I think cell phone use by drivers should be banned

[formulanone]

Are the handsfree devices truly hands free?  Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through? 

So far, you have to at least push a button in initiate a call; after that, you can use your voice to get through it. Picking up an incoming call is just one press of the steering wheel button (so is declining the call). Every car I've used Bluetooth with at least has a button on the steering wheel, unless you're using an earpiece...same deal, one button. A turn-signal stalk is a further reach from the wheel on some cars.

Some systems require a lengthy question-and-answer period to get to the call: Nissan's system asks about four questions between pressing the phone call button on the wheel and the phone ringing. It's easier to just start the call when the car's parked/stopped, which takes all of a two button pushes, unless it's a number I haven't saved. And others, like Hyundai's and Kia's, only asks two questions. Some have a touch screen.

Put it this way: if you're driving a car, most of the time your hands are occupied, but to say they are always occupied is nonsense. Every car has had other buttons, levers, switches (radio, shifting, cruise control, for example) that have been in cars for over 50 years, and some are even basic requirements for the operation of a car.

Texting is whole other challenge that I won't partake in while a car is moving; it's hard enough trying it while walking.

There's a pretty good correlation between teenagers and young adults just getting their licenses and texting while driving, because they're an age group that fits both categories and has relatively little experience in driving in the first place. There's always going to be bad and inattentive drivers, no matter what the age.

But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.

So I say, why not leave our liberties alone instead of applying a problem to a solution?

[Molandfreak]

But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.

No. Phone history searches can be done without seizure of the phone itself.

[formulanone]

No. Phone history searches can be done without seizure of the phone itself.

Yes, but it's not yet something that happens overnight, let alone during a 10-30 minute traffic stop.

[corco]

Are the handsfree devices truly hands free?  Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through? 

So far, you have to at least push a button in initiate a call; after that, you can use your voice to get through it. Picking up an incoming call is just one press of the steering wheel button (so is declining the call). Every car I've used Bluetooth with at least has a button on the steering wheel, unless you're using an earpiece...same deal, one button. A turn-signal stalk is a further reach from the wheel on some cars.

Some systems require a lengthy question-and-answer period to get to the call: Nissan's system asks about four questions between pressing the phone call button on the wheel and the phone ringing. It's easier to just start the call when the car's parked/stopped, which takes all of a two button pushes, unless it's a number I haven't saved. And others, like Hyundai's and Kia's, only asks two questions. Some have a touch screen.

Put it this way: if you're driving a car, most of the time your hands are occupied, but to say they are always occupied is nonsense. Every car has had other buttons, levers, switches (radio, shifting, cruise control, for example) that have been in cars for over 50 years, and some are even basic requirements for the operation of a car.

Texting is whole other challenge that I won't partake in while a car is moving; it's hard enough trying it while walking.

There's a pretty good correlation between teenagers and young adults just getting their licenses and texting while driving, because they're an age group that fits both categories and has relatively little experience in driving in the first place. There's always going to be bad and inattentive drivers, no matter what the age.

But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.

So I say, why not leave our liberties alone instead of applying a problem to a solution?

This sums up my opinion on the matter exactly.

[PHLBOS]

My own view is that while ordinary drivers should not be using a cellphone when driving, the case for a formal ban is less clear.  It has been suggested on this forum that such a ban would pose an unusual hardship for taxi and car-service drivers who rely on cellphones to stay in touch with dispatch.  Also, if a ban is justified on the basis that spoken communication with a party not actually present in the vehicle distracts the driver and so poses an unreasonable risk to road-users in general, then what is the justification for continuing to permit emergency-services drivers to remain in radio contact with their dispatchers?  (I realize that "They are trained to do it" can always be cited as an alibi, but does the training they receive actually improve their ability to resist distraction in a way that can be objectively measured?)

For a 4-month period in 1990 between my two engineering jobs (w/a 6-month period of receiving unemployment checks); I took a job being an executive sedan driver.  For those unfamiliar w/such; it was basically a cross between a taxicab driver & a limo driver... driving a regular dressy sedan while wearing a suit.

Anyway, each car had walkie-talkie system that resembled a then-current, hand-held cell phone.  The only instructions the drivers received was basically how to operate/use the equipment and nothing else.  It was understood that some of the talking w/the dispatcher could take place while in motion.  The only conversations on such devices lasting longer than a minute was if a driver needed step-by-step directions.  One time while parked and on break, I actually had to administer such to another driver (while they were in motion) when a fill-in dispatcher was unavailable.

Remember this was before the days of MapQuest, never mind GPS Navigation systems and wide-spread cell-phone usage; all vehicles had a detailed street atlas (Universal's Metropolitan Boston edition) for navigation purposes.

BTW, each driver was also given a beeper (remember those?) as well in case one was out of dispatch's range.  If a driver was beeped, they either stopped at the first available pay-phone (a rare sight today) or, as a last resort due to roaming charges that existed at the time, used the mounted cell phone intended for the customer's use.  This unit was mounted on the drivetrain "hump" between the driver's & passenger's side seats.  Passengers/customers typically rode in the back seats.

To my knowledge, no driver had an accident because they were talking to their dispatcher on their hand-held mike while in motion.  Similar could be said regarding truckers conversing on their CB radios, which has been going on for decades.

The only difference I see between a taxi/limo/executive sedan/delivery/ambulance driver, police officer, etc. or trucker vs. the average Joe or Jane driver is that, in most instances, the radio/communication systems were typically ones that had the receiving sound (from the dispatcher and the like) transmit through a speaker that could be heard by anyone in the vehicle whereas a cell phone user typically either needs to hold the phone to their ears or needs to have an earpiece to hear what the other person on the line is saying.  Granted and as others have mentioned earlier, some vehicles are equipped w/systems where one could conceivably utilize the car's speaker system for their phones but those are in the small minority.  Most vehicles on the road today aren't equipped that way.

When bans on drivers using hand-held cell phones first came about, I did not own a cell phone at the time and I originally sided w/those advocating the ban.  However, after giving it some thought and research into my own personal history of using walkie-talkies and CB radios while driving; I have since decided otherwise; especially since I now own a cell phone.

I've come to realize that many of these morons that cause accidents while talking on their cell phones would likely be subject to any distractions while driving and still cause accidents.  In short; guns (or drivers using cell phones in this case) don't kill people, people kill people.  Actually, it's father's w/pretty daughters that kill people (saw that on a plaque at a gift shop in Ocean City, NJ) but I digress. 

That said, I do not condone having long conversations on a cell phone while driving other than giving out or receiving driving directions.  I actually was requested twice in recent years via a friend's cell phone (while they were driving) to give out turn-by-turn directions due to their either getting lost and/or their GPS unit totally screwing them up; it does happen (note my signature).  The gossip and/or other mumbo-jumbo talk on the cell phone can wait until one's parked.

Truth be told, I'm actually surprised that many replied to my earlier 3 questions (thanks to those who responded BTW).  I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer).  I wanted to verify whether or not this was a Do as I say, not as I do! situation or stance.

OTOH, texting while driving I personally don't condone at all and I absolutely will not text while driving.  However, I will admit that there have been times, when I received a text; I'll take a look at the message while stopped at a light.  I try to avoid doing such as much as possible.  Fortunately, I'm not Mr. Popular, so it's not like I get that many text messages. 

[NE2]

I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer).

I don't own a phone or a car. Poo as I poo.

[Brandon]

I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer).

I don't own a phone or a car. Poo as I poo.

If you own neither, please do us all a favor and refrain from commenting on them.

[tradephoric]

Sun glare can be distracting to drivers and countless lives have been lost as a result of sun glare.  Should we ban driving when it's sunny out?

[Brandon]

Sun glare can be distracting to drivers and countless lives have been lost as a result of sun glare.  Should we ban driving when it's sunny out?

Hell, I've nearly missed vehicles at roundabouts due to the thickness of the A pillar.  Yet, a thicker A pillar is necessary should I get into an accident or roll over.

[Molandfreak]

I originally directed those towards the OP (at present, has yet to answer).

I don't own a phone or a car. Poo as I poo.

If you own neither, please do us all a favor and refrain from commenting on them.

And with that you poison the well, good sir. Bicycles and pedestrians have the same rights as cars on the road, and risk greater injury from inattentive drivers at that. As for not owning a phone, try having a conversation on your landline and watching a movie at the same time. Then give me the exact plot of the movie and the progression of the conversation. If you cannot accurately do both, you cannot accurately pay attention to the road and a phone call at the same time.

[corco]

Then give me the exact plot of the movie and the progression of the conversation. If you cannot accurately do both, you cannot accurately pay attention to the road and a phone call at the same time.

Okay that I do want to see some evidence for before you make that leap. Talking on a phone and driving involve different senses, where talking on a phone and watching (which includes listening) a movie involve very similar senses.

[Molandfreak]

Then give me the exact plot of the movie and the progression of the conversation. If you cannot accurately do both, you cannot accurately pay attention to the road and a phone call at the same time.

Okay that I do want to see some evidence for before you make that leap. Talking on a phone and driving involve different senses, where talking on a phone and watching (which includes listening) a movie involve very similar senses.

I can't provide you with any evidence. If you don't pay as much attention to the road as you do to a well-written movie (analyzing your situation in relation to your surroundings, other vehicles, wildlife, and other roadways as you go), then you shouldn't be driving in my book. That has nothing to do with the senses used for driving and talking on the phone. If you disagree, it was only an example. The primary purpose of that post was to prove to Brandon that he was being highly illogical when he said that SPUI has no business commenting on the matter. It's the same logic feminazis use to say that men can't disagree with their "progressive agenda."

[corco]

The primary purpose of that post was to prove to

Except you don't prove anything when you make statements like that. Watching a well-written movie and analyzing situations while driving involve the same parts of the brain. Driving largely involves your occipital lobe, parietal lobe and cerebellum which provide reflexes and motor reactions. Talking on a cell phone is more of a frontal/temporal lobe activity. The lines aren't perfect, but it's actually possible for a person to competently multitask while doing both. Attempting to listen to multiple conversations and recall them perfectly (the one on the phone and the one on TV) is all but impossible, because you're trying to do two very similar things at the same time.

Driving and talking have some overlap to the point (you do need to use your frontal lobe a little bit and temporal lobe a tiny bit when driving) that yeah, it's better not to do both at once, but they're two things that can theoretically be done safely at the same time. Some people will be better at this than others.

It's a bad analogy.

[Duke87]

The benefit of hands-free is that it allows you to have both hands on the wheel, where phone in your hand does not. So the former is less of an impairment.

Now, yes, hands-free still is a distraction... but so is talking to a passenger in the car. I know this well: I always drive more cautiously and less aggressively when there's someone else in the car with me because I have to pay some level of attention to them and thus cannot be completely 100% zoned in on the road with them there. If we are going to ban hands-free phone use we might as well also require that the driver not be permitted to talk to any passengers that may be in the car, as that is equally distracting.


The other thing about banning phone use outright is that this can at times create some significant problems for some people. Lots of people who are regularly in the field for work have bluetooth in their vehicles because their employers are not okay with their employee being effectively off the grid whenever they are driving (which could be a significant portion of the day). Some people are expected to answer their phone when their boss or a client calls them regardless of what they are doing and may suffer negative consequences for failing to do so.

Me, if my phone rings while I'm driving, I'll just let it ring and go to voicemail unless I happen to be right at a spot where I can pull over. But I'm rarely ever driving during a workday and I don't get phone calls which my job demands I answer instantly. Not everyone has these luxuries.

[tradephoric]

A man in Mena, Arkansas was driving while texting and ran over a little 2 year old girl.  The baby survived (and is adorable, as I got to hang out with her a couple of times) but will have health problems for her whole life.  He pulled over, looked at her in the road, and took off.  He's going to get locked away for a long time.

[KEK Inc.]

While we're at it, we should ban hot chicks jogging next to roads.  It's not uncommon for male drivers to get in near-accidents or crash whilst staring at shorts/yoga pants. 

[Billy F 1988]

Here is my own take on this. It seems that we put the blame on the little nuances when in fact it ought to be ourselves to be blamed for inattentiveness to the road regardless of the usage of cell phones being banned or not. Simple rule to follow: PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD TO USE THE CELL PHONE! Why is it so fucking hard to do so? If you cannot follow this simple rule, do not buy a cell phone, period! Regardless of how well or how bad our hands-free technology seems, this simple rule seems to be kept ignored on a regular basis. So, what exactly are you all point out here? If cell phone usage by drivers should be banned, then why are you still using them in your car right now?

[hbelkins]

Simple rule to follow: PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE FUCKING ROAD TO USE THE CELL PHONE!

You do that. I will continue to talk while I drive when I can safely do so. I'm tired of having to live my life according to the limitations or the dictates of the lowest common denominator.

In other news, let's ban the use of CB or amateur radios while driving. Talking to someone who can't see what you're seeing is a distraction.

[NE2]

The Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which H.B. Elkins suffers from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating his ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize his mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Grzrd]

While we're at it, we should ban hot chicks jogging next to roads.  It's not uncommon for male drivers to get in near-accidents or crash whilst staring at shorts/yoga pants.

In a similarly main vein, and continuing the slightly OT drift into the realm of other distractions: the next time you drive, think about what roughly one in ten drivers around you have admitted to doing with that person while behind the wheel. 

[1995hoo]

Returning to the original topic of laws banning mobile-phone usage, I previously mentioned how such laws can benefit people who are injured or who suffer property damage when a mobile-phone user causes an accident. As a general matter, I'm not a huge fan of governments always enacting new laws. I think people need to be responsible and I think endless government regulation just causes people to disregard laws (such as the old 55-mph national speed limit).

On the other hand, there's no question that there are a lot of people out there who seem to be incapable of driving while using a phone, and a lot of them also say, "Well, I haven't had an accident yet, so you have no business telling me to stop." But when you're engrossed in your phone and you're going 45 mph in the middle lane of an Interstate when everyone else is going 65 to 70, you ARE a hazard, regardless of what you personally believe. At some point there has to be some mechanism for dealing with people who refuse to exercise responsibility. It reminds me of a comment I made some months ago in the thread about smoking:

....

The other thing I think is reprehensible is to smoke in the car when you have kids riding with you (especially an infant). As an adult if I know you're a smoker I can refuse to ride with you, and I'll tell you why. Most smokers understand that, I think. But children have no choice in the matter. I really don't remember whether my father smoked in the car (which suggests to me he probably didn't, and given that he's fastidious about keeping the car clean I think it's all the more likely he did not) and I can't imagine being cooped up for a long time in a confined space like that with a smoker. I view it as borderline child abuse to do that to a little kid. I don't necessarily know that I support laws specifically restricting the right to smoke in a car where a kid is a passenger. I have a problem with too much governmental intervention into one's life in that way. BUT on the other hand, I think the kid is entitled to some protection and I'm not sure existing child-abuse laws would afford it.

....

In other words, there has to be some form of recourse for the kid subjected to smoke who is unable to protect himself, and there has to be some form of recourse for people endangered by irresponsible mobile-phone users. I don't know what that recourse is. I'm concerned that the existing tort system is inadequate to do so to the extent it relies on jurors who may themselves be mobile-phone users and who are afraid of setting a precedent finding phone use to be negligent.

[NE2]

But when you're engrossed in your phone and you're going 45 mph in the middle lane of an Interstate when everyone else is going 65 to 70, you ARE a hazard, regardless of what you personally believe.

But not because you're going too slow - any hazards indirectly caused by a slow driver are the fault of others who follow too closely or weave around you. If you're on the phone and going 45, or anything above 5-10, you're going too fast.

[bugo]

Guys like you and HB think you should be given the freedom to put others at risk.

So basically, what you are saying is that you need to crusade to save us from ourselves.  Thank you, but fuck you.  I do not need saving from myself anymore than anyone else does, busybody.  Go mind your own fucking business (GMYOFB) and leave me to mine.

When you start putting my life and health in danger, then it becomes my business, buddy boy.

[bugo]

Are the handsfree devices truly hands free?  Do you have to push the green button on your phone to answer the call, or does every call go automatically through? 

So far, you have to at least push a button in initiate a call; after that, you can use your voice to get through it. Picking up an incoming call is just one press of the steering wheel button (so is declining the call). Every car I've used Bluetooth with at least has a button on the steering wheel, unless you're using an earpiece...same deal, one button. A turn-signal stalk is a further reach from the wheel on some cars.

Some systems require a lengthy question-and-answer period to get to the call: Nissan's system asks about four questions between pressing the phone call button on the wheel and the phone ringing. It's easier to just start the call when the car's parked/stopped, which takes all of a two button pushes, unless it's a number I haven't saved. And others, like Hyundai's and Kia's, only asks two questions. Some have a touch screen.

Put it this way: if you're driving a car, most of the time your hands are occupied, but to say they are always occupied is nonsense. Every car has had other buttons, levers, switches (radio, shifting, cruise control, for example) that have been in cars for over 50 years, and some are even basic requirements for the operation of a car.

Texting is whole other challenge that I won't partake in while a car is moving; it's hard enough trying it while walking.

There's a pretty good correlation between teenagers and young adults just getting their licenses and texting while driving, because they're an age group that fits both categories and has relatively little experience in driving in the first place. There's always going to be bad and inattentive drivers, no matter what the age.

But more laws aren't going to fix the problems, they're likely to create more problems and tie up the courts with even more pointless debate. A minor traffic violation (especially a victimless one) is no reason to invoke unreasonable search and seizure of my property. Society also generally picked up quite the Pavlovian response to their phone ringing or alerting them, which doesn't help the matter. That's when folks really aren't paying attention to the road or their vehicle or other cars, because they're fixated on whatever problem is circulating through their head.

So I say, why not leave our liberties alone instead of applying a problem to a solution?

You don't have the liberty to put my life and health at danger.

[agentsteel53]

I think a general "driving while distracted" should be banned.  the question is, how can someone be judged to be "distracted"?  I'll bet some airplane pilot could operate 20 gadgets at a time while driving, while others are are a swerve risk every time they change the radio station.