Lots of other behaviors may be as dangerous while driving. Cellphone usage is observable and DOES have an impact on driving. Like most decisions, what you and I banter about often does little to change traffic laws. It will be insurance comps. that find it cheaper to lobby for change than pay for injuries incurred where cell phone use is involved. It’s not an exact science but trial and error till we stumble onto the right laws backed by some research that seem to work. Hands free will never be outlawed nor should it be.
Having said that, like you, I would rather err on a law that may save lives.
Consider all those undivided highways out there with speed limits 55 mph and closing speeds of two cars at often over 110 mph just feet from each other.
I say screw the freedom of the driver in the opposite lane of mine with one hand holding, texting or dialing a cell.
Outlaw cell phones (yes, I have one). Every week I have to prevent (let’s call her Idiot) Idiot (usually young female)from hitting me when she pulls-out without looking/stopping. When I toot the horn, the Idiot gives “me” the finger! When I put my window down when beside her at a light, she repeats the finger action and follows that up with a choice cuss word. Then Idiot says “sorry” (not even I’m sorry) … all while still on the phone! Issue tickets, send them to prison, I don’t care … just get rid of them. Young people are poor drivers and talking/texting on the phone simply enhances that quality. I’ll tolerate the 80 year old s-l-o-w driver, the new driver, but not Idiots. I’d like to B---- slap them.
I was making the assumption that if they really did cause a net increase in the number of accidents, we’d see a parallel increase in deaths.
I guess I fall into the group that thinks that if driving is considerably more safe than it was 15 years ago and we have the benefit of cell phone contact, I’m happy.
Maybe someone will find data showing that total accidents have increased and I’d have to consider the mostly economical argument that they aren’t worth the cost, but that’s a lot less emotionally compelling than deaths.
Most of the people who rant about cell phones while driving, including dear Click and Clack, put forward purely emotional arguments: “it must be bad because I saw this bad behavior the other day.”
Dustin Hoffman once cut me off with an illegal left turn from the right lane - does that mean we should prohibit actors from driving? (Probably someone will say we should!)
My apologies for my previous post, which was a reactionary flame. After reading other posts, I have formed a more logical opinion on this issue: cell phone and two-way radio use should not contribute to ?information overload?.
Different driving situations demand different amounts of attention. Navigating city traffic, as replicated by Mythbusters’ obstacle course, and the situation described by the OP, demand so much attention that conversing would likely cause information overload (and a collision); whereas highway driving may be low demand enough to accommodate a conversation, if a driver makes it so. Set the cruise control to within the speed limit(s) and stay to the right; all on a stretch of road with no exits. Ever notice why highways seem so bland? They’re designed that way to minimize the stimulus rate for higher speed traffic.
Many times on I-95, north of Boston, I have seen vehicles stopped in the breakdown lane, with the driver on the phone, because ?The Law? in Massachusetts requires that he stop. I think, ‘What if he gets rear-ended?’ Also, I’ve seen other vehicles stop behind these talkers to offer unneeded help. At that point, it becomes crying wolf.
Laws and codes to regulate activities are necessary to the extent that the most people can safely benefit from scientific and technological progress, otherwise driving would require that one be an engineer or physicist. That would be absurd.
Beyond that point, however, laws tend to reduce the skilled and rational to the lowest common denominator, impede progress, and diminish the benefits of technology. As in my previous post, this is what I vehemently oppose, as should we all.
The ability to communicate while traveling is a tremendous boon to modern life. Experience can help us determine what situations in which it is appropriate to make use of that ability. Rather than regress and reject progress, we must investigate this issue thoroughly, and achieve a consensus.
I’ve had similar near misses by youg female drivers also! They scare me to death! I’ve had them pass me on a secondary road with a speed limit of 45 & they were doing no less than 65mph & never giving a thought that they were in a no passing zone! And yes, the darn cell phone was fastened to the ear!
Down boy!
YES! ABSOUTELY!!! JS
The mistake made originally was allowing these dam things into vehicles in the first place.
Look what (irresponsible drivers did when they allowed DVD screens in vans (designated for rear passengers ONLY). Drivers mounted screens on the dash so they could watch the movies while driving!
Next you have GPS screens to distract you from sane driving as well.
It s just goes on and on and you know what? So does the insurance rates. Pay and pay and pay.
Just like the movie…Dumb and Dumber.
What’s the difference between using a cell phone and carrying on a conversation with the person sitting next to you in the vehicle? Are you going to ban talking in cars too?
What’s the difference between using a cell phone and carrying on a conversation with the person sitting next to you in the vehicle?
Where should I start? Here are some reasons from the top of my head. I will add more later if I think of them.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
I have asked passengers to be quiet so I can concentrate on my driving in heavy traffic or hazardous conditions. Whether you ask passengers to be quiet or you tell the person on the phone you have to go, people sometimes seem reluctant to exercise discretion when they are on the phone.
Your points are lame. In order:
-
A passenger won’t be paying attention to driving.
-
Someone will refuse to talk to you because you’re driving? Not a chance.
-
see #1.
-
so is talking to people in the car, which is why State Farm gives a discount for teens who don’t drive with more than one friend.
Your last “point” makes my point. You can (and I have done so) hang up with someone when you need to pay extra attention. You can also make an excuse to hang up with someone, where many people won’t tell a friend “shut up, your yakking is irritating me.”
Again. No difference. I think this whole cell phone debate is for people to have something to complain about.
Jammy3
Your last sentence makes the point.
The ones that are complaining the most are the ones who insist on using a cell phone while driving.
Roadrunner,
I disagree. Never heard someone who uses their cell in a car complaining about people who do (or do not) use cell phones.
Personally, I’ve had more close encounters with people who weren’t on cell phones than who were - by far. Doesn’t matter - young, old, male, female, etc, etc. Stupid is stupid.
Jammy3, the difference between you and me is that I was raised to pay attention to how people drive when I am a passenger in the car since my life is at stake. I was taught that if I don’t feel safe in the car, ask the driver to pull over, get out, and call home for a ride. I was also taught that if the driver refuses to pull over, reach over, turn off the car, and take the key out of the ignition. Perhaps you were raised to be a passive passenger. I, however, wasn’t.
Your only rebuttals seem to be “lame” and “not a chance” or “State Farm gives…” Is that really the best you can do? I usually get to exchange ideas with people of intellect here. You are letting me down. I have become used to responses with some kind of substance or proof, not just dismissal without any relevant facts.
The fact that you have personally hung up on people to pay attention only proves you should have not been on the phone in the first place. A lot of hazards don’t present themselves with time for you to take that long to react. You were lucky those hazards didn’t require a faster reaction.
Really? How many times have you turned off someone’s vehicle when they’re driving? LOL.
I answered each point, including the dupe used to give the appearance of a more grounded argument than you were able to make. So please spare me the “intellect” stuff.
In the 15 years that I’ve been using a cell, I’ve been accident free. Lucky? Maybe. But talking on a cell phone and driving attentively are not mutually exclusive.
Again to my point, I see no difference between talking to people sitting next to them and talking to them on a phone.
Thankfully, it has never come to that.
This just looks like a simple case of denial. It conflicts with your sense of reality so it CAN’T possibly be hazardous to drive while talking on the phone.
If that is the only standard of proof, I guess those folks who think they are safer without seatbelts are right as well…and the ones who think the Sun orbits a flat Earth must be right too. My goodness, ignoring reality is liberating!
The reality is that cell phone drivers have the same accident rate as non-cell phone drivers. 6% of accidents involve cell phones, 6% of drivers are on cell phones…How else would you measure the bottom line?
You measure the bottom line with a study that is designed to answer your particular question. You don’t just pull two unrelated statistics from two unrelated studies and stir them together to find support for an unsubstantiated argument. Surely if this was really the case, there would be stronger evidence than stats from two unrelated studies that never intended to answer this particular question.
Haven’t we had this discussion already? Do you really want to repeat it?
We are currently discussing the differences between talking to a passenger and talking on the phone. Do you have anything RELEVANT to contribute?
The relevant and very reasonable question is: Do drivers using cell phones have a higher accident rate than drivers who are not using cell phones? The two statistics I referred to shed more light on this question than all of your testimonials. The fact that you aren’t interested in exploring this question is evidence that you are ignoring reality, thus justifying my reply in this thread.
But I am willing to explore the question if you give me a valid starting point. However, you insist on basing the discussion on two unrelated statistics from two unrelated studies. That leaves us with a starting point that has no valid basis in reality.
Even IF you were right, and we assumed that accident rates were the same for people who talk on the phone while they drive, (which I am not wlling to concede until I see compelling evidence), my position is that those collisions are not accidents. They are completely avoidable, and we have a moral obligation to the victims and their families to reduce that rate, just like we do with drunk drivers for their victims and their families. You could show me a statistic that said that only 2% of drivers drive drunk, and that would not convince me that drunk driving victims don’t deserve protection.
Frankily, I don’t care if drivers using cell phones have a higher accident rate than drivers who are not using cell phones. The kinds of accidents that people have while on the phone are not the same types of accidents as those who don’t talk on the cell phone, and they are completely avoidable.
Here are the articles (provided by Ron-man) that prove my points:
[list]http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html[/list]
[list]Cell Phones: More Dangerous Than Driving Drunk | BicycleUniverse.com
[list]http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/06/cell_phones_distaction.html[/list]
[list]http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/Driving_While_on_Cell_Phone_Worse_Than_Driving_While_Drunk.shtml[/list]
[list]http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1[/list]
I particularly like how this study (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/PDF/nrd-13/BentsF_doc.pdf) states:
The citations issued to cell phone-using drivers involved in these fatal crashes were disproportionately high for “inattention” when compared to all drivers included in FARS. In virtually all crashes, the cell-phone-using drivers were in the striking vehicle. When the type of crash is examined, they fall into two categories - drivers striking something in front of them, or leaving their lane of traffic. This pattern is repeated every day on our highways.
The data contained in the 1995 National Automotive Sampling System file followed a similar pattern. Five of the eight drivers struck something stopped in front of them. Three other drivers left their lane of travel and struck a vehicle or object. In these eight crashes, six of the drivers were engaged in conversation, one was dialing his phone, and one was hanging up. Of the six engaged in conversation, two of the drivers were using mounted phones in a hands-free mode. What is common among all these crashes is driver inattention. These drivers were not presented with changing situations which required emergency maneuvers, they simply failed to control their vehicles during routine driving conditions.
DSI also attempted to prospectively collect crash data in support of the federal report. We asked several police departments in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia to notify us when a cell-phone related crash was identified. Five such crashes were reported during a six month period. In two of these cases, the drivers struck a vehicle in front of them. In three other cases the drivers ran off the road. Two of these drivers were startled when their phones rang, and left their lanes as a result. One mother killed her daughter when their vehicle struck a tree as she reached for her phone.
(I added the emphasis.)