Well said.
I too have seen people texting while driving. I’ve even seen people driving while using their steering wheel as a platform to hold maps, clipboards with paperwork on them and who-knows-what while they work on them.
Many states have statutes against this sort of thing, but it’s common anyway. Unenforceable statutes IMHO won’t change anything.
I atill think driver training with a scare scenerio in a controlled course is the only thing that would have an impact. Nothing can stop it completely, but it might help.
I agree. One of my fiends recently got into a head on collision while putting on her shoes and driving because she was late for school. I believe we already have laws against driving without shoes anyway, though.
“Many states have statutes against this sort of thing, but it’s common anyway. Unenforceable statutes IMHO won’t change anything.”
Perhaps…
but they are still necessary. Negligence while driving if it includes a violation of a traffic law could impact insurance claims if an accident occurs.
And like it of not, it gives just cause to pull over people who are multiple offenders in other areas. DUI’s as an example, are not all stopped because they were driving erratically. Often it’s a violation of one of these innocuous traffic laws that on their own, would never see the light of day in court or written up as a violation.
I had my first- and only- cell phone a few years back. Thing caused more headache than what its worth so I threw the dammed thing out the freakin’ window and havn’t regretted it since. I agree completely with your position on this, capnlucerne, for whatever reason, the people I spot most driving while using their cells are soccer moms in jinormous SUV’s or dudes in their equally jinormous pick-up trucks.
Cell phones while driving without a hands free device is illegal in CA. and I’m happy about that. Yes I still see the occasional person doing it, but it is less than before.
Yes, it’s time. No, you’re not just being cranky.
There’s plenty of research to show that cell phone use while driving is equivalent to driving while intoxicated, so if cell phone use is legal, drunk driving should be legal.
Anyone want to take that to their elected representatives?
It should have been banned a long time ago. I wonder where the parents of the 12-year old girl were when that happened. They should be responsible for their daughter’s actions, not the state.
NO! 6% of accidents involve cell phones…But guess what? 6% of drivers are on cell phones! See for yourself at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809967.PDF
What’s even more interesting is that some non zero percentage of the accidents involve two cars either of which could be on cell phones and be rightly or wrongly to blame, so the real percentage of cell phone related accidents should be somewhere between 6-12%…CELL PHONE DRIVING IS SAFER!!!
Why? I find that I am less aggressive, speed less, don’t rush past red lights, etc…Who knows why, the statistics don’t lie!
you aint kidding!i’ve witnessed several near accidents from bozos yakking on their phones.the last one was this past summer,a woman,~50yrs,blew right through a redlight intersection(didn’t even pause,she was looking ahead to the next light)luckily,the guy two cars ahead of me was alert and saw her in enough time to stop.i work in a shopping center,and see amazing feats of driving skills(??)every single day from these “phonies”
According to the NHTSB, 8% of women are on cell phones at any give time! If this is true, what is a “reasonable” or “cell phones were not inherently responsible” statistic for accidents involving women and cell phones?..I would argue something more like 10-12% because many accidents might involve other cars, and the odds that any TWO random cars are using cell phones is higher(twice).
Would somebody please respond to this post…Tom? Ray?.. Because if these statistics are true, this whole thread and Car Talk’s pet peeve has just been shot down. This whole national movement to ban cell phone driving appears to be being driven by something other than safety issues and the best interests of the public…
The implication on this thread is that it is “reaction times” of cell phone users that suffer from cell phone use, meaning we are mostly talking about accidents involving reacting to other cars. If this is true, the expected rate of accidents involving cell phones and two cars should be double or a full 12%…It’s not…It should be higher for accidents involving three or more as any one of the cars using cell phones will be blamed regardless of the truth.
If people really are so concerned about safety, why aren’t we really very interested in the reasons why cell phone driving is safer than non cell phone driving. This should be a big deal.
Maybe there are cases where speeding is much more of a safety issue than reaction times…such as in HOV lanes…How would this thread feel if the accident rate was way higher for non cell users than for cell users in such an example? Maybe there would be other non recorded benefits to other drivers in the HOV lanes since the entire lane would reduce speed?
Have you looked at the methodology used in your so-called statistics?
The survey observes usage as it actually occurs at a random selection of roadway sites…
So the study might have been accidentally biased towards ares where cell phone use is illegal, making that “6%” number deceivingly small.
The survey data is collected by sending trained observers to probabilistically sampled intersections controlled by a stop sign or stoplight, where motorists are observed from the roadside.
So the study didn’t included interstate highways and other limited access highways? That looks like another flaw. I think people are more likely to use a cell phone on a limited access highway.
What happens if the observers miss a cell phone or two while they are counting? How do they see into cars with tinted windows?
What happens if the observers are biased? If they are cell phone users themslves, could that bias them? Are they supervised? Is the data verified?
Data is collected between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
That looks like another flaw. Those who are willing to use a cell phone to drive might be more likely to use them during non-rush hour hours.
Only stopped vehicles are observed to permit time to collect the variety of information required by the survey, including subjective assessments of motorists? age and race.
So anyone who got a green light at the intersections studied didn’t get counted? Also, anyone who ran the red light because he was distracted on the phone would not be counted. That’s pretty funny!
The worst flaw of the study is that it could only count hands free devices that could be seen from a distance. If the driver had a built-in speaker phone in the car, he was not counted.
Statistics can be cherry picked and skewed to say almost anything. In my personal experience, I see a lot more than 6% of drivers on the phone, probably because I live in a state where cell phone use is not regulated. Show me a study that compares crash statistics where they are banned with crash statistics where they are not banned, and has fewer flaws in its methodology, and I will be happy to take a look.
Take a look at how the NHTSB gets its statistics.
-The study didn’t included interstate highways and other limited access highways.
-The observers could only count the cell phones they could see.
-Data was only collected between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
-Only stopped vehicles were observed.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
?Mark Twain
Good answer common sense. There are laws against drunk driving, or, more to the point, “driving under the influence”, but jackasses do it anyway. Severe penalties with mandatory strict enforcement for reckless driving when some jackass causes an accident are what is needed. Although, providing police with the ability to arrest some bubblehead who is driving wjile on the phone ain’t such a bad idea!
You haven’t proven that there are benefits to driving while on the phone, so any discussion about “other non recorded benefits” will probably have to wait until you provide some proof of your wild assumption. You haven’t proven that “cell phone driving is safer than non cell phone driving.”
The study you cite didn’t ask the question of whether or not cell phone driving is unsafe. It certainly hasn’t proven the that cell phone drivers are safer than people who are not talking on the phone. That appears to be an assumption you have made. If your wild assumption is based on the data you have provided, I can’t tell from looking at the data. In my opinion, even if the data is valid, your assumptions based on that data are faulty.
The ONLY valid conclusions drawn from the data you have provided are:
-“Hand-held use increased in a number of driver categories, including female drivers (from 6 percent in 2004 to 8 percent in 2005), drivers age 16-24 (8 percent in 2004 to 10 percent in 2005), and drivers in suburban areas (4 percent in 2004 to 7 percent in 2005).”
-“The incidence of drivers speaking with headsets on while driving also increased in 2005, from 0.4 percent of drivers in 2004 to 0.7 percent in 2005.”
-“In the first nationwide probability-based estimate of the incidence of hand-held device manipulation, the survey found that 0.2 percent of drivers were dialing phones, checking PDAs, or otherwise manipulating some hand-held device while driving in 2005.”
Who cares about the details?!..The bottom line is that after 43,000 observations, they came up with a 6% usage number. I would say that the margin of error is pretty small. Are you claiming that this number is way overstated and thus the percentage of accidents are wildly higher than the percentage of drivers using cell phones? If it were accurate, do you concede defeat?