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
A couple years ago I had to drive off on the shoulder to avoid a lady who was fooling around with her cig and decided she wanted my (oncoming) lane. Time to ban smoking while driving.
Last year a friend of mine was rear-ended by a lady who was playing with her dog while driving. Time to ban dogs in cars too.
Studies can show anything depending on who funds them and how the data is examined.
Well I managed to drive stick and eat in the car and talk on the cell phone for many years and I have never had an accident. :shades: (seriously)
Of course, dangers of distractions and changing mindsets is the challenge. Auto makers are doing their part counter to safe driving by continuously adding in more distractful gadgets. Now, this would be a good place for Washington to do good on big brother stuff rather than nonsense they were working on all last year without accomplishment.
I drive an automatic, btw...never eat in the car - simply to cut down on mess...and driving is a good excuse to not talk on the phone. If it's important, they'll leave a message.
I do think that making distracted driving a social stigma will do much more to improve the ever-declining conditions on the road than enacting a folio of asinine and arbitrary laws. Make it embarrassing to be seen yapping on the phone or eating a taco while driving. Image is everything.
And sadly, the public sector alone lacks the ability to get anything like this going. We need to start an anti-distraction organization
Yeah, put up some flashing billboards every 2,000 feet.
Can't say. All I know is I have to take evasive action at least once a week because someone is in their own little bubble on the cell phone (or texting).
There may, or may not be, laws against distracted driving. The issue is how do you prove the driver who caused the accident was distracted? If you're employed driving a public conveyance such as a train or bus, and an accident occurs, you are required to give a urine sample to tell if you were in any way impaired. I also think you are required to turn over cell phone records if there was any chance that cell phone use was related to the accident (as happened in the train accident in California).
That is not the case of someone driving and having an accident in their private vehicle. A driver does not have to give a urine sample, or even take a breathalyzer test in most jurisdictions, even if an officer on the scene believes alcohol was involved. I do not know what the case law is regarding cell phone records, what it takes to get the cell provider to turn them over, etc.
Parents, perhaps?
In addition, there are little to no metrics being captured with respect to cell phone usage, although a lot of theorizing has taken place. Bottom line nobody knows if all of the "accidents", that is those that are not acts of nature or component failure are 90% cell phone related or 10% cell phone related. The "spike" is not a spike, just a shifting of causality from other to cell phones.
The average driver, IMO, wouldn't know how to take evasive action if their lives depended on it. It seems a significant amount of people can't even complete a smooth freeway merge.
There's such a huge piece of data being missed - phone usage has grown at a seemingly exponential rate in the past decade, with a virtually invisible correlating rise in casualties. Nobody has yet to begin to explain this.
If just phones are targeted by our beloved public sector who can do essentially nothing else right, and no other distractions are made evil...nothing will change, and the idiots will continue to reign supreme.
I can't tell you how many times I have watched an idiot with a cell phone make a dumb move while using a cell phone. Just yesterday I watched a woman run a red light. Cell phone up to her ear.
It's not the phone. People are concentrating on the content of the CONVERSATION and not their driving.
Texting while driving should be a felony.
Just curious
That's what I'm postulating. I don't find it hard to embrace at all given the pentration and lack of cooperation by cell phone users. Laws don't stop people from doing illegal things. As an example did the laws stop the embezzlement of upwards of $161 billion?
There's such a huge piece of data being missed - phone usage has grown at a seemingly exponential rate in the past decade, with a virtually invisible correlating rise in casualties. Nobody has yet to begin to explain this.
There is nothing to explain until proper metrics are recorded. Then everything can be explained.
If just phones are targeted by our beloved public sector who can do essentially nothing else right, and no other distractions are made evil...nothing will change, and the idiots will continue to reign supreme.
I would rather take on hamburger eating, nose blowing, newpaper reading, eyebrow pluckers than cell phone talkers or users. The latter are totally oblivious, while the former are mostly clueless.
do you think your red light runner would suddenly become a good driver if the phone disappeared?
I think what is missing here is bad drivers are just that, bad drivers. You saw a bad driver using a phone, I saw a bad driver fixing her hair.
Put some teeth into being a bad driver, not just one activity that does not have any statistical bearing on somebodies ability (or inability) to drive.
Well, I work next to an airport. So there's a lot of tourists coming and going to the airport, the rental car places, hotels, etc. Many of them seem to drive by directions they're getting from someone over their cell phone..." Yeah, I'm coming out the airport, heading west. What's that, I couldn't hear over the guy blowing his horn? What, I'm supposed to be in the right hand lane for the exit?" Sudden turn of the wheel and cut across 3 lanes of 60 mph traffic.
So yeah, this area around my office is probably worse than yours (not that I'm bragging :P .
Exactly!
Although, I do see idiocy from drivers with license plate frames from this city just about as often as I do from obviously transplanted vehicles. I always wonder what the excuse can be when you're a local. Of course, I know the answer...simple mental defectiveness...it knows no geographic, gender, racial, age etc boundaries.
But maybe you are correct in a way - crap drivers are crap drivers, and if they didn't have phones they'd still be doing something dumb. The readers, eaters, pluckers you mention are the same ones who yap. That's why distractions should be targeted en masse - nothing will change if this one distraction is eliminated.
I think you just made one of my points for me...an "idiot" with a cell phone is still an "idiot" without a cell phone. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
People driving in Maryland would no longer be able to read texts while behind the wheel, under legislation proposed by one state lawmaker.
Reading while driving to be illegal
While I am in favor of that, I can't believe there needs to be a new statute.
Does that include reading paper maps? MapQuest/Google Maps print outs? Post-it notes? grocery lists? Signs? Your speedometer?
What is the literacy rate there anyway? Maybe people reading isn't that big of a concern.
A driver concentrating on a conversation is a menace.
If that's the answer then it's back to my original assertion that more than one seat should be illegal, as if you have a passenger you will talk to them. What's the difference between that and hands-free cell conversation?
I guess you could ensconce the driver into a driver's shell separate from the passenger compartment. Of course if the passengers have to pee on the way then they are in trouble. :P
I'm not sure what tlong was getting at, but here's my take.
A conversation with a passenger is NOT the same as a conversation with someone over a phone. The passenger is in your environment so should be, at least partly, aware of what's going on around them - road/weather conditions, traffic, backups, etc. So usually, without anything having to be said, the conversation adjusts, or modulates itself to the situation at hand.
That is not the case with a cell phone conversation. The person on the other end of the line has no idea, unless explicitly told, what situation the driver is in. They could be chewing you out for not having picked up your towel in bathroom, not knowing that just escaped being creamed by some driver drifting across the lane. It's a distraction that cannot be easily controlled by the driver (short of hanging up), unlike talking with a passenger or chewing on a Big Mac (tm).
Exactly right. If wife and I are going somewhere on busy interstate, and especially if I am in fast lane, she will not talk. If she drives, then I as passenger keep quiet.
So your toddler locked in his child seat screaming or spilling apple juice is going to halt while you deal with traffic situations? :confuse:
The point I am making is the inconsistency that hands-free cell driving should be banned, but somehow passengers are different because they would "not allow their talking to the driver" to interfere with the driving situation. That's just false for a whole host of reasons. So if you want to be consistent, you don't just ban cell driving - you ban eating, drinking, watching the GPS map, having passengers, billboards, etc.
Driving is as safe as the driver makes it, and that means the DRIVER has to have the right priorities. ANY driver can be distracted by pretty much anything. If they are stupid they have an accident. If they have some brains they (usually) don't. It's too easy to point the gun at cell phones but the real problem is much more complex.
As I've posted before -- I've driven stick, talked on cell phones, and I've also eaten in the car while driving for over 35 years! I substantially modify my behavior while driving with distractions (such as slowing down and greatly increasing following distance) and I've had NO at-fault accidents in that period of time. Yet I've been rear ended by others who were NOT on the phone!
You may prioritize driving over the screaming kids in the car, but I assure you many parents *do not*!
Just because drivers can find inventive ways of not paying attention to the road does not mean cell phones are just another bad thing to do. Just because you got into a car crash from someone *not* on the phone, doesn't mean cell phones are innocuous.
It's way to easy to point the finger and say cell phones are another distraction when they are not. Drivers are oblivious to their surroundings, speed, lane markings. I'll give you that driving in Montana in the boonies might be different than driving in LA rush hour, but my reference point are regional areas with extremely heavy traffic.
Cell phone users who actually impede traffic should be given heavy fines if caught...no points unless they get into accident.
It kind of goes to libertarian views. We continue to reduce our freedoms for the nanny state to "protect" us. Instead, don't outlaw the behavior, but come down like a ton of bricks if one is found hurting other people or property while using the cell phone, etc. Sort of like the drug laws, but that's another topic. If you can talk on the phone safely while driving, you shouldn't have to lose that privilege because others are incapable.
If your driving is impacted ( going too slow/fast, all over the lanes, blindly cutting people off, etc...) you should be cited. If not then not. Simple as pie.
As I drove back to the home office after dropping off my daughter this morning I watched a college kid drive off the shoulder of the road in front of me and get totally sideways as he over corrected to get back to the road. He very nearly went head on into oncoming traffic all on a 35mph road!
No doubt he was texting on his cell before he nearly lost it given he was not driving as a normal person would.
I followed him to the college entrance and stopped next him as he was waiting to turn left. Sure enough he had his cell back in his hand and was mid text oblivious to me being nearly ontop of him in a landcruiser with oversized tires. I blew the horn and held it down till he looked at me - at which point I pointed at his phone and shook my fist at him. He put the phone down and promptly spun a left turn.
Keep in mind there are lots of cyclists in the area he could have easily hit a cyclist and never even known it. Dumb [non-permissible content removed]!!!!!!!!!
Don't get me started on the insane stuff I've seen while commuting by motorcycle. You see way more from the bike - I've seen people typing on full on lap tops while in stop and go traffic on a 6 lane freeway! Stupid people need to be singled out and be told by the GOV that no its not a good idea to type out a report while driving a 4000lb vehicle in stop and go traffic on a 6 lane free way.
I agree with that. Cause an accident while talking on the phone and you go to jail for a year, pay a $10,000 fine, your spouse has to clean toilets in that jail for a year while you serve time, and your kids go to Social Services for the duration. Oh, and your parents lose their Social Security and Medicare benefits. :shades:
I disagree. Cell phone users, like left lane charlies are frustratingly annoying and should be dealt with as such. As I previously said, cell phone usage, --talking only-- will never be banned, but if you are observed driving inappropriately for traffic you should be heavily fined.
I get the sarcasm, but the philosophy is to not restrict any behavior if you are not hurting others. So in your tongue-in-cheek comment above, the murder is obviously false. But if you want prostitution - why not? Drugs? Why not? Cell phone talking? Why not? As long as you don't hurt anybody or cause any property damage, why not? Many people are capable of not causing any problems, so why not?
In Germany they allow unlimited speeds on a lot of the autobahn (your 50 miles over the speed limit comment - except there's no speed limit), and the autobahn has an incredible safety record.
The alternative is restriction. Some people drive drunk - so outlaw alcohol. Some people can't drive and talk on cell phones - so outlaw that. Some people run into swimmers with jet skis - so outlaw those. If it COULD hurt somebody, outlaw it!
So where does that end? How are we being consistent? We outlaw cell driving, but crying kids distract the driver and might cause an accident. Is the government ready to start deciding that the kid in the car is a *necessary* risk but the cell conversation is not? I know I don't want my government deciding for me which risks I should be taking and which ones I shouldn't.
I follow your drift. But the reality is, and will continue to be different. If you engage in an activity, be it legal illegal, or in that big gray area in between, and hurt/injure/cripple yourself, the government/taxpayers will take care of you, at least to some extent. I don't see anyone being turned away at a hospital ER because they were injured speeding or riding a bike without a helmet or fell while rock climbing or shot in a street drug battle. I don't see anyone being denied a heart bypass (if they have insurance) even though they are grossly overweight with type 2 diabetes from poor lifestyle choices. I don't see anyone being denied a knee replacement because they banged it up skiing.
For your "world" to come about, we are going to have to let people die! That's the bottom line, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
Part of the safety record of the Autobahn is the evac system. The other part is it is illegal to hold a phone to your ear in Germany while the car is in drive. Drivers appear to be much more responsible there.
Cell phone talkers are not victimless either. For the most part when I see a LLC not being able to follow lane markings, my first though is *not*, oh a hamburger eater, or screaming kids in the car, or an eyebrow plucker, or a newspaper reader. My first thought is, engrossed in a conversation on a phone and 9 out of 10 times, it's what it is.
So I'm all for singling out cell phone users with hefty fines. They deserve it.
It's illegal to drive while yapping in some places on this continent too...hasn't changed anything.
Make driving more serious business rather than arbitrary, difficult to enforce, and costly to implement punishments for just one distraction. They've all gotta be targets.
I agree to a point, cops should ticket drivers driving in an irresponsible manner. But cell phone yappers, if their driving is impaired, should be singled out and the enforcement made up with heavy fines.
The entire spectrum of distracted/oblivious driving needs to be fought.
Actually judging by the casualty numbers if one takes away alchohol and drug impairment, acts of nature, mechanical failure, and crashes where the driver is not responsible, there are a lot of unexplained fatalities. How do you know or not know what the root cause is for the rest. Answer you don't, but it's probably human error. Or drivers not paying attention due to cell phone usage.
Good points. If you get into an accident while talking on the phone, and someone asks you what happened, what are you going to say?
- "My wife was yelling at me over the cell phone and I ran off the road", or
- "A deer ran across the road and I swerved to avoid it"
- "My wife was yelling at me over the cell phone and I ran off the road", or
- "A deer ran across the road and I swerved to avoid it"
Excellent point.