NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20050712/hl_hsn/cellphoneusequadruplescarcrashrisk


At first blush this would seem to support the presumption that cell-phone use while driving should be restricted, however, as with so many other things, the numbers can be decieving.

It stands that cell phone use increases the risk of driving because it is a distraction. What other types of distractions are there and what is their relationship to driving?

How about radio? If it increases the risk of an accident should it be restricted?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/1079917452731_13?hub=Health&subhub=PrintStory
This does not even address the danger of changing CDs or stations.

What about eating?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/04/16/MN155871.DTL
If it increases risk should it too then be restricted?

What about children?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/3932967.stm
It would stand to reason that they should also be eliminated from the passenger compartment when driving.

How does it all compare to the mother of all impairments?
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/809-050pdf.pdf

Not even close.

The moral of the story - don't be in too much of a hurry to allow others to take away or even limit your rights. keep everything in perspective.

Absolutely. People should have unlimited freedom while enjoying their right to drive, and if anyone is ever involved in an accident with a person who was distracted by a cell phone or radio or alcohol, they should instead clog our legal system with dozens of lawsuits.

Funny what you take away from articles--when I read a similar article this morning, I was most struck by the idea that using a hands-free device didn't change much in terms of the accident rate. The theory was always that it was the one-handed driving, or the potential for dropping the phone, etc., that caused more accidents. It seems that it's really just the distraction of talking and driving that does it.

Personally, B0zzy, I think you're overreacting as per usual. Restriction is not always a bad thing, no matter what your "libertarian" credo tells you.

The moral of the story - don't be in too much of a hurry to allow others to take away or even limit your rights. keep everything in perspective.
Where I live, it actually is illegal to use a mobile (cell-phone) while driving! Imagine that!

No, cell phones shouldn't be banned. But people who kill someone solely because they were too involved on the cell to be a decent driver shouldn't get off easy. Negligent Homicide comes to mind. A few successful convictions and most motorists would get the idea.

I think people should also be made aware that driving while talking on the cell is dangerous to you and to those around you. If you're walking on the street and get hit by a car b/c you weren't paying attention, that's your loss. But if it leads to you running somebody else over or hitting another car, that really isn't fair to your victim and you should be held accountable.

Personally, I have a friend who talks on the cell almost every minute while driving. So far he's run a red light, routinely cruised at 15 mph over, completely totalled a car on the interstate, and gotten enough points in 6 months to have to go to driving school. And those are only the times when he was caught. I don't care whether his cell phone useage is legal or not, I'm not riding with him any more, period.

No, cell phones shouldn't be banned. But people who kill someone solely because they were too involved on the cell to be a decent driver shouldn't get off easy. Negligent Homicide comes to mind. A few successful convictions and most motorists would get the idea.

A few successful convictions for drunk driving hasn't been able to stop that trend.

We haven't banned it yet, but I have seen a couple of signs on the highway reminding people to pull over and talk...perhaps Bozz,y you'd like to see a sign saying, "Pull over to use the phone, to eat, to put on makeup, to read your book, to watch your portable DVD player, to have sex, or do anything else distracting"? :D

Seriously...people who do these things while driving baffle me.

Bozz...what is your stance on drunk driving regulations?

It takes less than a second to change radio stations. Eating is a momentary distraction for each bite. Yelling at the kids takes but a moment or two. Changing CDs takes about 15-30 seconds, depending on how organized you are.

Cell phone conversations are a constant distraction that last several minutes. That's the difference.

A few successful convictions for drunk driving hasn't been able to stop that trend.
That's because drunk people lack critical thinking skills. Hence the problem lies in the decision to get behind a wheel, not a fear of legal consequences. Most people probably couldn't even spell 'legal incentive' while drunk.

Is anyone else but me disturbed by the fact they release the news that "cellphones raise the risk of car crashes" every few months like it is breaking news

Where I live, it actually is illegal to use a mobile (cell-phone) while driving! Imagine that!
It soon will be here in NC as well. Imagine that! :D

Hey here's an idea. Suppose that most drivers, including many here, are actually not very good at driving - they're inattentive, have poor situational sense, and have no concept of the laws of physics. I live in snow country and I'm here to tell you that most folks have no concept of physics on the road.

Why turn your vehicle into your home or office while barrelling down the freeway at 75 mph in a 2 ton vehicle in traffic. Even worse in bad weather.

Don't eat, don't talk, don't fiddle with stuff that takes your attention. The worse driver you are the less you should do it. Call it personal responsibility. Legislate it or educate it, I don't care.

A few successful convictions for drunk driving hasn't been able to stop that trend.
Mainly because the punishments for drunk driving are a joke. Make them something like 10 years, then you'd see a difference pretty damn quick.

All the distractions you named will take your attention to a certain degree. Just speaking with a passenger will sometimes take you so much concentration you will need to stop talking and just hush your head. Speaking on the cell phone is worst because its harder to kept a conversation on a cell than on real life and because like eating it take you one hand.

Also, the study only include the traffic crash resulting in injuries requiring hospitalization. So take into consideration the many smaller accidents who only involve material damage in traffic hour where cell phones are more likely to be used.

Many time on the road I see people (who are paying attention) pulling a quick break to avoid a collision with someone speaking in is cell not paying attention and changing line, no-flasher and tail-gating them. It just get more and more annoying.

Hey here's an idea. Suppose that most drivers, including many here, are actually not very good at driving - they're inattentive, have poor situational sense, and have no concept of the laws of physics. I live in snow country and I'm here to tell you that most folks have no concept of physics on the road.

Why turn your vehicle into your home or office while barrelling down the freeway at 75 mph in a 2 ton vehicle in traffic. Even worse in bad weather.

Don't eat, don't talk, don't fiddle with stuff that takes your attention. The worse driver you are the less you should do it. Call it personal responsibility. Legislate it or educate it, I don't care.
And definitely don't feel compelled to look at the passenger who's talking to you! :rolleyes:

Good analysis! :)

Social conventions. Here at least, when you are in a car you are allowed to talk to someone in a way that would be extremely rude in other settings. You can cut off conversation any time. You can ignore the other person. There is no need to make eye contact. The other person will repeat anything you may have missed while you were distracted. All this is missing on the phone.

This is an interesting debate.

I want to side with my thoughts on allowing people to act freely as long as they are held responsible for their results of their actions. But I also don't feel that people should be allowed act neglegently when there are strong consequences to other people. I also wonder if a cell phone law could ever be penalized or enforced enough to make it effective.

Interesting...is this a Bozzy trademark "post and run" thread?

I also wonder if a cell phone law could ever be penalized or enforced enough to make it effective.
I rather doubt it. How many people get stopped for not wearing their seatbelt (in places where that is the law)?

In Germany, cell phones are prohibited from being used while driving. A short while ago, some more extreme politicians wanted to ban smoking, but that didn't get anywhere.

I rather doubt it. How many people get stopped for not wearing their seatbelt (in places where that is the law)?
I can imagine it's easier to tell if you're on the phone than if you're wearing a seatbelt, from a distance at least.

Personally, I like my friend's idea. He's building a cell-phone jammer good up to fifty feet away. I wish I had one of those, I fucking hate people that drive with cell phones, they do so many stupid things that they apparently expect you to watch out for. Lately, almost every time someone cuts me off or jumps out in front of me or speeds up and slows down like a crack addict they seem to be using a cell phone. It does get ridiculous.

As for people not being able to eat and drive at the same time just sounds like a bad case of "stupid" to me. People that can't drive with passengers, even child passengers, also suffer from this disease. And I don't even know how they figure your radio plays a factor, seeing as most people drive with a radio, anyway, so of course there are going to be more accidents involving the radio.

Then again, maybe I expect too highly of other drivers. I don't know. I've only been in one wreck and that was the other guy's fault, and had nothing to do with cell phones or anything - just a case of "stupid."

I can imagine it's easier to tell if you're on the phone than if you're wearing a seatbelt, from a distance at least.
Not with those itty-bitty ones...they might just think you're picking the wax out of your ear :D

I like the cell-phone jamming thing...but I think they're illegal ( http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a092200.html) in most places:(

Anyway...wouldn't work for people driving unless they were everywhere...

Well, thing is, when you crash your car you tend to crash it into something. Now, that thing could be a wall or a tree, in which case it is only you that gets hurt (unless you're carrying passengers). Very sad, but you only hurt yourself and you've only got yourself to blame.

The alternative is the main reason why people shouldn't be allowed to talk on phones and drive at the same time. You can also crash into other people. Or plow through a group of schoolchildren.

You may have rights, but you don't have the right to kill people because you couldn't wait five minutes to talk.

I like the cell-phone jamming thing...but I think they're illegal ( http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a092200.html) in most places:(

Anyway...wouldn't work for people driving unless they were everywhere...
Wouldn't that also jam them on the sidewalks?

I like the cell-phone jamming thing...but I think they're illegal ( http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a092200.html) in most places:(

Anyway...wouldn't work for people driving unless they were everywhere...

Yes, they are illegal, but how is anyone going to know you have a cell-phone jammer? That is, unless you are smoking pot or drinking while you use it, prompting the cop to search your car.

Wouldn't that also jam them on the sidewalks?

A better question: would you give a shit?

A better question: would you give a shit?
If my cellphone didn't work when I was walking I might...

If my cellphone didn't work when I was walking I might...

No, I mean, you should be asking me that.

It's definitely better to use a Bluetooth headset while driving, but there is an element of distraction still.

snip

Bozz...what is your stance on drunk driving regulations?

Thank you for asking. Sorry it took a while.

The impairment from drunk driving is considerably more than any of the distractions I noted. Quite considerably. Regulation is meritous. They key term is, drunk driving, not what the legal limit is currently defined as. In determining the definition of the legal limit I have to agree with the founder of MADD; Candy Lightner.

"I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." She says: "Half of the drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes have a BAC of 0.17 or greater. Even among young people aged 16 to 24, the great majority of deaths involve drinkers with a BAC of at least 0.15 percent. Lowering the blood alcohol content won't make a difference to these offenders."
"Rather than put our limited resources into laws that fail to address the real problem, we need better enforcement of existing laws and proven policies that have demonstrated a significant impact." She adds: "If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road. Putting our trust in new laws and regulations that only address the tip of the iceberg will not make our highways safer."
Minnesota Judge Dennis Challeen, who over the past 30 years has sentenced hundreds of people for DWI violations, agrees with Lightner. "Most drunk driver fatalities," he notes, "have BAC levels close to 0.20, twice the legal limit. If lawmakers reduce the limit to 0.08, they are simply catching more of the wrong people, the people who are not the problem."
http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/2005/05/misplaced-drunk-driving-priorities.html

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html
"A case in point. Research suggests that using a cell phone while driving may cause more traffic fatalities than driving drunk. But when a MADD official was asked how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care." 7 The issue for MADD is no longer preventing auto accidents but preventing drinking."

http://www.getmadd.com/

It takes less than a second to change radio stations. Eating is a momentary distraction for each bite. Yelling at the kids takes but a moment or two. Changing CDs takes about 15-30 seconds, depending on how organized you are.

Cell phone conversations are a constant distraction that last several minutes. That's the difference.

If you want to participate I suggest you read the links. This post is disturbingly ignorant of the points contained in each.

Cell phone conversations last as long as any other type of conversation - and often less. Maybe you'd approve banning all conversation while driving?

Hey here's an idea. Suppose that most drivers, including many here, are actually not very good at driving - they're inattentive, have poor situational sense, and have no concept of the laws of physics. I live in snow country and I'm here to tell you that most folks have no concept of physics on the road.

Why turn your vehicle into your home or office while barrelling down the freeway at 75 mph in a 2 ton vehicle in traffic. Even worse in bad weather.

Don't eat, don't talk, don't fiddle with stuff that takes your attention. The worse driver you are the less you should do it. Call it personal responsibility. Legislate it or educate it, I don't care.
I think you're on to something here. Maybe a drivers license should be much more difficult to obtain/maintain...

Interesting...is this a Bozzy trademark "post and run" thread?
I fail to see how this post adds anything of value to this thread. Please refrain from posting until you have something worthwhile to contribute pertaining to the topic.

Personally, I like my friend's idea. He's building a cell-phone jammer good up to fifty feet away. I wish I had one of those, I fucking hate people that drive with cell phones, they do so many stupid things that they apparently expect you to watch out for. Lately, almost every time someone cuts me off or jumps out in front of me or speeds up and slows down like a crack addict they seem to be using a cell phone. It does get ridiculous.

As for people not being able to eat and drive at the same time just sounds like a bad case of "stupid" to me. People that can't drive with passengers, even child passengers, also suffer from this disease. And I don't even know how they figure your radio plays a factor, seeing as most people drive with a radio, anyway, so of course there are going to be more accidents involving the radio.

Then again, maybe I expect too highly of other drivers. I don't know. I've only been in one wreck and that was the other guy's fault, and had nothing to do with cell phones or anything - just a case of "stupid."
Seems to me that might make the situation even more dangerous. I'm jusst imagining everyone around you suddenly looking at their phones, wondering what the hell just happened to their signals, and simultaneously veering into your lane from the distraction.

I love the part in the first story where the guy talks about listening to the CBC really loud. As if to say that teenagers are driving around cranking the CBC, with the bass pounding.

But seriously, none of the articles actually say how much each of these activities increase the accident rate, not to mention how often it occurs, so there is no basis of comparison to the cell phone study. But if they were to quadruple the risk of accidents and were occuring frequently enough, I would support curtailing or placing appropriate restrictions on them. Why should people have to die for people to "get the message" or so that someone can enjoy the unrestricted freedom to scarf a cheeseburger while on the road or listen to his stereo at 98 decibels? Is not death a greater harm than the restriction of freedom that would result?

Personally, as a cyclist, I have nearly been hit several times by people talking on their cell phones (it was my quick thinking, not theirs, that saved me ... some of them did not even notice they had nearly run me over). I have not ever been nearly hit by someone suffering from any of the other listed distractions. I rearely rely on anecdotal evidence alone, but when the anecdotal evidence agrees with the results of a study ...

Cellphones impair normal activities, like walking, or sitting or paying attention, encouragement of talking through 6 inches of plastic next to your face should not be allowed, much less while driving. Maybe we should have som sort of test, if you score x or something on some driving test and have y many hours talknig on your cellphone, they should put something on the license to indicate it is illegal for them to be talknig on the cellphone while even thinking about driving

Ihatevacations']Cellphones impair normal activities, like walking, or sitting or paying attention, encouragement of talking through 6 inches of plastic next to your face should not be allowed, much less while driving. Maybe we should have som sort of test, if you score x or something on some driving test and have y many hours talknig on your cellphone, they should put something on the license to indicate it is illegal for them to be talknig on the cellphone while even thinking about driving
Why limit that to cell phones? How about eating, having passengers, or listening to music too?