Does cell phone use while driving deserve a law? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KnifeMissile · 02-08-2006, 03:50 AM

This article informs us that the Ontario government will, once again, consider banning cell phone use while driving, as a matter of law.

Quote:

Durham MPP John O'Toole says he's sick and tired of people being killed or injured while using cellphones in their cars.

So, once again, he'll introduce a private member's bill to ban hand-held cellphone use while driving when the Legislature resumes later this month.

It'll be the third time the Conservative MPP has pitched Queen's Park colleagues to put the ban into law and comes after a weekend accident in Bradford where a woman and her son drowned after their SUV slid into an icy canal as she talked on her phone.

"Cellphones can be a lifeline, but they can also be a distraction," said O'Toole, who figures many accidents and deaths could have been prevented if his bill had been passed when he proposed it in 1998 and again in 2002.

But he shouldn't expect any support from Premier Dalton McGuinty.

"I'm not convinced that we need to ban them in Ontario. I understand there's a law on the books that has to do with dangerous driving and the like," McGuinty said yesterday. "We can't have a law for everything.

"My advice to Ontarians is: if you're using a cell phone when you're driving, be careful. Act responsibly, be sensible and take the necessary measures to protect yourself and others on the road."

O'Toole's bill still isn't as wide-ranging as the total ban on cellphone use recommended by a coroner's jury in 2002, a year after a Ajax man and his 2-year-old daughter died when their truck was hit by a train during a phone call. An inquest heard that Richard Schewe failed to notice the flashing lights and gate at a Pickering railway crossing while on the phone.

O'Toole said the jury's recommendations were never implemented and his bill twice died on the Legislature order paper.

"That's the tragedy of this thing," he said.

O'Toole said he wants all new drivers to be banned from using any technology — cellphones, Blackberries, iPods, faxes, onboard navigation systems or DVD players — while driving.

"And now you've got satellite radio with 300 channels," he said. "How are people dialling and digiting when they should be driving?"

More than 30 countries around the world have banned cellphone use while driving. So have a few American states, including New York. In Canada, only Newfoundland-Labrador bans the practice in a law enacted in 2003.

"It can be very cumbersome to follow through with a conviction, but we still issue tickets," Sgt. Rick Thorne of Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in St. John's said yesterday. He said the law has reduced cellphone use by drivers but added that statistics about any reduction in accidents were unavailable.

The issue resurfaced after the weekend drownings of Cassandra Read, 32, and her 4-year-old son, Taylor Grasby, of Keswick, after their car spun out of control near Bradford and slid into a Holland Marsh canal.

South Simcoe police said Read was talking to a friend on her cellphone about 7 p.m. as she drove along winding Canal Rd. in a snowstorm.

Traffic Sgt. Steve Wilson said police found no mechanical defects in the vehicle that would have caused the accident.

"We'll never know what caused her to lose control," he said, but added cellphones are a distraction even under ideal road conditions.

He said the police community would welcome a ban proposed by O'Toole and lamented the fact the coroner's jury recommendations were not adopted.

"If they were implemented by the Ministry of Transportation, this collision might not have happened," he said.

"We investigate collisions or what appear to be bad drivers every week and it's people talking on cellphones. Some people are more skilled at it than others, but there's always some level of distraction."

Read's cousin, Tracy Hlady, said yesterday she supports Bradford West Gwillimbury Mayor Frank Jonkman's $18 million proposal to shift the canals away from the road. Town officials said 19 people have died in the canals in the past 52 years.

"I want people to get angry," Hlady said. "I don't want anybody else to die."

Now, I might have been all for this if it weren't for the fact that I just recently got my driver's lisence and rented a car for the weekend. While driving, I recieved a call and answered it. Did I put anyone at risk? Well, I am a very responsible driver and I honestly don't think I did. So, I have a lot of sympathy for drivers who own cell phones.
Now, having said that, there are obviously people who are dangerous drivers while on the phone and, if they were the only people in danger, I'd say let them drive to their deaths. However, I do fear for the innocent bystanders that these drivers may harm while being dumb. So, there may be some merit to the law, after all. I heard that several European countries have already enacted similar laws, as well as two (smaller) provinces.

So, I was just wondering how TFPers feel about this...

aKula · 02-08-2006, 04:12 AM

For it, it's just too dangerous. It's as bad or worse than driving while drunk. It puts other road users at risk as well.

Quote:

What Call Is Worth a Life?
It's time to admit that hands-free is not a solution. It's time to ban phone driving.

By Dan Carney
Wednesday, February 9, 2005; Page A23

Phone driving is the drunken driving of the new millennium. Seemingly everyone does it, and all of them seem to believe that they are skilled in a way that prevents their powers of perception from being clouded by the fog of isolation that envelops drivers who talk on the phone.

Everyone who isn't on the phone while driving sees evidence of it every day, as drivers weave and stutter drunkenly through traffic while negotiating peace in the Middle East over the phone, or their kid's allowance, or some other question that, while too important to wait, doesn't merit pulling over to the side and parking for a few minutes to make the call. Those who are on the phone not only don't see others weaving in their lanes, they don't realize that they themselves are doing it.

Virginia is taking a step in the right direction with a bill to prohibit phone use by drivers younger than 18. State Sen. Bill Mims (R-Loudoun) and Del. Joe May (R-Loudoun) recognize that teen drivers have a hard enough time staying out of trouble without the distraction of telephone conversation. But the truth is that adults are affected in much the same way: Talking on a cell phone while driving makes them as likely to be involved in a crash as if they were drunk.

Here's the warning from Steve Largent, an NFL Hall of Famer and now president of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. "You may need to save your calls until you reach your destination, or at least pull into a safe place such as a parking lot to make your call," Largent told cell phone users in a Memorial Day weekend alert. Top item on the CTIA's checklist? "Keep the call short."

And that's from the cell phone industry's lobbyists.

Driving while talking on the phone should be illegal for everyone, not just teenagers. The Virginia bill is a good first step because it puts the topic of banning cell phone use on the public agenda. But it doesn't go far enough. Virginia's General Assembly needs to pass the bill this year and then start working on another to prohibit phone use by all drivers.

Some people have the mistaken belief that only handheld phones pose a threat. We've all seen the drivers who intently study the screen and carefully dial numbers when they should be looking at the road. But the real hazard posed by phone driving is mental, not physical, so hands-free phones don't help. The driver is expending too much brainpower conversing with the person on the other end of the phone and not enough paying attention to the road. These drivers are as much of a threat to you and to your family as a drunk driver.

Studies from the University of North Carolina, the University of Utah, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Rhode Island quantify the specific impairment posed by phone conversations while driving.

Exxon Mobil prohibits its employees from talking on the phone while driving company cars. It did so after conducting a study finding that the braking reaction time of phone drivers is three times longer than that of drunk drivers. ExxonMobil researchers also found that phone drivers are as likely to rear-end the car ahead as drunks, and that they are unable to maintain position in their lane. As with all other studies, Exxon Mobil found that it makes no difference whether the driver uses a hands-free phone.

The University of Utah says that young phone drivers have the reaction times of senior citizens and are blind to events around them. "Even though your eyes are looking right at something, when you are on the cell phone, you are not as likely to see it," Utah researcher David Strayer observed. University of Rhode Island researchers found that phone drivers have tunnel vision that excludes everything else. UNC says they are twice as likely to rear-end the car ahead as drivers not using phones. Meanwhile, research at Illinois demonstrated that conversations among occupants in a car produce no similar distraction.

None of the research has suggested that phones can be used safely by people who are responsible for piloting vehicles. The best that defenders of phone driving can manage is to point out that phones can be used to call for assistance or to report other motorists in distress. But such calls can be made just as effectively by passengers in the car or from a stopped car.

No complaints about the quality of driving and no highway safety initiatives can be taken seriously as long as it is legal for drivers to knowingly handicap themselves as severely as this research indicates.

Drivers of all ages should be required by law to hang up and drive.

Dan Carney is an automotive writer.

If the phone rings and you're expecting an important call it's not that time consuming to simply pull over.

maleficent · 02-08-2006, 04:25 AM

Many of the states already have enacted this law... or have a modified version of it where the phone has to be hands free... I don't get why people get their knickers in a wad over it.... you're on the road - pay attention... to your vehicle and the road - not to your conversation...

KnifeMissile · 02-08-2006, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aKula

For it, it's just too dangerous. It's as bad or worse than driving while drunk. It puts other road users at risk as well.

Quote:

...

Some people have the mistaken belief that only handheld phones pose a threat. We've all seen the drivers who intently study the screen and carefully dial numbers when they should be looking at the road. But the real hazard posed by phone driving is mental, not physical, so hands-free phones don't help. The driver is expending too much brainpower conversing with the person on the other end of the phone and not enough paying attention to the road. These drivers are as much of a threat to you and to your family as a drunk driver.

...

If the phone rings and you're expecting an important call it's not that time consuming to simply pull over.

Does that mean that conversing with the other passengers in your car should be banned? Because while the phone is hands free, that's pretty much what you're doing...

highthief · 02-08-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Now, I might have been all for this if it weren't for the fact that I just recently got my driver's lisence and rented a car for the weekend. While driving, I recieved a call and answered it. Did I put anyone at risk? Well, I am a very responsible driver and I honestly don't think I did.

So, I was just wondering how TFPers feel about this...

You "just" got your license, you were driving someone else's car, and you yakked on the cell phone.

No offense, but I don't think you are a responsible driver. I've been driving for over 20 years, haven't had an accident in 18 years, and I know that a cell phone is a distraction, even to an experienced driver. You're still learning, to be frank, and don't need the added distraction of a phone.

And I support the enactment of any such bill in Ontario - about the only thing to come out of McGuinty's government I do back.

yellowchef · 02-08-2006, 05:19 AM

Im a young driver and I agree with these laws. I think that all phones should be hands free and if you can't do hands free, then you dont need a phone. I am guilty of doing it and staring at the screen to dial and stuff. I admit its dangerous but I wouldnt be mad at the cops for ticketing me. (yes, I am stupid)

Not to be rude but you dont even have a permanent drivers license and youre out in someone elses car, endangering everyone elses life and your own. Not too smart. Its ok to be stupid but dont be a hypocrite. I admit I do it, I admit Im not doing a good thing but Im willing to say that I have a hands free piece and I use it. Its not that hard to plug in the little earpice and drive.

Maybe I shouldnt jump down your throat.. but its upsetting to see young drivers swearing up and down that they're safe, when we're not.

jth · 02-08-2006, 05:50 AM

I was almost run over yesterday by some nutcase on her Cellphone she refused to give me the right of way as a pedestrian at a cross walk and managed to hit the breaks about 2 feet from me with the sharp squeel that never sounds good. She proceeded to stare at me angrily so I yelled at her to "get off your fucking cell phone!"

Apparently you cannot use your Cellphone when driving in parts of Europe, I think that it should be banned and there should be a way to police it. That was only one inncident for me. My sister in law talks on her cell phone when she drives all the time and it really bothers me to the point that I don't feel safe driving with someone talking on it unless they are using hands free.

Lucifer · 02-08-2006, 05:57 AM

Even here in St. John's, Newfoundland, where it is illegal to talk and drive, you still see people doing it, but it's not as prevalent as it is elsewhere in Canada. Which is a good thing, as anyone who has driven in St. John's knows. You need both hands on the wheel, and a third eye in the back of your head to survive on the roads here.

Rekna · 02-08-2006, 06:49 AM

The thing i don't get about these laws is holding a cell phone is not a distraction, making it hands free wouldn't help the situation at all. The problem is the conversation, which means we also need to ban talking to passengers, and maybe we should ban listening to talk shows while were at it too.

roachboy · 02-08-2006, 07:40 AM

i bike alot in a city and cannot count the number of times that i have had had at the least hair-raising encounters and at worst had my life put in jeopardy because some fucktard in a car was talking on their cell while driving. but then, i only really notice the people on cells who apparently do not do well with that particular multitasking thing: blowing red lights, turning irrationally, failing to use directionals so that cyclists can know that a change in relation to a large speeding metal thing near them is about to happen, speeding up or slowing down irrationally...it's great....

to the question at hand, a couple articles about stats.

Quote:

Finally, empirical proof you can blame chatty 20-somethings for stop-and-go traffic on the way to work.

A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and tying up traffic in general, and when young adults use cell phones while driving, they're as bad as sleepy septuagenarians.

"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone," said University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer. "It's like instantly aging a large number of drivers."

The study was announced today and is detailed in winter issue of the quarterly journal Human Factors.

Traffic jams and death

Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Are Cell Phones Really So Dangerous?

Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That frustrates everyone.

"Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."

Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because they're distracted by the conversation. The scientists also found previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.

Separate research last year at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign supported the conclusion that hands-free cell phone use causes driver distraction.

"With younger adults, everything got worse," said Arthur Kramer, who led the Illinois study. "Both young adults and older adults tended to show deficits in performance. They made more errors in detecting important changes and they took longer to react to the changes."

The impaired reactions involved seconds, not just fractions of a second, so stopping distances increased by car-lengths.

Older drivers more cautious

The latest study used high-tech simulators. It included people aged 18 to 25 and another group aged 65 to 74. Elderly drivers were slower to react when talking on the phone, too.

The simulations uncovered a twofold increase in the number of rear-end collisions by drivers using cell phones.

Older drivers seem to be more cautious overall, however.

"Older drivers were slightly less likely to get into accidents than younger drivers," Strayer said. "They tend to have a greater following distance. Their reactions are impaired, but they are driving so cautiously they were less likely to smash into somebody." But in real life, he added, older drivers are significantly more likely to be rear-ended because of their slow speed.

Other studies in the journal found:
Telephone numbers presented by automated voice systems compete for drivers' attention to a far greater extent than when the driver sees the same information presented on a display.
Interruptions to driving, such as answering a call, are likely to be more dangerous if they occur during maneuvers like merging to exit a freeway.
Things could get worse. Wireless Internet, speech recognition systems and e-mail could all be even more distracting.

Are Cell Phones Really So Dangerous?
Posted Feb. 2, 2005 at 10:15 a.m. ET

Several readers wrote to LiveScience questioning whether cell phones were really so bad for drivers. Here is some additional information that helps illuminate the death statistic.

The estimates of annual deaths reported in this week's article (2,600) may well be low. The number, for U.S. deaths related to drivers using cell phones, comes from a 2002 study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA). Researchers then estimated that the use of cell phones by drivers caused approximately 2,600 deaths.

Because data on cell phone use by motorists are limited, the range of uncertainty is wide, those researchers said. The estimate of fatalities in that HCRA report ranged between 800 and 8,000.

Importantly, the researchers noted (in 2002) that increasing cell phone use could be expected to cause the annual death estimate to rise. The 2002 estimate, for example, was up from an estimate of 1,000 deaths in the year 2000. Logic suggests the number -- though just an estimate -- could be much higher in 2005.

The estimates are based largely on mathematical models, but they are not without basis. In 2001 in California, for example, "at least 4,699 reported accidents were blamed on drivers using cell phones, and those crashes killed 31 people and injured 2,786," according to an analysis by The Los Angeles Times. That number can expected to be low, because of the lack of formal procedures for noting cell phone use as a cause of a traffic accident.

The Times also noted a 1997 study of Canadian drivers "who agreed to have their cell phone records scrutinized found that the risk of an accident was four times greater while a driver was using the phone."

Each year, about 42,000 people die in U.S. auto accidents.

Here is how the new University of Utah simulations were conducted:

Participants in the simulator used dashboard instruments, steering wheel and brake and gas pedals from a Ford Crown Victoria sedan, surrounded by three screens showing freeway scenes and traffic, including a "pace car" that intermittently hit its brakes 32 times as it appeared to drive in front of study participants.

If a participant failed to hit their own brakes, they eventually would rear-end the pace car. Each participant drove four simulated 10-mile freeway trips lasting about 10 minutes each, talking on a cell phone with a research assistant during half the trips and driving without talking the other half. Only hands-free phones were used to eliminate any possible distraction from manipulating a hand-held cell phone.

Thirty times each second, the simulator measured the participants' driving speed, following distance and - if applicable - how long it took them to hit the brakes and how long it took them to regain speed.

source: http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html

but....

Quote:

Cell Phone Use and Traffic Accidents, Revisited
by Fred Hooven, M.S., and Sandra Sulsky, Ph.D., Applied Epidemiology, Inc.

Figure 1: How use of a cell phone immediately after an accident could end up being recorded by researchers as occurring before the accident

A recent study on cell phone use and driving behaviors (Does Cell Phone Conversation Impair Driving Performance?) found that having a cell phone conversation during a driving simulation impaired driving performance. Laboratory studies such as this have the advantage of being able to carefully control the administration of a hypothesized risk factor - exposure - such as a cell phone conversation. But laboratory studies are limited in their ability to assess the effect of cell phone use on the actual outcomes of greatest concern - traffic accidents and resulting injuries or fatalities. For such real-life conditions, epidemiology may provide a better picture of reality than can be achieved in the lab.

Most of the epidemiological studies to date have found indications of a link between cell phone use and auto accidents, but a causal connection has been extremely difficult to establish. This is in part due to two separate but related methodological issues: exposure assessment and confounding.

Exposure Assessment is often challenging in epidemiological research. First, the exposure must be defined in a measurable way. Is the presence of a cell phone in a car of interest? Ownership of a cell phone? Hours of phone use per month? The action of dialing a phone while driving? Being engaged in a potentially attention-diverting conversation? Each of these definitions of exposure carries with it certain assumptions, and accompanying threats to the validity of the study.

For instance, ownership of a cell phone may be easy to ascertain, but this broad definition of exposure leaves the analysis vulnerable to confounding. Confounding occurs when a third factor is associated with both the exposure and the outcome. If people who own cell phones have more car accidents than those who do not, how do we know if the higher accident rate is due to cell phone use while driving, as opposed to characteristics associated with cell phone ownership? These might include impatience, fast driving, or a tendency to engage in multitasking.

Defining the exposure more narrowly could help to reduce confounding. In this case, one could narrow the exposure definition to "phone use just prior to an accident." The problem then becomes one of measurement. If we fail to correctly classify those who were on the phone at the time of an accident versus those who were not, we may lose the ability to detect an effect, or an effect might be exaggerated. This issue of misclassification of exposure was highlighted by Tom and Ray Magliozzi - "Click and Clack" - of National Public Radio's "Car Talk." They criticized a widely publicized study sponsored by the AAA's Foundation for Traffic Safety that found cell phone use did not increase the risk of accidents as much as other driver-distractions. The radio hosts argued that the study's use of self-reports by drivers - made to police at the accident scene - was likely to result in substantial misclassification of exposure.

In contrast, Redelmeier and Tibshirani (New England Journal of Medicine, Feb. 13, 1997) matched the times of cell phone use recorded on phone bills with the times of accidents given in police reports. This approach offers a good example of an attempt to reduce exposure misclassification. By completely separating the ascertainment of the exposure (the phone call) from the report of the event (the accident), it was less likely that the outcome could influence the reported phone use. But, there is still a risk of exposure misclassification. These researchers assumed precise recording of both the time of the accident and the time of the call. Misclassification could result if there were only a few minutes difference in the time standards used by the phone company and by the person reporting the accident. The figure depicts how the use of a cell phone immediately after an accident could end up being recorded by researchers as occurring before the accident.

Research into the association between traffic accidents and use of cell phones highlights both some strengths (a closer relation to real-life than can be achieved in the lab) and some weaknesses (difficulty in defining, measuring, and classifying exposure) of field research. Such methodological difficulties do not mean, however, that policy makers should dismiss the findings of epidemiological studies. The four-fold increase in risk found in the study by Redelmeier and Tibshirani is unlikely to be due to confounding and measurement error alone. But no single approach can determine the degree to which using a cell phone while driving poses a safety hazard. A clearer picture will result by examining studies using a range of approaches - epidemiological, on-road observation, and off-road simulation.

source: http://www.nsc.org/issues/idrive/cellfone.htm

so my position is based on anecdotal evidence, above.
and there are problems with the way studies as to broader patterns measure the relation of cell usage to accidents.

i dislike cars and would prefer to see them effectively banned from most cities. redesign the public transit systems so that cars remain on the periphery--it would improve the quality of life, reducing congestion, pollution--it would in general make cities safer places to be for everyone (dont believe me? try cycling on a friday afternoon in anything like a congested area)
and would be a step toward reducing petrochemical consumption. i would support local laws, generated by cities, that would put this into effect.

Locobot · 02-08-2006, 12:47 PM

I too support such a law. I had a student who wrecked his jeep and was killed while talking on his cell. The girl he was chatting with hasn't really been the same since.

Paq · 02-08-2006, 12:58 PM

i am all for it. I drive a small car and you have to be paying attention to keep from hitting me when you're in an excursion with 9 kids in the back and a cell phone in your hand. I've had more close calls than i care to recall and every single one of them was with someone holding a cell phone in their hand. Generally, they simply swerve or don't give right of way or straight up run redlights.

agggggravating.

and rekna, it's not just the convo that causes the problems, it's the convo, use of hands, and use of more mental power to visualize the person you're talking to. when there is someone in a car, you don't use much of your imagination for the convo bc there is a focal point, when you're on a phone, you're constantly imaging that person in your mind, which is distracting. Also, looking over to push buttons, look up names, dial numbers, check messages, send text messages, etc is MUUUCUCCHCH more distracting than pushing buttons on a radio or talkign to a passenger.

not that kids in the back are any better than cell phones..

Then again, there were talks of bannign radios in cars bc they proved to be too distracting for drivers.

Cynthetiq · 02-08-2006, 01:15 PM

I'm of the opinion of the law is useless, as useless as more gun control laws on top of other gun control laws. Wreckless driving covers it pretty well as does a number of other statutes already on the books.

Handsfree doesn't solve anything as people can postulate, gestiulate, and articulate all with handsfree AND still not have enough spare brain power to drive safely.

while this doesn't pertain to driving it does illustrate that our capacities are diminished by distractions:

Quote:

Scientists from King's College at the University of London, for example, recently determined that people trying to juggle phone calls, e-mail and other routine office distractions suffered a greater loss of IQ than someone smoking marijuana.

There was a sign in the bus that reads, "Please do not talk to the bus driver."

Why was that there? Because they want to suppress the driver's freedom of speech? No, because it's a DISTRACTION.

I have yet to see a police officer pull over a driver for not wearing their seat belt or chatting on the cellphone here in NY where the law has been in effect for many years now. Also, they do even have random stops for DUI and Inspection stickers. I have seen people stopped in NJ for not wearing a seatbelt at those.

meembo · 02-08-2006, 03:01 PM

My state (Connecticut) is erecting signs at the borders informing incoming drivers of the relatively new state law that prohibits hand-held phone usage, but allows hands-free usage. Most citations issued were in the NY metro area, where the richest cities are as well.

I don't know anyone in my area who has received a citation.

I agree with Cynthetiq that distractions are distractions are distractions -- any distraction diminishes awareness and reaction time on the road.

Redjake · 02-08-2006, 03:39 PM

did anyone see the mythbusters episode where they pitted cell phone users against drunk people at a driving test?

a person talking on a cell phone (hand held cell phone, no headset) and a person blowing a .08 on the alcohol breath test had to both do a road course with cones set up.

the same people did the test. the round with the cell phone yielded HORRIBLY worse results than the .08 *

*this doesn't condone drinking and driving. just showing how bad cell phone driving is.

SirLance · 02-08-2006, 03:43 PM

I favor a "no phones while driving" law. If it's that important, pull off into a service station and return the call.

This morning, I watched in amazement as a driver in front of me read the newspaper. He apparently realized he had reached his exit when he cut across 3 lanes of traffic, and the "gore point" to get to an exit ramp.

At the bottom of the ramp, the light changed and he was busy reading his paper. I honked. He looked, rasied his paper as if to say "Can't you see I'm reading!" and then drove on.

When you are driving, drive. Don't eat, don't read, don't talk on the fucking telephone. Drive the car. If you hit me because you are distracted, my lawyers will clean you out.

onodrim · 02-08-2006, 03:50 PM

It's already a law in Chicago that you can only talk on a cell phone while driving if you're using a hands free device. It will be interesting to see if the driving statistics change at all over time. I believe that it's a useful law and I have nothing against it. I can't tell you how many times I've watched people do stupid things on the road with a phone in their hand. However, many of those people would likely be bad drivers cell phone or not, and that doesn't do anything for the people eating on the road, changing clothes, doing makeup, etc etc. The sad truth is that there will always be dumb drivers. But at least this takes one small step towards trying to solve the problem.

The_Jazz · 02-08-2006, 04:22 PM

My cop friends here in Chicago say that its a great law. It apparently has really cut down on minor accidents, especially on the North side. Most traffic doesn't move very fast on the surface streets here.

KnifeMissile · 02-08-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowchef

Not to be rude but you dont even have a permanent drivers license and youre out in someone elses car, endangering everyone elses life and your own. Not too smart. Its ok to be stupid but dont be a hypocrite. I admit I do it, I admit Im not doing a good thing but Im willing to say that I have a hands free piece and I use it. Its not that hard to plug in the little earpice and drive.

Maybe I shouldnt jump down your throat.. but its upsetting to see young drivers swearing up and down that they're safe, when we're not.

If you actually knew what precautions I take to be safe, you might reconsider. It may also help that I'm a new driver, not a "young" driver. People make that assumption a lot, for whatever reason...

Oh, and how am I hypocritical? I think you might need to read my post, again...

yellowchef · 02-08-2006, 06:58 PM

you are not young in age Im going to guess, but you are new "young" to the road. Talking on your cell phone and admitting to driving not once but twice in another post about going over the posted speed limit. The users guide that comes with your cell phone tells you it is not to be used while driving..law enforcement officials tell you not to use them while driving...and there are studies and research that show the dangers of driving while on a cell phone. You are not as responsible as you make yourself out to be. Neither am I. I am guilty of talking and driving or dialing and driving. I am not perfect but I try my best not to make or recieve calls while driving. Even with my hands free. Even my parents who have been driving for over 30 years dont talk and drive. They probably havent had an accident that was their fault in over 20. They dont allow me to talk on the phone and drive if theyre in the car with me. Its all a safety issue. No matter how responsible you are or think you are a distraction is a distraction and it will change the way you drive no matter what you say.

i shouldnt have to defend myself on my post because it is correct. Just like me, you are an irresponsible driver.

yellowchef · 02-08-2006, 07:02 PM

and just using your safety belt and following the speed limits are not enough, driving takes high levels of awareness and participation. You cant do that on a cell phone.

shakran · 02-08-2006, 07:09 PM

The issue is not cell phones. The issue is not talking to passengers. The issue is driver training and awareness. I use the cell phone all the time while I'm driving. I have to. It's part of the job. I'm on handsfree, and the people at my station have gotten used to the fact that sometimes I'll stop talking in the middle of a sentence. That's because something's happening that requires my full attention. Unlike many drivers, I will immediately stop thinking about the phone call and divert all my attention to the road. Many drivers will do quite the opposite.

Banning cell phones is not the answer. Training drivers to drive well is.

meembo · 02-08-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Unlike many drivers, I will immediately stop thinking about the phone call and divert all my attention to the road..

That is a remarkable assertion. I don't know you, but your confidence in your ability to ignore distractions on a dime sounds superhuman! I'm glad you try to limit your attention to the call, but I assert that the simple act of answering calls while driving is the first in a chain of distractions during the call that endanger you and others. By the time you realize the call needs to be dropped in order to pay attention to the road, your reaction time to hazards has slowed considerably already. In the same way a drunk driver can't accurately judge his abilities because of his impairment, a chatting driver with divided attention can't judge to the best of his ability when to "refocus" on the road.

I fundamentally disagree with you that the issue is "training and awareness". No amount of training removes the threat of distractions while driving. The issue is distraction, whether it is in the form of a child or a hamburger or a phone call. I don't see how it's possible to advocate awareness and defend cell phone calls while driving. The reduction of cell phones and other distractions to the driver is precisely the issue.

shakran · 02-08-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

That is a remarkable assertion. I don't know you, but your confidence in your ability to ignore distractions on a dime sounds superhuman! I'm glad you try to limit your attention to the call, but I assert that the simple act of answering calls while driving is the first in a chain of distractions during the call that endanger you and others. By the time you realize the call needs to be dropped in order to pay attention to the road, your reaction time to hazards has slowed considerably already. In the same way a drunk driver can't accurately judge his abilities because of his impairment, a chatting driver with divided attention can't judge to the best of his ability when to "refocus" on the road.

In that case, I assume that no matter who is in the passenger seat next to you, all your drives are conducted in complete silence.

There's really no difference between talking on a voice activated cell phone using a headset than talking to your passenger. Fact is, i don't take my focus off the road. And if I'm in traffic, I don't talk on the phone without pulling over. But if I'm driving around on a deserted highway and my desk calls me, I can talk without being distracted from the road. Driving is the top priority.

But there are all sorts of non-driving distractions that you deal with every day. You listen to the radio. you change stations. You change CD's, or tracks on CD's, you play with the heater or the air conditioner, mess with your seat controls, eat, drink, think about things other than driving. . .all sorts of distractions. The trick is not legislating the distractions. The trick is in teachign drivers to be aware of teh distractions and how to prioritize them.

I'll use my helicopter pilot as an example. If we're out on a story, he's concentrating on keeping the chopper in the air, he's concentrating on spotting other news/police choppers and the occasional airplane, he's concentrating on not hitting buildings, trees, towers, or land formations, he's concentrating on talking to the tower or to the newsroom over the radio, he's concentrating on the 3 police scanners in the chopper, he's concentrating on his kneeboard, he's concentrating on his instruments, he's concentrating on flying me to the best angles for shooting, he's concentrating on helping me find whatever it is we're supposed to be shooting, and somewhere in there he's probably also thinking about what he's going to have for dinner or how many A's his kid got on the last report card. How the hell does he deal with all those things to concentrate on without crashing? Training. Prioritization.

But the fundamental difference between him and most drivers is that he's had a lot of training, and most drivers have had pretty much butkus for training. Another big difference is that he considers his performance in that chopper to be a life and death issue. If he fucks up, he dies. And so do I. Most people do not get into a car saying "I need to do this thing right or I could take myself and who knows how many others out through my mistakes."

Quote:

I fundamentally disagree with you that the issue is "training and awareness". No amount of training removes the threat of distractions while driving. The issue is distraction, whether it is in the form of a child or a hamburger or a phone call. I don't see how it's possible to advocate awareness and defend cell phone calls while driving. The reduction of cell phones and other distractions to the driver is precisely the issue.

Well then let's get rid of ALL distractions. Toss out the radio, mandate that all vehicles come with automatic climate controls, toss out map pockets in the doors because they might hold a map that you might read while you're driving, toss out mirrors in the sun visors, outlaw billboards, drive throughs, etc, you get the idea. We cannot eliminate distractions. You cannot even stop people from gabbing on the phone - pass a law against it and they'll get a handsfree speakerphone kit, and the cops will never be the wiser. So rather than trying to legislate something you can't possibly get rid of anyway, we may as well teach drivers how to drive and how to prioritize.

Elphaba · 02-08-2006, 08:54 PM

Taxi drivers have been responding to radio calls since at least the first day that I road in one back in the mid '60's, so in that respect I agree with Shakran that it is training and experience that make a difference. My service technicians have both a cell phone and a pager, and I only contact them via a pager with a priority code. That allows them to answer my page based upon their driving status. If it is gridlock, they call back while on the road and if it is "speed-demons from hell", they pull off to return my call. Common sense prevails in a business, but I can't claim that the majority of cell phone users have that particular gift.

To be completely fair, my car has drifted when fiddling with the radio, picking up my cup of coffee, and digging in my purse for a ferry fee. The "high speed racers" on I-5 can make glancing down at your speedometer a distraction worthy of a disaster. Cell phones are just one of many distractions to a driver.

KnifeMissile · 02-08-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellowchef

...Talking on your cell phone and admitting to driving not once but twice in another post about going over the posted speed limit...

Again, you should really learn to read posts. Please go back to that thread and reread the post because you have egregiously misread and misunderstood what was said.

You'll forgive me if I'm curt but it is a big peeve of mine when people fail to read my posts, something that appears to happen more often than I can explain.
Bill O'rights had a good theory about that on that thread, please see if you can find it...

KnifeMissile · 02-08-2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

That is a remarkable assertion. I don't know you, but your confidence in your ability to ignore distractions on a dime sounds superhuman! I'm glad you try to limit your attention to the call, but I assert that the simple act of answering calls while driving is the first in a chain of distractions during the call that endanger you and others. By the time you realize the call needs to be dropped in order to pay attention to the road, your reaction time to hazards has slowed considerably already. In the same way a drunk driver can't accurately judge his abilities because of his impairment, a chatting driver with divided attention can't judge to the best of his ability when to "refocus" on the road.

I fundamentally disagree with you that the issue is "training and awareness". No amount of training removes the threat of distractions while driving. The issue is distraction, whether it is in the form of a child or a hamburger or a phone call. I don't see how it's possible to advocate awareness and defend cell phone calls while driving. The reduction of cell phones and other distractions to the driver is precisely the issue.

I think shakran has an excellent point.

Yes, we must ensure that our drivers are competent to drive but there must always be leeway. For instance, I would never drive a vehicle after having a drink of any kind, I don't care what my blood alcohol is. However, your alcohol blood level can be surprisingly high before you are legally barred from driving. Yet, you think any kind of conversation in your car warrants keeping you off the road. I mean, really... If we tolerate the consumption of alcohol while driving, there must be some tolerance with cell phone use, or conversation, right?

If your handling of the car is unobstructed (such as using a headset), then driving while on the phone is really no different than conversing with a passenger. If you're careful or properly trained then why not drive while conversing? We can't legislate every little detail of life...

meembo · 02-08-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Yet, you think any kind of conversation in your car warrants keeping you off the road.

Where did I say this or anything like this? It seems you are riffing on shakran's sarcasm, not my words. Didn't you just castigate Yellochef for not reading your posts carefully? Please read my original post. I think it has good arguments that haven't been answered yet.

My last sentence in my previous post says "The reduction of cell phones and other distractions to the driver is precisely the issue."

Phone calls, and conversations with passengers, occupy us cognitively for extended periods, and that persistently divides our concentration from the big piece of steel hurtling down the road. Do we agree on this?

Would you also agree that it is the accumulation of distractions that causes accidents that are attributable to carelessness?

I don't see what the mystery is here. I recognize the libertarians in the crowd that don't like government telling them what not to do. I can respect that. If those drivers were the only ones who ever paid the cost for driver carelessness, I'd respect the idea a lot more. Careless people cause accidents that hurt others. Careless accidents are caused by an accumulation of distractions to a driver. It follows, therefore, that we reduce those distractions from drivers, starting with the unnecessary ones that occupy the minds of those drivers the most.

Cells phones are the most obvious offenders on the list. Until most callers have true hands-free operation of their phones, the argument that phone conversations are as distracting as one with a passenger is obviously untrue. Most people don't have headsets for their phones, and the phones still have to be handled to make or take a call. They remain a distraction for drivers, moreso than other activities in a car (radio, heat, etc.).

shakran · 02-08-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

Cells phones are the most obvious offenders on the list. Until most callers have true hands-free operation of their phones, the argument that phone conversations are as distracting as one with a passenger is obviously untrue. Most people don't have headsets for their phones, and the phones still have to be handled to make or take a call. They remain a distraction for drivers, moreso than other activities in a car (radio, heat, etc.).

With the exception of the sarcasm bit (I wasn't being sarcastic) you had me up till here.

Why are cell phones the most obvious offenders on teh list? A quarter pounder from mc donalds is dripping with ketchup and mustard, and comes in a cardboard fliptop box. If driving while eating one, you are faced with a choice: Either hold the box in one hand, and the burger in the other, or hold only the burger and get sauce all over your shirt. Not only do we have the initial distraction of eating, we have at least one, and probably two, hands off the wheel until the burger is finished. We've got a guy paying attention to eating, and who's driving with his knees. I call that a lot more obviously unsafe than someone on a headset.

Most people don't have headsets? Most people don't have a lot of things they should have. that doesn't mean we shoudl outlaw the cell phones. Why not pass a handsfree law instead? That way those of us who safely talk on our headsets wtihout taking our eyes off the road or our hands off the wheel can continue to do so unmolested, while the guy who gabs on the cell phone while holding it in his left hand and therefore blocking his view of traffic to the left gets nabbed?

This society is entirely too preoccupied with eliminating risk at the expense of everything else.

Some idiot threw a lawn dart at a kid and killed her? Outlaw lawndarts, even though it would make far more sense to punish the idiot who threw it where it would hit a kid.

Some nitwit rolled his 3-wheeler because he didn't bother learning how to drive? Outlaw those too.

The trouble is that our society IS full of idiots. If you take away their cell phones, they'll just find some other way to kill themselves or others. Instead of the cell phone they'll eat or watch movies on their laptop, or stare at the cool zoom effects on their GPS, or stare at the legs of the girl in the car next to them.

We took away 3 wheelers, and idiots are still dying every year doing stupid shit on snowmobiles and 4 wheelers.

We took away lawn darts and kids are still dying due to the stupidity of adults (should we perhaps ban car door locks since so many kids died after being left in locked cars?)

We take away cell phones, and people will still die.

We need to understand the fundamental reasons behind these "cell phone related" crashes, and we need to understand that those reasons only coincidentally have anything to do with the cell phone itself. We need to understand that the "cell phone distracted" driver was a dumbassed driver to begin with and would probably have found another distraction to cause a wreck with even if he couldn't talk on the phone.

And we need to understand that with people like that running around on our roads, we need a better training and licensing system.

We train them very well.

We test them very hard. And often.

We have much greater penalties for screwing up.

Take those three suggestions, and you'll have a much safer driving public than just by banning cell phones.

KnifeMissile · 02-08-2006, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

Quote:

Yet, you think any kind of conversation in your car warrants keeping you off the road.

Where did I say this or anything like this? It seems you are riffing on shakran's sarcasm, not my words. Didn't you just castigate Yellochef for not reading your posts carefully? Please read my original post. I think it has good arguments that haven't been answered yet.

I made the assumption, based on your posts (which I have read), that you are a proponent of the bill to ban cell phone use which, in my opinion, is no different than having a conversation (with the hands free set). If this is a poor assumption then I apologise. Otherwise, I think it follows...

Yes, there are many things that reduce the competency of a driver. Will we ban them all? Can we ban them all? The fact that you can, in fact, legally have a beer and go for a ride suggests that that is not the attitude we have for automobile safety. Should it be?

Paq · 02-09-2006, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redjake

did anyone see the mythbusters episode where they pitted cell phone users against drunk people at a driving test?

a person talking on a cell phone (hand held cell phone, no headset) and a person blowing a .08 on the alcohol breath test had to both do a road course with cones set up.

the same people did the test. the round with the cell phone yielded HORRIBLY worse results than the .08 *

*this doesn't condone drinking and driving. just showing how bad cell phone driving is.

that was an awesome mythbusters..

to their credit, though, they were merely answering the phone and answering questions while driving a beginner's course (accident avoidance, stopping, parallel parking, driving a course at a set speed, nothing at all tricky and something most of us do on a daily basis..ok, maybe not parallel parking, but still...)

Now, the drunks failed the tests as well, but not NEARLY as bad as the cell phone drivers..

cyrnel · 02-09-2006, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

I made the assumption, based on your posts (which I have read), that you are a proponent of the bill to ban cell phone use which, in my opinion, is no different than having a conversation (with the hands free set). If this is a poor assumption then I apologise. Otherwise, I think it follows...

They are a bit different. An adult passenger can recognize context and pause the conversation, or stop interrupting when the situation warrants terror. Callers have little or no indication of what's going on around you and will split your attention without knowing the difference. It's more like having a child in the back seat, which can be extremely disconcerting in a stressful driving situation.

Anyway, just picking nits. You're right there are other distractions, and people handle them differently. If we could create a cone of isolation for drivers I'd vote for it, assuming it didn't contribute to more drivers falling asleep.

Cynthetiq · 02-09-2006, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

But there are all sorts of non-driving distractions that you deal with every day. You listen to the radio. you change stations. You change CD's, or tracks on CD's, you play with the heater or the air conditioner, mess with your seat controls, eat, drink, think about things other than driving. . .all sorts of distractions. The trick is not legislating the distractions. The trick is in teachign drivers to be aware of teh distractions and how to prioritize them.

I don't think I'm the best driver out there, especially since from 16-18 I drove every day, from 19-21 I drove every day, the spots in between until were pretty spotty, and now, I'm lucky to drive the car once a month.

As far as distractions go, yes, you are right they exist, and it's prioritzation. I don't mucky with anything when the car is in motion. It does mean that I'm uncomfortable for a few minutes longer since I have to wait to adjust the temperature or change the radio station, if I'm alone in the car. Otherwise I rely on the passenger to do those things at my request.

The part that most everyone else is missing in this thread is that even if you are the safest driver our there that doesn't prepare you for the OTHER person on the road who isn't as careful as you, and that is all that it takes. Just being on the road with individuals like that raises the statistics and probability that you will be in an accident to greater than 0%.

meembo · 02-09-2006, 06:15 AM

I have a lot of sympathy for civil libertarians who think that government has no business trying to outlaw idiocy. (Smoking is a great example of how I sit on the fence regarding these types of personal behavior. People should be able to kill themselves by smoking if they choose. But non-smokers deserve protection from second hand smoke and from subsidizing health care costs of smokers.) From my perspective, this is part of the kernel of the arguments against banning cell phone usage in cars. It's a valid argument, but it is not complete, IMO. Every cell phone-related accident starts with someone who BELIEVES that they can talk and drive at the same time. The same is true for a Big Mac user, and a navigation system user, and any other distracted driver carelessly driving. Other people pay the price of these distractions, and to every single one of these drivers, the car crash is an "accident", not a predictable result of their divided attention. As long as careless people are killing themselves and others on the road in any significant numbers, I think reducing distractions for all drivers is the necessary and responsible and proactive safety step we should all take. It's only fair and legal if it's unilateral, and that's why these anti-phone laws are created.

I think when we talk about prioritization, we are going down a slippery slope of assuming these behaviors are tolerable in the first place for safe driving. Just being "aware of the distractions and how to prioritize them" isn't going to reduce the number of serious accidents. As a whole, humans respond to sticks and carrots to change their behavior. There is no incentive for most drivers to get any more driver's training, and making it mandatory is arguably much more invasive and restrictive legislation than any law banning cell phone use in a car. I believe very much that if anything is going to be effective, legal punishment for specific behaviors is the most effective tool to be used.

I am on the fence about making cell phone usage illegal. I think penalties for accidents caused by unsafe driving should be stiff. But I also think that advocay against driving distractions prevents accidents. In the US there are 4300 "distracted driver" accidents every day, according the the Califoirnia Highway Patrol. That's 1 out of every 4 accidents in the country.

Seaver · 02-09-2006, 09:23 AM

Ok, so it's horrible. Lets to a reality checklist.

Who here has:
Looked at a map for directions while driving? Check
Talked on a cell phone while driving? Check
Talked to passengers while driving? Check
Ate food while driving? Check
Had a couple beers then drove (not drunk)? Check
Drove drunk? No.. but out there for others
Sneezed while driving? Check

Now.. I've been driving for 7 years. I've gotten in one accident. You know what caused it? You guessed it... sneezing.

Should we enforce everyone to take allegra before they start their car?

AngelicVampire · 02-09-2006, 09:39 AM

It should have a major effect on your sentance if you cause an accident (max penalty?) however personally I find it more distracting to have chatty passenger than a cell phone... research shows its apparently the frequency hopping that causes people to find it more distracting... however generally its no more distracting for me than a passenger.

However if I cause an accident while using it then a penalty should be stiffer since I was theoretically not paying full attention to the road.

xepherys · 02-09-2006, 09:45 AM

Personally I think it's bullshit that it's "just as bad or worse than driving drunk". I've seen some of the research on this. I've also seen a lovely episode of "Myth Busters" regarding this topic. Frankly, it's skewed. First of all, I drive better on my cell phone than some people do paying 100% attention. Also, it is no more distracting than singing along with the radio or having a conversation with someone in the seat next to you. So should we outlaw more than one person in the vehicle? Or radios? Especially with loud bass that can prevent people from hearing sirens? Frankly, the only reason there is an increased number of accidents involving cell phone use is because more people have cell phones. The overall number of accidents hasn't been shown to have increased. This means it's likely those people would've been involved in an accident at some point anyhow.

*sigh*

People in the 21st century seem to have completely lost their grip on the concept of causal vs. relational statistics.

highthief · 02-09-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Ok, so it's horrible. Lets to a reality checklist.

Who here has:
Looked at a map for directions while driving? Check
Talked on a cell phone while driving? Check
Talked to passengers while driving? Check
Ate food while driving? Check
Had a couple beers then drove (not drunk)? Check
Drove drunk? No.. but out there for others
Sneezed while driving? Check

Now.. I've been driving for 7 years. I've gotten in one accident. You know what caused it? You guessed it... sneezing.

Should we enforce everyone to take allegra before they start their car?

You can't help sneezing, really. You can easily, brainlessly, effortlessly avoid:

Talking on a cell while driving
Eating a burger while driving
Driving while drunk
Reading a map while driving
Smoking a cigarette or cigar while driving
etc

I'd make it illegal, and see what happens to a person's insurance when he/she gets in an accident while gabbing to someone he/she didn't really need to be gabbing to in the first place.

I think some people have an exagerated sense of entitlement while behind the wheel. I know one guy who had a freaking DVD and TV screen installed in the front of the car!

Cynthetiq · 02-09-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

You can't help sneezing, really. You can easily, brainlessly, effortlessly avoid:

Talking on a cell while driving
Eating a burger while driving
Driving while drunk
Reading a map while driving
Smoking a cigarette or cigar while driving
etc

I'd make it illegal, and see what happens to a person's insurance when he/she gets in an accident while gabbing to someone he/she didn't really need to be gabbing to in the first place.

I think some people have an exagerated sense of entitlement while behind the wheel. I know one guy who had a freaking DVD and TV screen installed in the front of the car!

All of those above can be encompassed by the wreckless driving statues. If an officer sees you arguing with your passenger and not paying attention to the road, you can be cited for wreckless driving. Same if you are eating a hamburger etc.

highthief · 02-09-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

All of those above can be encompassed by the wreckless driving statues. If an officer sees you arguing with your passenger and not paying attention to the road, you can be cited for wreckless driving. Same if you are eating a hamburger etc.

I don't think it as cut and dried as that, especially when it comes to insurance settlements.

02-08-2006, 04:25 AM	#3 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Many of the states already have enacted this law... or have a modified version of it where the phone has to be hands free... I don't get why people get their knickers in a wad over it.... you're on the road - pay attention... to your vehicle and the road - not to your conversation... __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

02-08-2006, 05:19 AM	#6 (permalink)
yellowchef Addict Location: Shalimar, FL	Im a young driver and I agree with these laws. I think that all phones should be hands free and if you can't do hands free, then you dont need a phone. I am guilty of doing it and staring at the screen to dial and stuff. I admit its dangerous but I wouldnt be mad at the cops for ticketing me. (yes, I am stupid) Not to be rude but you dont even have a permanent drivers license and youre out in someone elses car, endangering everyone elses life and your own. Not too smart. Its ok to be stupid but dont be a hypocrite. I admit I do it, I admit Im not doing a good thing but Im willing to say that I have a hands free piece and I use it. Its not that hard to plug in the little earpice and drive. Maybe I shouldnt jump down your throat.. but its upsetting to see young drivers swearing up and down that they're safe, when we're not. __________________ the voices in your head are not real--but they still have some really great ideas. always remeber you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family. But..you CAN choose the insane asylum where you have them all put away!

02-08-2006, 05:57 AM	#8 (permalink)
Lucifer Husband of Seamaiden Location: Nova Scotia	Even here in St. John's, Newfoundland, where it is illegal to talk and drive, you still see people doing it, but it's not as prevalent as it is elsewhere in Canada. Which is a good thing, as anyone who has driven in St. John's knows. You need both hands on the wheel, and a third eye in the back of your head to survive on the roads here. __________________ I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. - Job 30:29 1123, 6536, 5321

02-08-2006, 12:58 PM	#12 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i am all for it. I drive a small car and you have to be paying attention to keep from hitting me when you're in an excursion with 9 kids in the back and a cell phone in your hand. I've had more close calls than i care to recall and every single one of them was with someone holding a cell phone in their hand. Generally, they simply swerve or don't give right of way or straight up run redlights. agggggravating. and rekna, it's not just the convo that causes the problems, it's the convo, use of hands, and use of more mental power to visualize the person you're talking to. when there is someone in a car, you don't use much of your imagination for the convo bc there is a focal point, when you're on a phone, you're constantly imaging that person in your mind, which is distracting. Also, looking over to push buttons, look up names, dial numbers, check messages, send text messages, etc is MUUUCUCCHCH more distracting than pushing buttons on a radio or talkign to a passenger. not that kids in the back are any better than cell phones.. Then again, there were talks of bannign radios in cars bc they proved to be too distracting for drivers. __________________ Live. Chris

02-08-2006, 03:01 PM	#14 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	My state (Connecticut) is erecting signs at the borders informing incoming drivers of the relatively new state law that prohibits hand-held phone usage, but allows hands-free usage. Most citations issued were in the NY metro area, where the richest cities are as well. I don't know anyone in my area who has received a citation. I agree with Cynthetiq that distractions are distractions are distractions -- any distraction diminishes awareness and reaction time on the road. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

02-08-2006, 05:50 AM	#7 (permalink)
jth Insane Location: HRM	I was almost run over yesterday by some nutcase on her Cellphone she refused to give me the right of way as a pedestrian at a cross walk and managed to hit the breaks about 2 feet from me with the sharp squeel that never sounds good. She proceeded to stare at me angrily so I yelled at her to "get off your fucking cell phone!" Apparently you cannot use your Cellphone when driving in parts of Europe, I think that it should be banned and there should be a way to police it. That was only one inncident for me. My sister in law talks on her cell phone when she drives all the time and it really bothers me to the point that I don't feel safe driving with someone talking on it unless they are using hands free.

02-08-2006, 06:49 AM	#9 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The thing i don't get about these laws is holding a cell phone is not a distraction, making it hands free wouldn't help the situation at all. The problem is the conversation, which means we also need to ban talking to passengers, and maybe we should ban listening to talk shows while were at it too.

02-08-2006, 12:47 PM	#11 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I too support such a law. I had a student who wrecked his jeep and was killed while talking on his cell. The girl he was chatting with hasn't really been the same since.

02-08-2006, 03:39 PM	#15 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	did anyone see the mythbusters episode where they pitted cell phone users against drunk people at a driving test? a person talking on a cell phone (hand held cell phone, no headset) and a person blowing a .08 on the alcohol breath test had to both do a road course with cones set up. the same people did the test. the round with the cell phone yielded HORRIBLY worse results than the .08 * *this doesn't condone drinking and driving. just showing how bad cell phone driving is. __________________ Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

02-08-2006, 03:43 PM	#16 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	I favor a "no phones while driving" law. If it's that important, pull off into a service station and return the call. This morning, I watched in amazement as a driver in front of me read the newspaper. He apparently realized he had reached his exit when he cut across 3 lanes of traffic, and the "gore point" to get to an exit ramp. At the bottom of the ramp, the light changed and he was busy reading his paper. I honked. He looked, rasied his paper as if to say "Can't you see I'm reading!" and then drove on. When you are driving, drive. Don't eat, don't read, don't talk on the fucking telephone. Drive the car. If you hit me because you are distracted, my lawyers will clean you out. __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

02-08-2006, 03:50 PM	#17 (permalink)
onodrim Cosmically Curious Location: Chicago, IL	It's already a law in Chicago that you can only talk on a cell phone while driving if you're using a hands free device. It will be interesting to see if the driving statistics change at all over time. I believe that it's a useful law and I have nothing against it. I can't tell you how many times I've watched people do stupid things on the road with a phone in their hand. However, many of those people would likely be bad drivers cell phone or not, and that doesn't do anything for the people eating on the road, changing clothes, doing makeup, etc etc. The sad truth is that there will always be dumb drivers. But at least this takes one small step towards trying to solve the problem. __________________ "The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides" -Carl Sagan

02-08-2006, 04:22 PM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	My cop friends here in Chicago say that its a great law. It apparently has really cut down on minor accidents, especially on the North side. Most traffic doesn't move very fast on the surface streets here.

02-08-2006, 06:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
yellowchef Addict Location: Shalimar, FL	you are not young in age Im going to guess, but you are new "young" to the road. Talking on your cell phone and admitting to driving not once but twice in another post about going over the posted speed limit. The users guide that comes with your cell phone tells you it is not to be used while driving..law enforcement officials tell you not to use them while driving...and there are studies and research that show the dangers of driving while on a cell phone. You are not as responsible as you make yourself out to be. Neither am I. I am guilty of talking and driving or dialing and driving. I am not perfect but I try my best not to make or recieve calls while driving. Even with my hands free. Even my parents who have been driving for over 30 years dont talk and drive. They probably havent had an accident that was their fault in over 20. They dont allow me to talk on the phone and drive if theyre in the car with me. Its all a safety issue. No matter how responsible you are or think you are a distraction is a distraction and it will change the way you drive no matter what you say. i shouldnt have to defend myself on my post because it is correct. Just like me, you are an irresponsible driver. __________________ the voices in your head are not real--but they still have some really great ideas. always remeber you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family. But..you CAN choose the insane asylum where you have them all put away!

02-08-2006, 07:02 PM	#21 (permalink)
yellowchef Addict Location: Shalimar, FL	and just using your safety belt and following the speed limits are not enough, driving takes high levels of awareness and participation. You cant do that on a cell phone. __________________ the voices in your head are not real--but they still have some really great ideas. always remeber you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family. But..you CAN choose the insane asylum where you have them all put away!

02-08-2006, 07:09 PM	#22 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	The issue is not cell phones. The issue is not talking to passengers. The issue is driver training and awareness. I use the cell phone all the time while I'm driving. I have to. It's part of the job. I'm on handsfree, and the people at my station have gotten used to the fact that sometimes I'll stop talking in the middle of a sentence. That's because something's happening that requires my full attention. Unlike many drivers, I will immediately stop thinking about the phone call and divert all my attention to the road. Many drivers will do quite the opposite. Banning cell phones is not the answer. Training drivers to drive well is.

02-08-2006, 08:54 PM	#25 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Taxi drivers have been responding to radio calls since at least the first day that I road in one back in the mid '60's, so in that respect I agree with Shakran that it is training and experience that make a difference. My service technicians have both a cell phone and a pager, and I only contact them via a pager with a priority code. That allows them to answer my page based upon their driving status. If it is gridlock, they call back while on the road and if it is "speed-demons from hell", they pull off to return my call. Common sense prevails in a business, but I can't claim that the majority of cell phone users have that particular gift. To be completely fair, my car has drifted when fiddling with the radio, picking up my cup of coffee, and digging in my purse for a ferry fee. The "high speed racers" on I-5 can make glancing down at your speedometer a distraction worthy of a disaster. Cell phones are just one of many distractions to a driver. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

02-09-2006, 06:15 AM	#34 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I have a lot of sympathy for civil libertarians who think that government has no business trying to outlaw idiocy. (Smoking is a great example of how I sit on the fence regarding these types of personal behavior. People should be able to kill themselves by smoking if they choose. But non-smokers deserve protection from second hand smoke and from subsidizing health care costs of smokers.) From my perspective, this is part of the kernel of the arguments against banning cell phone usage in cars. It's a valid argument, but it is not complete, IMO. Every cell phone-related accident starts with someone who BELIEVES that they can talk and drive at the same time. The same is true for a Big Mac user, and a navigation system user, and any other distracted driver carelessly driving. Other people pay the price of these distractions, and to every single one of these drivers, the car crash is an "accident", not a predictable result of their divided attention. As long as careless people are killing themselves and others on the road in any significant numbers, I think reducing distractions for all drivers is the necessary and responsible and proactive safety step we should all take. It's only fair and legal if it's unilateral, and that's why these anti-phone laws are created. I think when we talk about prioritization, we are going down a slippery slope of assuming these behaviors are tolerable in the first place for safe driving. Just being "aware of the distractions and how to prioritize them" isn't going to reduce the number of serious accidents. As a whole, humans respond to sticks and carrots to change their behavior. There is no incentive for most drivers to get any more driver's training, and making it mandatory is arguably much more invasive and restrictive legislation than any law banning cell phone use in a car. I believe very much that if anything is going to be effective, legal punishment for specific behaviors is the most effective tool to be used. I am on the fence about making cell phone usage illegal. I think penalties for accidents caused by unsafe driving should be stiff. But I also think that advocay against driving distractions prevents accidents. In the US there are 4300 "distracted driver" accidents every day, according the the Califoirnia Highway Patrol. That's 1 out of every 4 accidents in the country. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

02-09-2006, 09:23 AM	#35 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Ok, so it's horrible. Lets to a reality checklist. Who here has: Looked at a map for directions while driving? Check Talked on a cell phone while driving? Check Talked to passengers while driving? Check Ate food while driving? Check Had a couple beers then drove (not drunk)? Check Drove drunk? No.. but out there for others Sneezed while driving? Check Now.. I've been driving for 7 years. I've gotten in one accident. You know what caused it? You guessed it... sneezing. Should we enforce everyone to take allegra before they start their car?

02-09-2006, 09:39 AM	#36 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	It should have a major effect on your sentance if you cause an accident (max penalty?) however personally I find it more distracting to have chatty passenger than a cell phone... research shows its apparently the frequency hopping that causes people to find it more distracting... however generally its no more distracting for me than a passenger. However if I cause an accident while using it then a penalty should be stiffer since I was theoretically not paying full attention to the road.

02-09-2006, 09:45 AM	#37 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Personally I think it's bullshit that it's "just as bad or worse than driving drunk". I've seen some of the research on this. I've also seen a lovely episode of "Myth Busters" regarding this topic. Frankly, it's skewed. First of all, I drive better on my cell phone than some people do paying 100% attention. Also, it is no more distracting than singing along with the radio or having a conversation with someone in the seat next to you. So should we outlaw more than one person in the vehicle? Or radios? Especially with loud bass that can prevent people from hearing sirens? Frankly, the only reason there is an increased number of accidents involving cell phone use is because more people have cell phones. The overall number of accidents hasn't been shown to have increased. This means it's likely those people would've been involved in an accident at some point anyhow. sigh People in the 21st century seem to have completely lost their grip on the concept of causal vs. relational statistics.