I oppose driver cell phone usage bans on principle. It is already against the law to drive while distracted in every State of the Union. Even so, several states and many cities have enacted wholesale bans on the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers. Other states and local governments ban teenagers from using the devices or prohibit their use in school zones. So what’s the harm? The additional legislation is surely no worse than wearing a belt and suspenders—by itself either will keep your pants up, but it’s nice to know that there’s a backup in case one of the modesty preservation systems fails. Comforting, isn’t it? NO! It makes my liberty loving soul retch. I say, down with the tyranny of the Nanny State! Nonetheless, the more time I spend outside of my ivory attic and driving America’s highways and byways, the harder it is for me to maintain this ideal.
I must confess that I occasionally talk on the cell phone when I drive. I commute nearly twenty miles to my office each day. I probably average one brief cell phone conversation a day while at the helm. Doing so has never impeded my ability to maintain my lane, react to slowing traffic ahead, or otherwise lose track of where I am or where I’m going. How can I be sure that I’m not making a nuisance of myself while I obliviously chat away on my phone? Call it the finger test; I don’t see any more of them with the cell phone than I do without.
I’m not alone. Four out of every five drivers surveyed by Nationwide Insurance in 2007 admitted to driving distracted. Their list of 26 distractions includes fiddling with the radio (82%); drinking a beverage (80%); operating a cell phone (73%); snacking (68%); and eating (41%). Personally I’m guilty of doing everything on the list except smoking (21%); applying make-up (12%); driving with a pet on my lap (8%); reading (5%); driving while intoxicated (4%); and shaving (2%).
Lest we lose perspective, some of the Nationwide Insurance survey’s write-in responses make it clear that drivers can become seriously distracted even without a cell phone. “Peed out the window while going down the road. Well, you asked.”—Baby Boomer male, Sacramento [Ed.: Welcome to Sacramento!]. “I wear sandals or slip on shoes 90% of the time. So I always take my left shoe off and put my foot up in the seat. I have a drink in one hand, smoke in the other hand, and drive with my left foot.”—Gen Y female, Memphis. “Shaved legs, eaten a taco, put on make-up and drank alcohol at the same time.”—Gen Y female, San Antonio.
Yet somehow cell phone distracted drivers seem to be causing all of the noticeable problems. I used to presume that people were drunk when I saw an idiot driver cut cross two lanes to turn right from the left lane, meander off the road, drive obnoxiously slow, or make any number of obvious driving errors. Now I think (sometimes out loud), “I’ll bet that jackass is talking on his cell phone!” I can’t remember the last time I was wrong.
Science bears this out. Multiple studies show that reaction times in drivers using cell phones are as much as a quarter second longer than non-distracted drivers. Hands free phones aren’t much better. The worst results are among elderly cell phone users and multitaskers who try to drive, talk and do something else like eat or paint toenails. A driving simulator study at the University of Utah found that test subjects with 0.08% blood alcohol content performed better than sober subjects yapping on cell phones.
So, there ought to be a law . . . Right? If only it were as simple as passing a law to create our own nirvana. Just when I am ready to break with my libertarian proclivities, I find this headline in the Dallas Morning News: “Study: Cellphone bans in school zones have no effect on drivers’ behavior.” Speed Measurement Laboratories, in a study commissioned by “several law enforcement publications,” monitored school zones in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. They found that as many drivers, about 1 in 10, used their cell phones in school zones during banned hours as they did during non-banned hours. They also found no difference in drivers between these school zones with bans and zones without them. Still, Speed Measurement Laboratories’ front man Carl Fors maintains his support for the National Safety Council’s recommendation for a comprehensive ban of all cell phone usage by drivers, including hands free devices.
Unfortunately, laws can’t always fix things. A constitutional amendment banning booze could not excise America of the moral turpitude of alcoholism. If drivers are going to ignore cell phone driving prohibitions, what’s the point?
103 Comments on “Editorial: The Truth About Cell Phone Bans...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
The point is to be able to issue higher fines by tacking on multiple offenses, similar to how a drug dealer who has a gun with him while selling is charged with a gun crime even if the gun had nothing to do with anything. Improper lane usage due to talking on a cell phone is two tickets now.
Virtually all of these laws exempt drivers using headsets or handsfree kits. If your car doesn’t have built-in Bluetooth, a $50 speakerphone gadget can save you a $200 ticket. If it does have it, spend an hour with the manual and learn how to pair it up. You’d think drivers of Bluetooth enabled cars would do this automatically, but I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen drivers of cars I KNOW have standard cell phone integration (newer Acuras and Infinitis mostly) with their right hands glued to their ears.
It’s the distraction of talking to another person that causes the accidents. Similar to graduated licensing for teens, which prohibits teens from driving with other teens for a time, cellphone bans seek to keep people more focused on the road. Too many people can’t seem to drive and carry on a conversation at the same time. How many times have you been made nervous as a passenger riding with a driver that had to look at you in the passenger seat in order to talk to you? I know I can talk to someone and look straight ahead, but so many cannot. Unfortunately you can’t outlaw stupid.
well put:
“Unfortunately laws can’t always fix things. A constitutional amendment banning booze could not excise America of the moral turpitude of alcoholism. If drivers are going to ignore cell phone driving prohibitions, what’s the point?”
I imagine that what Brian E states about multiple offenses has significant weight to the legislation.
Also, it’s just ‘easier’ to see somebody on a cell phone.
I saw an article about a guy inventing a device to block cell signals inside of a car. Should be required for people convicted of harming others while talking on a cell.
CNN.com this morning.. Driver (likely drunk) takes cell call and kills 4 of his children and a 5th child from another family.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/19/texas.car.drowning/index.html
If you must take calls by 8AM, then be at your office by 7:45.
I occasionally get calls while driving – I ignore them and get the message when at a stop light or I pull over.
Many people are already at the limit of their competence behind the wheel; allowing unlimited cell-phone usage can only turn out badly.
Must not ride motorcycles do you?
Cell phones are one of the worst threats I’ve ever seen. It’s one of the major reasons I rarely ride in town any more.
About a year ago I was driving in the highway when a woman entered from the onramp talking on her cell and totally oblivious to her surroundings. She was clearly driving directly toward my car. Fortunately at the very last moment I noticed a brief opening in the lane to my left and managed to move over there. She entered the road precisely where I would have been if I hadn’t been able to change lanes and would have clearly smashed into me. She then proceeded to blithely drive away, yakking on her phone totally unaware how close she had come to killing us both. I still get the shakes when I think about it. There is no conversation so important that it can’t wait until you pull off the road.
The point of cell phone bans is to keep the driver focused on driving. Fiddling with the radio certainly is a distraction, but should be a short lived one. Phone conversations may go on for miles. Then add in the people who are dealing with emotionally charged conversations – wife/relationship problems, issues with their kids, etc and you end up with a rolling accident waiting to happen. The purpose of a regulation like this, or any regulation really, is to try to minimize behavior that has been deemed to be hazardous to society as a whole and is likely to continue without some kind of persuasion to follow it. Seat belt laws are be a perfect example. Without them, usage was, and would be, far lower than it is today. For those who say, my car, my life, my business, fair enough. However, once you decisions seriously affect others, it is no longer just your call (no pun intended). As Mr. Spock stated: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” That is what should drive the need to “intrude” on people. All that said, unlike seat belt laws, the cell phone ban is a failure. Virtually everybody I know uses them without any sort of hands free feature. And Brian E is correct – most people I see with Bluetooth enabled cars don’t use the feature.
The sad truth for law makers is you just cannot legislate common sense. Like seat belt laws and helmet laws, the passing of these hand-held cell phone laws have turned people into scofflaws with the stroke of a pen.
Unless they start pulling over people and writing tickets (which they won’t, considering I see more state and local police talking on their cell phones while driving) it will be another ignored law that further erodes society. First the inane laws are ignored, then the less inane laws. I have a heck of a time explaining to my young nephew why you should obey stupid laws, and it gets harder and harder the more stupid the laws become.
Cell phone usage while driving is danger to everyone on the road. Making an argument that it cannot be completely eradicated or that drivers will be reluctant to change their habits could have also been made about drunk driving and wearing seat belts. Part of the issues is that most people are too comfortable with familiar risks (no matter how dangerous) – which is why to many the death of 3,000 people by terrorism seems worse than 43,000 people dying on the road each year.
Road safety is improved by incremental gains in both car technology and driver behavior and I don’t see any reason to stop the quest for either.
And just in case you’re wondering; your constitutional liberties do not extend to endangering my family’s life with either distracted, reckless or impaired driving.
There is a difference between “distracted” driving : a sneeze, looking in your mirror at the wrong time etc etc etc and being intentional preoccupied.Changing a station on the radio is distracted driving.
But it doesn’t go on for 15 minutes while being engrossed in some silly converstion that “just won’t wait” does. Meanwhile cars are backed up behind and frustrated drivers are whipping around so they can just get the fuck where they’re going.
I’ve never been nearly sideswiped by someone eating a hamburger or been behind some asshole going 10 miles slower than the speed limit in the left lanes by someone lighting a cigarette.
Every time it’s been some self absorbed idiot on a cell phone or texting [for which there had to be to ban it in CA.].
I see it on a daily basis. Only one other time did I see some moron eating a bowl of cereal while driving early one morning.The rest have been cell phone related.Like the girl in the Isuzu Trooper, on the cell, shifting and merging left onto the freeway with her right turn single going [it never did get turned off]the entire time, completely oblivious to the cars behind her
My favorite: dillweed in a 60’s era VW merging onto the Hollywood 101 Freeway talking on the cell phone with his right hand and juggling the it to his left when he had to shift. In rush hour traffic.
Again,that isn’t “distracted” driving. It’s being intentionally preoccupied. Not the same thing. To call it distracted driving is to fall in with the cell phone lobby and attempt to diminish the depth of the problem.
People can defend it all they want as “multi tasking” or something they [but not the other guy are capable of, but the act of driving is in itself a multi tasking effort.
Nothing anyone has to say is that important.
Except by the B&B on TTAC.
The point of cell phone bans is to keep the driver focused on driving.
What a law intends and what a law accomplishes are frequently two different things. Sadly, the latter is often far worse than the ill the law intended to remedy.
Signs…
Put signs up that have a pic of a cell phone… a circular cross out sign… and ‘$500 fine’. Give folks a warning a mile before the no cell phone area and proceed accordingly.
I have noticed a serious decline in driver’s attentions since the late 1990’s. Most folks do NOT need a cell phone. But then again, I do not want to ever have the government dictate terms in that matter.
I would definitely be in favor of lw’s idea… but I also believe that in order for anything driver safety related to work in society, you need to have laws that are based on common sense.
Most of the ones that apply to speed and safety are based on the wants of insurance companies and government revenues. The citizens of this country are routinely screwed by these folks and until that’s dealt with, I wouldn’t promote more government intrusion.
+1 as a Motorcycle rider. I see how people drive on the phone and while you may be a wonderful exception the rule is distracted drivers on the phone are a menace.
They drive too slow , sometimes 10 or more mph under the posted speedlimit. This aggravates other drivers who fight to get around them. maybe slow driving is not a violation but it clearly causes problems.
CPD (Cell phone drivers) meander in lanes and from lane to lane. They sometime reach for things while on the phone. Not good. They could do this while not on the phone but being in touch amplifies it.
Tailgating. Usually acceptable as long as they are ready to react, on the phone they are clearly distracted and could not hope to stop in time.
CPD are not alert to signals from other drivers to proceed, or wait. Maybe the “half piece sign” is a barometer of quality for you but when you are faced with a situation where you need to get their attention, you need their phone number to do so.
Take this simple test. Drive a fairly complex route of signs and traffic for a few miles and write down what you saw, did and noticed. Take a route with the phone going on your head the entire way and see if you remember anything.
As a motorcycle rider I see more CPD today because the rates are so cheap. Years ago I counted 15 drivers in 15 miles of commuting on the phone. I took this informal survey 2 years later and it was up to 30. Recently I counted 40 along the same commute, talking instead of driving. The scary thing was almost EVERY car had a CPD.
I’m for assigning blame to anyone who is on the phone and causes an accident, including ticketing. If you knew your right to sue was canceled you would pull over and finish the call.
One reason cell-phone use is different is the nature of the impairment. (And I am not defending the other activities — I am still amazed at what people will do while driving.)
Cell-phone use while driving causes a well-known cognitive phenomena called attentional blindness. The effect is that visual information critical to driving is never consciously processed, so the person never ’sees’, literally, the car they are about to T-bone. As noted in the article, science shows cell phone conversations are a significant safety issue with a level of impairment similar to DWI. Interestingly, studies also show in-car conversations and other split-attention activities (e.g. tuning the radio) are not like cell-phone conversations in this regard. TTAC readers might want to read some of the research cited above: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/
Given this, I think it is misdirected to place cell-phone laws as just another step in a slippery slope of the state regulating personal responsibility. This issue is different in kind from the other examples of inattention, unless one thinks DWI laws should be dropped and enforced under inattentive driving statues.
The issue of people ignoring cell-phone bans is another matter. Of course they should be enforced (if you accept the material nature of the safety issue.) I think a key problem, however, is a lack of awareness of the reasons cell-phone conversations are dangerous. Few people have any understanding of what is known about cognitive processing. Associating this issue with libertarian politics is not helpful.
Even at TTAC I suspect it is widely believed cell phone use is OK if one is a ‘good’ driver. Good driver in this context seems to mean ‘attentive’. The problem is that everyone needs to realize it is _impossible_ to be as attentive as a good driver needs to be and use a cell phone. This is not a matter of skill, age, or discipline. It is a fact about the way humans process visual and other information to make it available for conscious attention and decision making.
So cell-phone use is a real menace to you and yours and the first step in dealing with it is to have people understand why cell phone conversations are drunk driving dangerous. Amongst reasonable people voluntary compliance will increase. For others, treating cell-phone use as akin to DWI (which it _is_ with respect to the ability to detect and react to driving conditions) may be necessary to underline the seriousness of the issue.
BTW, in the not-so-long-run cell phone bans will be everywhere because of the science. And that is a good thing.
I attempt not to use my cellphone while I am driving, but sometimes it is a must. When I do I keep the conversations short and do it at a stoplight whenever possible. While I have seen drivers distracted by cell phones, as well as numerous other activities, driving in general carries certain risks, and all drivers need to accept those risks whenever they venture onto the roads.
While there may be some validity in the argument that talking on the cell phone endangers not only yourself but other drivers, seat belt laws and helmet laws only serve to protect those that wish not to wear a seatbelt or helmet, and personally I see no reason to legislate that you can’t risk your own life if it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
NulloModo:
What car do you drive? I’ve never seen an owners manual that required a cell plan to make the car work.
A Fiat maybe?
And just in case you’re wondering; your constitutional liberties do not extend to endangering my family’s life with either distracted, reckless or impaired driving.
I don’t presume that they do. The state is fully within its mandate to license and regulate drivers on public roads. My angst stems from the fact that is that it is already against the last to drive distracted or impaired making cell phone bans redundant and unnecessary.
Also, the effectiveness of laws is dependent upon voluntary compliance by the majority of citizens. The double-nickel national speed limit was an abject failure because no one really wanted it despite promises to reduce fuel consumption and highway fatalities. Resentment grows as such laws become inconsistently and capriciously enforced (usually by towns/cities/counties looking to levy tribute from travelers).
Sorry to follow up with another post.
I just wanted to emphasize the nature of the problem is such that you will ever notice it. So your own experience using a cell phone is not reliable in judging the risk.
This is a perverse effect of the lack of cognitive processing that takes place. So you can say: “I used a cell phone and didn’t notice I was any less attentive about traffic conditions etc.” The truth is, you were lucky. The science shows in an emergency situation you would have not noticed anything either. That’s the problem.
personally I see no reason to legislate that you can’t risk your own life if it doesn’t hurt anyone else….
Except that when you get into an accident without a belt, you injuries are, statistically speaking, going to be much more extensive. Which means you are going to burden your health care provider with much bigger bills. Which just means higher rates for everybody. If you want to go beltless and write a check for your injuries, than go for it. At least that way nobody can say you are being a hypocrite.
It is a shame that many speak of liberties and rights but when it comes time to take responsibility for their actions, they fall silent. Under ideal conditions, these type of laws shouldn’t be necessary. But they have become a necessary evil. And with that will come the “enforcement Nazis” in certain towns and areas that, as the original author states in the comments, will extract fines out of people solely for the revenue. I guess staying off the phone is one answer. But I have to ask: are we really “safer” hands free or is just the act of being on the phone too much of a distraction. (maybe we should all drive manual cars…I tell my wife I was too busy shifting in traffic to pick up!!)
I enjoyed reading this article because it is as well-written as most by WCM. But I disagree with most of the arguments.
I don’t understand the libertarian slant. The state has no business in regulating behavior? So we should de-ban drunk driving and legalize hard drugs, right?
In addition, I would say the comparison to eating or shaving while driving is flawed. Numerous studies say that the human brain is just not wired for this specific kind of multi-tasking. It is extremely hard to concentrate on a risky task like driving, while at the same time talking with a non-present person. In comparison, it’s easy to drive and tune the radio, or drive and eat ice cream. The cell phone bans reflect the singular difficulty of cellphone yakking while driving. It’s more and worse than being distracted, just as being drunk is more and worse than being inattentive.
MichaelC, I read the University of Utah material prior to writing this. One thing I didn’t cover is that some of their studies show impairment with hands free devices as well as hand held, so I expect safety NAZIs to start going after them as wells.
An idea for those addicted to cells in cars…
Change your ringtone to say:
“If you take this call you will drive no better than a drunk driver. Wouldn’t it be better to be drunk when you kill a family?”
Nanny state away, driving is too dangerous to have freedom.
“I attempt not to use my cellphone while I am driving, but sometimes it is a must.”
You are who these laws are written for, it is never a “must”. It is always possible to stop your car and make a call.
Golden2Husky:
I’m all for that. Anytime the responsibility can be limited to the individual.
Say you want to drive without a seatbelt. You sign a DNR or set aside $500K for medical bills. If/when the $500K runs out the DNR can kick in or you can drink hamburger thru a straw for the rest of your “life” because you couldn’t afford that one last operation.
@ Mr. Montgomery,
I read the University of Utah material prior to writing this. One thing I didn’t cover is that some of their studies show impairment with hands free devices as well as hand held, so I expect safety NAZIs to start going after them as wells.
——
You are correct. The research shows hands-free systems have the same impact on attention. If you accept the science, they should be banned as well.
But what is your point? It particular, your suggestion (again) that such laws are examples of state interference on personal liberties is hard for me to understand.
Do you accept phone conversations while driving are inherently dangerous because they impact the basic capacity of the driver to process road conditions and drive safely?
If so, for everybody’s safety shouldn’t that be addressed?
Again, I think association of the cell-phone conversation issue with politics is well off the mark here.
If these phones were so problematic, we would have seen accident rates skyrocket, but they didn’t. We would also see differences in the trends in accident and fatality rates in locations where the laws are in place versus others where they are not, but there is no difference there, either.
There’s no real world evidence to suggest that the phones are causing accidents that would not have occurred, anyway. There are laboratory studies that suggests that there is a problem, but if the conclusions were accurate, then the real world data should have changed significantly.
I have read some of these lab studies. I would suggest that they don’t deal with the fact that most drivers moderate their behavior when using the phone — they slow down. Slowing down offsets the slight increase in reaction time. Accordingly, the long-term trend of declining fatality and accident rates continues unabated, and the world hasn’t ended, despite the hype.
This comes down to the old 80/20 rule. A minority of drivers are involved in most of the accidents. These people will have collisions whether they have phones or not. Even if they are using phones during accidents, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would not have more collisions over the long run than the norm.
In an ideal world, authorities would remove the worst 10%, as accident rates would decline sharply with their exit from our highways. But in practice, these people are difficult to identify, and you can’t just train them out of existence — they tend to be apathetic, wreckless or self-centered, not necessarily lacking in technical ability.
You also have to remember that law enforcement and the justice system have limited resources. If there is a decision to start enforcing one law, then other enforcement has to give. Focus on phone tickets, and you pull resources away from illegal behaviors that really are a problem. Since you can’t have a cop on every corner, priorities are necessary, and there is no reason to make phones a priority.
I don’t understand the concept of a no-cell phone area on public roads any more than I understand the concept of a no-peeing area in a public swimming pool. It’s not ok, anywhere.
I agree with those who’ve said that cell phones are a greater tax on attention than some other sorts of distractions.
I’ll go a step farther than anyone else has – only half in jest – I think cell phones should be banned period. Everywhere. From existance. Most cell conversations are inane chatter that can be dispensed with altogether. And you businessmen, don’t give that baloney about making deals on the phone. Deals were made long before cell phones existed. Take your deals out to the links where they belong.
My angst stems from the fact that is that it is already against the last to drive distracted or impaired making cell phone bans redundant and unnecessary.
+1.
In NY State, you don’t even get points unless it’s your 3rd offense. It’s just a fine.
What’s sad is that given current advances and cost reductions in mobile video, enforcement of distracted and dangerous driving practices could be much more robust. But the 10 percent of drivers who are chronic problems have whiny, political defenders.
Pch101:
But in practice, these people are difficult to identify, and you can’t just train them out of existence — they tend to be apathetic, wreckless or self-centered, not necessarily lacking in technical ability.
The 10 percent you mention contain many Morlocks who are incorrigible in their habits and attitudes.
However, there is a group that could benefit substantially from better training: Easily intimidated (sorry about this – but it’s mostly women) types who were poorly taught to initially drive. They would benefit from the confidence boost that comes from a solid, professional driver skill course.
My thinking on this begins with data from marksmanship training in mixed sex military support units. Almost all women arrive having never fired a rifle in their lives. Initially, they are intimidated and uninterested in shooting excellence, often because they lack confidence and experience. But they’ve also never picked up the crap habits of many male shooters.
But women pay attention more to marksmanship basics (breathing, concentration) and lack males’ distracting attitudes and smack-talking need to put others down. The end result is that while the best shots are often men, the average women shoots better than the average man. What’s even more significant is the improvement from initial to final shooting.
I think the same results would occur in a professional driver course. My apologies to the fairer sex for any offense.
Have you noticed that the self-centered just-have-to-yap cell phone buffoons (can you determine my sentiments regarding cell phones and driving?) who are the worst drivers while yapping away tilt their vacuous befuddled heads in the direction wherein the cell phone is clamped to their head?
Their appears to be a correlation between lousy inattentive driving and those whose head tilts when babbling on their phone.
If the phone is glued to their right ear the head tilts obviously to that side and vice versa.
There is something about that head tilt that results in even worse driving inabilty than that performed by yappers whose head remains upright.
Additionally, I have noted that it appears females are affected in ways that male yappers avoid.
More than the observation that the majority of cell phone droids are females, my observation is that females tend to have more difficulty than males during the driving yapping evolution.
I agree with Brian E. It seems like another excuse to enhance or issue a fine.
I also believe there is an element of convenience to all these laws. In California, they can pull you over for not wearing your seatbelt, having a dead license plate bulb, and now for driving with a visible cell phone. All terrible hazards to others on the road.
In my experience, the cops rarely use these laws to enforce compliance (they tell you they are), 9 times out of 10, they are used because they want to check your identity, search your vehicle, or simply generate revenue.
Perhaps these are valuable tools to preserving the peace, but I think they are cheap predicates to violating our civil rights.
However, there is a group that could benefit substantially from better training: Easily intimidated (sorry about this – but it’s mostly women) types who were poorly taught to initially drive. They would benefit from the confidence boost that comes from a solid, professional driver skill course.
There is a significant difference between poor street driving and poor marksmanship — poor driving is fun. When learning most technical skills, doing them well raises the appeal, and improving one’s skills bring pleasure to the person learning them.
Driving on the street is the opposite of this. Good street driving is ultimately about avoiding extremes, being defensive and going with the flow. On the whole, that’s boring. It’s just a lot more fun to do all of the stuff that causes accidents than it does to be an straight-and-narrow sort who avoids the activities that cause accidents.
Those who lack confidence may be annoying to drive next to, but they tend not to wreck. Accidents tend to be caused by those who take unacceptable risks, not by the timid. Performance driving courses lead to higher accident rates, because confidence leads to more risk taking, which is the last thing that most drivers need.
The technical skills that are useful on a track are often the exact opposite of what are needed on the street. You do not want street drivers rapidly passing other traffic or clipping apexes; you want them to keep a safe distance and drive at speeds that are close to the flow of traffic.
How about this then..
PLEASE don’t talk on the phone while driving because if something bad happens I need your full attention to the matter.
Ok, I’m going to just come out and say it, most females take longer to come to the point and finish a conversation on any level, IMHO. Now lets have them cruising along driving the minivan/suv full of kids, cellphone glued to their ear, impeding traffic,wandering from lane to lane…. Where is the protection and rights of the child in this? When vehicles can pilot themselves from A to B using GPS we can have all kinds of fun in the car, we could even have s…..
In regard to seatbelt/helmet laws and increased insurance costs – just set it up such that those who chose not to use the safety systems available will not have their claims honored by the insurance company. Actually, this could even be taken further so that in states with mandatory inspections drivers who were knowingly driving with bad brakes, bald tires, or other hinderances that they had the opportunity to fix can not avail themselves of their insurance for their losses.
Having been drunk (although not having driven drunk) and having driven while using a cell phone, I do not believe that using the cell phone is anywhere near as dangerous as it would be to get behind the wheel inebriated. However, if I, while driving while talking on the phone, perform an illegal manuver, I would fully expect to be pulled over and fined for it. Similarly, if I, while driving and talking on the phone, do not break any traffic laws, I should not be pulled over. This could actually be expanded to cover driving while under the influence as well, if you manage to drive completely within the law it shouldn’t matter if your BAC is .00 or .15, if however, you run a red light or hit another car, you should be punished regardless. Obviously, some stiffer penalties in the event of an alcohol-caused accident would be needed to discourage the practice and give incentive not to do it, and the same thing could be done for driving while talking on the cell (maybe not to the same degree) but it would get to the heart of the matter – penalizing the damaging act and not the circumstance which may or may not cause it.
Personally, I don’t find talking on the phone (my car has a Bluetooth system, and I use it) to be substantially different from talking to a passenger. Yes, my driving style does change slightly, but it changes in exactly the same way as when I have a passenger in the car and I’m carrying on a conversation with that person. I increase my following distance a bit, and I’m more conservative about lane changes.
It does seem to vary from person to person, though. I’ve definitely seen people do stupid things because they were distracted by a cell phone conversation. But I’ve also seen them do stupid things because of an unruly kid in the back seat, or because the burger they were eating just slopped all over their lap.
I really don’t see why we need laws specifically related to one particular distraction. There are plenty of other distractions (and longer-term ones, not just glancing at the radio for a few seconds). Perhaps rather than laws specifically related to cell phone distractions, we simply need to concentrate on public awareness that cell phones can fall under existing driving-while-distracted legislation, and try to encourage people to be aware of how much cell phone conversations do or don’t affect their own driving.
I figure the EU would have unique insights into this as well. Their population adopted cell phones much more quickly than in the USA, and their dense urban centers seem to require much more concentration and driving ability in order to navigate effectively.
I also think Europeans have more respect for their driving privileges than American counterparts. American teenagers view driving as a right. And the relatively low cost as a % of income for vehicle ownership in the USA means this sentiment is shared by other age groups as well.
I find extended highway runs in light traffic to be a great time to catch up with people on the phone. It’s just not that hard to stay in a lane and check your mirrors, and I’d be more than a little miffed if that was a ticketing offense where I live.
Heavy traffic? Rapid changes in traffic conditions? Rain? Tight lanes? Construction? Lots of curves or elevation changes? Any of these will persuade me to hang up. It’s purely a question of risk tolerance. Mine is actually fairly low. I tend to drive 15 MPH slower while on the phone.
Texting should be outlawed entirely. I watched a friend drive in a way that approximated what I’d expect her to do if drunk. When I asked what was up, she said she was texting people. A year into owning my Palm phone with a QWERTY keyboard, I still can’t text without glancing at it. Each text a minute or more to draft and send. That’s a long time to be constantly shifting your attention back and forth and taking your eyes off the road. It’s not like making a phone call or adjusting the radio.
Pch101:
There is a significant difference between poor street driving and poor marksmanship — poor driving is fun.
Outside of borderline sociopaths, there’s nothing ‘fun’ for average people who are scared to drive when they have to drive.
When learning most technical skills, doing them well raises the appeal, and improving one’s skills bring pleasure to the person learning them.
Any skill is more enjoyable when done well.
Those who lack confidence may be annoying to drive next to, but they tend not to wreck.
Most don’t. Many do. Many often hurt themselves. Many could be improved.
The technical skills that are useful on a track are often the exact opposite of what are needed on the street. You do not want street drivers rapidly passing other traffic or clipping apexes;
Fer cryin’ out loud. I’m not talking about heel and toe techniques in an Rx8. Showing Yukon-Mom how her vehicle behaves in a skid or using pylons at slow speed to give a sense of space and vehicle awareness can be effective, confidence building tools.
God, That chick is so hot!
OK, I wonder how the gender issue always has to get into conversations about bad driving? I’m a woman, yet have seen many male drivers on phones, distracted with children in suvs, mini-vans etc. Our insurance rates are generally lower than men’s, so go figure on that.
As for distracted drivers, I’ve seen men shaving, reading, eating, texting, and doing head/hand movements while talking on phones. You see more women with children because women end up doing that stuff more, possibly because there are more stay-at-home moms than SAH dads. Distracted driving on the whole is not just women, but someone always has to go there when this comes up in conversation. It’s a stereotype.
Rant over, back to the main issue. Thankfully, my state has not banned cells while driving yet. I agree that the distraction factor has more to do with the conversation aspect than the phone itself as the studies with bluetooth showed. So what’s next–banning talking to your passengers while driving?
Showing Yukon-Mom how her vehicle behaves in a skid or using pylons at slow speed to give a sense of space and vehicle awareness can be effective, confidence building tools.
This has been studied before, and the studies indicate that drivers who have advanced training tend to have more collisions. Confidence produces more risk taking, which leads to more wrecks.
When we measure the value of technical training in areas such as marksmanship, we are looking for positive attributes, i.e. greater accuracy. That’s easy to measure, and doing a better job makes everybody happy.
In contrast, we measure one’s ability to drive on the street with a negative, which is by **not** having accidents. On a statistical basis, we measure success or failure by how often they don’t make mistakes, not by how polished they are. Accident causing behaviors tend to bring some perceived benefit to the person doing it, which is why education has limited value.
Driver confidence isn’t a problem in terms of what we as a society need to care about most. A driver who lacks confidence may plod along a bit too slowly for our tastes, and they may lack finesse behind the wheel. But from a social standpoint, we don’t care about that — we are far more concerned with keeping sheetmetal from banging together. The meek don’t present a problem with this, and training them won’t do much good.
The feds have figured out how to fix the SUV problem — stability control. Since your average person doesn’t seem to understand that laws of physics apply to their own driving (this is what happens when virtually everyone believes that his own driving skills are above average, which is a statistical impossibility), the stability control will do what the humans will not. Electronic nannies save lives, whether or not we like them very much.
Unfortunately, laws can’t always fix things. A constitutional amendment banning booze could not excise America of the moral turpitude of alcoholism. If drivers are going to ignore cell phone driving prohibitions, what’s the point?
—
This bears repeating.
One problem with traffic safety laws is they don’t take into account the large variation in driving conditions. Talking on a cell phone while driving isn’t totally insane on a 6 lane 40mph suburban street with light traffic. However, driving on that same street with both freezing rain and rush hour traffic requires 100% concentration plus some luck. Laws that overreach like the school-zone cell phone bans and excessively low speed limits tend to erode public respect for the law.
Unfortunately, laws can’t always fix things. A constitutional amendment banning booze could not excise America of the moral turpitude of alcoholism. If drivers are going to ignore cell phone driving prohibitions, what’s the point?
This bears repeating.
Yes, but.
–As someone who has almost been hit several times by cel-phone-wielding morons…
–even if I agree with the above in principle…
–even though I know the law will be mostly useless…
If it deters at least some of these morons from yapping away, then legislate away. Common sense is actually not so common. I see it proved every day. If the gov’t fines these retards, maybe only then they will learn something.
OTOH, suppose the government taxes each phone call, each text? Then cel-addicted people who just have to make/take calls that “just can’t wait” will start to decide that it can wait, after all, when they start seeing their phone bills double and triple. Cha-ching!
I probably average one brief cell phone conversation a day while at the helm. Doing so has never impeded my ability to maintain my lane, react to slowing traffic ahead, or otherwise lose track of where I am or where I’m going.
I find this incredibly hard to believe. Just the time it takes to look down at your caller id and accept the call causes a momentary lapse in awareness. This “everyone has a problem but me” attitude is exactly what leads people to talk and drive more and more until those momentary lapses turn into long stretches of obliviousness.
So what’s next–banning talking to your passengers while driving?
There was a study not that long ago that in part compared speaking on the cell phone vs. talking with your passenger.
Cell phones were found to be much more distracting because a) the person on the other end of the cell phone call has no idea what you’re going doing and will not stop talking when your full attention on the road is required (which a passenger tends to do), b) the passenger serves as a “second set of eyes” on the road, which helps to mitigate the distraction the conversation generates.
When a driver gets into a car, they are not only put themselves at risk, but also everyone else they happen to end up near on the roads.
That is why laws limiting the “freedom” of drivers make sense as long as such laws are well correlated to reducing the likelihood the driver will do harm to other people.
From this perspective, cell phone bans are very reasonable just as prohibitions against drunk driving are reasonable. It isn’t a case of the “Nanny State” trying to protect people from themselves, it is a matter of trying to protect innocent bystanders from the irresponsible actions of others.
The cops need to start ticketing people on cell phones. What’s even worse is texting. I’ve seen people texting while driving, weaving in and out. Texting is worse than being on the cell phone because it takes your eyes off the road (the cell phone DOES take your mind off the road, as th e studies at U of Utah have shown.
First, we need to put people in jail who drive after their licenses are taken away. Once we see how that looks, then we take it one priority at a time.
By the time we get to the cell phone, driving will have turned out to be safe.