I, for one, believe that most people can walk and chew gum at the same time. If someone is not capable of holding a conversation while driving, then they should not be driving.
The simple fact that you're comparing the two activities as being similar shows that you have no understanding of the cognitive processes involved.
A cell phone driver who knows that talking impairs his driving ability but chooses to use a cell phone can at least take defensive measures such as limiting calls, not taking potentially disruptive calls, not talking on the phone when traffic conditions are heavy, or moving to the slow lane when taking a call.
On the other hand, someone who is ignorant of the dangers of talking and driving will not take any of these actions, thereby risking not only their life but the lives of the innocent drivers who are unfortunate enough to share the road with them.
I sort of thought you would rationalize all things being held in your hand as being as being an equal driving distraction
Actually I do see all of them as being essentially the same and I wouldn't classify the mere fact that I'm holding something in my hand as a "driving distraction". Certrainly not having both hands on the wheel impairs one's ability to control the vehicle in emergency situations but that's not the same thing as actual driving distraction.
And again, in spite of your statement to the contrary, there have been no studies to determine whether or not a hands-free cell phone is less mentally distracting than a handheld one. In fact some have hypothesized that using a hands-free device encourages more frequent and longer calls which would make them MORE dangerous!
"In fact some have hypothesized that using a hands-free device encourages more frequent and longer calls which would make them MORE dangerous!"
And that makes the current hand held laws even more ludicris. Still we should have some ability to use the cell phone while driving. After all even on-star is a kind of cell phone. In fact with most of the new GM cars you get free on-star and cell phone for the first year.
And again, in spite of your statement to the contrary, there have been no studies to determine whether or not a hands-free cell phone is less mentally distracting than a handheld one
That is actually not true. But I have no compulsion to dig out the study. I think you and I agree at 50,000 feet.
In fact some have hypothesized that using a hands-free device encourages more frequent and longer calls which would make them MORE dangerous!
That is like saying a person who has gone through AA can have an O'Douls.
notwithstanding foreign tourists driving esp.around the disney area at 35 mph on the interstates, it is EASY to see a wandering or very -too slow driver on the roads around orlando - they almost always have a cell phone conversation to the exclusion of everything else..of course, this certainly has all causes BUT this in other areas of the country...
1. What % have accidents and injuries increased due to cell phone use 2. In areas that have banned cell phone use what % have accidents and injuries decreased?
If the position is that cell phones are a significant hazard there must be some big jumps or declines in the accident and injury rates, right?
While I might accept the fact that those on this board are probably of greater intelligence then the average person, I think it is hard to say what most other people are thinking or what rationale they follow. I can't read minds.
I also, however, except the fact that some drivers don't consider their actions while driving, no matter what they are doing.
You sir are correct. The evidence does not support that cell phone bans prevent anything. The reasons for this must be either:
A - Cell phones are not as dangerous as some people think.
B - The laws can't be be enforced, so they never have a chance to work.
Or, perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.
This brings me back to my original point....you can't single-out cell phones. Let's say there were a complete ban....if someone were to be using a blue-tooth device, how would anyone be able to know it? Technology will always be able to stay one step ahead.
The only way to impact cell phone use is either to educate people as to the risks, or allow the insurance companies to be the police. People generally seem to think with their pocket-books.....
Take a look at other offenses....lots of people avoid drinking and driving or speeding because of the impact on their insurance rates. Insurance companies live by statistics and risk management....and if there were a real link to cell phones and accidents, they would already be all over it.
If you ban cell phones, you have to ban ANY conversation held in a car or even daydreaming. After all, these are CLEARLY mental activities that draw attention away from focusing on the road.
I say let's do it. Let's get started right now.....seriously, what are we waiting for? Hundreds of people are dying every day because people are just not paying attention. I say, we need a law that could arrest anyone for not paying attention. Also, we need little buzzers that notify the State Police whenever anyone exceeds the speed limit or takes a hand off the wheel to pick their nose. These are situations which risk safety to other drivers.
Most states have a BAC limit of 0.08, yet we are banned from having a drink while driving. Can't have open liquor containers in car. Isn't that unreasonable? Can't people be trusted to drink while driving, so long as BAC does not exceed 0.08.
Why is government so oppresive with alcohol use in car. Wouldn't it be reasonable to let drivers decide if they wanted to have a cold can of beer in summer months while driving home from work? One can would be far less than 0.08. And, after all, drivers 21 and over are adult, are responsible and can weigh risk vs rewards of a cold beer while driving. These might be the same drivers that like/have to use cell phone while driving.
If beer drinking were to be allowed while driving, would expect that there would at least be a law in all states requiring that the beer drinking driver would have to use a hands-free phone while making calls. Would not want the driver to juggle a phone and can of beer.
I think the difference with alcohol is that there is a clear link between drinking and driver safety. This link is not nearly as clear with any other activity.
Secondly, I think the intention of the law is to ban drinking and driving completely, yet allow for a small amount of leeway for drivers. Quite frankly, zero tollerance is probably just not practical.
Yet, the trend has certainly been to lower these limits over time. Evidence has clearly shown two things:
1 - The issuance of drunk-driving laws have greatly impacted a reduction in alcohol related fatalities.
2 - As limits decrease, people adjust, drink less, and less people get stopped. This decreases the amount of revenue that is collected from fines which further motivates the lowering of limits.
While I have never driven drunk, I have operated a vehicle while taking cold medicine....I wonder if that is the same thing.
Let's not forget the impact that education can have on behavior modification....this is perhaps the greatest tool that society can unleash.
1. What % have accidents and injuries increased due to cell phone use 2. In areas that have banned cell phone use what % have accidents and injuries decreased?
If the position is that cell phones are a significant hazard there must be some big jumps or declines in the accident and injury rates, right?
1. You tell me. 2. You tell me.
You can probably check the nationwide statistics on FARS to get this information. Not.
Without accurate statistics there is no knowledge about the number of deaths and injuries attributable to cell phones. In addition, I submit any action taking your mind off driving for more a few blinks of the eye should be carfully scrutinzed by the driver.
I think the difference with alcohol is that there is a clear link between drinking and driver safety. This link is not nearly as clear with any other activity.
Is there a clear link between one beer and driver safety?
1 - The issuance of drunk-driving laws have greatly impacted a reduction in alcohol related fatalities.
Alchol related fatalities are now on the rise.
Let's not forget the impact that education can have on behavior modification
Take a look at other offenses....lots of people avoid drinking and driving or speeding because of the impact on their insurance rates. Insurance companies live by statistics and risk management....and if there were a real link to cell phones and accidents, they would already be all over it.
All over it? Not necessarily. Relationship of drunken driving and crashes/accidents known for a long time. How easy would it be for law enforcement to have big crackdowns (unadvertised) on drunks by merely patrolling, roadblocking in areas of bars, lounges late on Friday and Saturday nights. Yet, this is not done. These business owners would not tolerate this. Might be same with cell phone service providers in their silence on the matter.
I just pulled the numbers. Hummm, seems to me that the numbers have decreases AND millions miles driven have increased during the same period making the number of alcohol related fatalities way down per mile driven.
Did they go up in 2006 - 2007, because I could not find any data?
"John Moffat, director the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, said yesterday his organization takes a "guarded" view of cell-phone use by drivers, favoring neither a ban nor regulation.
He said that while cell-phone use by U.S. motorists has increased, the fatality rate has decreased. His agency has been unable to make a correlation between more minor accidents and phone use. The NHTSA estimates that driver distraction accounts for 20 percent to 30 percent of traffic accidents.
Moffat said that if alcohol use by drivers had increased at the same rate as cell-phone use, fatality statistics "would be off the chart.""
VMT is irrelevant in this case (imo, and this is another debate). Year 2000 41,945. Year 2005 43,443. Seems like the numbers have gone up to me. There are ups and downs, but year 2005 is not that much different than 1982. Seems as if we as a nation have not made significant progress in curbing alchohol abuse at the wheel. In addition if I recall correctly the latest figures show about 16 million crashes. Unfortunately almost no data exists to show what percentage have a root cause embedded in cell phone usage or texting.
The United States is way behind the curve with regard to cell phone usage. Having almost been side swiped a number of times by idiotic cell phone users, I know first hand they contribute to all sorts of bad driving behaviors. With 16 million car crashes a year and little data to understand if cell phone usage is a cause, I'd say the number of accidents are already off the chart.
You are misreading the numbers....sorry, it did not "print" right. The first colum is TOTAL FATALITIES and the second is for alcohol related.....the deaths due to booze have most certainly decreased according to this data.
As you have correctly pointed out, there is little or no data for cell phones.
The number of deaths has essentially leveled out.. btw what is the number of alchohol related accidents? And where is the parallel to this thread, except maybe proves better medical care saves those who indulge to excess.
The only parallel you can draw between alchohol use and cell phone use, is that laws don't really curb the problem. People define an acceptable risk and go with it. Except if you are one of the unlucky fatalities that occured as a result of an intoxicated driver or a cell phone inattentive driver.
But there is some things we can see from even the studies you have posted and the accident rates and increased cell phone useage. If we grant every assertion made that cell phone useage is a distraction we have to admit that the accident rate has not increased in relation to the number of cell phones being used. So what ever the distraction might be people must have adapted to them to the point where accidents are not being "caused" by this distraction.
As the other poster pointed out if cell phones were indeed as limiting to ones ability to drive as Alcohol has proven to be then we should have seen a increase in accidents and deaths because of this distraction. Even you have to admit that if driving under the influence had increased to the same degree as cell phone useage we would see more accidents and more deaths because of those accidents. But as the charts have shown that hasn't happened. And if cell phone useage had caused more accidents then you would also expect to see a corresponding decrease in the accident rate where these bans had been put in place, as we have seen with alcohol related enforcement. But once again we haven't seen and increase in accidents and deaths because of cell phones and we haven't seen a reduction where cell phones have been banned.
If we grant every assertion made that cell phone useage is a distraction we have to admit that the accident rate has not increased in relation to the number of cell phones being used
While you can chart this, you don't really now how many accidents are caused by cell phones, making an exercise in mental gymnastics. Can't prove anything without base line data.
So what ever the distraction might be people must have adapted to them to the point where accidents are not being "caused" by this distraction.
Conclusion based on assumption.
Your whole post is a hypothesis based on assumptions. That I have managed to avoid being side-swiped a number of times in the last few months by cell phone users shows it's attentive drivers like myself who manage to keep accident rates down.
"Your whole post is a hypothesis based on assumptions. That I have managed to avoid being side-swiped a number of times in the last few months by cell phone users shows it's attentive drivers like myself who manage to keep accident rates down."
Yes you may be right. But at least it is an assumption that can be charted. You are making assumptions as well only they are based on ancellery experiences and are not charted.
What we "know" Cell phone usage is up. Accidents have not increased to reflect the increase of cell phones. Banned cell phone use has not resulted in a decrease in accidents in States were they are banned.
What you suspect.
Cell phone use is as bad as driving drunk. But there is no evidence of this belief in accident statistics. Did you notice the total accident reported in 82? How many cell phones were in use in 82? Are there more cell phones being used in 2005? If the answer is there are more cell phones in use and yet the total number of deaths have decreased even while the number of drivers and cell phones have increased what part must cell phones play in the accidents.
You have not shown a relation between cell phones and increased accidents or deaths even though you contend it is as bad as drunk driving. And as it was pointed out enforcement and education on drunk driving seems to show that alcohol related deaths have decreased. So either cell phones don't effect us in the same way as drunk driving or people have learned to drive with cell phones and not run into each other.
But there is no evidence of this belief in accident statistics.
Actually, there is no widespread data collection of accidents attributable to cell phone usage. Without this evidence, there is no way of determining statistics. Many studies have shown one can't talk and drive effectively. Rational thinkers who have first hand evidence of this support this conclusion.
I don't support a total ban on cell phones, but rather stiff penalities for those who are driving irresponsibly due to it's usage. Holding a phone to the ear only adds to the issue, due to inability to drive defensively with one hand on the wheel.
You are assuming there is some other root cause to these car crashes. Real accidents, like mechanical failures, medical conditions and outside influences, I am sure make up a small percentage of the total. Inattention to driving detail, or said another way, driver error of some type, results in the lions' share of car crashes. But exactly what that means we don't really know.
While it is true, I've avoided people eating big macs, putting on makeup, and the like, these incidents are far and few between compared to the number of times recently avoiding brain-dead cell phone drivers. That's enough evidence for me.
Actually, there is no widespread data collection of accidents attributable to cell phone usage. Without this evidence, there is no way of determining statistics. Many studies have shown one can't talk and drive effectively. Rational thinkers who have first hand evidence of this support this conclusion.
I don't support a total ban on cell phones, but rather stiff penalities for those who are driving irresponsibly due to it's usage. Holding a phone to the ear only adds to the issue, due to inability to drive defensively with one hand on the wheel.
You are assuming there is some other root cause to these car crashes. Real accidents, like mechanical failures, medical conditions and outside influences, I am sure make up a small percentage of the total. Inattention to driving detail, or said another way, driver error of some type, results in the lions' share of car crashes. But exactly what that means we don't really know.
While it is true, I've avoided people eating big macs, putting on makeup, and the like, these incidents are far and few between compared to the number of times recently avoiding brain-dead cell phone drivers. That's enough evidence for me.
That is the problem with statistics....first you argue that stats prove that cell phones are as bad as drunk driving, then when faced with facts, you discount the facts so you can draw your own conclusion anyway.
BUT, you are 100% correct in one way.....we can never really know the root cause of an accident. Let's say a guy who is drunk kills himself. Alcohol related fatality, right? Wrong! Actually, what we don't know is that the guy just got fired from his job and found out he has a brain tumor....so, he got drunk. So, it is his bosses fault. (tongue in cheek, of course)
Thing is, you have to go on what we DO know, rather then what we DON'T know. So, while we don't know that booze killed these drivers, we do know that booze played a part.....maybe the whole part, maybe part of the part. What we DONT know is how cell phones impact car crashes.
It seems totally logical that cell phones add risk...no one will deny this. But, the facts do not support that cell phones are as dangeous as booze as some have contended. While we all have personal observations of cell phones being a problem and as you mentioned, your own behavior has prevented such accidents. However, many people die from drunk drivers who are probably just as safe as you, yet their corrective actions don't seem to work. Why? Because being drunk is a lot worse then having a conversation. Someone on a phone, or talking, can quickly "sober-up" if they need to.
Another thing, is that driving is a skill. I would argue that a 17 year-old driver on the phone probably presents a greater safety issue that a driver with 17 years driving experience on a phone. In fact, I fully intend to BAN my daughters from driviing while using a cell phone unless an emergency so long as I am paying for their insurance.....to the best extent that I can control this. That is called parenting.
But there is some things we can see from even the studies you have posted and the accident rates and increased cell phone useage. If we grant every assertion made that cell phone useage is a distraction we have to admit that the accident rate has not increased in relation to the number of cell phones being used. So what ever the distraction might be people must have adapted to them to the point where accidents are not being "caused" by this distraction.
As the other poster pointed out if cell phones were indeed as limiting to ones ability to drive as Alcohol has proven to be then we should have seen a increase in accidents and deaths because of this distraction. Even you have to admit that if driving under the influence had increased to the same degree as cell phone useage we would see more accidents and more deaths because of those accidents. But as the charts have shown that hasn't happened. And if cell phone useage had caused more accidents then you would also expect to see a corresponding decrease in the accident rate where these bans had been put in place, as we have seen with alcohol related enforcement. But once again we haven't seen and increase in accidents and deaths because of cell phones and we haven't seen a reduction where cell phones have been banned.
Pure genius......I think I am going to publish this. Well said.
It wouldn't bother me as much if they had some restrictions on cell phone use if it wasn't such a knee jerk reaction. we had driving while distracted laws and they would cover cell phones and all new technology if necessary. But the argument against hand held cell phones is built on Junk science and ancillary observations. That is never a reason to pass a law.
But because some people have added cell phones to their already bad driving habits some people see it as the straw that broke the camels back. It may be irritating with so many cell phones being used and we may see more bad drivers using them. But there is no reason not to believe that these drivers are simply bad to begin with. But the irritation doesn't seem to be increasing deaths or injuries so passing a law against such an activity as using a cell phone doesn't seem necessary. I remember in the early to mid 70s the government brought thousands of people to the US from a country that didn't have a big automotive background. I can attest that these drivers were deadly on our California freeways. But I would have never supported a ban against them and today they drive pretty much like the rest of us do.
It would be simpler to leave things as they are and simply cite the offending driver as at fault for driving while distracted, no matter what the distraction might be.
That is the problem with statistics....first you argue that stats prove that cell phones are as bad as drunk driving, then when faced with facts,
You need to read the whole thread. This statement is incorrect. Nutshell: 1. Studies have proved decreased driving capacity while engaged in meaningful conversations. 2. Statistics do not exist that show correlation between cell phone usage and fatalities. 3. Seat of the pants observance...cell phone usage is not great for driver attentiveness.
But, the facts do not support that cell phones are as dangeous as booze as some have contended
Correct facts don't show it. But not every legal DUI gets into a car crash, fatality or even caught by the cops either. And there are some widely publicized cases of cell phone deaths. How many unpublicized cases are there?
Someone on a phone, or talking, can quickly "sober-up" if they need to.
I counter, in some cases it's too late. Should cell phone users be singled out? Yes, the same way drunk drivers are singled out.
I would also like to point out that the studies have equated cell phone usage with a .08 BAC. And while that is considered legally drunk, I strongly suspect that in the vast majority of fatal accidents casued by DUI, the driver's BAC is well above that. Which probably explains why the overall fatality rate hasn't risen sharply in conjunction with the increased popularity of cell phones.
So most drivers with a .08 BAC will make it home safe just as most cell phone users will. The point is that in both instances, their ability to drive defensively and react to emergency situations is impaired compared to a sober or non-cell phone using driver.
You need to read the whole thread. This statement is incorrect. Nutshell: 1. Studies have proved decreased driving capacity while engaged in meaningful conversations. 2. Statistics do not exist that show correlation between cell phone usage and fatalities. 3. Seat of the pants observance...cell phone usage is not great for driver attentiveness.
Ah.....I think I did. So, let me make sure I under stand you.....you are saying we should ban "meaningful" conversations? You can't make a law based on your seat of the pants observation unless, our course, this is a monarchy and you happen to be the king.
Correct facts don't show it. But not every legal DUI gets into a car crash, fatality or even caught by the cops either. And there are some widely publicized cases of cell phone deaths. How many unpublicized cases are there?
Valid point, but, so long as the facts don't exist....then, you can prove nothing, thus, no basis for a law. In fact, the facts would seem to show that cell phones are in fact more safe. Since, fatality rates have decreased rather then increased as phones have become more prevelant. Obviously, I am speaking in part, tongue and cheek, but I hope you get my point.
counter, in some cases it's too late. Should cell phone users be singled out? Yes, the same way drunk drivers are singled out.
And this is where I 100% dissagree with you. This is a rediculous statement. You keep linking drunk drivers to cell phone users, yet there is ZERO basis in fact. At least be consistent before you make an argument. If you want to single out cell phone users, then you need to single-out every single activity in a car that is not dedicated to driving. If you talk, think, day dream, eat, drink, ever in a car then you are as guilty as those you are targeting. Want to single out cell phones? Then, songle out everything else too. And, I sure hope you never, ever exceed the speed limit.....not 1 mph over. Because, THAT is against the law, and it is proven that speed kills......more proof then cell phones to be sure.
Ah.....I think I did. So, let me make sure I under stand you.....you are saying we should ban "meaningful" conversations? You can't make a law based on your seat of the pants observation unless, our course, this is a monarchy and you happen to be the king.
I can prove points 1 and 2. Point 3 is an observation supporting point 1.
Valid point, but, so long as the facts don't exist....then, you can prove nothing
What I can prove is point 1, what I can't prove are any statistics relating to point 2 because there aren't any widespread studies.
In fact, the facts would seem to show that cell phones are in fact more safe. Since, fatality rates have decreased rather then increased as phones have become more prevelant. Obviously, I am speaking in part, tongue and cheek, but I hope you get my point.
I'm glad you are speaking tongue in cheek. I'm tired of safe cell phone users attempting to side swiping me.
You keep linking drunk drivers to cell phone users, yet there is ZERO basis in fact.
This is where we disagree, as fellow poster Frank talked about previously there is ample evidence to support this assertion
But, there isn't. IF what you say is true, we would see a HUGE increase in fatalities rather then a decrease as phones have gotten more widespread. Studies are not nealry as meaningful when we have empirical proof.
I think we can all agree that cell phones add risk.....but you not equate using a cell phone to driving drunk. In fact, I think making statements like this are not only wrong, I think they are bad for the drunk driving cause as it draws attention away from this much more greater cause.
Look, cell phones are hear to stay. They will never, ever be banned in such a way that the law could ever be enforced. My cell phone works congruently with my OnStar. How would anyone ever know that i was on a phone call or singing to music on the radio?
I think hand-held use can be banned, and perhaps should. But, you can't prevent someone from talking.
But, there isn't. IF what you say is true, we would see a HUGE increase in fatalities rather then a decrease as phones have gotten more widespread. Studies are not nealry as meaningful when we have empirical proof.
Again, this only a gut feeling without any basis in facts.
Look, cell phones are hear to stay. They will never, ever be banned in such a way that the law could ever be enforced.
Laws obviously don't work, because we still have murder, rape, drunk driving, income tax evasion, fraud and the like. But that doesn't mean I have take the stupidity of cell phone using drivers lying down.
Laws obviously don't work, because we still have murder, rape, drunk driving, income tax evasion, fraud and the like. But that doesn't mean I have take the stupidity of cell phone using drivers lying down
Of course laws work! But you can't expect zero tolerance as an outcome. Holy crap....laws absolutely reduce the activity that you mention. That fact that a bad activity still takes place doe snot mean a law does not work. Want to see what would happen if there were suddenly no speed limits? The result would me mayhem.
Using a cell phone is not stupid. Using a cell phone and not paying attention to driving is as with any task that can be destracting. I have 115 sales people and $50M worth of business that rely on me. When I used to drive 60,000 miles per year, using a cell phone was not an option, but an absolutre requirement. In the near future, phones will become even more important especially since we are on a verge of a major labor shortage.
As to your gut feelings....well, at least you are being honest, but we can't make laws base don gut feelings. You can accuse your spouse of cheating based on a gut feeling, or bet on a sports team as a result of a gut feeling or intuition.....but you can't pass laws that way.
what the cell phone ban reminds me of is the Volstead Act. People had gut feelings and expected results that simply didn't materialize. We are in a swing towards government control that has gotten pretty extream. I was watching the news last night and they were talking about a state bill that would ban over weight people from being served fast food. I believe it was Mississippi state Bill 282? The law would fine the restaurant for serving these people. I doubt if it will hold up but still it is a silly law that will cause more problems than it corrects. Where will these things stop?
Of course laws work! But you can't expect zero tolerance as an outcome. Holy crap....laws absolutely reduce the activity that you mention. That fact that a bad activity still takes place doe snot mean a law does not work. Want to see what would happen if there were suddenly no speed limits? The result would me mayhem
Interesting. Actually with laws addressing moral issues I expect zero tolerance. I don't expect zero tolerance with regard to cell phone laws, but I expect those who use them and drive like drunks should be singled out and targeted.
I have 115 sales people and $50M worth of business that rely on me.
All the more reason, I would be very interested to be a fly on your windshied and see how you drive while on a long business conversation discussed detailed information.
As to your gut feelings....well, at least you are being honest, but we can't make laws base don gut feelings
We're not making laws on gut feelings. The gut feeling has to do with statistics. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by years of studies the detrimental effects of cell phone usage on driving. How these translate into fatalities and crashes we still don't know. You can look up these studies. Let me know if you want keywords to stick into a search engine. We have not been able to figure out how to judge the effect of driving distraction by the masses.
Remember you are better off alive to company than dead. Pull over when you have business conversations that last more than 5 seconds. Everybod thinks it doesn't happen to them, only the other guy.
what the cell phone ban reminds me of is the Volstead Act. People had gut feelings and expected results that simply didn't materialize
That's an apt analogy, for grass fertilizer. I agree government control of our private actions has reach a level I am uncomfortable with, but not in this instance. I have no problem with the government enacting laws to protect me from you. Laws that protect me from me have no business on the roster.
Remember you are better off alive to company than dead. Pull over when you have business conversations that last more than 5 seconds. Everybod thinks it doesn't happen to them, only the other guy.
Want a fact? Our sales force has an accident rate of about 25% the national average, YET they all use company, provided cell phones. How's that for a REAL statistic? How can you explain that?
Also, pulling over is ILLEGAL. You can NOT sit on the side of the road and use a phone unless it is an emergency.
The real evidence clearly shows that the roads are safer rather then more dangerous as phone usage has increased....maybe not because of phones, but certainly at the same time phone usage has increased.
Here is another stat....women drivers are involved in an accident 3.32 times for every million miles driven while men are involved 2.5 times according to one report I read. Is it true? I have no idea, but based on these results, imagine all the lives we could save by preventing woman from getting behind the wheel....a rediculous notion indeed.
If you are really interesting in making the highways safe, then we need find the real causes of accidents where there is plenty of empiracle data rather then conjecture.
Want a fact? Our sales force has an accident rate of about 25% the national average, YET they all use company, provided cell phones. How's that for a REAL statistic? How can you explain that?
I have an accident rate of .000001% of the national average and I don't use a cell phone. Maybe not using a cell phone will reduce your company's accident rate to almost zero.
Also, pulling over is ILLEGAL. You can NOT sit on the side of the road and use a phone unless it is an emergency.
Huh? I'm sure you didn't really mean what you wrote. I pull over all of the time to make or receive a call, in a perfectly legal and safe fashion. If it is not safe to pull over, the phone call can wait. Not worth an accident.
If you are really interesting in making the highways safe, then we need find the real causes of accidents where there is plenty of empiracle data rather then conjecture.
Not conjecture as studies have proven. Have you read any of the studies? You haven't taken my up on my offer for a link to search engines? Until you can show proof cell phone usage *does not* distract drivers mind, my opinion on these laws will stand.
Huh? I'm sure you didn't really mean what you wrote. I pull over all of the time to make or receive a call, in a perfectly legal and safe fashion. If it is not safe to pull over, the phone call can wait. Not worth an accident.
It might be a state issue, but I am pretty sure it is 100% against the law. Check with your state police. Stopping on a highway is NOT permitted unless an emergency or a break-down.
Initially our cell phone policy at work required drivers to stop until we got multiple drivers with tickets and warnings. We also had a driver get hit while on the side of the road by an errant drunk while he was sitting off the road. There were no fatalities as the car was side-swiped.
Our guy was tongue-lashed by the cop for being on the side of the road and then when he complained that he was required to do so by his employer the cop said "well, here is a ticket. You can take it to them and see what they have to say about it". Our policy then had to change.
Now, we have 22,000 cars in our fleet and all drivers are required to abide by local laws, use when onluy deemed safe, and use hands-free not matter what. No calls are allowed to be dialed by hand when a car is moving, so you must have a voice activated device for calling and answering.
Our company policy is to have 0% tollerance to accidents. So, while our rate is low, we really have no other choice but to regulate usage rather then try to ban something that you really can't prevent.
BTW, your personal experience is statistically meaningless on all grounds yet obviously important to you. A fleet of 22,000 and millions of miles is real evidence. I could easily counter your point by finding someone who drives drunk every day yet never has had an accident.....something we both know would be the wrong assertion, yet, that would be that driver's experience.
Using a cell phone is 100% legal unless there are local laws preventing it....stopping on the road may not be.
BTW, your personal experience is statistically meaningless on all grounds yet obviously important to you. A fleet of 22,000 and millions of miles is real evidence
I disagree, it's more samples than a sample size of one, but meaningless as well You would really need a control group...say car renters to compare against. That how the studies do it.
Using a cell phone is 100% legal unless there are local laws preventing it
Using a cell phone through a hands free device is probably legal in the whole country, holding the cell phones to the ear is not legal in all municipalities.
In addition, I wonder how many of the "25%" of national average crashes could have been avoided if drivers were off the phone. Now I realize you posted zero information about root cause, but I'm hazarding a guess here.
In addition, I wonder how many of the "25%" of national average crashes could have been avoided if drivers were off the phone. Now I realize you posted zero information about root cause, but I'm hazarding a guess here.
And there in lies the truth....no ones knows. Can you make a law based on not knowing? I guess I say "no" and you apparently are comfortable saying "yes".
I disagree, it's more samples than a sample size of one, but meaningless as well You would really need a control group...say car renters to compare against. That how the studies do it.
A sample size of one is statiscally meaningless anyway you look it. There is no possible way to add meaning to a data point when N=1. Keep in mind, studies are conducted to collect data....to increase the sample size so N>1 and hopefully so the sample size is statistically representative of the entire sample. When you have empiracle data representative of a large sample, it is mathematically more accurate then a study, unless you are trying to corellate a specific variable.
"In addition, I wonder how many of the "25%" of national average crashes could have been avoided if drivers were off the phone. Now I realize you posted zero information about root cause, but I'm hazarding a guess here."
well we do know that 25 percent of those accidents could be totally avoided by banning teen age drivers from our highways. Are you suggesting we ban them as well? That would have been a decrease of 6.25 percent.
Because you have no statistics confirming the relationship between cell phones and accidents then even your gut feeling that such a law is protecting you from your fellow driver is suspect. Yes you can post studies calling it a distraction but there are plenty of studies showing that the percentages of accidents have been pretty consistent for the last 20 years. So deaths are going down and accidents aren't going up in any measurable way with the increase in cell phone use. How is that not a gut feeling reaction to what you observe on the road?
Our DMV list some driving distractions on its home page. They are as follows: a billboard the passengers in your car choosing a CD or tape.
OUR CHP has stated that Further distractions that may lead to an accident are as follows:
cell phone use attending to children eating
They also post this message.
“Dialing in” your destination on a navigation system, searching for your favorite tune on the radio, or adjusting the vehicle’s climate control can be hazardous. These activities make you six times more likely to be involved in an accident!
Their solution doesn't ask anyone to ban these activities. They suggest that you pull over to talk and to eat. They go so far as suggesting you should leave early to eat before you drive. They say you should never argue with a passenger and then they say: "Pets can be unpredictable. Properly secure them in a pet carrier or portable kennel before moving your vehicle."
How many of these suggestions would you suggest we make a specific ban for? How about the ones that make you six times more likely to be in an accident? The one you avoid that may have been on the cell phone might be the very same person not following the suggestion to either not tune their radio or have someone else do it for them.
These are not my suggestions mind you but a government agency that you assure us had done all the studies to protect us.
Yes. There is a lot of information regarding brain processing power and cell phone usage while driving. I'm sure you pobably think laws against texting and driving shouldn't be on the books either. :confuse
Okay let's not leap to dumb conclusions. What I would be in favor of is a total ban on any electronic device with loss of license for a specified period of time. Oh wait, some states have already done this.
Because you have no statistics confirming the relationship between cell phones and accidents then even your gut feeling that such a law is protecting you from your fellow driver is suspect.
That's where you are wrong. Dead wrong. The fact little evidence exists to show causality between usage and fatalities/crashes doesn't mean the laws aren't a bad idea. My gut feeling stems from a number of cell phone users inattentive enough to cause me to use evasive maneuvers on the road. That's actually hard evidence backing up these studies with root cause being cell phone usage.
“Dialing in” your destination on a navigation system, searching for your favorite tune on the radio, or adjusting the vehicle’s climate control can be hazardous. These activities make you six times more likely to be involved in an accident!
Really can't do that while driving *most* built in navigation systems unless you hack it. There is a disclaimer that must be answered before the nav system lets you in.
How many of these suggestions would you suggest we make a specific ban for?
Just one, cell phones.
These are not my suggestions mind you but a government agency that you assure us had done all the studies to protect us.
On one hand you cite the government on the other hand you diss it, which is it? Do you believe the message regarding distracted driving is accurate and the laws regulating cellphone usage garbage? If the government is enacting laws, they are reviewing evidence and making sound judgments based on evidence. I'm assuming the messages dealing with distractions are outdated will be updated. They are operating about 10 years behind the times. 10 years ago, circa 1995 it was a different story with regard to cds and cell phones. My car is a basic one with a 6 cd changer, I don't have to fumble or take my eyes off the road to change cds. Most modern cars have multi-cd capacity.
Now of course you can invent your own distraction and then claim there should be ban on it.
Know why when drug companies test drugs they do double blind tests? Same thing is applicable here. You can say a sample size of 2, 3, 4 or 25,000 is relevant or irrelevant depending on the study. But non-PHD statisticans like you or me saying it is relevant or irrelevant...is in itself irrelevant. We are arguing conclusions that cannot be made.
The simple point was of all the distractions listed by the DMV or CHP in my state you decided the ones that were six times more likely to cause and accident, by their studies, were worth risking. Why should they be exempt from your disdane of what your fellow driver is doing? I agree the activities seem to be something we as a society have decided are an acceptable risk. Still even when posted as a distraction people eat while driving. as well as several other things we are told not to do.
And by the way Nav systems can be adjusted while driving. While you may or may not be able to program in new way points you modify the screen to zoom in and zoom out and scroll up, down, left and right. If you have the navigation screen in many cars you can get the back up camera and a view of your music selections for your satilite radio. That view looks like a menu on your computer that your scroll down and select. That indicates you have to read the titles in no more than a ten font.
What I am saying is trying to stamp out each and every distraction by banning one at a time is wasteful and time consuming. Hand held cell phones have not proven to be any more distracting than hands free with the exception of having both hands on the wheel. And next time you are out notice how many people drive with one hand even without a cell phone in it. Cell phone laws as written today are little more than spitting in the wind.
Comments
The simple fact that you're comparing the two activities as being similar shows that you have no understanding of the cognitive processes involved.
A cell phone driver who knows that talking impairs his driving ability but chooses to use a cell phone can at least take defensive measures such as limiting calls, not taking potentially disruptive calls, not talking on the phone when traffic conditions are heavy, or moving to the slow lane when taking a call.
On the other hand, someone who is ignorant of the dangers of talking and driving will not take any of these actions, thereby risking not only their life but the lives of the innocent drivers who are unfortunate enough to share the road with them.
-Frank
Actually I do see all of them as being essentially the same and I wouldn't classify the mere fact that I'm holding something in my hand as a "driving distraction". Certrainly not having both hands on the wheel impairs one's ability to control the vehicle in emergency situations but that's not the same thing as actual driving distraction.
And again, in spite of your statement to the contrary, there have been no studies to determine whether or not a hands-free cell phone is less mentally distracting than a handheld one. In fact some have hypothesized that using a hands-free device encourages more frequent and longer calls which would make them MORE dangerous!
-Frank
And that makes the current hand held laws even more ludicris. Still we should have some ability to use the cell phone while driving. After all even on-star is a kind of cell phone. In fact with most of the new GM cars you get free on-star and cell phone for the first year.
That is actually not true. But I have no compulsion to dig out the study. I think you and I agree at 50,000 feet.
In fact some have hypothesized that using a hands-free device encourages more frequent and longer calls which would make them MORE dangerous!
That is like saying a person who has gone through AA can have an O'Douls.
1. What % have accidents and injuries increased due to cell phone use
2. In areas that have banned cell phone use what % have accidents and injuries decreased?
If the position is that cell phones are a significant hazard there must be some big jumps or declines in the accident and injury rates, right?
I also, however, except the fact that some drivers don't consider their actions while driving, no matter what they are doing.
A - Cell phones are not as dangerous as some people think.
B - The laws can't be be enforced, so they never have a chance to work.
Or, perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.
This brings me back to my original point....you can't single-out cell phones. Let's say there were a complete ban....if someone were to be using a blue-tooth device, how would anyone be able to know it? Technology will always be able to stay one step ahead.
The only way to impact cell phone use is either to educate people as to the risks, or allow the insurance companies to be the police. People generally seem to think with their pocket-books.....
Take a look at other offenses....lots of people avoid drinking and driving or speeding because of the impact on their insurance rates. Insurance companies live by statistics and risk management....and if there were a real link to cell phones and accidents, they would already be all over it.
If you ban cell phones, you have to ban ANY conversation held in a car or even daydreaming. After all, these are CLEARLY mental activities that draw attention away from focusing on the road.
I say let's do it. Let's get started right now.....seriously, what are we waiting for? Hundreds of people are dying every day because people are just not paying attention. I say, we need a law that could arrest anyone for not paying attention. Also, we need little buzzers that notify the State Police whenever anyone exceeds the speed limit or takes a hand off the wheel to pick their nose. These are situations which risk safety to other drivers.
Why is government so oppresive with alcohol use in car. Wouldn't it be reasonable to let drivers decide if they wanted to have a cold can of beer in summer months while driving home from work? One can would be far less than 0.08. And, after all, drivers 21 and over are adult, are responsible and can weigh risk vs rewards of a cold beer while driving. These might be the same drivers that like/have to use cell phone while driving.
If beer drinking were to be allowed while driving, would expect that there would at least be a law in all states requiring that the beer drinking driver would have to use a hands-free phone while making calls. Would not want the driver to juggle a phone and can of beer.
I think the difference with alcohol is that there is a clear link between drinking and driver safety. This link is not nearly as clear with any other activity.
Secondly, I think the intention of the law is to ban drinking and driving completely, yet allow for a small amount of leeway for drivers. Quite frankly, zero tollerance is probably just not practical.
Yet, the trend has certainly been to lower these limits over time. Evidence has clearly shown two things:
1 - The issuance of drunk-driving laws have greatly impacted a reduction in alcohol related fatalities.
2 - As limits decrease, people adjust, drink less, and less people get stopped. This decreases the amount of revenue that is collected from fines which further motivates the lowering of limits.
While I have never driven drunk, I have operated a vehicle while taking cold medicine....I wonder if that is the same thing.
Let's not forget the impact that education can have on behavior modification....this is perhaps the greatest tool that society can unleash.
1. What % have accidents and injuries increased due to cell phone use
2. In areas that have banned cell phone use what % have accidents and injuries decreased?
If the position is that cell phones are a significant hazard there must be some big jumps or declines in the accident and injury rates, right?
1. You tell me.
2. You tell me.
You can probably check the nationwide statistics on FARS to get this information. Not.
Without accurate statistics there is no knowledge about the number of deaths and injuries attributable to cell phones. In addition, I submit any action taking your mind off driving for more a few blinks of the eye should be carfully scrutinzed by the driver.
Is there a clear link between one beer and driver safety?
1 - The issuance of drunk-driving laws have greatly impacted a reduction in alcohol related fatalities.
Alchol related fatalities are now on the rise.
Let's not forget the impact that education can have on behavior modification
I agree, education followed by stiff fines.
I agree, education followed by stiff fines.
We're talking about cell phone usage, right?
-Frank
All over it? Not necessarily. Relationship of drunken driving and crashes/accidents known for a long time. How easy would it be for law enforcement to have big crackdowns (unadvertised) on drunks by merely patrolling, roadblocking in areas of bars, lounges late on Friday and Saturday nights. Yet, this is not done. These business owners would not tolerate this. Might be same with cell phone service providers in their silence on the matter.
Hosts- Feel free to delete some of these duplicate posts. I assume the hamsters running the servers have been fed now :P
-Frank
Haven't heard what happened but we apparently got into the dreaded death wobble for a while there.
I just pulled the numbers. Hummm, seems to me that the numbers have decreases AND millions miles driven have increased during the same period making the number of alcohol related fatalities way down per mile driven.
Did they go up in 2006 - 2007, because I could not find any data?
Year / Total Deaths / Alcohol Related / Percent
1982 43,945 26,173 60
1983 42,589 24,635 58
1984 44,257 24,762 56
1985 43,825 23,167 53
1986 46,087 25,017 54
1987 46,390 24,094 52
1988 47,087 23,833 51
1989 45,582 22,424 49
1990 44,599 22,587 51
1991 41,508 20,159 49
1992 39,250 18,290 47
1993 40,150 17,908 45
1994 40,716 17,308 43
1995 41,817 17,732 42
1996 42,065 17,749 42
1997 42,013 16,711 40
1998 41,501 16,673 40
1999 41,717 16,572 40
2000 41,945 17,380 41
2001 42,196 17,400 41
2002 43,005 17,524 41
2003 42,643 17,013 40
2004 42,518 16,919 39
2005 43,443 16,885 39
Here is an interesting quote:
"John Moffat, director the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, said yesterday his organization takes a "guarded" view of cell-phone use by drivers, favoring neither a ban nor regulation.
He said that while cell-phone use by U.S. motorists has increased, the fatality rate has decreased. His agency has been unable to make a correlation between more minor accidents and phone use. The NHTSA estimates that driver distraction accounts for 20 percent to 30 percent of traffic accidents.
Moffat said that if alcohol use by drivers had increased at the same rate as cell-phone use, fatality statistics "would be off the chart.""
The United States is way behind the curve with regard to cell phone usage. Having almost been side swiped a number of times by idiotic cell phone users, I know first hand they contribute to all sorts of bad driving behaviors. With 16 million car crashes a year and little data to understand if cell phone usage is a cause, I'd say the number of accidents are already off the chart.
As you have correctly pointed out, there is little or no data for cell phones.
The number of deaths has essentially leveled out.. btw what is the number of alchohol related accidents? And where is the parallel to this thread, except maybe proves better medical care saves those who indulge to excess.
The only parallel you can draw between alchohol use and cell phone use, is that laws don't really curb the problem. People define an acceptable risk and go with it. Except if you are one of the unlucky fatalities that occured as a result of an intoxicated driver or a cell phone inattentive driver.
As the other poster pointed out if cell phones were indeed as limiting to ones ability to drive as Alcohol has proven to be then we should have seen a increase in accidents and deaths because of this distraction. Even you have to admit that if driving under the influence had increased to the same degree as cell phone useage we would see more accidents and more deaths because of those accidents. But as the charts have shown that hasn't happened. And if cell phone useage had caused more accidents then you would also expect to see a corresponding decrease in the accident rate where these bans had been put in place, as we have seen with alcohol related enforcement. But once again we haven't seen and increase in accidents and deaths because of cell phones and we haven't seen a reduction where cell phones have been banned.
While you can chart this, you don't really now how many accidents are caused by cell phones, making an exercise in mental gymnastics. Can't prove anything without base line data.
So what ever the distraction might be people must have adapted to them to the point where accidents are not being "caused" by this distraction.
Conclusion based on assumption.
Your whole post is a hypothesis based on assumptions. That I have managed to avoid being side-swiped a number of times in the last few months by cell phone users shows it's attentive drivers like myself who manage to keep accident rates down.
Yes you may be right. But at least it is an assumption that can be charted. You are making assumptions as well only they are based on ancellery experiences and are not charted.
What we "know"
Cell phone usage is up. Accidents have not increased to reflect the increase of cell phones. Banned cell phone use has not resulted in a decrease in accidents in States were they are banned.
What you suspect.
Cell phone use is as bad as driving drunk. But there is no evidence of this belief in accident statistics. Did you notice the total accident reported in 82? How many cell phones were in use in 82? Are there more cell phones being used in 2005? If the answer is there are more cell phones in use and yet the total number of deaths have decreased even while the number of drivers and cell phones have increased what part must cell phones play in the accidents.
You have not shown a relation between cell phones and increased accidents or deaths even though you contend it is as bad as drunk driving. And as it was pointed out enforcement and education on drunk driving seems to show that alcohol related deaths have decreased. So either cell phones don't effect us in the same way as drunk driving or people have learned to drive with cell phones and not run into each other.
Actually, there is no widespread data collection of accidents attributable to cell phone usage. Without this evidence, there is no way of determining statistics. Many studies have shown one can't talk and drive effectively. Rational thinkers who have first hand evidence of this support this conclusion.
I don't support a total ban on cell phones, but rather stiff penalities for those who are driving irresponsibly due to it's usage. Holding a phone to the ear only adds to the issue, due to inability to drive defensively with one hand on the wheel.
You are assuming there is some other root cause to these car crashes. Real accidents, like mechanical failures, medical conditions and outside influences, I am sure make up a small percentage of the total. Inattention to driving detail, or said another way, driver error of some type, results in the lions' share of car crashes. But exactly what that means we don't really know.
While it is true, I've avoided people eating big macs, putting on makeup, and the like, these incidents are far and few between compared to the number of times recently avoiding brain-dead cell phone drivers. That's enough evidence for me.
I don't support a total ban on cell phones, but rather stiff penalities for those who are driving irresponsibly due to it's usage. Holding a phone to the ear only adds to the issue, due to inability to drive defensively with one hand on the wheel.
You are assuming there is some other root cause to these car crashes. Real accidents, like mechanical failures, medical conditions and outside influences, I am sure make up a small percentage of the total. Inattention to driving detail, or said another way, driver error of some type, results in the lions' share of car crashes. But exactly what that means we don't really know.
While it is true, I've avoided people eating big macs, putting on makeup, and the like, these incidents are far and few between compared to the number of times recently avoiding brain-dead cell phone drivers. That's enough evidence for me.
That is the problem with statistics....first you argue that stats prove that cell phones are as bad as drunk driving, then when faced with facts, you discount the facts so you can draw your own conclusion anyway.
BUT, you are 100% correct in one way.....we can never really know the root cause of an accident. Let's say a guy who is drunk kills himself. Alcohol related fatality, right? Wrong! Actually, what we don't know is that the guy just got fired from his job and found out he has a brain tumor....so, he got drunk. So, it is his bosses fault. (tongue in cheek, of course)
Thing is, you have to go on what we DO know, rather then what we DON'T know. So, while we don't know that booze killed these drivers, we do know that booze played a part.....maybe the whole part, maybe part of the part. What we DONT know is how cell phones impact car crashes.
It seems totally logical that cell phones add risk...no one will deny this. But, the facts do not support that cell phones are as dangeous as booze as some have contended. While we all have personal observations of cell phones being a problem and as you mentioned, your own behavior has prevented such accidents. However, many people die from drunk drivers who are probably just as safe as you, yet their corrective actions don't seem to work. Why? Because being drunk is a lot worse then having a conversation. Someone on a phone, or talking, can quickly "sober-up" if they need to.
Another thing, is that driving is a skill. I would argue that a 17 year-old driver on the phone probably presents a greater safety issue that a driver with 17 years driving experience on a phone. In fact, I fully intend to BAN my daughters from driviing while using a cell phone unless an emergency so long as I am paying for their insurance.....to the best extent that I can control this. That is called parenting.
As the other poster pointed out if cell phones were indeed as limiting to ones ability to drive as Alcohol has proven to be then we should have seen a increase in accidents and deaths because of this distraction. Even you have to admit that if driving under the influence had increased to the same degree as cell phone useage we would see more accidents and more deaths because of those accidents. But as the charts have shown that hasn't happened. And if cell phone useage had caused more accidents then you would also expect to see a corresponding decrease in the accident rate where these bans had been put in place, as we have seen with alcohol related enforcement. But once again we haven't seen and increase in accidents and deaths because of cell phones and we haven't seen a reduction where cell phones have been banned.
Pure genius......I think I am going to publish this. Well said.
But because some people have added cell phones to their already bad driving habits some people see it as the straw that broke the camels back. It may be irritating with so many cell phones being used and we may see more bad drivers using them. But there is no reason not to believe that these drivers are simply bad to begin with. But the irritation doesn't seem to be increasing deaths or injuries so passing a law against such an activity as using a cell phone doesn't seem necessary. I remember in the early to mid 70s the government brought thousands of people to the US from a country that didn't have a big automotive background. I can attest that these drivers were deadly on our California freeways. But I would have never supported a ban against them and today they drive pretty much like the rest of us do.
It would be simpler to leave things as they are and simply cite the offending driver as at fault for driving while distracted, no matter what the distraction might be.
You need to read the whole thread. This statement is incorrect. Nutshell: 1. Studies have proved decreased driving capacity while engaged in meaningful conversations. 2. Statistics do not exist that show correlation between cell phone usage and fatalities. 3. Seat of the pants observance...cell phone usage is not great for driver attentiveness.
But, the facts do not support that cell phones are as dangeous as booze as some have contended
Correct facts don't show it. But not every legal DUI gets into a car crash, fatality or even caught by the cops either. And there are some widely publicized cases of cell phone deaths. How many unpublicized cases are there?
Someone on a phone, or talking, can quickly "sober-up" if they need to.
I counter, in some cases it's too late. Should cell phone users be singled out? Yes, the same way drunk drivers are singled out.
I would also like to point out that the studies have equated cell phone usage with a .08 BAC. And while that is considered legally drunk, I strongly suspect that in the vast majority of fatal accidents casued by DUI, the driver's BAC is well above that. Which probably explains why the overall fatality rate hasn't risen sharply in conjunction with the increased popularity of cell phones.
So most drivers with a .08 BAC will make it home safe just as most cell phone users will. The point is that in both instances, their ability to drive defensively and react to emergency situations is impaired compared to a sober or non-cell phone using driver.
-Frank
Ah.....I think I did. So, let me make sure I under stand you.....you are saying we should ban "meaningful" conversations? You can't make a law based on your seat of the pants observation unless, our course, this is a monarchy and you happen to be the king.
Correct facts don't show it. But not every legal DUI gets into a car crash, fatality or even caught by the cops either. And there are some widely publicized cases of cell phone deaths. How many unpublicized cases are there?
Valid point, but, so long as the facts don't exist....then, you can prove nothing, thus, no basis for a law. In fact, the facts would seem to show that cell phones are in fact more safe. Since, fatality rates have decreased rather then increased as phones have become more prevelant. Obviously, I am speaking in part, tongue and cheek, but I hope you get my point.
counter, in some cases it's too late. Should cell phone users be singled out? Yes, the same way drunk drivers are singled out.
And this is where I 100% dissagree with you. This is a rediculous statement. You keep linking drunk drivers to cell phone users, yet there is ZERO basis in fact. At least be consistent before you make an argument. If you want to single out cell phone users, then you need to single-out every single activity in a car that is not dedicated to driving. If you talk, think, day dream, eat, drink, ever in a car then you are as guilty as those you are targeting. Want to single out cell phones? Then, songle out everything else too. And, I sure hope you never, ever exceed the speed limit.....not 1 mph over. Because, THAT is against the law, and it is proven that speed kills......more proof then cell phones to be sure.
I can prove points 1 and 2. Point 3 is an observation supporting point 1.
Valid point, but, so long as the facts don't exist....then, you can prove nothing
What I can prove is point 1, what I can't prove are any statistics relating to point 2 because there aren't any widespread studies.
In fact, the facts would seem to show that cell phones are in fact more safe. Since, fatality rates have decreased rather then increased as phones have become more prevelant. Obviously, I am speaking in part, tongue and cheek, but I hope you get my point.
I'm glad you are speaking tongue in cheek. I'm tired of safe cell phone users attempting to side swiping me.
You keep linking drunk drivers to cell phone users, yet there is ZERO basis in fact.
This is where we disagree, as fellow poster Frank talked about previously there is ample evidence to support this assertion
I think we can all agree that cell phones add risk.....but you not equate using a cell phone to driving drunk. In fact, I think making statements like this are not only wrong, I think they are bad for the drunk driving cause as it draws attention away from this much more greater cause.
Look, cell phones are hear to stay. They will never, ever be banned in such a way that the law could ever be enforced. My cell phone works congruently with my OnStar. How would anyone ever know that i was on a phone call or singing to music on the radio?
I think hand-held use can be banned, and perhaps should. But, you can't prevent someone from talking.
Again, this only a gut feeling without any basis in facts.
Look, cell phones are hear to stay. They will never, ever be banned in such a way that the law could ever be enforced.
Laws obviously don't work, because we still have murder, rape, drunk driving, income tax evasion, fraud and the like. But that doesn't mean I have take the stupidity of cell phone using drivers lying down.
Of course laws work! But you can't expect zero tolerance as an outcome. Holy crap....laws absolutely reduce the activity that you mention. That fact that a bad activity still takes place doe snot mean a law does not work. Want to see what would happen if there were suddenly no speed limits? The result would me mayhem.
Using a cell phone is not stupid. Using a cell phone and not paying attention to driving is as with any task that can be destracting. I have 115 sales people and $50M worth of business that rely on me. When I used to drive 60,000 miles per year, using a cell phone was not an option, but an absolutre requirement. In the near future, phones will become even more important especially since we are on a verge of a major labor shortage.
As to your gut feelings....well, at least you are being honest, but we can't make laws base don gut feelings. You can accuse your spouse of cheating based on a gut feeling, or bet on a sports team as a result of a gut feeling or intuition.....but you can't pass laws that way.
Interesting. Actually with laws addressing moral issues I expect zero tolerance. I don't expect zero tolerance with regard to cell phone laws, but I expect those who use them and drive like drunks should be singled out and targeted.
I have 115 sales people and $50M worth of business that rely on me.
All the more reason, I would be very interested to be a fly on your windshied and see how you drive while on a long business conversation discussed detailed information.
As to your gut feelings....well, at least you are being honest, but we can't make laws base don gut feelings
We're not making laws on gut feelings. The gut feeling has to do with statistics. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by years of studies the detrimental effects of cell phone usage on driving. How these translate into fatalities and crashes we still don't know. You can look up these studies. Let me know if you want keywords to stick into a search engine. We have not been able to figure out how to judge the effect of driving distraction by the masses.
Remember you are better off alive to company than dead. Pull over when you have business conversations that last more than 5 seconds. Everybod thinks it doesn't happen to them, only the other guy.
That's an apt analogy, for grass fertilizer. I agree government control of our private actions has reach a level I am uncomfortable with, but not in this instance. I have no problem with the government enacting laws to protect me from you. Laws that protect me from me have no business on the roster.
Want a fact? Our sales force has an accident rate of about 25% the national average, YET they all use company, provided cell phones. How's that for a REAL statistic? How can you explain that?
Also, pulling over is ILLEGAL. You can NOT sit on the side of the road and use a phone unless it is an emergency.
The real evidence clearly shows that the roads are safer rather then more dangerous as phone usage has increased....maybe not because of phones, but certainly at the same time phone usage has increased.
Here is another stat....women drivers are involved in an accident 3.32 times for every million miles driven while men are involved 2.5 times according to one report I read. Is it true? I have no idea, but based on these results, imagine all the lives we could save by preventing woman from getting behind the wheel....a rediculous notion indeed.
If you are really interesting in making the highways safe, then we need find the real causes of accidents where there is plenty of empiracle data rather then conjecture.
I have an accident rate of .000001% of the national average and I don't use a cell phone. Maybe not using a cell phone will reduce your company's accident rate to almost zero.
Also, pulling over is ILLEGAL. You can NOT sit on the side of the road and use a phone unless it is an emergency.
Huh? I'm sure you didn't really mean what you wrote. I pull over all of the time to make or receive a call, in a perfectly legal and safe fashion. If it is not safe to pull over, the phone call can wait. Not worth an accident.
If you are really interesting in making the highways safe, then we need find the real causes of accidents where there is plenty of empiracle data rather then conjecture.
Not conjecture as studies have proven. Have you read any of the studies? You haven't taken my up on my offer for a link to search engines? Until you can show proof cell phone usage *does not* distract drivers mind, my opinion on these laws will stand.
It might be a state issue, but I am pretty sure it is 100% against the law. Check with your state police. Stopping on a highway is NOT permitted unless an emergency or a break-down.
Initially our cell phone policy at work required drivers to stop until we got multiple drivers with tickets and warnings. We also had a driver get hit while on the side of the road by an errant drunk while he was sitting off the road. There were no fatalities as the car was side-swiped.
Our guy was tongue-lashed by the cop for being on the side of the road and then when he complained that he was required to do so by his employer the cop said "well, here is a ticket. You can take it to them and see what they have to say about it". Our policy then had to change.
Now, we have 22,000 cars in our fleet and all drivers are required to abide by local laws, use when onluy deemed safe, and use hands-free not matter what. No calls are allowed to be dialed by hand when a car is moving, so you must have a voice activated device for calling and answering.
Our company policy is to have 0% tollerance to accidents. So, while our rate is low, we really have no other choice but to regulate usage rather then try to ban something that you really can't prevent.
BTW, your personal experience is statistically meaningless on all grounds yet obviously important to you. A fleet of 22,000 and millions of miles is real evidence. I could easily counter your point by finding someone who drives drunk every day yet never has had an accident.....something we both know would be the wrong assertion, yet, that would be that driver's experience.
Using a cell phone is 100% legal unless there are local laws preventing it....stopping on the road may not be.
Okay you said road, not highway.
BTW, your personal experience is statistically meaningless on all grounds yet obviously important to you. A fleet of 22,000 and millions of miles is real evidence
I disagree, it's more samples than a sample size of one, but meaningless as well You would really need a control group...say car renters to compare against. That how the studies do it.
Using a cell phone is 100% legal unless there are local laws preventing it
Using a cell phone through a hands free device is probably legal in the whole country, holding the cell phones to the ear is not legal in all municipalities.
In addition, I wonder how many of the "25%" of national average crashes could have been avoided if drivers were off the phone. Now I realize you posted zero information about root cause, but I'm hazarding a guess here.
And there in lies the truth....no ones knows. Can you make a law based on not knowing? I guess I say "no" and you apparently are comfortable saying "yes".
A sample size of one is statiscally meaningless anyway you look it. There is no possible way to add meaning to a data point when N=1. Keep in mind, studies are conducted to collect data....to increase the sample size so N>1 and hopefully so the sample size is statistically representative of the entire sample. When you have empiracle data representative of a large sample, it is mathematically more accurate then a study, unless you are trying to corellate a specific variable.
well we do know that 25 percent of those accidents could be totally avoided by banning teen age drivers from our highways. Are you suggesting we ban them as well? That would have been a decrease of 6.25 percent.
Because you have no statistics confirming the relationship between cell phones and accidents then even your gut feeling that such a law is protecting you from your fellow driver is suspect. Yes you can post studies calling it a distraction but there are plenty of studies showing that the percentages of accidents have been pretty consistent for the last 20 years. So deaths are going down and accidents aren't going up in any measurable way with the increase in cell phone use. How is that not a gut feeling reaction to what you observe on the road?
Our DMV list some driving distractions on its home page. They are as follows:
a billboard
the passengers in your car
choosing a CD or tape.
OUR CHP has stated that Further distractions that may lead to an accident are as follows:
cell phone use
attending to children
eating
They also post this message.
“Dialing in” your destination on a navigation system, searching for your favorite tune on the radio, or adjusting the vehicle’s climate control can be hazardous. These activities make you six times more likely to be involved in an accident!
Their solution doesn't ask anyone to ban these activities. They suggest that you pull over to talk and to eat. They go so far as suggesting you should leave early to eat before you drive. They say you should never argue with a passenger and then they say: "Pets can be unpredictable. Properly secure them in a pet carrier or portable kennel before moving your vehicle."
How many of these suggestions would you suggest we make a specific ban for? How about the ones that make you six times more likely to be in an accident? The one you avoid that may have been on the cell phone might be the very same person not following the suggestion to either not tune their radio or have someone else do it for them.
These are not my suggestions mind you but a government agency that you assure us had done all the studies to protect us.
Yes. There is a lot of information regarding brain processing power and cell phone usage while driving. I'm sure you pobably think laws against texting and driving shouldn't be on the books either. :confuse
Okay let's not leap to dumb conclusions. What I would be in favor of is a total ban on any electronic device with loss of license for a specified period of time. Oh wait, some states have already done this.
Because you have no statistics confirming the relationship between cell phones and accidents then even your gut feeling that such a law is protecting you from your fellow driver is suspect.
That's where you are wrong. Dead wrong. The fact little evidence exists to show causality between usage and fatalities/crashes doesn't mean the laws aren't a bad idea. My gut feeling stems from a number of cell phone users inattentive enough to cause me to use evasive maneuvers on the road. That's actually hard evidence backing up these studies with root cause being cell phone usage.
“Dialing in” your destination on a navigation system, searching for your favorite tune on the radio, or adjusting the vehicle’s climate control can be hazardous. These activities make you six times more likely to be involved in an accident!
Really can't do that while driving *most* built in navigation systems unless you hack it. There is a disclaimer that must be answered before the nav system lets you in.
How many of these suggestions would you suggest we make a specific ban for?
Just one, cell phones.
These are not my suggestions mind you but a government agency that you assure us had done all the studies to protect us.
On one hand you cite the government on the other hand you diss it, which is it? Do you believe the message regarding distracted driving is accurate and the laws regulating cellphone usage garbage? If the government is enacting laws, they are reviewing evidence and making sound judgments based on evidence. I'm assuming the messages dealing with distractions are outdated will be updated. They are operating about 10 years behind the times. 10 years ago, circa 1995 it was a different story with regard to cds and cell phones. My car is a basic one with a 6 cd changer, I don't have to fumble or take my eyes off the road to change cds. Most modern cars have multi-cd capacity.
Now of course you can invent your own distraction and then claim there should be ban on it.
And by the way Nav systems can be adjusted while driving. While you may or may not be able to program in new way points you modify the screen to zoom in and zoom out and scroll up, down, left and right. If you have the navigation screen in many cars you can get the back up camera and a view of your music selections for your satilite radio. That view looks like a menu on your computer that your scroll down and select. That indicates you have to read the titles in no more than a ten font.
What I am saying is trying to stamp out each and every distraction by banning one at a time is wasteful and time consuming. Hand held cell phones have not proven to be any more distracting than hands free with the exception of having both hands on the wheel. And next time you are out notice how many people drive with one hand even without a cell phone in it. Cell phone laws as written today are little more than spitting in the wind.