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
I couldn't agree more--smoking REQUIRES zero brain processing. But I guess that's a new thread entirely...
Alaska considers ban on drivers' cell phones (Anchorage Daily News)
"National cell phone- specific accident data is unavailable, though the ratio of "distracted drivers" in fatal crashes is on the rise, from 8 percent in 2004 to 11 percent in 2008, according to data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."
So here is the question...again. If all of the fatalties and car crashes due to alcohol, drug user, acts of nature, miedical emergencies, not at fault, mechanical failures...etc are removed what is left? All fatalties and car crashes that really don't have a cause, which the driver has caused. All of these are some sort of driver error whether due to distraction or stupid/aggressive driving, right? That is probably a huge number, that would be interesting to some day understand how they were really caused.
Maybe economic incentive, or non-incentive, will cause people to change their behavior while driving cars. Question will be: How many people willing to pay five dollars per minute for chatting? 911 calls, calls to police/fire would be exempt.
With this method, people concerned about losing their so-called liberties to do whatever they want in their moving vehicle would be satisfied.
Your analogy about using Skype is kind of like the administratration of medical marijuana. You can't drive while under the influence of medical marijuana. The fact it is legal, doesn't make it any less potentially deadly.
Except for the bus driver texting.
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.
So then you would support the banning of billboards, eating and drinking in the car, GPS where a map is visible, and having passengers who might distract you, correct? Certainly those could all be distractions that make you a greater threat to others.
I could make the argument that in the case where a driver is sleepy, having a discussion with somebody would *enhance* safety by keeping the driver stimulated.
Ever hear of clearwire? How would that be dealt with?
The idea is fatally flawed, it has no provision for users who are not operating a vehicle.
To Fintail: you commented at some point that the danger of the sense of entitledness is a red herring. It is, clearly, not.
I've already used 3G internet while tooling the highway, my laptop on the passenger seat, while eating a messy sandwich, while shaving and reading the paper. There was no issue whatsoever.
Cell Phone Use May Fight Alzheimer's (Wired)
The source is irrelevant.
Whether one has wireless or not is irrelevant, which is why I was suprised to that it was even mentioned.
And now we hear again that who are we to complain about yapping/texting unless accident happens, because it is a) a right, b) not worse than eating/GPSing/chatting, which are also inalienable rights. Sorry, there is no right for a driver to eat while moving, to GPS or to chat with a passenger in detriment to driving. If it is not easily enforceable, it doesn't mean it is your right, and this must be a central point of any education/training.
Right on, great point. Look at the largest embezzlement in history. The SEC had years to enforce its rules. Enforceability should never be a consideration for accountability through passage of criminal and civil code legistlation. The slippery slope is any law not really enforceable should be pulled from the books, civil as well as criminal laws.
I simply want all distracted driving to be fought.
As to the core essence of this discussion, my feeling is that we do need, as you say, "all distracted driving to be fought". At the same time, banning cell phones outright (and treating violators at least on par with DUIers) would be a nice start in this direction.
You're referring to IEEE 802-11b,g, and n, right? Well, technically those are not wireless internet standards, but standards for wireless networking. The wireless network, or a wired network, can carry many other services than the internet.
I know, hear that all the time. These folks act like their fighter jet jocks or something. Truth of the matter is, most people's perception of their multitasking ability far exceeds their actual talent.
Yes, I know there are federal regulations - promulgated by the cell phone industry - that makes such jammers illegal in most cases. But that could be dealt with legislatively.
1. Absolutely. But even if they were real multitaskers, still texting while driving is a criminal behavior.
2. Most people's perception of their driving ability far exceeds their actual talent too.
Also, good idea in a later post to incorporate circuit/chip with "Drive" part of auto transmission to block cell calls. Of course, 911, would still have to be allowed.
Would also need to adapt to manual transmission cars.
On this thing about do not make a law if you cannot enforce. Would be interesting to get history on thinking behind "open liquor" laws in vehicles. Did drivers back in the day, before laws, have open wine bottles, open beer bottles and drink "while" driving? Did they think that the government was "intruding" in their lives, their personal liberties to deny them to drink "One" cold beer while driving on a hot day, and, in the age before air conditioning in cars?
On related issue, heard this morning that Obama Admin on subject of Gov ability to track/monitor person's cell phone movement that citizens should understand that there is "No reasonable expectation of privacy" regarding cell phone movement data. There could be something here for an Admin that likes taxes. Maybe they could impose tax per month on minutes that cell phone is "on" and "moving" whether talking or not. This is not unreasonable. Look at own phone bill and myriad of taxes.
Yes, they did. In fact, IIRC, it's only been recently the one of the Western states, Montana or Wyoming maybe, was forced to pass an open container law by the feds, in order to continue receiving federal highway monies. The argument against that was the same as the one you were alluding to - "Who's the gov'ment to tell me I can't have a cold one (or two, or three) on my way back from fishing".
Step 1. Ignore ever growing volume of studies which have determined that talking while driving is far more cognitively distracting than any other non-driving related activity (drinking, smoking, eating, etc.) and is the equivalent of a .08 BAC.
Step 2. Disregard all studies to the contrary but grudgingly admit that talking while driving may be distracting but no more so than any other non-driving related activity (see above list).
Step 3. Concede that talking while driving may be distracting but argue that cell phone laws are useless and unenforceable so therefore pointless.
Step 4. Concede that talking while driving may be distracting but argue that distracted driver laws already exist so any new cell phone law is unnecessary.
Step 5. Grudgingly allow new laws banning driving while talking on a hand-held cell phone (knowing full well that the act of holding the phone is a miniscule distraction compared to the conversation itself).
Step 6. Celebrate when hand-held cell phone laws fail to reduce accident rates (even though in Step 3 they argued that those laws are useless and unenforceable) and ignore probability that many effected drivers switched to hands-free devices which are no safer (see Step 1).
Step 7. Repeat steps 1-6 as often as necessary.
1 - Outlaw cell phones on the highway
2 - Remove all passenger seats from cars, so driver cannot talk to any passengers, which would be distracting
3 - Remove all non-driving related printed material from vision near roads and highways. No bulletin boards or advertising within view.
4 - Remove radio from car, which is distracting and requires tuning of stations.
I'm sure safety could be further enhanced substantially with the imposition of these important changes. The fact that only one person/vehicle also means fatalities would be much lower as the maximum number killed per vehicle per accident is 1.0. :shades:
Outstanding additions to the list! :P
I agree with the vast majority on here that using cells, eating, or any other activity that takes your attention off the road is dangerous, sometimes highly so, and should be limited. But some of the solutions being posted here are a bit draconian. The law of diminishing returns applies in this case-with each new level of restriction on things you can do while driving comes less of a reduction in crashes and fatalities. Banning texting while driving (in theory at least) will reduce crashes by a decent amount. But once you start banning eating and cell phone use, period, there will be a lesser improvement in driving safety because these things simply aren't that dangerous.
Driving is already very safe, in contrast to what the lobbies for more restrictions tell you through moving stories of deaths due to distracted driving. The question is, how much safer can we make driving? We've increased crash standards tremendously (the reason why non-hybrid gas mileage levels have stagnated for the past decade or two-safer=heavier), we've implemented harsher punishment for errant drivers (much to the delight of cash-starved municipalities), and we've mandated driver aids in cars (a contributor to higher cost and the dumbing-down of drivers). So think to yourself, will banning eating and talking on a hands-free headset REALLY make a meaningful difference in automotive safety?
I'm not trying to say it should be a free-for-all on the roads. I realize the enhanced risk induced by distracted driving, and rarely talk on my cell while in motion and only text at "fresh" red lights when I know I'll be stopped for a while. But, as the saying goes, you can't legislate common sense. The same idiots will continue to talk/text/do their hair if distracted driving gets banned, while I will sit steaming after getting a 100 dollar ticket for a short conversation on my phone. I know that safety is our top priority on the roads, but you must realize there is a point where you have to make increasingly large sacrifices for increasingly small returns.
A first? Texting while driving leads to arrest (Union Leader)
Last night a 22 year old college senior was killed in our area when she overturned her car while texting and driving at 1:37 am. She went off the road, overcorrected and was thrown from the vehicle.
Full story at: http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Deputies-Blame-Texting-for-SUNY-Geneseo-S- tudents/WwckutUWJUiLJNz7cTSixw.cspx
When traffic suddenly slowed and she rear ended the car in front of her, I was pleased to pull over and wait for the police to arrive so that I could contribute to the accident report. Fortunately, no one appeared to be hurt. Hopefully, mommy and daddy will take her keys (or her phone) for a while.
I'm glad no one was hurt, but this type of stuff is completely avoidable. Hopefully the fines and maybe insurance increase coupled with some lecturing by mom and dad, will convince at least one driver that being behind the wheel is not a part time job and appearing to pay attention to the road is not really deemed safe driving.
First off, my wife is a very good driver, defensive, considerate, all the good attributes. When we are driving together, whether she drives or I, we each as passenger recognize the road/traffic situation and alter or stop conversation accordingly. As example, if I am driving on interstate in moderate/heavy traffic and traffic moving 10-15 over, she will not say a word. If driving intersate in all rural/farm area with very light traffic, and in right lane maybe at limit or 5 over, we might talk.