It sounds like you have no problem with driving 75 in a 65, in other words, breaking the law. I do the same just like 90% of the driving public. What makes you think anyone will take a cell phone law more seriously? The last thing we need is one more unenforceable law that people will blow off.
By requiring that sticker on your license plate (maybe incorporating it into the expiration year tag?) and then they could set up big hefty fines ($300-$500) for not following it, people would start paying attention when the cops pull them over.
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.
Same way they do it in studies. Set up a test track and outfit a car with equipment to monitor the driver's attention (cameras) and then the local MVD (DMV) could measure how much you pay attention on a simulated call.
Well if I do make it home safely I haven't plowed into your wife and kids now have I?
No, but you may have run them off of the road and not even known about it.
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.
I don't know that that is true. It really depends on what you say is "impaired". If the driver even makes one unsafe move, even if it doesn't result in a crash, then their driving is impaired. Also, this study suggests that cell phone drivers are as bad as drunk drivers.
Thank you, that is the study I was looking for. I have no problem believing it is accurate.
WASHINGTON - People who talk on cell phones while driving, even using "hands-free" devices, are as impaired as drunk drivers, researchers said Thursday.
I wonder how many of these pro cell phone users would voluntarily take this test and accept the results. Not many I would bet.
Driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk," said Drews, who said alcohol was involved in 40 percent of the 42,000 annual U.S. traffic fatalities.
Just like many people who have been drinking, the cell phone users did not believe themselves to be affected, the researchers found.
Same way they do it in studies. Set up a test track and outfit a car with equipment to monitor the driver's attention (cameras) and then the local MVD (DMV) could measure how much you pay attention on a simulated call.
What happens in this simulated call? Is it the "can you pick up some bread" call or the "I have the pictures of you and the secretary" call? What type of driving is someone doing? Are they alone on a straight track with no traffic? Are they driving with curves (curves exponentially increase driver workload at onset and end)? Is the weather good? Is visibility good? Is traffic flowing or is it stop and go? The studies are pretty highly controlled, thats why so many use a simulator, its easier to control all the variables in a simulated environment.
A sticker on the license plate won't work as the plate is for the car not the driver. In other words the sticker on the plate will allow any driver that privilidge and not just the one granted it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And there was another study that showed talking to a passenger in your vehicle was as dangerous as talking on a cell phone. Therefore talking to a passenger is as dangerous as driving drunk. Unless you choose to dismiss those findings that don't support your point of view.
I'm guessing these simulated conditions required a decent amount of attention and weren't ideal for any distractions. So that would not have been a good time to be using a cell phone. What it comes down to is that some people believe in common sense and others believe in laws. The fact that they stated 40% of all fatalities are alcohol related should be a pretty clear indication of just how effective laws are.
Well I don't know what you know or don't know, but as I said many people seem to drive ok while on the phone.
Well, if you had kept reading, you would have known. :P Here, I'll rephrase it more bluntly: I don't agree with you when you say that most people's talking on the cell phone does not impair their driving. Get it now?
And there was another study that showed talking to a passenger in your vehicle was as dangerous as talking on a cell phone. Therefore talking to a passenger is as dangerous as driving drunk. Unless you choose to dismiss those findings that don't support your point of view.
Two things: Can you link to this study? Was it done before or after the one I linked to? If it was done before, then the statement of equivocation came before that of the "Cell Phone = Drunk Driver" study and then you cannot infer that talking to a passenger is as bad as driving drunk.
I'm guessing these simulated conditions required a decent amount of attention and weren't ideal for any distractions.
So what? What they were measuring is how the person on the phone reacted to their environment. Things like braking time, lane discipline, etc. That has nothing to do with how much attention the environment requires. Put it this way: If you are drunk, you are drunk, no matter how demanding the environment.
What happens in this simulated call? Is it the "can you pick up some bread" call or the "I have the pictures of you and the secretary" call? What type of driving is someone doing? Are they alone on a straight track with no traffic? Are they driving with curves (curves exponentially increase driver workload at onset and end)? Is the weather good? Is visibility good? Is traffic flowing or is it stop and go?
I don't have all of the answers and I'm not qualified to build one of these tests.
How many people do you think use their cell phones while driving? Who knows but I think that we can all agree its a lot. So in the past 10-15 years we've unleased this new threat on the highways and it hasn't registered a blip in the fatality or accident rate. I think that if we put the same number of additional drunk drivers on the road we would definitely see it reflected in the yearly stats.
Here's a link to the study I referenced. I wasn't the poster that originally supplied it. The conclusion of this report was that the greatest effects of using a cell phone is on reaction time and it was comparable to talking to a passenger. Whether or not you agree with that do you think talking to a passenger represents any level of impairment? If so then its just a matter of individual interpretation of what is and isn't acceptable.
it hasn't registered a blip in the fatality or accident rate.
Your opinion is not shared by the NHTSA. Your study is an old one dated 2004. I can tell you that cell phone use has more than doubled in that time. The fact that so many accidents are caused by cell phone users along with driving under the influence, I can see no reason to not add a specific law against such behavior. Without a law on drinking and driving there would not be grounds for citation in an accident caused by a drunk. The same goes for someone having an accident while deep in conversation on the cell phone. It would just be another accident caused by poor driving habits.
Driving while talking on the phone is an impairment. Driving while talking to the person next to you can be an impairment or an added pair of eyes on the road. I know from experience my wife makes sure I don't miss my turn when we are talking.
I would not have believed that so many car enthusiasts would be against this action taken by the CA legislature. To me it is the worst thing added to the list of distractions a driver can have.
Driving while talking on the phone is an impairment. Driving while talking to the person next to you can be an impairment or an added pair of eyes on the road. I know from experience my wife makes sure I don't miss my turn when we are talking.
Bingo! The big difference between having a passenger in the car and one on the phone is that the one in the car can recognize when something is happening and (my passengers, anyway) know when to shut up. If not, I can just ignore them until I've cleared a difficult situation. But there is something about being on a phone that people seem less inclined to ignore the other person. Like when the phone rings in a store. Most of the time the store employee will have me wait.
The conclusion of this report was that the greatest effects of using a cell phone is on reaction time and it was comparable to talking to a passenger. That report was based on data from about 20 reports, which may or may not have had protocols related to passenger converstations.
Your study is an old one dated 2004. I can tell you that cell phone use has more than doubled in that time.
Cell phone use has doubled since 2004? Really, do you have a source? Anyway, I'll go with that. Obviously there are no 2006 NHTSA stats available yet. Here's the 2005 report. Once again, I don't see any increase, with the exception of motorcyclists. Now view this in the context of cell phone usage doubling between 2004 and the present.
...the number of driving errors was highest in the cell-hpone condition. Analyzing the conversations were found that in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic and more turn taking followed those references than in cell phone conversations. The results show that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surround traffic becomes a topic of the conversation...
Therefore cell phone use is more distracting than passenger conversation within same vehicle.
So if the passenger is aware of the driving situation this extra pair of eyes can mitigate the distraction caused by the conversation. I'll buy that. That tells me you have two opposing forces at work here that essentially balance each other out. What if the passenger isn't paying attention to the surroundings? Also, an extra pair of eyes isn't the only way to mitigate danger. Allowing an extra buffer between you and other traffic and selectively choosing your situations when you use your phone are others.
As far as the second study. In this country lights don't change randomly and immediately from green to red. Anyway, it stated that cell phone users missed a signal twice as often. I've been driving for over 30 years and never missed a traffic signal. Two times zero is still zero. However, this was the second study that stated cell phone usage didn't impact lane discipline.
You have never observed taxi cab drivers? And yes those trucks are involved in accidents as well. And those have nothing to do with typical cell phone users chatting away in their cars. Why not allow watching TV, or Internet while driving. That would make life interesting too. No, there has to be limits to what is going on while driving. If it is NOT a distraction and people are not having wrecks, then I would say no problem. It has been identified as a problem however.
Laws are based on what is average, or reasonable to assume. There could be someone out there who can read a book, use and cell phone, and feed the baby in the back seat simultaneously, though it would not be all too common. :sick:
And yes, talking to someone in the car is a distraction. On that we can agree. It being as much a distraction, or an avoidable distraction, is debatable. I have seen license plate frames stating get in, sit down, shut up and hang on. Not too polite. :P
Thursday, March 16, 2006 By Peter Leo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A nation locked in its cells Cell phone users in the United States have increased from 34 million a decade ago to more than 203 million.
According to a 2004 MIT survey, the cell phone is the invention people hate the most but can't live without, beating out the alarm clock and the television.
In a 2005 University of Michigan study, 83 percent said cell phones have made life easier, choosing it over the Internet (76 percent). But an additional 60 percent said they find cell phones somewhat irritating when used in public. Sadly, the irritating cell phonies never seem to participate in this kind of survey or read articles describing how irritating they are.
In August 2004, Washington, D.C., enacted a law banning driving while holding a cell phone -- one of the first in the country. Last year, 6,018 tickets were issued to D.C. violators.
A study by the Insurance Institute said those who cell phone and drive were four times more likely to get into crashes serious enough to cause injury.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the most popular non-voice feature is text messaging, with 61 million users having tried it at least once. An additional 46 million have tried mobile gaming, followed by 33 million who take photos. People also are learning to use cell phones in a variety of ways not entirely foreseen by cell phone carriers and manufacturers.
Nice thought, getting run over by some jerk playing an online game on his cell phone. Ban them from our highways and roads.
Good point that laws are based on some kind of average. A line has to be drawn somewhere between banning radio and banning passenger not having their mouths taped shut on one hand and allowing watching TV or playing arcade games while driving cars on the other. My wife has caused me to miss many exits and turns :-) She even drove up the wrong side of the road while talking to me once. Neither of us made such follies while talking on the phone. Go figure. BTW, I never answer phone call while talking to a live person; it's just plain rude. If some two-bit sales clerk do that to me, that would be the last time I shop there and his/her boss will know that. Answering machine and voicemail box was invented for a reason.
IMHO, the time for legislating against cell phone use and enforcing such bans have passed. There may have been a time when it was possible back a decade ago. We are now rapidly approaching a point where cell phones outnumber landlines (and already the case in many parts of the world) . . . such a ban is hardly envorceable . . . at least nothing more than a device for revenue patrol like setting up unrealistic speed limits.
The study claims that there is no difference between hand-held and hands-free. (somewhat surprising, IMHO, it's like saying driving with one hand tied does not affect safety). If that's the case, then there is no fundamental difference between cellphone use and having a conversation with a passenger (okay, make that a kid in the back seat, so he/she can not help you with directions whatsoever ;-)
I'm not saying cellphone use may not be dangerous, for some motorists . . . so is conversation with passenger, listening/changing radio or CD player, not sleeping the night before, etc. etc. We live in a real world where many people put on makeups and/or shave using the vanity mirror while driving their cars . . . not to mention looking down at maps! ever since the day automobile was introduced to the public. Oh yeah, they even sell mirros that we can hang below the rear-view mirror to keep an eye on the kid in the back seat . . an eye besides the two that are supposed to be on the road I suppose :-)
No one is saying cell phone use is the only distraction while driving a car. It is probably the most visible. It has also caused many of us on this board some bit of inconvenience. Either being blocked by someone using a cellphone and not paying attention to lights or being cut off.
Those that claim it will not be effective need to look at the 6018 tickets written in DC last year. At a $100 a pop they can buy a dozen new patrol cars. In a city with financial woes like Washington DC it can be a real money maker. With the people just on this board that will defy the law they can make a killing when the law goes into affect. I would make it a $500 fine and $250 for eating a Big Mac or Krispy Kreme while driving.
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.
That's wrong. By definition, tailgating means that you have allowed for insufficient braking distance in the event of a panic stop.
The reason that tailgating doesn't always result in an accident isn't because of the people tailgating, but because the drivers in front of them don't make panic stops. When tailgaters are behind people who stop very quickly, guess what? They hit them.
In the case of the guy tailgating me, it was my driving that prevented the accident, not his. Had something caused me to lock my brakes, he and I would have been exchanging information and sharing our (different) versions of events with the local police department. The phone wouldn't have made any difference.
(Incidentally, he was one of those guys whose first reaction when I used my turn signal to indicate a lane change was to gun it before I had even completed my maneouver. I'm not going to blame the phone for making his accelerator "stick", either...)
Your opinion is not shared by the NHTSA. Your study is an old one dated 2004. I can tell you that cell phone use has more than doubled in that time.
Here's a NHTSA study of phone usage that does not support your doubling claim: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdf According to this, between 2004 and 2005, handheld use increased from 5% to 6% and headset use increased from 0.4% to 0.8%.
And you should note that the confidence level of the sample is not that high, so there is room for a high margin of error in these figures. But you can be sure that it came nowhere close to doubling within a year.
Well, inconvenience and revenue generation are two different subjects from what the official reason that we are discussing this issue altogether (although they are probably the real motivations of some of the supporters of the legislations). If I could get my wish, I wish everyone else, aside from those working for me, stay off road when I drive, so nobody blocks my way :-)
IIRC, the DC law only fines hand-held phone use. According to the study you mentioned earlier, there is no difference between hand-held vs. hands-free. So it's just another regulation designed for revenue generation, targetting the poor and/or the lazy . . . like lottery and sin tax. You know as well as I do how realistic it is to enforce a $250 fine for eating Big Mac while driving . . . with all the convenience of drive-through :-) As for KrispyKreame, hmm, if we can yank the license of cops for that, there would be less revenue officers :-)
I agree completely. The only justification is revenue generation. Now if they can show a decline in accidents then they can make a case for how this law has made roads safer. I'm guessing that there will be no such decline. Will they choose to repeal the law? Absolutely not. It is bringing in revenue so that they can pay for more cops to go out there and bring in even more revenue.
DC is also big on red light cameras. You'd think that they would have some of the safest roads in the country with these aggresive policies. Funny thing is they don't.
The study claims that there is no difference between hand-held and hands-free. (somewhat surprising, IMHO, it's like saying driving with one hand tied does not affect safety). If that's the case, then there is no fundamental difference between cellphone use and having a conversation with a passenger (okay, make that a kid in the back seat, so he/she can not help you with directions whatsoever
One thing to keep in mind is the study didn't test DIALING the cell phone or using speed dial or what not, that is the distracting part of hand held phones. The other thing is hands free as defined by the phone company is that little thing you stick in your ear. Hands free as defined by several of the studies is an integrated hands free car kit.
I'm not saying cellphone use may not be dangerous, for some motorists . . . so is conversation with passenger Another thing to keep in mind is that in this case, the conversation is the distraction, not holding the phone. This is not the same as a conversation with a passenger because typically they help you drive. Occasionally un-requested.
listening/changing radio Takes on average less than a 2 seconds to change the station via presets and doesn't require a look away from the road in someone's own car. Considered "acceptable risk"
or CD player I concur, CDs are terrible. You can't, by design, open a case with one had so you have to have two hands off the wheel to open a jewel box to get the CD out. The guy who came up with that should get a spanking.
not sleeping the night before, etc. etc. We live in a real world where many people put on makeups and/or shave using the vanity mirror while driving their cars . . . not to mention looking down at maps! ever since the day automobile was introduced to the public. Oh yeah, they even sell mirrors that we can hang below the rear-view mirror to keep an eye on the kid in the back seat . . an eye besides the two that are supposed to be on the road I suppose Yes Yes, there are other distractions. That doesn't mean the ones that can be limited shouldn't be. Beginning drivers aren't allowed to carry passengers, kids will always be a distraction (incidentally, a "glance" to the back seat to check your kids is about 500-700 ms, not an appreciable amount of time). By your logic, since we have so many distractions already, we should put a TV in the front seat too so people could watch it while driving.
Your study is an old one dated 2004. I can tell you that cell phone use has more than doubled in that time.
If you believe that I have a wonderful deal for you, but please no checks cash only. While cell phones have increased since 2004 it has hardly doubles, the market was at or near saturation by then
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm not so sure that study accurately reflects how much help you will typically be getting from your passenger. Afterall, you have two people sitting in a simulator fully aware that they are being tested and will encounter some unexpected situations. Seems kind of artificial to me. Maybe if they blindfolded the passenger. This would also be somewhat artificial but it would give you a sense of the distraction caused by a conversation with a totally unaware passenger. Like a child or someone reading the newspaper. My guess is that most drivers that talk to their passengers don't make it a pre-requisite that the passenger attend to the road.
It really isn't a big deal to put the phone down if road conditions change to where more of your attention is now required. I've certainly done it in the past.
Here's a NHTSA study of phone usage that does not support your doubling claim
My claim had nothing to do with the use of a cell phone in a car. It had to do with minutes of use of cell phones from 2004 to 2006. I say cell phone usage overall has doubled, since the 2004 report was written.
According to the report you have hand held cell phone use while driving has gone up by 17% in one year. Hands free, which I feel is nearly as distracting, has doubled in that same year.
You can twist the facts all you want. Cell phone usage in a vehicle needs to be shut down for everyone. If you want the other distractions made illegal get a hold of your state legislator.
My guess is that most drivers that talk to their passengers don't make it a pre-requisite that the passenger attend to the road.
Remember driving with your parents in the car? They never stopped paying attention while you were driving. They didn't do it on purpose, its because it becomes a learned behavior to scan traffic and safety condition and monitor the road ahead. Its "automatic."
It really isn't a big deal to put the phone down if road conditions change to where more of your attention is now required. I've certainly done it in the past
Good, I am glad you are responsible with your cell phone use. You aren't who I am worried about.
Remember driving with your parents in the car? They never stopped paying attention while you were driving.
I remember that when I was in drivers ed and a new driver but that went by the wayside when they figured out that I wasn't going to drive into on coming traffic. I remember one day in the summer between me junior and senior years in high school me nd my dad were going someplace and I was driving. My dad made the comment on how he liked someone else driving as it lets him enjoy the scenery so much more. I don't think he was paying all that much attention to my driving at that point in time.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My claim had nothing to do with the use of a cell phone in a car. It had to do with minutes of use of cell phones from 2004 to 2006.
Then why were you claiming that NHTSA said that the usage had doubled? NHTSA is an agency that deals with traffic-related matters, so it's not going to keep data on overall cell usage.
Let's just move on from the doubling comment, since we all know now that it isn't true. The real issue is that you just don't like cell phones, period, whether inside or outside of the car. You're going to find reasons to complain about them, no matter what.
That's fine, you don't have to like the phones if you don't want to. But if you're going to criminalize peoples' usage of them, you need to have a good reason to do it. We're not supposed drag innocent people into court, and waste the time of judges and police, just because it feels good. The hurdle is supposed to be a lot higher than that.
But if you're going to criminalize peoples' usage of them, you need to have a good reason to do it.
Many good reasons have been posted. You just love your cell phone and cannot believe it is a detriment to your driving. So until you get a big fat fine for breaking the law when it goes into affect you will continue as you have in the past. Hopefully you don't have an accident and kill someone before the law goes into affect.
PS I did use my truck phone while driving at work until BP made a rule against using them while moving. Not wanting to lose my job I complied. Their reason was ONE accident in which 5 security guards were killed by a semi driver using his truck phone and losing control on the ice. Only takes one to convince some folks. Others are more dense.
Plus we were involved being the Cellular carrier. We confirmed the time of the cell call.
Since you've all been hounding me for my opinion (perhaps silently), how about making the whole process of getting a driver's license in the first place MUCH more difficult? Anyone who's experienced the exam in England will gladly tell you that most driving tests in America are a cake-walk. One almost needs professional driving instruction in order to pass the exam in England.
Kristie
I took the driving test in England in 1986 and in USA in 1998. The driving test in UK was difficult because it was done on a stick shift car where they make you park up an incline and ask you to move without rolling an inch backward. Not done here and hardly anyone comes to a test in a stick. The driving test was on a regular road rather than a closed loop in the DMV office in NJ.
BTW in UK if you had a license to drive shift you could drive an automatic but if you had one for automatic you cannot drive shift stick. Wonder if it is still on the books today? So the drivers who held licenses for automatics are the repeat failures who try and get a license for a automatic car, get more experience and road sense and then go for the shift stick test.
That's wrong. By definition, tailgating means that you have allowed for insufficient braking distance in the event of a panic stop.
The reason that tailgating doesn't always result in an accident isn't because of the people tailgating, but because the drivers in front of them don't make panic stops. When tailgaters are behind people who stop very quickly, guess what? They hit them.
I'm sorry, but you are 100% flat out wrong. If the person you are tailgating makes a panic stop, you do not automatically hit them. I know because it has happened to me. People have cut me off and then immediately panic stopped. The fact that people can see through the windshield of the car in front of them and anticipate reactions is proof that tailgating does not automatically result in an accident.
You put a good driver with low reaction times in a car with excellent braking capability and have them tailgate a two year old car that had less capability then there is a very high probability that the good driver in the fast braking car will be able to out brake the other car.
Now, if the tailgater is blindly reacting to the tail lamps of the car in front of them, then they probably will crash.
This has been a great debate so far. Even the hosts are posting and getting involved. Its been interesting to see a microcosm of public opinion on this. Other people are posting links now, searching for information beyond anecdotal input and trying to educate eachother, with a minimum of hostility. Its too bad we can't apply this to everything else in the world. :sick:
You seem to be saying that an experienced driver can safely tailgate. I personally think that defies the definition of tailgating. IMO, tailgaiting is defined by not providing sufficient stopping distance between you and the vehicle you are following. Now sufficient stopping distance may vary depending on the skill of the driver. Just as the danger of using a cell phone is driver dependent.
I'm sorry, but you are 100% flat out wrong. If the person you are tailgating makes a panic stop, you do not automatically hit them.
True and if you are tailgating someone while on a cell phone and the person you are tailgating makes a panic stop you do not automatically hit them. You cant have it both ways.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I first started driving in the early 70's. This was right about the beginning of the CB radio craze. Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I don't remember all this hand wringing going on about the dangers of talking on a CB radio. And for the most part this really was people talking just to talk. In fact, not only was it a non-issue from a safety concern our society actually celebrated the culture with movies, TV shows and songs. That was a different era where people didn't wake up in the morning and worry about all the things that might go wrong and how some piece of legislation could make them safer.
True and if you are tailgating someone while on a cell phone and the person you are tailgating makes a panic stop you do not automatically hit them. You cant have it both ways.
I never wanted it both ways. But if you are tailgating and you are on a cell phone and you hit the person in front of you, then the cell phone was a contributing factor.
You seem to be saying that an experienced driver can safely tailgate. I personally think that defies the definition of tailgating. IMO, tailgaiting is defined by not providing sufficient stopping distance between you and the vehicle you are following. Now sufficient stopping distance may vary depending on the skill of the driver. Just as the danger of using a cell phone is driver dependent.
I'm not saying that an experienced driver can safely tailgate, I'm saying an experienced driver won't automatically crash because they were tailgating.
Tailgating Safe??? How does it feel to any of you when a BIG SEMI is about two feet behind you on an Interstate at 65 miles per hour and you are already in the right hand lane.(usually a faster speed which I won't post) Do you feel "SAFE" ???!!! PLEASE...I was a police officer for over 25 years (mostly Road Patrol) and " Tailgating is NOT SAFE" no matter how fast your reaction time is!!! PERIOD!!!!! It is NOT SAFE"!!!!! For the record...neither is Cell phone USEAGE IN A VEHICLE!!! GIVE ALL THE PROS AND CONS YOU WANT...IT IS NOT SAFE!!!! I am certain their will be a SNAKEWEASEL rebuttal!!!
Yes you do want it both ways. You want to say that tailgating isn't the problem (while it is) and that cell phone use is. That when a tailgater is involved in an accident while using a cell phone it is automatically the cell phone that caused it and not the tailgating. Sorry the contributing factor was tailgating. In such a situation you cannot honestly say that the accident would not have happened if the cell phone wasn't involved.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
By requiring that sticker on your license plate (maybe incorporating it into the expiration year tag?) and then they could set up big hefty fines ($300-$500) for not following it, people would start paying attention when the cops pull them over.
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.
Same way they do it in studies. Set up a test track and outfit a car with equipment to monitor the driver's attention (cameras) and then the local MVD (DMV) could measure how much you pay attention on a simulated call.
No, but you may have run them off of the road and not even known about it.
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.
I don't know that that is true. It really depends on what you say is "impaired". If the driver even makes one unsafe move, even if it doesn't result in a crash, then their driving is impaired. Also, this study suggests that cell phone drivers are as bad as drunk drivers.
WASHINGTON - People who talk on cell phones while driving, even using "hands-free" devices, are as impaired as drunk drivers, researchers said Thursday.
I wonder how many of these pro cell phone users would voluntarily take this test and accept the results. Not many I would bet.
Driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk," said Drews, who said alcohol was involved in 40 percent of the 42,000 annual U.S. traffic fatalities.
Just like many people who have been drinking, the cell phone users did not believe themselves to be affected, the researchers found.
What happens in this simulated call? Is it the "can you pick up some bread" call or the "I have the pictures of you and the secretary" call? What type of driving is someone doing? Are they alone on a straight track with no traffic? Are they driving with curves (curves exponentially increase driver workload at onset and end)? Is the weather good? Is visibility good? Is traffic flowing or is it stop and go?
The studies are pretty highly controlled, thats why so many use a simulator, its easier to control all the variables in a simulated environment.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And of course anyone, even someone supposively paying attention can (and have) do that.
I don't know that that is true.
Well I don't know what you know or don't know, but as I said many people seem to drive ok while on the phone.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm guessing these simulated conditions required a decent amount of attention and weren't ideal for any distractions. So that would not have been a good time to be using a cell phone. What it comes down to is that some people believe in common sense and others believe in laws. The fact that they stated 40% of all fatalities are alcohol related should be a pretty clear indication of just how effective laws are.
Well, if you had kept reading, you would have known. :P Here, I'll rephrase it more bluntly: I don't agree with you when you say that most people's talking on the cell phone does not impair their driving. Get it now?
Two things: Can you link to this study? Was it done before or after the one I linked to? If it was done before, then the statement of equivocation came before that of the "Cell Phone = Drunk Driver" study and then you cannot infer that talking to a passenger is as bad as driving drunk.
I'm guessing these simulated conditions required a decent amount of attention and weren't ideal for any distractions.
So what? What they were measuring is how the person on the phone reacted to their environment. Things like braking time, lane discipline, etc. That has nothing to do with how much attention the environment requires. Put it this way: If you are drunk, you are drunk, no matter how demanding the environment.
I don't have all of the answers and I'm not qualified to build one of these tests.
Here's a link to the study I referenced. I wasn't the poster that originally supplied it. The conclusion of this report was that the greatest effects of using a cell phone is on reaction time and it was comparable to talking to a passenger. Whether or not you agree with that do you think talking to a passenger represents any level of impairment? If so then its just a matter of individual interpretation of what is and isn't acceptable.
http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/04-02.pdf
Your opinion is not shared by the NHTSA. Your study is an old one dated 2004. I can tell you that cell phone use has more than doubled in that time. The fact that so many accidents are caused by cell phone users along with driving under the influence, I can see no reason to not add a specific law against such behavior. Without a law on drinking and driving there would not be grounds for citation in an accident caused by a drunk. The same goes for someone having an accident while deep in conversation on the cell phone. It would just be another accident caused by poor driving habits.
Driving while talking on the phone is an impairment. Driving while talking to the person next to you can be an impairment or an added pair of eyes on the road. I know from experience my wife makes sure I don't miss my turn when we are talking.
I would not have believed that so many car enthusiasts would be against this action taken by the CA legislature. To me it is the worst thing added to the list of distractions a driver can have.
Bingo! The big difference between having a passenger in the car and one on the phone is that the one in the car can recognize when something is happening and (my passengers, anyway) know when to shut up. If not, I can just ignore them until I've cleared a difficult situation. But there is something about being on a phone that people seem less inclined to ignore the other person. Like when the phone rings in a store. Most of the time the store employee will have me wait.
That report was based on data from about 20 reports, which may or may not have had protocols related to passenger converstations.
Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving
Here's another one just because...
Cell Phone Induced Perceptual Impairments in Simulated Driving
Cell phone use has doubled since 2004? Really, do you have a source? Anyway, I'll go with that. Obviously there are no 2006 NHTSA stats available yet. Here's the 2005 report. Once again, I don't see any increase, with the exception of motorcyclists. Now view this in the context of cell phone usage doubling between 2004 and the present.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/ncsa/ppt/2006/810639.pdf
Therefore cell phone use is more distracting than passenger conversation within same vehicle.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As far as the second study. In this country lights don't change randomly and immediately from green to red. Anyway, it stated that cell phone users missed a signal twice as often. I've been driving for over 30 years and never missed a traffic signal. Two times zero is still zero. However, this was the second study that stated cell phone usage didn't impact lane discipline.
Laws are based on what is average, or reasonable to assume. There could be someone out there who can read a book, use and cell phone, and feed the baby in the back seat simultaneously, though it would not be all too common.
:sick:
And yes, talking to someone in the car is a distraction. On that we can agree. It being as much a distraction, or an avoidable distraction, is debatable. I have seen license plate frames stating get in, sit down, shut up and hang on. Not too polite. :P
By Peter Leo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A nation locked in its cells
Cell phone users in the United States have increased from 34 million a decade ago to more than 203 million.
According to a 2004 MIT survey, the cell phone is the invention people hate the most but can't live without, beating out the alarm clock and the television.
In a 2005 University of Michigan study, 83 percent said cell phones have made life easier, choosing it over the Internet (76 percent). But an additional 60 percent said they find cell phones somewhat irritating when used in public. Sadly, the irritating cell phonies never seem to participate in this kind of survey or read articles describing how irritating they are.
In August 2004, Washington, D.C., enacted a law banning driving while holding a cell phone -- one of the first in the country. Last year, 6,018 tickets were issued to D.C. violators.
A study by the Insurance Institute said those who cell phone and drive were four times more likely to get into crashes serious enough to cause injury.
Page 5
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the most popular non-voice feature is text messaging, with 61 million users having tried it at least once. An additional 46 million have tried mobile gaming, followed by 33 million who take photos. People also are learning to use cell phones in a variety of ways not entirely foreseen by cell phone carriers and manufacturers.
Nice thought, getting run over by some jerk playing an online game on his cell phone. Ban them from our highways and roads.
IMHO, the time for legislating against cell phone use and enforcing such bans have passed. There may have been a time when it was possible back a decade ago. We are now rapidly approaching a point where cell phones outnumber landlines (and already the case in many parts of the world) . . . such a ban is hardly envorceable . . . at least nothing more than a device for revenue patrol like setting up unrealistic speed limits.
I'm not saying cellphone use may not be dangerous, for some motorists . . . so is conversation with passenger, listening/changing radio or CD player, not sleeping the night before, etc. etc. We live in a real world where many people put on makeups and/or shave using the vanity mirror while driving their cars . . . not to mention looking down at maps! ever since the day automobile was introduced to the public. Oh yeah, they even sell mirros that we can hang below the rear-view mirror to keep an eye on the kid in the back seat . . an eye besides the two that are supposed to be on the road I suppose :-)
Those that claim it will not be effective need to look at the 6018 tickets written in DC last year. At a $100 a pop they can buy a dozen new patrol cars. In a city with financial woes like Washington DC it can be a real money maker. With the people just on this board that will defy the law they can make a killing when the law goes into affect. I would make it a $500 fine and $250 for eating a Big Mac or Krispy Kreme while driving.
Well, I didn't realize that you had a videotape of the whole thing. How would you possibly know this?
That's wrong. By definition, tailgating means that you have allowed for insufficient braking distance in the event of a panic stop.
The reason that tailgating doesn't always result in an accident isn't because of the people tailgating, but because the drivers in front of them don't make panic stops. When tailgaters are behind people who stop very quickly, guess what? They hit them.
In the case of the guy tailgating me, it was my driving that prevented the accident, not his. Had something caused me to lock my brakes, he and I would have been exchanging information and sharing our (different) versions of events with the local police department. The phone wouldn't have made any difference.
(Incidentally, he was one of those guys whose first reaction when I used my turn signal to indicate a lane change was to gun it before I had even completed my maneouver. I'm not going to blame the phone for making his accelerator "stick", either...)
Here's a NHTSA study of phone usage that does not support your doubling claim: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdf According to this, between 2004 and 2005, handheld use increased from 5% to 6% and headset use increased from 0.4% to 0.8%.
And you should note that the confidence level of the sample is not that high, so there is room for a high margin of error in these figures. But you can be sure that it came nowhere close to doubling within a year.
IIRC, the DC law only fines hand-held phone use. According to the study you mentioned earlier, there is no difference between hand-held vs. hands-free. So it's just another regulation designed for revenue generation, targetting the poor and/or the lazy . . . like lottery and sin tax. You know as well as I do how realistic it is to enforce a $250 fine for eating Big Mac while driving . . . with all the convenience of drive-through :-) As for KrispyKreame, hmm, if we can yank the license of cops for that, there would be less revenue officers :-)
DC is also big on red light cameras. You'd think that they would have some of the safest roads in the country with these aggresive policies. Funny thing is they don't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.- html
hand-held and hands-free. (somewhat surprising, IMHO, it's like saying driving with one hand tied does not affect safety). If that's the case, then there is no fundamental difference between cellphone use and having a conversation with a passenger (okay, make that a kid in the back seat, so he/she can not help you with directions whatsoever
One thing to keep in mind is the study didn't test DIALING the cell phone or using speed dial or what not, that is the distracting part of hand held phones. The other thing is hands free as defined by the phone company is that little thing you stick in your ear. Hands free as defined by several of the studies is an integrated hands free car kit.
I'm not saying cellphone use may not be dangerous, for some motorists . . . so is conversation with passenger
Another thing to keep in mind is that in this case, the conversation is the distraction, not holding the phone. This is not the same as a conversation with a passenger because typically they help you drive. Occasionally un-requested.
listening/changing radio
Takes on average less than a 2 seconds to change the station via presets and doesn't require a look away from the road in someone's own car. Considered "acceptable risk"
or CD player
I concur, CDs are terrible. You can't, by design, open a case with one had so you have to have two hands off the wheel to open a jewel box to get the CD out. The guy who came up with that should get a spanking.
not sleeping the night before, etc. etc. We live in a real world where many people put on makeups and/or shave using the vanity mirror while driving their cars . . . not to mention looking down at maps! ever since the day automobile was introduced to the public. Oh yeah, they even sell mirrors that we can hang below the rear-view mirror to keep an eye on the kid in the back seat . . an eye besides the two that are supposed to be on the road I suppose
Yes Yes, there are other distractions. That doesn't mean the ones that can be limited shouldn't be. Beginning drivers aren't allowed to carry passengers, kids will always be a distraction (incidentally, a "glance" to the back seat to check your kids is about 500-700 ms, not an appreciable amount of time). By your logic, since we have so many distractions already, we should put a TV in the front seat too so people could watch it while driving.
If you believe that I have a wonderful deal for you, but please no checks cash only. While cell phones have increased since 2004 it has hardly doubles, the market was at or near saturation by then
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You can do the exact same thing with a cell phone.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It really isn't a big deal to put the phone down if road conditions change to where more of your attention is now required. I've certainly done it in the past.
My claim had nothing to do with the use of a cell phone in a car. It had to do with minutes of use of cell phones from 2004 to 2006. I say cell phone usage overall has doubled, since the 2004 report was written.
According to the report you have hand held cell phone use while driving has gone up by 17% in one year. Hands free, which I feel is nearly as distracting, has doubled in that same year.
You can twist the facts all you want. Cell phone usage in a vehicle needs to be shut down for everyone. If you want the other distractions made illegal get a hold of your state legislator.
Remember driving with your parents in the car? They never stopped paying attention while you were driving. They didn't do it on purpose, its because it becomes a learned behavior to scan traffic and safety condition and monitor the road ahead. Its "automatic."
It really isn't a big deal to put the phone down if road conditions change to where more of your attention is now required. I've certainly done it in the past
Good, I am glad you are responsible with your cell phone use. You aren't who I am worried about.
I remember that when I was in drivers ed and a new driver but that went by the wayside when they figured out that I wasn't going to drive into on coming traffic. I remember one day in the summer between me junior and senior years in high school me nd my dad were going someplace and I was driving. My dad made the comment on how he liked someone else driving as it lets him enjoy the scenery so much more. I don't think he was paying all that much attention to my driving at that point in time.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Then why were you claiming that NHTSA said that the usage had doubled? NHTSA is an agency that deals with traffic-related matters, so it's not going to keep data on overall cell usage.
Let's just move on from the doubling comment, since we all know now that it isn't true. The real issue is that you just don't like cell phones, period, whether inside or outside of the car. You're going to find reasons to complain about them, no matter what.
That's fine, you don't have to like the phones if you don't want to. But if you're going to criminalize peoples' usage of them, you need to have a good reason to do it. We're not supposed drag innocent people into court, and waste the time of judges and police, just because it feels good. The hurdle is supposed to be a lot higher than that.
Many good reasons have been posted. You just love your cell phone and cannot believe it is a detriment to your driving. So until you get a big fat fine for breaking the law when it goes into affect you will continue as you have in the past. Hopefully you don't have an accident and kill someone before the law goes into affect.
PS
I did use my truck phone while driving at work until BP made a rule against using them while moving. Not wanting to lose my job I complied. Their reason was ONE accident in which 5 security guards were killed by a semi driver using his truck phone and losing control on the ice. Only takes one to convince some folks. Others are more dense.
Plus we were involved being the Cellular carrier. We confirmed the time of the cell call.
Kristie
I took the driving test in England in 1986 and in USA in 1998. The driving test in UK was difficult because it was done on a stick shift car where they make you park up an incline and ask you to move without rolling an inch backward. Not done here and hardly anyone comes to a test in a stick. The driving test was on a regular road rather than a closed loop in the DMV office in NJ.
BTW in UK if you had a license to drive shift you could drive an automatic but if you had one for automatic you cannot drive shift stick. Wonder if it is still on the books today? So the drivers who held licenses for automatics are the repeat failures who try and get a license for a automatic car, get more experience and road sense and then go for the shift stick test.
The reason that tailgating doesn't always result in an accident isn't because of the people tailgating, but because the drivers in front of them don't make panic stops. When tailgaters are behind people who stop very quickly, guess what? They hit them.
I'm sorry, but you are 100% flat out wrong. If the person you are tailgating makes a panic stop, you do not automatically hit them. I know because it has happened to me. People have cut me off and then immediately panic stopped. The fact that people can see through the windshield of the car in front of them and anticipate reactions is proof that tailgating does not automatically result in an accident.
You put a good driver with low reaction times in a car with excellent braking capability and have them tailgate a two year old car that had less capability then there is a very high probability that the good driver in the fast braking car will be able to out brake the other car.
Now, if the tailgater is blindly reacting to the tail lamps of the car in front of them, then they probably will crash.
What part don't you agree with?
Other people are posting links now, searching for information beyond anecdotal input and trying to educate eachother, with a minimum of hostility. Its too bad we can't apply this to everything else in the world. :sick:
True and if you are tailgating someone while on a cell phone and the person you are tailgating makes a panic stop you do not automatically hit them. You cant have it both ways.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I never wanted it both ways. But if you are tailgating and you are on a cell phone and you hit the person in front of you, then the cell phone was a contributing factor.
I'm not saying that an experienced driver can safely tailgate, I'm saying an experienced driver won't automatically crash because they were tailgating.
For the record...neither is Cell phone USEAGE IN A VEHICLE!!! GIVE ALL THE PROS AND CONS YOU WANT...IT IS NOT SAFE!!!!
I am certain their will be a SNAKEWEASEL rebuttal!!!
Yes you do want it both ways. You want to say that tailgating isn't the problem (while it is) and that cell phone use is. That when a tailgater is involved in an accident while using a cell phone it is automatically the cell phone that caused it and not the tailgating. Sorry the contributing factor was tailgating. In such a situation you cannot honestly say that the accident would not have happened if the cell phone wasn't involved.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D