By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
If you look hard enough, you might even run across a manual trans Forester XT (0-60 in 5.3 sec). But you're certainly not going to find one being a left-lane bandit :P
-Frank
Regarding the Forester XT, I saw one the other day, plying down the right lane of a freeway, loaded up with junk. The driver wasn't yapping on the phone either. :shades:
Let's not forget the old adage... "one man's junk is another man's treasure" :P
I am not aware of any disproportionate increase in the raw incidents which can be aligned with the gigantic increase in wireless use in the past decade.
We all got along just fine before we had them in cars. :shades:
Thanks,
Jeannine Fallon
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
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
That's like saying: fatty foods, not cheeseburgers, cause childhood obesity. I think we all understand that cell phone use is only one of the many distractions that cause car crashes. We should strive to eliminate as many of the unnecessary distractions as possible.
The most poignant finding cited in that article is the assertion that hands-free cell phones didn't really improve the situation. It all comes down to the fact that driving is an activity that requires conscious thought to be done well. It's not merely a series of muscle movements. A phone conversation interferes with those thought processes.
That said, I'm still not willing to buy the assertion that a kid texting in traffic is no more dangerous than another one eating a sandwich. Every time a driver takes his eyes off the road, he increases the risk. Any study that suggests otherwise is either funded by the wireless industry or conducted by somebody like Al Gore's legion of buffoons.
The hand held vs hands free debate is one discussion -
1. Studies that say there are no difference between hand held and hands free typically don't include call initiation (dialing) or call termination. Dialing is a visual manual task (the same thing that gets everyone stressed out about texting).
It also might mean that most drivers don't dial while driving, they just receive incoming calls.
2. There is no definition for "hands free." Its not hands-free with that stupid little ear piece and the wire from the phone, or even those ear-jewelry blue tooth pieces. Hands-free is an integrated phone solution through the vehicle, like what BMW has had forever, and Ford's SYNC, and others vehicle based blue tooth solutions. Or a Parrot that does voice dialing, etc.
The texting discussion:
That said, I'm still not willing to buy the assertion that a kid texting in traffic is no more dangerous than another one eating a sandwich. Every time a driver takes his eyes off the road, he increases the risk.
Its a visually intensive task. It basically requires typing while driving. It requires looking away from the road for extended periods of time. You can't process what you don't see. Its not 1 or 2 short glances that get someone, its the continuous glances away from the road that suck.
Here's the most "poignant" part of the article:
"Indeed, Rader said the study also indicates that even though cell phone usage nationally has exploded over the past several years, and more than 89 percent of the U.S. population owns a cell phone, there has been no uptick nationally in the number of car accidents."
I have no problem with banning holding a phone or especially texting while driving - as both simply make for more oblivious annoying drivers, a category where American drivers already hold the gold medal. However, enforcement is another issue as a viable strategy has yet to be unveiled. All distracted driving should be castigated and/or punished equally, and more importantly, should simply be made a social stigma. Driving needs to be taught as serious business. The problem above all else is shoddy drivers training.
Serious business. That nails it.
Auto manufacturers, phone providers, device makers have all contributed to marginalizing the process of "operating a motor vehicle" by incresingly offering gadgets, loud music, navigation, and other stuff to drive and increase profits and make their vehicle offering more desirable than the competition. Look back at cars of 60-70 years ago. Believe it was considered a luxury in those times “just” to have an AM radio in the car. Also, there were no drive-in restaurants to get coke, hamburger to eat while driving. Drivers way back then were able to concentrate on the driving task.
In today's "stupid" so-called multi-tasking world - if everyone drove manual transmission, it would still not cut down on driver's holding cell phone. They would somehow still "multi-task".
I bet the amount of manual drivers compared to auto drivers who hold a phone and yap is 1:10 if not more.
"People have been driving distracted since cars were invented," Rader said. "Focusing on cell phones isn't the same as focusing on distracted driving. Distraction is what has always caused car crashes, and cell phones don't appear to be adding to that.
This comes from the latest study, which fintail linked earlier.
The response from one of our wise and wonderful Bay Area state assemblymen? He has proposed a new bill for California to outlaw all use of phones in cars including hands-free. In doing so, he has totally missed the point
Distractions will continue to increase, they are already too numerous to count, and certainly there is now widespread handheld phone use in total disregard of the existing law. What will this new bill change?
Instead of all this pointless fringe legislation, there HAS to be a focus on a huge improvement in driver training in this country, so all the eaters and stereo/NAV twiddlers and read-the-morning-paper-ers and do-my-makeup-ers will turn their attention back to the task at hand.
We need to do it NOW - the next generation of cars with e-mail on the dash, etc, is just around the corner.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I vaguely remember using the glove box door as a shelf to hold food on my Dad's '53 Buick. I don't think it had indentations for the Cokes, but I remember the first time I saw that "feature" on a glove box lid, and that must have been in the 60's.
The big driving distractions back in those days for my folks were their two pack a day cigarette habit. But there were no Wendy's back then either:
Truck driver chokes on chili and crashes into home (Idaho Statesman)
Oh man. You don't have to go back 60-70 years. Even 20-30. The Nova's drum brakes were basically worthless after one hard stop, and even that stop you had to deal with the car trying to turn left, rear first. The radio was at the bottom of the dash and almost on the passenger side, so it was quite a reach (although my mom's '98 Sienna is almost as bad). At least the Nova had PS...my friend had a Dart that didn't and the idler arms/tires made that car follow every crack in the road.
So the cars wandered all over, took football fields to stop, and liked to swap ends in inclement weather, didn't even have a passenger side mirror, forget about ABS, stability control, blind spot warnings, etc.
Everytime I get into a 60s/70s vehicle its like remember how "it used to be."
That said, I'd still rather drive something like that than a Camry and be lulled to sleep while driving.
Regards, DQ
PS According to the NHTSA accidents per VMT (vehicle miles travelled) have decline steadily from 1990 to 2007 at the same time cell phone use has rapidly increased. Of course, some might say that accidents would have decreased even more without cell phone use. Kind of like Obama's jobs saved stats.
I am looking for the link to the study where they showed a link to testicular cancer and cell phones in your pocket...they found lower sperm counts. The study was done in a European University and the participants were students...who were required to do the study as part of a plea deal for being caught with recreational pharmaceuticals. So drug using cell phone carriers have lower sperm counts. Nice science.
Sometimes, I love my job. You can't make this stuff up.
Ooooh, fodder for this one:
Billboards Should Be Outlawed
Just this morning on my way to work a typical incident made this fact clear. In order to turn into the parking lot, there's a light with a left hand turn arrow. The green arrow is sometimes short, and the signal cycle time is very long, so it behooves you to make the turn when the arrow is green or else you wait another light cycle.
Well, I'm coming up to the light while the cars that were already queued up were making their turn. Guy in front of me, also heading for the left hand turn lane to turn into the plant, is just coasting along, taking his good old time while, you guessed it, talking on his cell phone - holding up everyone else behind him and probably increasing their frustration level. I made the light, but 2 of the cars behind me did not. They could have had this dufus been paying more attention to his driving instead of telling his SO "...I'm just pulling into the plant now".
It would also be awesome if overpaid underworked public sector sucks could finally get the light-sequencing ideal down, but I guess that's something for another thread.
Right. Drive throughs. And, they have added to the distractions list, as well as contributing to waste of petroleum, making people a little fatter. Better to park the car, walk in and get big mac, fries and coke. Burn off about 5 calories. Then, eat while parked and also safely chat on the cell phone. Park and phone. Park and phone.
Cheers to PENN lawmakers.
But, liberties not taken away. One can always safely and lawfully park their vehicle if one suddenly has the urge to make a cell call or a call comes in that can go to voice message. Driving on "public" roads has always been a priviledge, not a right, that is subject to rules and regulations.
Typical selfish and inconsiderate driver using cell phone who cannot control their urge to use phone and/or incapable of time management of their life.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If traffic is moving at "light speed" or traffic controls demand someone reacts at "light speed", then a motorist needs to conform to this, or take the bus.
Intersections potentially have pedestrians we can't see until the last moment, who are always prone to doing unpredictable things, and intersections have red light runners etc. It is prudent to proceed at a cautious speed through intersections even when one has the green.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Regards, DQ
First of all why on earth would our "feckless" politicians want to target cell phone drivers? What do they gain by so doing? OTOH, if you had suggested that politicians wanted to tax only cell phones used by drivers, then I might agree with you. We all know politicians can't turn away from another source of revenue.
Why single out cell phone users for special prosecution
Because the dangers of cell phone usage by drivers is not the same as combing your hair, tuning the radio, talking to a passenger, or eating a burger. Those later activities are confined to people/objects within your vehicle, while cell phone use involves an individual outside of the car's environment - someone who doesn't understand what is going on in the car (unless they ask) and so who cannot modulate their conversation to accommodate traffic and other conditions.
It's funny because you never heard much of anything about distracted driving until cell phones came into widespread use by drivers, restrictions were proposed and, the big cell phone providers who saw maybe a reduction in their growth conjured up the "distracted driver" syndrome.
I used to agree with you about driving being a privilege, but I'm not so convinced anymore. For example.
Is Driving a Right or a Privilege?
The Salt Lake Tribune commissioned a poll; 69% of their respondents favor a ban on talking on a phone while driving:
Poll: Utahns want cell phone users to shut up and drive
Because feckless politicians always want to be seen "doing something" about whatever thing is the latest source of public hysteria and paranoia.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Distracted driver syndrome does exist. I don't see eaters/drinkers/smokers/kid smackers/gadget players etc modulating their actions to accommodate the act of driving. They make their distraction their main focus. Distracted driving syndome makes driving the car a secondary activity, no matter the distraction. Phones are simply the easiest target. Targeting one distraction with arbitrary laws will not impact casualty rates, it will just make a few people a few dollars. People need to be taught to hang up, put the food and drink down, put the toys away, learn how to manage their kids, and drive.
Do yourself and me a favor, turn it off while driving - it's only a phone call.
That's only because the better drivers have been able to avoid entanglements with cell phone impaired drivers, despite their propensity to drift through intersections and cut across 3 lanes of traffic to make their exit. Also, I'm much more prone to use the horn to wake them up from the stupor.
I love to lay on the horn when I pull up beside a yapper :shades:
It boggles the mind why some people have to have a cell phone "glued" to their ear almost 24/7. How would these people function in the pre-cell phone era? And, the same goes for texting, even more so.
The verdict is still out on long-term effects of cell phone radiation. As a retired microwave engineer, I find it somewhat amusing the cell phone lobby poo-poo's the danger of 800MHz to 2.7GHz transmitted radiation. A microwave oven's typical operational frequency is around 2.5GHz, albeit at much, much higher peak output levels than a cell phone. Only time will tell... but, what's amazing to me is the ignorance of many cell phone users. Many don't realize they're actually using a radio transceiver (transmitter/receiver), and this is especially true among the young. To them, it's just a phone!
It's ironic as cell phones have increased our communications capabilities, many who use them have horrible interpersonal and societal communications skills.
If someone causes and accident due to cell phone use, there are already laws against distracted driving which would apply.
It is interesting that the Italians call driving mishaps "incidenti" meaning "incidents" rather than accidents. Thats probably more realistic since the vast majority (99%?) of crashes are caused by human error; inappropriate cell phone use being just one of many causes.. Lightning or deer strikes might be called "accidents".
although failing to heed a "Deer Crossing" sign might just leave lightning.
Regards, DQ
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr012910.html
Is this because people aren't abiding by the laws or is it that cell phones are really not such a distraction?
I have not review this entire thread - I peek in now and again - but you are on to something here.
1. there is no amazing increase in the accident and death rate given the explosive use of cell phones - yes cars are safer etc etc...but phone use has gone virtually straight up and accidents rates remain nearly the same.
2. Saw a brief news story that the cell phone ban in California has had no statistical impact to accident rates over the last 12 months or so
3. Supporters of these bans will never give a number of what will be reduced.
That said bad driving is bad driving. I was nearly run off the road by a young lady with her face in the rear view mirror adjusting her hair - no phone in site - and she nearly ran me into a light pole.
Give the police real tools for stupid drivers, all stupid drivers! I mean think of the worst inattentive yapper you know and take his/her phone - If you suddenly think they are going to settle down with their hands at 10 and 2, check their blind spots, use their blinkers and yield to pedestrians, I have some oceanfront land in Arizona to sell you...
Taught! Who or what group will emerge that can fund and put up messages on tv and radio about dangers of drivers using cell phone? Heard spots on radio within last few weeks about dangers of forest fires. Smoky Bear is coming back. We need a Smoky, maybe a mother or grandmother, to give messages on dangers of drivers using cell phones, texting.
And, as has been mentioned on this board numerous times, grabbing and eating a piece of candy (or pretzel, cookie, etc) from box/bag on console is a tiny, tiny distraction compared to driver having ongoing cell conversation. Studies have shown that driver using cell phone more dangerous than legally drunk driver.
According to Salt Lake Tribune, Utah citizen, Shelly, said: "I've been talking on my phone and hung up and realized I didn't even remember driving that last five or 10 minutes." This is exactly what I (xrunner) realized many years ago when I talked while driving and then gave up the dangerous practice.
Tribune also said that Wimmer, R-Herriman, is one who has opposed a cell phone ban on the principle of individual liberty. I say, there are times where “individual liberties” have to be denied for safety.
Consider open liquor containers in vehicles. Are individual liberties denied to drivers who would like to have “one” cold beer on a warm day? After all, one can consumed by driver will still keep driver well below DUI threshold of 0.08. Those who support drivers using cell phones should have no trouble supporting a change in law to allow “one” can by driver. A one-can driver will still be safer than a cell chatting driver.