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
Spill a little of that drink on your pants or the floor, and compare the aftermath to yapping.
Casualty numbers aren't rising while yapping has increased almost exponentially. Why?
First off, I don't count drinking coffee swilling. I do not need to divert my attention or my eyes from the road to drink from my coffee mug. Second, I agree about smokers. Third I disagree the total is equal. Because people will eat, drink, swill and talk on the phone at the same time, in my neck of the woods. In rush hour when traffic is crawling it is very apparent who is doing what. Yappers have the edge unfortunately by a wide margin.
Again, it might be a regional thing, with cell phone penetration in the pacific northwest lagging the rest of the country...but who knows.
I've already the casuality numbers, nobody knows what the amount is given a lack of data. You keep saying through the roof, I keep saying the percentage of all casualties related to cell phone usage could be higher than anyone thinks.
Not equal. And, smoking is nowhere near the distraction as talking on phone. Smoking requires zero brain processing as does eating a cookie. Kids/pets argument is ridiculous. How many kids/pets in cars do we see on interstate commuting to work in am/pm? Just about ZERO.
I suspect phone penetration is greater here than elsewhere, given how this area is home to so many tech firms and is a haven for early adopters. And don't get me wrong, the yappers drive me nuts, I just don't see arbitrary laws targeting one distraction as really helping the nightmare that is driving in this country.
There's no lack of data. Casualties are not rising, we both can agree on this. Phone usage has exploded in the past decade. Something doesn't add up.
Several years ago I was in slow moving traffic, beside me a woman was reaching back to tend to her kid, and she smacked the car in front of her. No doubt it didn't happen just that one time. I suspect there is a positive correlation between bad parenting and bad driving.
When did commuting become a part of the discussion? What percentage of crashes happen outside of commuting hours? The deadliest time on the road isn't from 5-8 am/pm.
We have the "but I see people on the phone all the time" camp, the "I see people pigging out all the time" camp and the "I can't focus on anything while I am driving but staring at the long straight flat traffic free road until I get drowsy" camp. And no one with any real, quantitative meaningful data.
We have a bunch of studies that were performed in driving simulators in labs with college kids that show they get distracted when talking on the phone. Then they tested some older folks and asked them about political scandals, near death experiences, and abortion, and when they got all red, puffy and hyper-ventilating on the phone, they measured driving performance sitting in a room.
Then we have a university that did a series of on the road studies of people driving their own cars on their normal routes they drive everyday. Not so much of an issue, Then we have this issue where crash rates, tow away crashes, injuries and fatalities are all dropping to the lowest rates in history.
In-n-Out claims to have had the first automotive drive through in 1948, so we've been eating in cars since somewhere around that time. Kids were invented, eh, well at least by the early 1970s so we've been driving around with kids in the car since then. Radios came on the scene in late 20s early 30s, so we have had them in the car since about then as well. Yet we have no contemporary spike in any measurable form that demonstrates an increased risk.
I think the Oprah idea and all the education to increase awareness can only help make the roads safer. I also think teaching people to periodically check their tire pressures would make the roads safer. Do I expect a law with primary enforcement that bans conversation? Nope, and I don't think its warranted or valid.
I do agree with the posters that suggest substantial penalties for those who commit a moving violation while talking on a phone (like the way fines are doubled in construction zones - although that is more politically based than anything real as well), If a serious enough infraction is committed, subpoenas for phone and records could be issued (of course the times on the phone bills typcially don't match the time on the phone or in real life, so that is questionable).
And who is to judge that "you are not hurting others" ? I don't buy this at all. If you yak on the phone while you drive, you make yourself a greater threat to hurt others simply by deliberately chosing to engage in an activity that interferes with your ability to give your full attention to the road.
I devote my full attention to driving safely so that I will not put you or anyone else at risk. I expect the same consideration from you and anyone else on the road.
Some boob killed two parents and maimed a college student last year near Kutztown PA doing just that. He gets a few years in prison for this, in exchange for putting two people six feet under and creating a life of pain for the surviving kid.
Is that justice?
Is it REALLY NECESSARY to yak and drive a 2-ton lethal weapon at the same time? Or drive drunk and drive a 2-ton lethal weapon at the same time ?
The good drivers have learned to look out for them and avoid them as much as possible(tailgaters, lane weavers, those driving 55 AND STILL SLOWING in the left lane when the limit is 65 and everybody is passing them in the right lane at 70, etc.) Folks are giving them a lot of room. That's what I'm seeing more and more of on my weekly interstate trip the past three years. I visit my parents at The Home. There were always drivers out there who weren't paying attention, now there are just more and more and more of them.
John
I dropped my wife off at a medical clinic yesterday, pulled out of the parking lot, and turned right onto a high traffic 2 lane street. At the first cross street intersection, where the cross street has a stop sign, a lady driver in a minivan, stopped at the stop sign and looked directly at me approaching the intersection (I was about 40 feet from the intersection at that time). After the stop, she pulled directly out in front of me. Obviously, I had to slam on the brakes to keep from t-boning her. Absolutely amazing, and of course, she was on a cell phone.
In time there will be widespread bans, and I can guarantee the impact will be marginal at best - as the powers that be never have a longterm or widespread approach.
Two reasons. 1. Onus redistribution. As mentioned, the driving process became more difficult and stressful for other drivers. 2. Modern cars and highways are designed to basically eliminate casualtied. Still, accident rates decrease only moderately. Why? Bad drivers feel themselves ever safer, and embark on ever increasing list of irresponsible behaviors. The worst thing is that they feel themselves entitled (see loads of angry posts of text messaging drivers in any relevant discussion thread), and when accident happens, they blame GM for a car that catches fire, or Toyota for unintended acceleration, or the government.
No signs would mean you'd have to pause during your call and think about whether you should ease through the intersection (yield) or stop for traffic.
Could even mean fewer Inconsiderate Drivers.
Okay, that's an opinion just like everything else we have been discussing.
There's no lack of data.
Correct, there is a lack of information. Data is aplenty, information is scarce.
All good points, but nothing to do with singling out cell phone yappers for driving like they are intoxicated. Everybody who is human can have their mind wander, LA train crash, pilots missing airports etc. But no one would like it if the pilot was yapping on the cell phone while landing. Or the engineer of the train was yapping on the cell phone while driving (err navigating the train).
So why then is our liberties being eroded when it is suggested that drivers don't yap on the cell phones? :confuse
I said nothing about liberties, indeed it has nothing to do with liberties...simply targeting one distraction while not targeting distracted driving in general is nothing more than wasteful legislation...which I guess is par for the course for the justice system in this world. It will accomplish nothing in the long run.
The same distracted drivers who were idiots before phones are yapping. We need to target all inattentive behavior. Cracking down on the most visible one will in the end do nothing.
I agree they are different modes of transportation, but in each instance you have the lives of fellow humans in the palms of your hands. If one substituted a Prius yapper for an huge 18 wheeler yapper, the aftermath of a mistake is magnified many, many times. Same for a plane, same for a train, same for a bus. Thus, it is my considered opinion, yapping on the cell phone should be banned.
While you may not have specifically mentioned liberty, there is a feeling it is a right to yap while driving. I have no problem with the justice system targeting this specifically, it's par for the course, you cannot please everyone 100% of the time. You are right, there is a lot of wasteful legistlation, this isn't wasteful. The benchmark for a law should not be if it will work, for if that were the benchmark then we might as well remove all of the laws from the books, and may the strongest gun win.
That's a red herring and you know it.
Problem is that all distracted driving types are not equal. All would agree that texting or reading a book while driving is most dangerous, distracting. Next would be talking on phone. Low on list would be selecting a cookie from box on console with right hand by feel, not looking, and then taking a bite. Of course, responsible drivers would not grab for cookie while passing a semi on a rural 2-lane highway, when oncoming traffic on road, on a curvy stretch of road or on mountain road.
Would be interesting to have some entity, say IIHS, or some University to conduct tests measuring degree of distraction by different types.
Landing and flying a modern passenger plane takes less input from the pilot than your average drive. Planes can pretty much take off, fly, and land themselves - well, almost. It's when an emergency situation comes up that the pilot really has to strut his stuff - like the East River landing.
Is that justice?
While you left out the cause of the crash, I assume you are implying it was a phone related issue. Do you have any evidence it would've been any different if there was no phone involved? Was the person a good driver?
Is it REALLY NECESSARY to yak and drive a 2-ton lethal weapon at the same time?
Is it necessary to pass an unenforceable law to offset a lack of personal responsibility?
Ideally, one should not be obliged by law to be in danger and put their families in danger while on public property (highways). I agree with you that one cannot stop at just banning phones/texting. I am a sort of "traffic libertarian" and oppose the seatbelt legislation, but I would love to see outlawed, in addition to cell phones, also eating/drinking, reading/writing, makeup, loud music, video, drivers younger that 18 and elderly/incapacitated beyond some limits, unrestrained pets, dancing, sex while driving, you name it. This is not a realistic expectation, though.
There is something about an electronic device. I don't understand how one can equate eating a cookie with yapping on a cell phone. I would like to see a study that equates a cookie eater with a drunk driver.
The answer is yes just for the reason stated. As far as enforceability goes, that should never be a criteria, because then we would repeal almost every law in the books.
Right and what is different about these two activities?
Next would be talking on phone.
In a rank order, perhaps, but I don't even agree with that. Opening a CD case, reaching for something on the passenger seat or floor, etc all require a hand off the wheel (at least one) and an extended glance away from the road. Even if in rank order format, visual manual tasks like texting are an 8 and a hands free integrated phone systems are like a 2. Tuning the radio is a 1.
Would be interesting to have some entity, say IIHS, or some University to conduct tests measuring degree of distraction by different types.
Virginia Tech and Iowa have both done research on the topic of ranking distraction. I think SAVE-IT included some research by University of Michigan. I will try to find and post the reports.
Now we are into some meat, let's try and see what our opinions are regarding every conceivable non-driving activity a driver could possibly engage in. Agreed about tuning the radio, even when having to reach for the controls. Opening a cd case, reaching, all at the bottom of the list of best of the worse things. Same for eating and swilling -- bottom of the list. As long as I can keep my eye, attention, and one hand on the road there is no issue. (Most people who drive a stick, routinely only drive with one hand anyway) Obviously napping is a 10, with texting a 9.
While entertaining to exchange opinions and remind me while I am glad the government doesn't spend a lot of time listening to its constituents, there is a lot of data on rank order distractions, and there is data on the magnitude associated with each.
Which is why yapping and texting have been getting some attention lately. I personally don't know of any study ranking driver inattentive behaviors, but I am not really plugged in, all I have is a bunch of common sense. It's a no brainer that driving with both hands on the wheel, focused on the task at hand is the safest of all possible scenarios. Anything else has some risk associated with it. The risk goes from same as driving with both hands on the wheel/miniscule to certainty of issue.
I can pretty much list the risk in some order based on how a good driver would deal with having to momentarily focus on something not road related. All of driving is reading the road, conditions and traffic. People do get into crashes not of their own fault, as being rear-end, but a lot of people don't understand what it takes to drive a car, ie texting. Which is the reason laws are needed.
Common sense is remarkably uncommon, that is what got me through graduate school and keeps me employed.
It's a no brainer that driving with both hands on the wheel, focused on the task at hand is the safest of all possible scenarios. Anything else has some risk associated with it.
Eh, that's what is kind of tricky. In very low workload situations (I94 from Ann Arbor to Jackson, or Ann Arbor to maybe Dearborn) is such a low workload road, it invokes a sleep response. People become inattentive. This may also be a risk as more driver assistance features are introduced. Basically, the driver gets bored and stops paying attention. This is more common than one would expect.
I would agree that being focused on a task is good, but even in "baseline" driving, that isn't as likely to happen (and has some risk).
I can pretty much list the risk in some order based on how a good driver would deal with having to momentarily focus on something not road related.
I agree, and while I might nit-pick the order, most people have a pretty good idea of their personal risk assessment and keep it in mind while driving.
People do get into crashes not of their own fault, as being rear-end, but a lot of people don't understand what it takes to drive a car, ie texting.
I think there are some overlapping concerns here. Not to pick on younger drivers, but, eh, I am going to pick on younger drivers. Old farts that have been driving for many years have a very established scanning behavior (which you elude to in your comment "All of driving is reading the road, conditions and traffic. " and its almost impossible to get them to look away from the road for any length of time, even in the simulator. Younger drivers (15-20 or so) don't have that scanning behavior yet, so there is no "uh-oh" feeling if htey have been looking away from the road too long. This creates a lot of eyes off road time, which is a bad thing. They are also, by way of being teenagers, less risk adverse than the older folks and more willing to take on risks that other drivers wouldn't.
The middle group (maybe 30-50 or 55 y/o) are still another topic.
That is personal responsbility. I'm not saying don't make a phone call, but for cryin' out loud, move to the right lane with the other idjots. (If you're on a single lane road,step away from the phone, food, coffee or whatever and drive the car). Since you don't have a sense of personal responsibility I want law enforcement to ding you until you get the message. When you get behind the wheel of a car you need to drive...not set your cruise control at 50, text, reply to emails, yap and hope for the best.
That was the stupidest publication. So, we are in for unrestricted driving, no license needed? Probably yes, sooner or later, unfortunately, but we have to try to resist by all means. If lawyers put forward a new interpretation of inalienable rights, it doesn't mean this is right just because they are legal professionals, and that we all have to shut up. Somebody nudged them to that interpretation, so let's force them in the opposite direction.
They say, people are free to travel on the public property? OK, but then they ought not to be a public menace, in particular, bearing dangerous weapons. A vehicle operated without due skills, tested and certified, is such a weapon. Other people also have rights while at the public property, we all know, and their right is to be reasonably safe.
Would this new understanding apply to all kinds of public property, let say, airports and their premises? Why is that, we sacrifice our rights in favor of common sense on a daily basis in dozens and dozens of situations, but driving is often regarded on par with enjoying yourself in your living room?
Seems like another waste of already-scarce publicly funded resources more than anything else.
I think any claim that people think they have a right to yap and drive is a red herring.
I bet my mother's 4cyl Camry takes a lot less inputs to move around than any plane.
I just can't see how outlawing one distraction is going to change anything. The laws will end up being toothless and difficult to enforce. People will continue to yap away. Making yapping illegal isn't going to suddenly give us European-style driving awareness.
Baloney.
- Sure it can't, and it doesn't. That was my point, why casualties don't drop much. Natural selection - yes, right, let it work its way, I support, as long as the stupid is the only victim, like in the seatbelt or helmet cases. Someone told, taxpayers pick up the tab of their life support anyway - well, yes, but in the ideal worls this shouldn't happen.
"Making yapping illegal isn't going to suddenly give us European-style driving awareness."
- And you are right again. I agree with you about broad education. But laws are a part of this education, and just proselytizing without banning the most egregious practices is sending a mixed if not encouraging message. Like illegal immigration. I also agree that without enforcement the result may be even worse. Should we just give up then?
On a different note, of all the news I ever read about accidents involving texting, GPSing etc, the worst accidents happened guess where? In Europe.
Maybe you can rethink that. Have laws about open containers of liquor, beer in cars been effective? Is there any driver that is not aware of this law? That specific law was needed and very effective in curbing to large degree drunken driving. Just think if total ban on driver using cell phone were US overall enacted and the attendant publicity. Everybody would be aware and then drivers would consider very carefully if they wanted to make a "stupid" "urge" cell call to someone on a nonsense matter that could have waited until they got home or got to the office.
It boils down to lack of time management of drivers' lives and selfishness of drivers who have urge to make calls that could otherwise be made while car is safely parked.
The issue here is that the people that don't buckle up have a different risk tolerance than most of the rest of the people. Drunk drivers are more willing to create risk than others. People who speculate on stocks are more willing to accept risk than others.
This risk tolerance and acceptance is the key issue.
Ban phones and nothing else, and see what it does. I will wager the impact will be nominal, especially over time.
:P
In my recent few weeks on the road in Europe, I spotted exactly one yapper - to use the phone while driving is a bit of a social faux-pas, like how they view camping out in the left lane. Cars there are also allowed in-motion GPS inputs. I saw driving awareness that made me depressed when I got home. I will take drivers there compared to here any day.
Cell phone laws have to have the same "teeth" as you put it. The laws do allow some liency with BAC and should allow some liency with yappers. The laws also allow liency if a driver should cause a fatality through an act of nature.
There is no black and white on any issue, but targeting yappers sure is a good place to start.
Drunk drivers need to be held to a higher level of accountability, IMO, as do distracted drivers in general who now don't answer to anything. Of course all laws should have some window of leniency as every 'lawbreaker' isn't a real criminal.
This thread is wearing me out...I will stop fueling the fire and let everyone else discuss it for awhile from now on
1. nothing happens
2. gets a horn blast or worse,
3. gets into, or causes a car crash and/or fatality.
If 1 and 2 occur it's a momentary blip and everyone goes on their way.
I contrast this to a yapper. texter, or laptop user who:
1. weaves in and out of the lane due to
a. lack of concentration
b. lack of eyes on road
c. both of the above
2. slows up and down
3. hits the brakes at the last second
This type of driver is insidious, the weaver doesn't get into an accident because other sane drivers have their backs. Sometimes two yappers get into a car crash because neither is watching. A yappers phone conversation goes on for much longer than an average driver distraction lasts.
Either way yappers, texters and cell phone users are bad news and should be dealt with thusly.