Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
On the other hand I've had many stores give the telephone priority over my service and my order. I think I'l use the same philosophy from now on.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Maybe the problem will resolve itself in a few generations according to Darwin's theory.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I suspect that it just feels good to do something, even if that "something" is ineffective.
Going back to the 130 millisecond thing, if you do the math, then it puts things in perspective. If a driver with a phone has delayed reaction time of 130 ms, then that amounts to about 14 feet traveled -- less than one car length (using a Honda Accord to define a car length) -- at 75 mph. At 25 mph, it would be less than five feet.
Among all of the problems facing drivers on the road, such a minor loss of reaction time wouldn't strike me as being such a grave compromise to safety. The fact that the accident rates keep falling tells me that these phones make little or no difference in causing us to crash.
There are a whole host of things that could be blamed for adding a whole lot more than 130 milliseconds of delayed reaction time, yet the phone has become a more convenient culprit. I'd bet that crying babies, squabbling kids, dropped cigarettes and spilt coffee cause more problems than would someone making a hands-free call.
Whether or not a person should be talking on a cell phone has nothing to do with whether it is required. If we were only allowed to indulge in necessary behavior it would be a pretty spartan lifestyle. These examples being given are meant to show that it is possible to talk and drive at the same time and still be safe. I'll give a couple more examples. Taxi drivers and delivery drivers (UPS, FedEx, etc). These people are constantly on the radio with dispatchers. And their conversations typical involve anwering questions. It seems to me this would be more distracting because there's more thought involved. Does any data exist that indicates taxi drivers get in a disproportionately high number of accidents?
Should laws be based on what the least competent is capable of?
And if you look at stopping distances for different vehicles they vary by a lot more than 14 feet. So you are free to choose a vehicle that can't stop as quickly but you shouldn't be allowed to engage in an activity that would have the same result. SUVs and trucks typically have longer braking distances. But at least you have more mass in these vehicles so your inability to stop will primarily be bad news for the other guy.
Among all of the problems facing drivers on the road, such a minor loss of reaction time wouldn't strike me as being such a grave compromise to safety.
Loss of reaction time should not be considered a “minor” matter. Think that too many drivers using cell phones have a flippant, or “so what”, attitude about using it and are unaware of the impairment it brings to their driving ability.
Wasn’t 130 ms the “average” reaction time? So, there are better and worse reaction times in the distribution of the data with corresponding increases in feet traveled for the worse performers.
At 75 mph, 14 feet just might be the difference between avoiding an accident and being involved in one.
Also, five feet delay in reaction time (more for worse performers) can mean the difference between life and death. There could be many examples. Here is one: news reports from time to time will have a story of a child darting between parked vehicles on a city street into the path of a moving vehicle and being severely injured or killed. A driver on a cell phone going 25 mph will increase his possibilities of hitting darting children on city streets because of increased reaction time. Was that cell phone call more important than a child’s life?
Could see possibilities for tv ads from MADD equivalents highlighting these impairment dangers. Maybe they could pressure cell phone service providers, perhaps with help from legislatures, to also include safety when they are doing “Can you hear Me” and slapping gunslinger tv commercials.
I have been in a few accidents the last six years (all very low speed ones where I was rear ended resulting in no real damage or injuries). All but one of them the culprit was the kids in the back seat.
We need to outlaw kids riding in cars!!!!!!!!!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
How about passengers talking to/at drivers? Making talking illegal might be a good idea for those situations where husband usually drives and wife is passenger. I think this law would be welcomed. Husband could rightfully tell his wife to shut up. He is just trying to obey the law.
In the last 25 years, many things have been improved in vehicles to make them safer to operate and safer if they are in a crash. At least two inventions have made vehicles less safe if not used responsibly: cell phones, Navi. We can hope that there will not be future inventions that will distract the driver and impair his driving abilities.
Think that it is in the public interest for vehicle manufacturers to continually work to improve vehicle operation and safety. The Navi (embedded in car) should be fixed by mfrs to only operate when vehicle is in Park (AT) or otherwise stopped. A foolproof invention is needed to prevent a driver from using the cell phone while moving.
You are on to something. I would guess that most husbands and fathers (usual drivers) would welcome this. There is plenty of time for dad to communicate at home or at a destination. No need to do it in a vehicle. Let the mother talk freely to the kids in the vehicle. Dad should have his quiet time to concentrate on driving and of course abstain from cell phone use.
I would add iPods to that also. I see folks scrolling through the list of music while cruising down the highway. I would have to have my reading glasses to read that little screen. There are just too many distractions. The more we eliminate the better off we all will be. I like my XM with steering wheel controls. I used to fumble for a CD now and then, which is another big distraction.
That was exactly my point before. The fact that the variance is so wide should tell you that there is something more to this than the phones themselves.
If the phone was the essential problem, then you'd expect that the variance would be pretty narrow. In that case, since the phone creates a predictable, negative result, we can expect that everyone is affected in similar ways.
But that isn't the case at all, the variance is actually quite wide. So why is there so much dispersion among the results of various users?
I'd guess that's because it isn't really about the phones at all. Some drivers can handle them, others can't. And who would you think can't handle them?
I hate anecdotes used as evidence, but I'll offer an example: Yesterday, I'm driving along through a business district at a relatively good clip, when some yahoo decides that he'll get to where he's going that much faster by tailgating me. He happens to be talking on the phone while he's doing this.
Now, let's suppose that something had happened and he had rear-ended me. If the police came to take a report, I suppose that I would point out that he was on the phone (every chance I have to blame the other guy helps to keep me from being held liable), and he might even blame the phone himself in order to try avoid admitting that he was tailgating me.
Now I'm sure that in this hypothetical wreck, the cop would have noted the phone usage in his report, and NHTSA would include it in its phone-contributing-to-accident statistic. Yet in this example, was it really the phone that was the problem? No, not really, the essential issue is that he was tailgating me, most likely because he was in a hurry. The real cause of that accident would have been his attitude, i.e. that his busy schedule and important life make it necessary to drive too closely behind other drivers. Not the size of his car, not the size of his latte, and not the use of the phone. The best way to deal with such a person is not to take away my phone, but to enforce the laws against tailgating and to educate drivers about the problems of tailgating in order to get the guy a message.
Perhaps what would help matters if people who caused accidents, including fender benders, were made to pay high fines and perform community service for having caused their accidents. As it stands now, people can tweak a bumper here and take out a quarter panel there, and not much happens to them. Why aren't we going after them, instead of the majority who are not a problem?
If he was not using the cell phone he would have an additional few MS in which to react to your sudden stop. I don't find it hard to believe that cell phone usage is a major cause of accidents. We take two steps forward with safety devices then negate their usefulness by adding another distraction.
That wouldn't matter. By definition, "tailgating" means that you leave insufficient braking distance between yourself and the car ahead of you. He wouldn't have been able to stop, no matter what.
The solution here is to not tailgate. Again, ask yourself: Why was this guy tailgating? Can you really blame Cingular or Verizon for his driving style?
Yet in this example, was it really the phone that was the problem? No, not really, the essential issue is that he was tailgating me, most likely because he was in a hurry.
Yes, really. The phone was the problem.
I know that 2 wrongs (tailgating and driving using cell) don't make a right.
The tailgater was probably to the right of the distribution on reaction time data and was impaired longer than the average driver. If you were going 50 mph, maybe he travelled an extra 15 ft before he reacted. If he had not been on the phone, he would have had that extra 15 feet margin and he could have avoided hitting you.
Besides, why are you skirting the fact that he was tailgating? And why are you unwilling to address his behavior, the very behavior that causes the accidents that you want to avoid?
Fining me for having a phone isn't going to make that guy drive any better. It might make you feel better, but it won't take away his center-of-the-universe attitude that put his front grille so close to my rear bumper.
But, you are already programmed for these procedures. You have done it thousands of times and your brain already knows how to process each step. No new challenges for thought processing.
For two of them, yes, but every merge is different, so I *am* adding a thought-provoking task to the process.
But my point is, while a call (in your example) might come from a building contractor regarding a few recent issues on my house, it might also very well come from my daughter just letting me know that she's come home from school. I get that call every day, and it doesn't require any "thought" by me. Should I be banned from taking that phone call because someone believes I can't discern between the distraction that that call might cause vs the one from a building contractor?
The assumption is that I wouldn't have the good sense to ignore those calls which would cause me to perform brain-engaging multi-tasking, versus taking the ones that likely wouldn't.
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
No the phone wasn't the problem, the problem was he was following to close. If he was following at a proper distance it wouldn't matter if it took him a few microseconds to react. You are blaming the cell phone instead of the real problem.
If you were going 50 mph, maybe he travelled an extra 15 ft before he reacted.
Maybe he didn't travel any further before he reacted and the extra 0 feet wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other. Also note that at 50 MPH if stopping 15 feet sooner keeps you from hitting the car in front of you then you really were driving to close.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
This is slightly off topic but SAE J2364 & J2365 address nav systems and what is called the 15 second rule. If a task (such as destination entry) takes more than 15 seconds, it shouldn't be allowed while the vehicle is underway. Most OEMs and some aftermarket units (if properly installed) are following this guideline.
Quick things like changing a map or POI selection are still allowed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't think the cell phone in and of itself is the problem. It is the nut using it. As you pointed out he was tailgating. He could have been speeding or running a stop sign. He was distracted. That adds to the time he needs to correct for his illegal actions. No one is saying this person showed common sense.
Let me ask you this. Wouldn't you say it shows good common sense to wear your seatbelt? Why do we have a law that will fine you for not wearing it then? That is not a distraction like driving while carrying on a cell conversation.
From what I gather the pro cell phone people want to ignore all the studies that show that it is a distraction and has caused death on our streets. I imagine the only thing that would change your minds would be having someone near to you killed or maimed by some yokel driving while talking on his cell phone. Losing someone to a drunk driver has that affect also.
Agreed. He was wrong on two counts - tailgating and using a cell phone. But, he would have not hit you if he were not talking on the cell phone.
The practice of tailgating can be accomplished without crashes, but it requires intense concentration including looking well ahead of the vehicle you are tailgating, glancing at your mirror, etc. In a way, it is the civilian equivalent of a race car driver driving at "ten-tenths" at a race track. The driver needs to focus all of his thought at driving and competitors' nearby positions and eliminate or not have any distractions.
Conversely from what I gather the anti cell phone people went to ignore all the facts that point to the fact that its not any more a distraction than any other distraction that drivers face all the time.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You cannot honestly make that statement. There would be no guarantee that an accident like that would have been avoided if they were not on a cell phone.
The practice of tailgating can be accomplished without crashes,
Yeah only if the person your tailgating doesn't stop to fast. In any tailgating act an emergency braking of the person being tailgated will almost always result in some type of contact.
In a way, it is the civilian equivalent of a race car driver driving at "ten-tenths" at a race track
Except that that in race car driving there are rarely any routine stops, no cross traffic, no stop lights and so on and so forth.
Gee I really can't believe that someone is actually defending tailgating in an attempt to blame cell phones. :confuse:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But, how many drivers using cell phones apply some sort of discipline to calls. This is not known.
The best discipline would have every driver stop the vehicle in a safe place to make/receive calls.
I suppose the next best would be to only make/receive short calls while driving, such as: "Meagan, I will be 30 minutes late coming home, good bye", "Mommy, I am home now and everything is fine, good bye", "This is Jack Smith regarding my 8 am appointment. I am running late and will be 5 minutes late, good bye.", "Hello. Oh, Hi Mr Contractor. You have a number of issues to discuss? I will call you back within 10 minutes after I pull over. Good bye."
How many people follow a good safe discipline?
Maybe cell phone service providers should include safety in their tv commercials to say that one should safely park their vehicles when making/receiving calls.
Anecdotal: I watched a lady in her minivan sit for several seconds while talking on the phone to her ear. She had the telephone stare in her eyes. Finally she realized it was her turn to "go" at the 4-way stop signs. This is in evening goin' home traffic 1/2 mile from an exit and a Walmart store. She's not the sole example I've seen.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Now if we could just get the Cops out of the donut shop long enough to nail a few offenders.
But, you are already programmed for these procedures. You have done it thousands of times and your brain already knows how to process each step. No new challenges for thought processing.
For two of them, yes, but every merge is different, so I *am* adding a thought-provoking task to the process.
I completely agree, but merging is the primary task. The other two are pre-existing well established programs driving ballistic movements, so that is not multi-tasking.
Neither is walking and chewing gum because walking is a pre-existing well established program, although chewing might be modified depending on how big and what type of gum. Rubbing your head and patting your tummy is multi-tasking, albut in the same modality. Where was I going with this?
Ah yes...vehicle control changes and merging is not multi-tasking.
With respect to the phone call, I do think there are times where its safe to use the cell phone, would you want to use it while shifting and merging even for just a "quick call?" Would you want the guy next to you doing that?
Imagine the chaos/hazard created if everyone you now saw on a cell phone while driving was pulling off the road to take the calls. On the interstate, you're creating a whole new problem when drivers are on the shoulder talking, then have to merge back into traffic flow from a standing start, at zero MPH.
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
This is already covered by law. Interstates have signs that say, "No stopping except for emergency". Think that cops would interpret that to mean you are having vehicle/engine trouble and cannot safely proceed or you are having a medical emergency such as severe chest pain or you are at/near an accident that just happened and want to report it. These are some of legitimate reasons to stop on shoulder of interstate to make cell call.
Any other calls should be made before getting on the interstate or get off at the next interchange and find a safe spot to call/receive a call.
Seems that many people are trying to do time management of their lives at the general public's expense, whether they make calls on the road, restaurant, train, whatever. What did we all do, those old enough, before cell phones came along. Somehow we managed our affairs better, making calls as necessary from home, business, friend, store, etc. When absolutely necessary, we found a phone booth (hopefully not too dirty).
Anecdotal: I was in rush hour traffic one day on I-55 headed towards the City of Chicago. The car in front of me the driver was distracted. In this stop and go traffic this driver made several panic stops. What was his (or hers) distraction? the passenger in the car who the driver kept looking at. I am surprised that they didn't rear end the car in front of them.
I was also in the same circumstance at a red light not to long ago where the driver stayed stopped at a green light until I tooted my horn. Their distraction? The person in the passenger seat who s/he was talking to and not paying attention.
There is only one solution Ban passengers in cars!!!!!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So if I'm driving down an interstate and I have to pull off the road to find a phone booth to make a call that would represent managing my affairs better? I disagree.
I see both sides of this. Tailgating is a very common thing, yet most people don't get in an accident. I'm not joking when I say that when it is rush hour and traffic is going 65 MPH, almost everyone is drafting each other. Now, someone in front makes a sudden stop and the people behind don't automatically crash because they were tailgating, but if they are on a cell phone, then the cell phone is compounding the problem. The tailgating and the cell phone use are contributing factors in an accident.
I wonder how many accidents are caused by a single thing. Around here, when we have an accident, before any details are released, everyone cries out about the "speeding" problem. If someone is going 65 MPH (in a 55) and another car turns out in front causing an accident, it's "speeding" that is at fault.
Now on the other hand, I see idiots on cell phones every day. Two just this morning: One was a businesswoman in a Mercedes looking (yes, looking at her phone, probably reading news or something) and as we came up on a tow truck, she slowed to 10 under the speed limit. We were in the left lane and the tow truck was off of the road. I honked as I passed, but it didn't faze her. The second was a 20 something woman in a Acura coupe yapping on the phone, going 45 MPH merging onto a 65 MPH highway. She got into the right lane no problem. I was in the next lane over going 75 MPH and I wanted in the lane she was in. There was a huge and I mean *huge* gap in front of her, so I continued at my speed. Sure enough, when I'm about 1 second or less behind her, she cuts into my lane, no turn signal, as if I wasn't even there.
The point is, the cell phone can very well be the cause of an accident as well as a contributing factor in the accident. I think a perfect solution would be to require extra testing and a sticker on your license plate certifying that you can drive on the phone.
By pch101: Again, tailgating means that you have insufficient braking distance. He could have been Mario Andretti, with both hands on the wheel, and he still couldn't have stopped.
Not true. People around here tailgate as a matter of course. Yet, there aren't cars lining the freeway or streets from rear-end accidents. When a driver is focused on the task, they can anticipate road conditions and slow in time. Heck, I've even been cut off by people, to where I am literally feet from their bumper and then they slam on their brakes for no reason. I didn't crash into them.
That is a big part of graduated licensing programs. New drivers cannot have passengers in the vehicle (there are exceptions for family memebers in most states).
The argument isn't that some people are idiots, I think you will have no trouble convincing people of that. The issue isn't how to ban cell phones either. The issue is how to moderate cell phone user so that it becomes an acceptable risk.
Enforcement is a deterent. You stop at a red light becuase you see the societal benefit. There are very few places (even with red light camaras) where you will be given a ticket for running a red light (unless the police are sitting right there). So by your logic, the law saying stop at red lights is hard to enforce so we should do away with it, correct?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Same with cell phone distraction then, so its settled, the law would be fine.
"I think a perfect solution would be to require extra testing and a sticker on your license plate certifying that you can drive on the phone."
I think it would make enforcement too difficult, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing this. Also, drivers with the sticker would have to retest on the street at every renewal.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If people ran red lights enough that we could actually gather meaningful statistics on it, I am quite sure we would find the risk of death plenty high enough to deter this behavior.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My guess is if I drive home everyday running every redlight my chances of making it home in one piece is one in a million. If I drive home everyday talking on the cell phone I guess my chances of making it home in one piece is 999,999 in a million.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"I think a perfect solution would be to require extra testing and a sticker on your license plate certifying that you can drive on the phone."
I think it would make enforcement too difficult, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing this. Also, drivers with the sticker would have to retest on the street at every renewal.
How exactly are you going to test the cognitive ability to do two things at once? Would you also pay for the associated insurance hike?
That still sounds like cell phone users being singled out...it might be better return on investment to have special testing for any vehicle with a GVWR over 6000 lbs.
My guess is if I drive home everyday running every red light my chances of making it home in one piece is one in a million. If I drive home everyday talking on the cell phone I guess my chances of making it home in one piece is 999,999 in a million.
Snakeweasel...
As much as I care about my fellow man and I see the world as a brotherhood, I really couldn't give a rats bottom about you making it home safely while talking on your cell phone. I care about you not plowing into my wife and kids while talking on your cell phone.
Again, I also noticed a total lack of any statistical relevance to your argument. I have faith in the big man, but the rest need data.
Well if I do make it home safely I haven't plowed into your wife and kids now have I?
Again, I also noticed a total lack of any statistical relevance to your argument.
relevance is that someone equated running red lights is as dangerous as using a cell phone. I seriously question the validity of that argument. If it were true our highways would be red with blood. Fact of the matter is that every day many people use their phones in their car and the vast majority do so without impairing their ability to drive.
But to listen to some people here the morgue in every city is over flowing with the bodies of those unfortunate enough to be within sight of a cell phone using driver.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D