately it is much easier to pass laws to ban holding the phone to your ear than it is to have a law to ban inattentive drivers. Easy to measure the first, not easy to measure the second. Yet it is the second that is the biggest risk. And a lot of those people are inattentive even when they are NOT talking on the cell phone.

My daughter who is 17 and has been driving for four months with her license was rear ended by a lady a couple months ago. My daughter strongly suspects the lady was on a cell phone. Traffic was slowing down, my daughter slowed down, and then BANG!

lilengineerboy

My hypothesis is that it is not how many distractions a driver has, it is their attitude. Here I've been eating while driving for 35 years (most of that time with a manual transmission, too(!), and talked on the cell phone in a manual transmission car for 6 years before I got a bluetooth equipped car. I also live in southern CA where there is a ton of traffic. Yet I've never had a distraction accident, and have never had any at fault accident. I'm also a private pilot. Safety is of top importance and it is all about taking it seriously. When I eat in the car, I stay in a right lane of the freeway, I increase my following distance, and I'm ready to drop the food and make a mess if a road priority appears. And that's the same attitude I have when it is raining, when there is a lot of traffic, etc.

So you mean you actually make a decision on when you have available bandwidth to perform an in-vehicle task and when you don't? And when you do add additional workload, you compensate. Hmm sounds something like personal responsibility. Crazy


The problem with distractions like cell phones is that many people are cavalier and careless; they don't take great care and they don't change their behavior when they are working with potential distractions. Those people are always going to exist, and due to those people we get lots of new laws so we can be protected. Those people tend to be careless idiots even when NOT on the cell phone, and
they are a hazard to everybody.

This is actually one of the theories being used to explain that phenomena I keep harping about where cell phone market penetration has gone up 1000% in the last decade while crash rates are dropping to historic lows. The theory is something along the lines of early adopters of cell phone technology had a higher risk tolerance than other drivers. The thought is that higher percentage of early adopters of cell phone technology were already more likely to be risk takers in driving or less likely to be attentive. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that one, but I think the UMTRI paper on cell phone use patterns and the Virginia Tech study might have more.

kdshapiro

The number of fatalaties and accidents over the last 10 years have essentially remained flat, although there have been peaks. Why is this so? This may explain why there hasn't been an explosion due to cell phone usage. We never really know what causes a crash, with the exception of DUI, in the first place...at least that information isn't in FARS. Mechanical failure, reading the paper, plucking eyebrows, eating etc. A lot of causes are attributed to speed.

My hypthesis is that cell phones have replaced other driver behaviors. The fatality rate and the crash rate could probably be reduced if people drove in a cooperative manner. If one takes out mechanical failure and acts of God, all other fatalities and crashes are avoidable.

I do agree personal responsibility is the real key. Knowing when and where your attention can be diverted from driving is key to not getting into a crash or worse. That was my point a few posts ago. I do believe there are situations it is safe to eat and be on a handsfree moving at 65. In my neck of the woods, a "safe" situation is almost non-existent.

vinnyny

Let's put crashes and fatality rates aside for a moment because there are dozens of factors that have made driving safer over the past twenty years and consider this:

What percentage of left lane bandits (you know, the morons doing 10 mph under the limit in the left lane in perfect driving conditions) are talking on their cell phone or texting when you finally have to pass them on the right?

Now eliminate Prius and Subaru drivers who maintain that it is their God-given (ok, Mother Nature-granted) right to go as slow as they want in the left lane to save precious fuel as well as our lives?

Now eliminate anyone with a "Save the Manatees" or "Free Tibet" or some other such nonsensical bumper sticker that marks them as part of the holier-than-thou set that can't afford a Prius.

Now eliminate the 80-year-old Buick drivers (who don't have cell phones and don't really know where they are).

By my own observations, that leaves about 75% of left lane bandits with cell phones pasted to their ears. Yup, it's purely anecdotal, but try it the next time you're on a nice 400-mile highway jaunt.

So, while these people may not actually be involved in an accident, they certainly make the lives of others miserable so that they can have their important conversations about whether or not Brittney Spears looked fat or Eminem really grew up poor.

Hands-free devices are cheap and easy to use. If you can afford a monthly cell phone bill, then you can afford $50 for a bluetooth. There's no excuse for allowing inconsiderate cell phone users to clog up traffic unnecessarily. Texters should be ticketed for distracted driving every time (just like morons who read newspapers or books). In the case of texting, it's simple to prove your innocence: just present your monthly bill showing that you were not texting at the time the officer pulled you over. CA could easily balance their budget!

tlong

If you can afford a monthly cell phone bill, then you can afford $50 for a bluetooth.

But if they're not that bright anyway, they wouldn't know how to pair the devices. :P

kdshapiro

I agree with you, and by the way in a very funny sense you are absolutely correct. Part of the issue with the show me crowd, is that unless some action ends in a high profile disaster there is no metric to measure the blood pressure of drivers forced to follow a driver in the left lane on the cell phone who is oblivious and doing 10 miles under the speed limit on the brakes and is a fatality waiting to happen.

This refers to either use of the handset or hands-free. But the handset users assume one of three positions:

1. Both hands on the wheel and head tilted to stabilize cell phone. This of course is an extremely safe way to drive.
2. One hand on the wheel and center of head aligned with center of mirror.
3. Right hand on the wheel. Left elbow propped up on window sill holding phone to left ear.

These drivers multi-task and devote every other 30 seconds to driving and it shows. These are the drivers who slow down inexplicably, speed up and tailgate or don't follow lane boundaries. Fortunately there are drivers who are these peoples guardian angels. Unfortunately the FARS database can't compute the blood pressure rate per mile.

hammerhead

Now eliminate Prius and Subaru drivers who maintain that it is their God-given (ok, Mother Nature-granted) right to go as slow as they want in the left lane to save precious fuel as well as our lives?

OK, hold on here....
I resent being stereotyped. I drive a Subaru, have for about 10 years. Not aggressively, but, shall we say, in a spirited fashion when circumstances allow. Never a left lane bandit, either.

I believe that most of the Subaru Crew members on this website would resent the inference about the way they drive as well.

fintail

I LOVE merging onto a highway behind the average Forester...will it hit 40 before it reaches the highway? Probably not :shades:

kdshapiro

In my XT I love merging onto the highway behind the average car. /sarcasm

fintail

Forester XTs exist?

stever

Here's a good reason to keep your cell phone handy in your cupholder, next to your double shot breve:

Mobile phone radiation 'protects' against Alzheimer's (BBC)

kdshapiro

http://outhouserag.typepad.com/outhouserag/2006/01/hands_free_cell.html

kdshapiro

Can anyone say "class action lawsuit"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/technology/07distracted.html?em

lilengineerboy

Technology giants like Intel and Google are turning their attention from the desktop to the dashboard, hoping to bring the power of the PC to the car. They see vast opportunity for profit in working with automakers to create the next generation of irresistible devices.

Oh my gawd the humanity of it all, please no stop. These big mean people are being terrible by making it so much easier to do what I was already doing on my Droid or iPhone...

The NYT has gone the way of Fox.

fintail

Indeed...it's not like there's a gun at anyone's head making them play with the gadgetry either. If they have a brain in their heads, they won't fool around when there's danger.

It's funny...in Europe nav systems allow in-motion inputs, and every Euro spec factory nav unit I have seen also has a TV tuner. Why are they able to handle it and we aren't?

stever

I tweet most of the answers I give over on Edmunds Answers.

Now, you can buy a Ford and listen to my pearls. :shades:

Ford cars to read your Twitter feed (CNN)

Bunch of other stuff is getting tied in with Sync.

Ford Debuts New MyFord Touch Interface and Upcoming Sync Features (Edmunds Daily)

kdshapiro

In Europe they also have much stricter cell phone laws. Why must they pull off to the side of the road to hold a handset to their ear and we don't have to? I'm surprised the car manufacturers haven't pulled the blocks from the built in nav systems to let us watch movies while we are driving.

xrunner2

NY Times article said that Ford and Audi are testing and tweaking their systems to cut down on amount of time drivers spend looking at screens. How very responsible of them.

Of course they will say that drivers are mature and responsible, have common sense and will do nothing stupid and will park safely if they want to spend INORDINATE amount of time looking at screens. Yeah, right!! ANY amount of time is distracting. There should be no distraction on instrument panel that takes more time than to push a button, such as ac, for something. And, buttons/knobs should be so shaped, designed, unique that they can be found by touch, not sight. Would be great if functions such as ac, temp, radio station, etc were available as voice commands and buttons, knobs were merely backup. Now, that would be a great safety feature.

Now this is an issue for the Obama Administration and his Secretary LaHood to get Congress to do an overall federal law banning this tv screen navi nonsense. This would do more good than the misdirected Health monstrocity that Congress has been involved with last year.

fintail

In Europe driving is also much more serious business than in this lowest common denominator land, and yapping while driving isn't just illegal, but is a major social faux-pas...people there simply wouldn't want to be seen doing it, by a revenue collection officer or a stranger on the street. I suspect there - even if the laws weren't strict, it would still be seen much less than here - as other distractions are also seen much less than here.

Maybe that's the real problem here, going all the way back to the first day of driver's ed. People here just don't take driving seriously enough. It's a mindset that must be taught from day one.

Does any NA market car with factory nav have a TV tuner built in? Perfectly legal and accepted in more responsible areas.

kdshapiro

Let me say it this way. If I were in an airplane that had this device installed in the cockpit, and the plane was on final approach and the pilots decided to devote some attention to the screen....it would be a FAIL. On the other hand if one wants to argue there really is no harm then pilots should be allowed to do this. Easy to track, based on plane crashes, if multi-tasking while operating heavy machinery is really a good thing.

fintail

I'd hope landing a plane is a little more complex than driving around some numb automatic car on wide NA roads.

kdshapiro

What wide NA roads. Where I commute the roads are wide alright...6 lanes in some places, but clogged with cars. So yes, it's a bit more complex than a lone driver driving down a wide 3 lane road.

But I take it the answer to a pilot using an internet device while landing would be a no?

fintail

Our roads are very wide, both on the highway and in town, than in Europe - yet they are trusted with more ICE gadgetry. The driver training is better - I think that's what it all comes down to.

Yes, a pilot landing an aircraft while sending a tweet on his smartphone or built in mobile internet unit would be foolish. He should be trained to have the discipline to avoid such distractions.

kdshapiro

Yes, a pilot landing an aircraft while sending a tweet on his smartphone or built in mobile internet unit would be foolish. He should be trained to have the discipline to avoid such distractions.

True. Overshooting an airport by 150 miles shows what can happen when your mind is not on the operation of the machinery. Or in the case of a car texting, tweeting, calling, or looking at your internet device or not having your mind on driving, even when you are looking straight ahead can lead to catastrophy.

My car already has a great 17 display I can use for browsing and typing and tweeing while driving. I tether my laptop to my phone and leave the laptop on the passenger seat. Viola...instant gratification.

fintail

I saw someone laptopping and driving once...the light turned green but they didn't notice. A big machine on the passenger seat has to be a hundred times worse than anything on the dashboard.

I still wonder what really happened on that plane...I think it was more than someone sending texts.

stever

"Sometimes, pedestrians using their phones do not notice objects or people that are right in front of them — even a clown riding a unicycle.

Particularly fascinating, Mr. Hyman said, is that people walking in pairs were more than twice as likely to see the clown as were people talking on a cellphone, suggesting that the act of simply having a conversation is not the cause of inattention blindness."

Forget gum. Walking and using phone is risky (MSNBC)

xrunner2

Interesting article by MSNBC. Like clown incident, I too can relate. Back many years ago when I used cell phone while driving, I recall many times after I finished a conversation that I could not recount anything about the journey from the start of my conversation until the end. Now, these were not simple 30 second conversations about telling someone I was running late. These were usually business conversations with details.

Perhaps some future accident victim caused by an errant driver cell phone user causing the crash will successfully sue the wireless carrier. Then, with more suits in the pipeline, carriers will themselves put in technology/software to not allow any cell calls in moving vehicles except 911 calls.

What is so hard about planning one's life to make calls either before or after a trip in a vehicle? If one suddenly has the urge or need to make a call, they can find a legal and safe place to park and then make the call. Is that so difficult? That is still infinitely simpler to do than in days past, prior to cell phones, when you had to find a phone booth to make a call. People just "incredibly" spoiled and selfish today.

xrunner2

Last week on radio talk show, the host briefly said that Oprah was getting ready to spearhead national drive to outlaw use of cell phones by vehicle drivers. Don't watch her show, but waiting to hear more about this. She has power and clout.

stever

She beat the Texas beef industry over their False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Law, so maybe her pockets are deep enough to take on the cell industry.

Guess you need to tune it today:

“The Oprah Winfrey Show” will dedicate its Monday, January 18 broadcast to people who have lost family and friends to crashes as a result of distracted driving."

Oprah Challenges Viewers to Stop Texting and Driving (Forbes)

p0926

Just watched her show. Anybody who sees that show and still claims that texting or talking on a cell phone can be safe is totally delusional! They had a researcher who stated that talking and driving increased the risk of a accident fourfold (the equivalent of a .08 BAC) while texting makes it eight times more likely. And hands-free doesn't make a difference!

-Frank

fintail

And yet crashes haven't exploded in light of wireless technology reaching market saturation. Something still doesn't add up.

No doubt it is dangerous, but I think there's some exaggeration at play too.

lilengineerboy

No doubt it is dangerous, but I think there's some exaggeration at play too.

What, they wouldn't do something like that on TV. Everything on TV is real and honest.

Dateline

p0926

I don't know where they got their stats from but the claim was cell phone usage while driving results in 6,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries a year.

Of course there were a dozen tear-jerker first person accounts of someone losing a loved one due to cell phone usage. They also had a researcher on to explain why using a hands-free device isn't any safer. He used the phrase "inattentional blindness" (you can google it) to describe the limitations in how the brain processes information.

-Frank