shdowfax: “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?”
All I am proposing is that your conclusions are clearly based on fallacious reasoning. I am not going to argue any point with someone who doesn’t know the difference between logic and fallacious reasoning.
I know the difference. Do you? You claiming something about me doesn’t make it true.
But as long as we’re engaged in hyperbole and pejorative conjecture about each other, you’re so blinded by the “cell phones are evil!” mantra that anything anyone says that challenges that baseless scapegoating copout bleat is automatically rejected, not on merit, but on trumped up charges of misapplied debate techniques.
Sorry to say, I see through that.
I find it very instructive as to your willingness to honestly debate the matter that I posted statistics that show vehicle fatalities-per-mile-driven have gone down at the same period of time that cell phone use has gone up, and yet you completely ignore that point, preferring to point fingers and call names.
Let’s be quite frank here. The idea that banning cell phones will make driving safer is crap. Pure crap. The “logic” that people are distracted by cell phones and therefore if you take them away people won’t ever be distracted by anything else and so you’ve addressed the actual problem is, uh, fallacious reasoning.
Shadowfax: “The ‘logic’ that people are distracted by cell phones and therefore if you take them away people won’t ever be distracted by anything else and so you’ve addressed the actual problem is, uh, fallacious reasoning.”
There you go again. I never made a case for that, or even hinted that I thought that, yet you managed to believe that is what I think.
Where, exactly, did I ever suggest removing cell phones would address the issue of other distractions? That’s all you buddy, trying to put words in my mouth, another example of your fallacious reasoning.
If you want to argue against something I said or something I believe, please quote the passage against which you are arguing. If there is none, and you want to know what I believe, feel free to ask me. However, for the love of civilized debate and manners, please stop putting words in my mouth and please stop telling me what I believe. You are so far off the mark you have no idea.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again it again for your benefit, I would prefer to remove all distractions, including the lame tactic of trying to change the subject. Now, can we please get back to cell phones? Thank you.
If you never made a case for that, then what exactly is your point? If you’re not making a case that banning cell phones addresses the actual problem, then what case are you making? And why are you making it instead of trying to find a solution to the actual problem?
Your method of discussing the cell phone ban requires that we accept at face value the idea that banning cell phones will make driving safer, because if we point out that banning cell phones doesn’t remove other things which cause the same problem, you accuse us of trying to change the subject.
I’ve given you plenty of logic (not fallacious reasoning, but actual logic) that says it’s more reasonable to penalize distracted driving of any sort than it is to ban anything and everything that might possibly distract a driver. The logical syllogism is perfectly sound. If distracted driving is the problem, and banning cell phones does not eliminate all possible distractions, then banning cell phones will not solve the problem.
Further, as some distractions do not involve devices, but rather involve the driver thinking about things other than driving, and we cannot (yet, anyway) police a ban on thought, you can never effectively ban all specific distractive elements, and therefore a policy of banning any specific distractive element is foolish and doomed to failure if the goal is to address distracted driving.
The point I am making is that it has been proven, in several studies, that driving while on the phone is as dangerous as driving drunk. Therefore, I think we should make the same effort to ban cell phone use while driving that we make to eradicate drunk driving.
The similarity between drunk driving and cell phone use has been proven. The similarity between cell phone use and your other issues and topics has not been proven. Your position that since we can’t ban thought, we can’t ban cell phone use is weak and fallacious, and I have no intention of debating the arguments of conclusions drawn based on fallacious reasoning.
We know cell phone use while driving causes an increase in collisions. While it may seem intuitive that other distractions are harmful too, and I would probably share your opinion, I choose to discuss the hazards that have been studied and proven. If you don’t like that, tough.
If I were to share your line of reasoning (which I am loathe to do, since it might make me appear woefully ignorant), then I would say something like “Since we can’t ban all hazards, we should stop arresting people for drunk driving.” Thankfully, I recognize the errant reasoning in that, and your, argument.
You have failed to link to those studies. I found one, which proved that 40 people (or 0.000013% of the population) all of whom live in the same city were shown to drive similarly (but not the same) as people who were just barely at the legally drunk stage. I pointed out many problems with that study, none of which have you refuted.
My argument is not that since we can’t ban thought, we can’t ban cell phones. My argument is that banning cell phones will not solve the problem of distracted driving. Mischaracterizing my argument might be fun, but it shows you to be operating from a weak foundation.
I have already shown you fatal accidents per mile driven statistics, and how they have declined despite the sharp rise in cell phone use. Here’s another one to chew on, this time from the US Census.
Vehicle accidents (fatal and non-fatal) in 2008 totaled 10.2 million. That’s down from 13.4 million in 2000, when fewer people were on cell phones, and sharply down from 17.9 million in 1980. If cell phone use while driving causes an increase in collisions, then why were there 7,700,000 fewer collisions in 2008 when a lot of people had cell phones than in 1980 when hardly anyone had them?
Based on these statistics, which if your past history is indicative you will ignore, I don’t see that you have proven that cell phone use increases the collision rate. Hell, you can’t even manage to correlate the two, since both fatal and non fatal accidents have declined at the same time that cell phone use has increased.
“You have failed to link to those studies.”
No, I haven’t. If you look above, you will find my link to a discussion in which other users and I referenced many studies. Nice try though.
“My argument is that banning cell phones will not solve the problem of distracted driving.”
I never thought it would. We don’t attack problems by grouping them together with other issues, making them too large to address. We single out specific threats, which we can measure so we can judge effectiveness, and we address those threats one at a time.
Banning drunk driving doesn’t solve the problem of all types of impairment to driving ability (like cocaine use and sleep deprivation). Are you doing to argue that since banning drunk driving doesn’t solve the problem of impaired driving, that we should drop the ban on drunk driving? That appears to be how your mind works.
Personally, I think we should address all these problems individually, based on their own merits. I don’t think cell phone use is related to the distraction provided by car radios any more than drunk driving is related to sleep deprivation. They may coincide, but both issues are separate, and are worthy of individual recognition, rather than being grouped together to support your fallacious reasoning.
I was right! You ignored the statistics. (Again).
What statistics?
Yes, logic eludes me completely. I admit it. I’m stupid. I mean, I thought that dropping the accident rate by over 7 million per year meant that there were fewer accidents, but you’ve told us there are more, and you must be right, because you’ve spent the entire thread attacking my methods and ignoring anything that doesn’t point to your preconceived notion. You certainly schooled me.
(edit)
Let’s keep things honest, shall we, and not materially edit our posts after someone has already replied to them, at least without noting what the edit was and why?
[sarcasm] I didn’t know it was dishonest to edit something I wrote and wanted to change. From now on, I shall ask for your permission. [/sarcasm]
It is when you can see that I’ve already responded to it, and then you delete the remarks I responded to.
Look, I’m starting to lose interest in this circular thread. You have failed to show that banning cell phones will enhance road safety because you have failed to show that distracted drivers won’t find something else to distract them if you take their cell phones away, and you haven’t been able to explain why the accident rate has steadily declined at a time when cell phones are supposedly causing more accidents. I’ve failed to convince you that if the problem is distracted driving, we should focus on solving the problem rather than banning only one potential contributing factor to the problem. I have a feeling that we could go round and round on this until cell phones get replaced by a more advanced technology. I’m willing to call it a draw if you are.
Please don’t pass these bans on handheld cell phones. Drivers will spend a lot of money on special hands-free cell phones and then become even more resistant to effective laws that ban all cell phone use.
Even if the cops can’t see you yakking on a cell phone (and eventually they will learn to detect it), we can require cell phone records to be subpoena for every accident. A $25,000 fine, and if you’re rich enough to afford that easily like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, then 200 hours of picking up doggy doo in the parks.
Of COURSE Ford wants to support a hands free bill… THEY PRODUCE THE SYNC/TOUCH SYSTEM!
Insurance companies have been lobbying the government to ban the use of Cellphones as well. I think it should be mandated that all auto manufactures should install hands free or blue tooth capable radios in all their vehicles by the year 2015 and not just offer it as an upgrade.
I submit that the more “friendly” you are with a passenger, the more dangerous it is. The single biggest move Ford could make, to lesson cell phone use, is to stop putting automatic transmissions, cruise controland power windows in their cars. The more "free time " we make available for the devils workshop, the more driver attention is diverted by something entertaining it seems.
Not that any of this is practical, but making the kid’s car a manual keeps a younger driver’s attention on driving…sometimes.
Let me first say that part of my vocation and work includes conducting research studies and critically appraising research. Reading the discussion over the use of cell phones while driving is interesting, but the banter in some of the posts between Whitey and his “adversaries” stressed me enough to finally chime in. I usually stay out of the back and forth with the mechanical stuff (I am not a mechanic) but feel more qualified to talk about this:
I agree that cell phone use while driving is distracting, and more dangerous than without.
However, I do not support Whitey’s conclusion (mostly I disagree with his CONVICTION rather than his opinion) based on the information presented regarding a comparison between cell phone use and drunk driving. This is a common occurence when the public tries to interpret studies that they receive through the internet and media. People and the media make conclusions mostly based on the conclusion statements made by authors of studies, and often these are purposely OVERSTATED to bias journals to publish results. Then another better designed analysis or study comes out and refutes what the public thought was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
No doubt you have seen statements like “eating fat increases your cholesterol”, “cell phones cause cancer”, “vitamin D reduces cancer” and on and on, only to find another study later that refutes everything you believed. The case of driving using cell phones vs drunk driving really has no well designed studies, including the ones sited in this discussion, to draw any conclusions on. In fact, most of what has been cited is very poorly designed, or just plain propaganda. Comparing data between different surverys or studies is a common fallacy and should be avoided. The study using the simulator has many flaws (subjects were their own controls, no randomization, unclear validation of outcome measures, a simulator was used, subjects were at the legal limit while real world drunk drivers are not all siting at the legal limit, subjects were no longer above the legal limit while driving at the end of the study, and on and on).
My opinion is that to make a conclusion that cell phone use while driving is equal to or worse than drunk driving is completely absurd based on what has been presented here. I think it would be appropriate to say that the research into this question only shows that both potentially impare your driving, and further research with better designed studies would be needed to justify an answer beyond this.
And interestingly, that same study does chime in during the discussion with “…driving impairments associated with handheld and hands-free cell phone conversations were not significantly different…” and cites several prior reports that are consistent with this and goes on “…legislative initiatives that restrict handheld devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to eliminate the problems associated with using cell phones while driving.” So for those of you who want to keep discussing the hands-free issue, then flame on.
Ford should lobby to have use of their new touch screen control system banned while driving. I’d have to say it’s the worst I’ve tried. Maybe that’s what a partnership with Microsoft will get you…
and the funny thing is the police our the worst they our dispatched over a laptop and our almost always on the phone
@nebin, if you think the conclusions drawn in the studies I cited are flawed, I will concede you are probably more qualified to draw than conclusion than I am. However, I am curious to know what you think of the claim that cell phone use significantly impairs cognition of drivers when it isn’t compared to that of a drunk driver. Do you think it has been substantiated that cognitive impairment caused by cell phone use is dangerous enough to ban cell phone use without the comparison to drunk drivers?
Also, I’d like to know what you think of psychology as a social science. Since a lot of the conclusions they draw are based on simple observations and supposition, and not laboratory science, do you think we should ignore their conclusions? For example, evolutionary psychologists spend a great deal of time trying to determine whether certain traits are adaptive or maladaptive (does a particular trait help the species flourish, or is it a trait that does not help?). Evolutionary psychologists reverse these conclusions all the time. In fact, they are debated regularly, but those debates are what make evolutionary psychology so interesting. Personally, I don’t think we should ignore their conclusions just because they are frequently reversed by consensus in the field.
I ask what you think about psychology because I see this idea (that talking on a cell phone impairs cognition as much as drunk driving), in a similar light. It’s certainly worth discussing, but the only point in comparing them is to give people who aren’t psychologists something to compare it to.
Now, with all that said, I concede you are right that we aren’t 100% sure either way, but there is certainly more evidence one way than the other. This evidence might not stand up to the same standards as laboratory science, but there is zero evidence to contradict it.