Could have been Montana…I’m pretty sure they said total police for the same square area as NH…They were making the point of gun ownership…and how people have to protect themselves…because they can’t rely on the police being there…It could take HOURS before the police show up when you call them that you have an intruder in the house with a knife.
WhiteyWhitey July 14 Report
eraser1998, in studies that compare hands free cell phone use to hand held use, both situations were more dangerous than a drunk driver.
SOURCE?
The data I have seen suggests that hands free and hand held are about the same risk during the conversation, but that the act of dialing is where the largest risk comes in - and in this area, handsfree is considerably safer.
Please see my comments in this thread, and the posts of others, which have links to many studies on the subject:
“#WhiteyWhitey July 13 Report
The problem with what Ford is doing is that talking on a cell phone while driving is a cognitive problem, not a physical problem. By selling hands-free systems, Ford is a part of the problem. Using any cell phone while driving, whether hand held or hands free, whether talking, texting, or surfing the internet, should be illegal. With anything less, you’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”
That’s why I worry any time I see a police car. They have a radio, cell phone, and a computer, and they are required to use them.
“Multitasking is a myth, and you obviously don’t understand how cognitive behavior works. However, you demonstrate, quite adeptly, the concept of “cognitive dissonance.””
Well, I think you may be misusing the term “cognitive dissonance” there. I’m pretty confident about this shot in the dark, so I’m not even looking it up.
"Whitey July 13 Report
Using any cell phone while driving, whether hand held or hands free, whether talking, texting, or surfing the internet, should be illegal. With anything less, you’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. "
That’s why I worry whenever I see a police officer. They have cell phones (one for home, one for work, one for the demi-monde), computers, and radios, and are required to use them while driving.
And what about pilots? They’re using 2 radios, tapping data into flight computers, and reading checklists while they’re supposed to be flying the plane. It’s a miracle they don’t all crash.
Point being, it ain’t the cell phones, it’s the crappy driver training and the crappy attention to driving exhibited by many drivers.
Because Whitey referenced his posts in the other thread, I’ll respond to one of them:
1) A passenger will see the same things you do, so he or she will know when to pause the conversation. A passenger can see how you are driving and can choose to shut up until it appears safer to talk.
A passenger who’s not paying attention (because he’s not driving) is not necessarily going to see everything you do. The passenger might be oblivious. The passenger might be 8. The passenger might be in the back seat, or reading a book, or playing a video game. There are all sorts of scenarios in which the passenger is not, as suggested here, a copilot helping you scan for danger.
2) Unless you tell them, people on the other end of the phone have no idea if you are driving or sitting in your living room. If they knew you were driving, they might choose not to talk to you, especially if they care about your safety.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not phones are safe, or whether phones are dangerous while talking to a passenger is not.
3) A passenger can also help you drive by pointing out a potential hazard in the middle of the conversation. A passenger can easily say “those roads look pretty slippery, so I think I will shut up and let you drive.”
See my answer to #1, because they’re both the same points.
4) Talking on the phone has been proven to impair your ability to drive to a degree comparable to driving drunk. I don’t think anyone has proven the same level of impairment from talking to a passenger. If someone has done such a study, I would like to see it.
Well, I looked up that study ( http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Comparison-of-CellPhone-Driver-Drunk-Driver.pdf if anyone cares) and while I’ll certainly admit that it was much better than the amateurish study posted to this forum earlier, it did have its flaws. I’ll enumerate them briefly:
-
It used a driving simulator. Sims are great, but they aren’t real, and no one thinks they are. You simply do not react as urgently to un-real situations as you do to real situations. For instance, you do not get terrified and run away when you see Dracula appear on screen in a movie, but should he appear at your bedroom door, your reaction will be entirely different and orders of magnitude more urgent.
-
While they criticized the braking time, they didn’t put equal weight to the fact that cell phone users increased their following distance by 6.5 feet.
-
The study size is entirely too small. A good study involves many more than 40 people.
-
The study failed to allow the subjects to choose to discontinue the conversation when things got dicey. Dunno about you guys, but if the idiot in front of me is stabbing his brakes over and over again, I’m done with the cell phone conversation until he’s out of the picture. I’m also going to increase my following distance (which, I note, only the cell phone drivers did). Instead these subjects were apparently required to maintain a conversation while driving, no matter what. Real world, I’m not required to do that.
-
The study counts as a negative that it took cell phone users longer to recover their speed after braking. Who cares? We’re talking about accelerating from 51mph to 55mph. We don’t exactly have to drag race here.
At any rate, I find the conclusions of a 40-subject study to be interesting, and worthy of an expanded study that looks at many more people (preferably not all from the same city, because as anyone who does much traveling knows, people drive very differently in different regions of the country) but I don’t find that it produces clear evidence that driving with a cell phone is inherently dangerous when done properly and while dedicated to keeping your main focus on the driving task rather than the conversation.
I’d also be interested to see this study expanded to other common vehicular distractions, such as fiddling with the radio, the climate controls, trying to read billboards, and trying to read road signs. I’d wager that if they instructed the subjects to do this test while trying to find a classic rock station, they’d have similar results to cell phone use (if instructed to focus on finding the station no matter what was happening outside the windshield), and therefore would point out that if we’re going to ban cell phones, we’d better ban the radio too.
You can tell someone is drowning in the truth when he tries to continuously change the subject and make the “two wrongs make a right” argument. It’s sad, really. Instead of debating the merits of cell phones, you bring up things like the radio, police officers, and airplane pilots. These are all attempts at diversion. There’s no real logic to them. These are red herring and ad hominem fallacies.
Just because you say something, does not make it true. We’re not bringing up red herrings, we’re pointing out the abject logical fallacies in your points.
You claim that it’s not the cell phone itself, but the conversation with someone on the other end who isn’t sitting next to you helping you drive. OK, let’s say that’s true. Then why doesn’t that effect cops and pilots, who are having a conversation with someone on the other end who isn’t sitting next to them helping them drive?
The anti-cell phone crowd is looking for a scapegoat to blame problems on because the real solution isn’t fun and might personally effect them - that solution being, better driver training, routine driver testing (I took my last on the road test when I was 16. How bout you?), and very harsh penalties for distracted driving.
If you ban cell phones, you ban one potential distractive element. One. Big deal. The drivers will still, as has been pointed out already, have plenty of things - radio, GPS, food, passengers, screaming kids, things rolling around on the floor, a pretty girl in the convertible next to them, billboards, road signs, wildlife at the side of the road, a sunset, a back ache, problems at work, problems at home, worries about the future - to distract them from the task of driving. Do you intend to ban them all one by one, or shall we dispense with the political feelgood BS and address the core problem, which is that there are a whole lot of people out there who are terrible drivers and have no business being behind the wheel.
By the way, you might find this instructive:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
In it, you’ll see that from 1997 to 2007, as cell phones in general and in-car cell phone use in particular were gaining in popularity, vehicle accident fatality rates remained roughly steady until 2008, when the rates plummeted even though miles driven were significantly higher than in 1997. Even more telling is when you factor in deaths per mile driven, it was in steady decline for that entire decade.
Based on those statistics, I fail to see how cell phones themselves, rather than crappy driving in general, present such a danger that they should be outlawed. After all, if the argument is that cell phones have a definite effect on driving safety, this chart would seem to show that they save lives. 
Shadowfax: “I’d also be interested to see this study expanded to other common vehicular distractions, such as fiddling with the radio, the climate controls, trying to read billboards, and trying to read road signs. I’d wager that if they instructed the subjects to do this test while trying to find a classic rock station, they’d have similar results to cell phone use (if instructed to focus on finding the station no matter what was happening outside the windshield), and therefore would point out that if we’re going to ban cell phones, we’d better ban the radio too.”
By definition, that is a red herring fallacy. It usually follows this form:
- Topic A is under discussion.
- Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A.
- Topic A is abandoned.
Fortunately, I am too stubborn to let this work. I refuse to discuss topic B (other distractions), mainly because I know it is a tactic, rather than a logical point of discussion.
Everything you have brought up that isn’t about whether driving while talking on a cell phone impairs the driver’s ability is a red herring. Either that, or you are completely unable to stick to a single topic. I think I know which one it is.
You’ve steadfastly refused to even acknowledge any point that detracts from the idea that cell phones are a dangerous distraction, and then in your last post admitted that anything which shows an alternate cause of that distraction will be ignored.
In short, “I’m right, and anything that proves me wrong must by definition be a red herring.”
That’s not a very good foundation for debate.
I’m not ignoring the cell phone factor. I’m not abandoning it. I’m asking you to explain what is so magical about the cell phone that it alone has the power to distract while a police or airplane 2-way radio does not. I’m asking you to explain why, if cell phones are so dangerous, deaths-per-mile-driven have steadily declined at the same time that cell phone popularity has risen. I’m asking you to justify your position in light of relevant data. So far, you have refused to do so, either because you know it will defeat your argument, or because you don’t understand the underlying problems we’re discussing. I, too, think I know which one it is.
Whitey, what part of hands-free cell-phone use is dangerous? Having a conversation, or having a conversation with someone 500 miles away? If the person on the other end is closer (but farther away than a passenger), is it less distracting?
The corollary to “a passenger can see the same things…” is that, when talking on a phone, I have direct control over the end of the conversation. With a passenger, I have indirect control. (The “safety issue” here is people too worried about seeming “impolite” by hanging up…thankfully, i have no qualms re: appearing rude.)
Also, what if a conversation turns heated? Once, when acting as a designated driver for an ex-GF, she started punching+scratching me when the conversation went where she rather it didn’t. It’s pretty easy to see the safety advantage of having that same conversation on a cell phone, right?
Also, the whole “cell phone use is more dangerous than driving drunk!” malarkey has two flaws:
-
The quoted passage would be more accurately stated: “cell phone use is more dangerous than driving while just barely drunk” (meaning cell phone use vs. 0.08 BAC, not vs. “too drunk to remember my own name.”)
-
The cell phone user can, in effect, “sober up” immediately, and whenerver she chooses.
Given 1) and 2), I’d say that (assuming one could sober up on command) this really shows that 0.08 isn’t all that debilitating…assuming some familiarity with ethanol, and lack of contributing factors (fatigue, other drugs, etc.)
While I do agree that there are other distractions (eating, putting on makeup, playing with the GPS)…I still see the biggest distraction is cell-phone use…People don’t eat 30 minutes of the 35 minute commute…they don’t put on makeup all 30 minutes of the 30 minute commute…
When I’m on the highway I can spot the cell-phone drivers before I see them with the cell phone in their hand or them talking to themselves (i.e. hands free cell). Their driving becomes erratic…They slow down…many slow down and move to the LEFT lane…There are other distractions…but from my observations…cell-phone use is by far biggest of them all.
MikeInNH, I’m not denying that cell-phone use CAN be a distraction…I’m just arguing I’ve seen no arguments that conducting a conversation (remotely) is necessarily more dangerouns than conducting one with a live passenger. (Granted, talking “hands-free,” because one hand on a phone implies a dexterity liability.)
I’m asking advocates of “ban all phone use!” to either state why cell phone use is uniquely dangerous, or be logically consistent…and push for “sterile cockpit”-type rules for cars…banning ALL discussion not necessary for “safety of operations.”
Again, the 4 concerns Shadowfax referred to aren’t really liabilities of cell-phone use, per-se…they’re liabilities stemming from social manners, or perhaps a lack of desire to prioritize.
Also, the few “tests” of performance impairment I’ve seen conducted aren’t realistic…they don’t allow the vehicle operator to choose to initiate calls during “low-workload” moments, and they require the phone user to think about things (like, “how much wood CAN a woodchuck chuck?”) rather than beg off due to driving workload.
For me, I do not answer calls, as a rule, while driving, nor do I initiate calls during “high-workload” phases of the trip. I DO initiate calls during the “low-workload” enroute portion, and am prepared to say (for instance) “Sod off…I’m driving!” and make apologies later.
Meanjoe and I are pretty much in agreement here. I, too, am not denying that cell phones can be a distraction. My point is that there are a LOT of things people do in their cars that can be distractions. Either ban them all (and hire a hell of a lot more cops because they’re gonna have to pull just about everyone over) or just make distracted driving penalties tougher.
As Mike said, it’s easy to spot a distracted driver. And contrary to his assertion, it’s not always a cell phone user that’s weaving or driving slow in the fast lane. Sometimes it’s the guy who’s trying to eat a burger and fries, and is driving with his knees to free up his hands. If you make distracted driving an offense then the cop will pull over the person who’s driving like a moron no matter why he’s driving like a moron.
If you ban cell phones, then among other things the cop will have a guy who was driving perfectly fine pulled over for using a cell phone, and meanwhile tens if not hundreds of people driving like idiots will be sailing by the traffic stop. Banning specific objects is not the answer. Penalizing behavior is.
Meanjoe and I are pretty much in agreement here. I, too, am not denying that cell phones can be a distraction. My point is that there are a LOT of things people do in their cars that can be distractions.
Not disagreeing that there are other distractions…But my point is…people are on their cell-phone so much that it becomes so much more of a problem. In your commute how many minutes do you spend actually changing the dial on you radio??? Compare that to people who spend their entire commute on their cell. During their whole commute they’re being distracted while you might be distracted a total of 30 seconds while changing channels.
We should ban all distractions…let’s do that. I have no problem with it…And when police start pulling people over for distracted driving…I guarantee you that the vast majority will be for cell-phone use.
Just the other day someone posted here on Car Talk, annoyed that her XM radio in her Honda doesn’t have scrolling text so that she can read about whatever song is playing. She’s driving down the road reading her radio. At least the cell phone user is looking at the road.
I agree with you that, at least at first, a majority of distracted driving charges will be for cell phone use. I’m fine with that. I don’t like the people who pay too much attention to the phone and not enough to driving either. However, not everyone who uses a cell phone is in that boat. When I use my (hands free) phone in the car, the conversation is low priority. If something happens that I need to pay attention to, I lose track of the conversation rather than the road.
I’ll also point out that states which already ban cell phones have tacitly admitted that cell phones are not a guaranteed danger to driving, because they include exemptions for police officers. Last time I checked, they don’t have a special course in LEO school titled “How to use your cell phone without driving like a moron,” so it’s really an admission that it isn’t the phone itself that’s the problem, but the driver.
Just banning cell phones won’t work because banning cell phones doesn’t actually ban the idiot who uses it improperly. The old saying is true that if you make something idiot-proof, someone will design a better idiot. The idiot who used to be distracted by the now-illegal cell phone will simply find something else to distract him, like reading the radio or eating dinner or playing with the GPS.
The core problem is that an awful lot of people consider driving to be a chore that they have to do if they want to get from here to there. It’s not worth paying attention to. It’s not worth getting better at. When you approach driving like that, with the attitude that you don’t want to devote any more of your mind than absolutely necessary to the task of driving, you’re going to find something - anything - to keep the rest of your mind occupied. Getting rid of cell phones won’t change that attitude. Getting rid of idiots will.
“I’ll also point out that states which already ban cell phones have tacitly admitted that cell phones are not a guaranteed danger to driving, because they include exemptions for police officers”
Thank you for providing a textbook example of fallacious reasoning. Students studying logic could really benefit from crazy conclusions like this.
The core problem is that an awful lot of people consider driving to be a chore that they have to do if they want to get from here to there. It’s not worth paying attention to. It’s not worth getting better at. When you approach driving like that, with the attitude that you don’t want to devote any more of your mind than absolutely necessary to the task of driving, you’re going to find something - anything - to keep the rest of your mind occupied. Getting rid of cell phones won’t change that attitude. Getting rid of idiots will.
I agree 100% that’s the core problem…they are inconsiderate…and don’t have a problem at all in allowing other people to watch out for their stupid driving…They are only alive because other people are watching out for them.
I’ve seen salesman that drive with a GPS on…cell-phone and a laptop…plus have paperwork reading while driving to the next appointment…They’re only alive because other people had to make emergency maneuvers while this idiot isn’t paying attention to the road and concentrating on driving…I’m amazed at the number of drivers I’ve seen on the road READING a book or newspaper…
But I still feel that cell-phone use a distraction…and are a danger to other drivers on the road.
Thank you for providing a textbook example of fallacious reasoning. Students studying logic could really benefit from crazy conclusions like this.
So are you then proposing that cell phones are, in fact, guaranteed to be dangerous and therefore the exemption for cops is somehow definitely putting everyone in danger? That’s a hell of a scoop you’ve got there! You should call the paper.
I note that you’ve been having a really good time accusing me of nefarious debate techniques, without bothering to point out exactly what makes my points nefarious. I’d think, especially as someone who is apparently so very concerned with proper debate, you’d be able to back up your statements rather than just blindly hurling vague-yet-bad-sounding crap at me hoping to sully the image of my points in the eyes of other forum readers.