I think cell phone use by drivers should be banned

[corco]

In my eyes you just answered your own question- judge level of distraction by results. If you swerve by changing the radio station, you get a ticket for swerving. If you are a crazy airline pilot that can operate twenty instruments while following all traffic laws perfectly, youre left alone.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

So you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh?  Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves.  It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line.  His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly. 

Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it.  I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.

[PHLBOS]

So you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh?  Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves.  It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line.  His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly. 

Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it.  I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.

The above describes, in a nutshell, what I mentioned earlier (reposted below w/Bold emphasis added):

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.

As far as your carpooler is concerned, doing the above (unintended motions) and not even acknowledging such is just plain wrong IMHO.

[hbelkins]

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

Whatever.

[hbelkins]

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

Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.

[formulanone]

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

Spare me the sound bites, you're not running for elected office.

There's nothing stopping me from driving full sail through a red light, other than worrying about my own self-preservation. The only mechanism after the fact would be to suspend/revoke my license, and/or penalize me. But you can't make a law against such behavior from happening in the first place.

You are of the idea that someone using a cell phone in a car is using it as some sort of offensive weapon, which it is not. You are also of the idea that every driver is only concerned with their own well-being, which is also not true. They should be using due care and looking out for themselves, naturally, but they probably don't want to damage their car, be inconvenienced by getting into an accident. You're assuming that everyone's tied up on the phone from engine ignition on to ignition off.

Sure, it's not so smart to have your ear pressed up against a phone while navigating a parking lot, or most driving scenarios. In an age of Bluetooth and speakerphone, I'll go as far as to say it's even very stupid, since half your face becomes blocked, and thus, many of your senses are partially blocked, which interprets what's going on in moving vehicle.

Nobody here's ever taken a photo while driving, eaten something while driving, drank a beverage while driving, or scratched themselves when driving, or had thoughts while driving. Those are freedoms, too.

Tell you what, don't break the speed limit while driving, never roll through a stop sign in an empty parking lot, go 25mph on every off-ramp, and I'll put away my phone away whenever I'm in a moving car. If you think every victimless act is an assault on your personal freedoms, you're not living any sort of life I'd call enjoyable.

[Brandon]

So you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh?  Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves.  It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line.  His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly. 

Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it.  I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.

The above describes, in a nutshell, what I mentioned earlier (reposted below w/Bold emphasis added):

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.

As far as your carpooler is concerned, doing the above (unintended motions) and not even acknowledging such is just plain wrong IMHO.

Hell, I've seen more than a few that can't even handle an electronic billboard, much less a construction zone.  But, just because one moron cannot handle something is not a reason to ban it for all.  As you and others (such I have said), we already have statutes that can handle this.  Here's a real-life example:

Back in the early 2000s, my mother had a commute route that took her up I-335 to I-88 to Oak Brook.  One day, the merge point was backed up on I-88 from I-355.  This was before I-88 was widened from 6 to 8 lanes.  She had to stop, and looked in her mirror to see a vehicle come up from behind.  The driver did not stop in time and rear-ended her.  They pulled to the side, and the state trooper across the tollway came over to them.  He had just finished dealing with another rear-end accident.  He asked my mother her story.  She stated that the driver behind had been on his cell phone prior to the accident.  The state trooper then went over to the other driver and asked him.  He admitted it.  The other driver got a ticket for causing the accident and for distracted driving.  There was no need for a ban.  He was a fool who failed to pay attention to his surroundings, no different than if he'd been fiddling with his radio or looking for something on the floor.  He failed to pay any attention to what was in front of him.

[hbelkins]

I just put up a poll so we can quantify opinions without the usual arguing about the matter.

[hbelkins]

Nobody here's ever taken a photo while driving, eaten something while driving, drank a beverage while driving, or scratched themselves when driving, or had thoughts while driving. Those are freedoms, too.

Or this...

http://kpac2.blogspot.com/2006/07/no-merit-in-this-system.html

The most egregious case was probably that of Richard Vissing. Vissing was a Transportation Cabinet employee who, during the Patton administration, got caught masturbating while driving along I-65 in a state vehicle. The media coverage brought Kentucky another round of national embarrassment. The Transportation Cabinet fired him, a state hearing officer upheld the dismissal, but the Personnel Board rejected that recommendation.

[jeffandnicole]

So you know one of the guys in my car pool then, huh?  Every fricken time he changes the radio station, or the climate control system, or puts up/down the window, he swerves.  It's not a big swerve - he doesn't leave the lane - but he also jerks the car back into a straight line.  His problem is he grips the wheel so tightly that when he takes one hand off the wheel, the other hand turns the wheel slightly. 

Worst thing - he doesn't admit to it and won't acknowledge it.  I know when I do some unintended motion and see my fellow passangers move around, I apologize. He is either oblivious or doesn't care...and I'm pretty sure the answer is he doesn't care.

The above describes, in a nutshell, what I mentioned earlier (reposted below w/Bold emphasis added):

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.

As far as your carpooler is concerned, doing the above (unintended motions) and not even acknowledging such is just plain wrong IMHO.

As I said in a previous post about the carpool, I do it because it saves gas and saves miles on the car.  I've been doing it for 12 years now.  It gives me great insight into what other people think while they drive on the roads.  And let me tell you...I do it because it saves gas and save miles.  Nothing else!

[PHLBOS]

As I said in a previous post about the carpool, I do it because it saves gas and saves miles on the car.  I've been doing it for 12 years now.  It gives me great insight into what other people think while they drive on the roads.  And let me tell you...I do it because it saves gas and save miles.  Nothing else!

I don't ever recall asking you why you carpool in this particular thread nor anybody else asking you for that matter (again, in this thread).

You stated the reasons (which were rather obvious) in another thread.

[kkt]

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

Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.

Right.  Most of them are out of range at any given time.

[hbelkins]

I stand corrected.

Not everyone he sees on the road who is talking on their phone while driving puts him at any risk.

[realjd]

My thoughts on it are this: for most people, talking on the phone while driving is dangerous. Technology is to the point where hands free devices are inexpensive and ubiquitous. Why not require their use?

It's like drunk driving. People are perfectly capable of driving drunk safely. Some alcoholics have such insane tolerance that they have normal reaction times when they're well above .08. Drunks can also drive slowly, accounting for their delayed reaction times, and probably make it home OK. Does that mean we should legalize drunk driving? Absolutely not. Similarly, given all of the research comparing drivers on phones to drunk drivers, it makes no sense to allow it. Yes, some of you can safely do it, but if banning it makes the roads safer, it's good public policy IMO.

Anecdotally, with my old car, I thought I was fine talking and driving. A few years ago I got a new car with built in Bluetooth. Since then, I do notice a big difference between my driving when on Bluetooth in my own car when compared to talking holding the phone in a rental car. I'd like to think I do it safely but, like NE2 pointed out, most people do. That's what really made me change my view compared to a few years ago when I didn't support bans.

[corco]

Why not require their use?

My argument against that is that there's absolutely no actual evidence that hands free devices are beneficial in the slightest. If somebody can show me anything besides anecdotal (e.g. "duh, your hand is in the way" or "I drove a car once and I feel safer with a hands free device") evidence that hands free is safer than non-hands free, I'd be in favor of that restriction. But unless I'm  badly mistaken, there isn't- the idea was promoted by cell phone companies as a way to sell additional accessories and present the illusion of safety.

I suppose it's probably safer for some people (again, some people's brains work differently than others), but there's no evidence it's safer for all or even the "average" person.

[Molandfreak]

Why not require their use?

My argument against that is that there's absolutely no actual evidence that hands free devices are beneficial in the slightest. If somebody can show me anything besides anecdotal (e.g. "duh, your hand is in the way" or "I drove a car once and I feel safer with a hands free device") evidence that hands free is safer than non-hands free, I'd be in favor of that restriction. But unless I'm  badly mistaken, there isn't- the idea was promoted by cell phone companies as a way to sell additional accessories and present the illusion of safety.

I suppose it's probably safer for some people (again, some people's brains work differently than others), but there's no evidence it's safer for all or even the "average" person.

How the hell can we show you anything that proves that they are safer? The anecdotal stuff you explain is basic logic. You can't flat-out deny it unless you prove otherwise. Hands-free devices make cell phone use marginally safer in vehicles because both your hands are on the wheel, your head can freely move, and none of your peripheral vision is obstructed. Unless you can directly disprove this basic logic with a study, I know you are, but what am I?

[corco]

There's plenty of scientific studies that have tested it- every single one I have seen has not found a safety difference. It's pretty easy to test things like reaction time regarding hands free vs. handheld, and it's been done many, many times.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hands+free+cell+phone&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27
https://www.google.com/search?q=hands+free+vs+handheld&oq=hands+free+vs+handheld&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60.6373j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that hands-free offers negligible, if any, benefit to drivers, which is why I asked to see a study that demonstrates otherwise. I specifically didn't ask for anecdotal evidence because people will think what they think on the issue, and so opinions either way are somewhat meaningless.

[formulanone]

Put another words, how can you statistically prove accidents that never happened?

I guess you could start here, and make conclusions left and right: While it's true that cars are safer for their occupants than ever before, and roads which are arguably being made safer, despite an increase in cell phone usage, there isn't an increase in total vehicular mayhem. There's a lot of variables which go into the statistics of vehicular fatalities, but with cellphones being tagged as the biggest culprit, it just doesn't add up...unless you count the increase in motorcycle fatalities (due to a larger increase in motorcycle ownership, certainly not due to an increase in helmet usage) and the rather steady (but slightly falling) tally of pedestrian deaths.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and state that there's been a tremendous gain in wireless and hands-free technology over the past five years.

[corco]

Put another words, how can you statistically prove accidents that never happened?

Most of these studies involve testing reaction times/mental function under simulated conditions instead of using accident data, so that isn't super relevant.

I'm going to go out on a limb, and state that there's been a tremendous gain in wireless and hands-free technology over the past five years.

That's certainly possible, and I'd be interested to see if that's the case.

[tradephoric]

A Monash University study found that children are 12 times more distracting to a driver than talking on a mobile phone.  Who decides what distracting behavior is acceptable and what distracting behavior is unacceptable and needs to be legislated?

http://monash.edu/news/show/children-more-distracting-than-mobile-phones

[bugo]

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

Jesus Christ, Jeremy, not everyone who talks on the phone while driving puts your life and health at risk.

Everybody who drives on the same roads as me puts my life and health at risk.  Add a cell phone to the equation and the risk goes higher.  I have a serious problem with that.  Can't the call fucking wait?  I bet you're one of those guys who goes through the line at the grocery store yakking on the phone.  Am I right?

[bugo]

I can take road pictures without my eyes leaving the road.  I can turn the radio up without looking away.  I can't answer a phone without looking away.  That is where the line in the sand lies.

[seicer]

Seriously? You are so righteous that you think that taking road photos with a SLR or a point/shoot camera is not distracting and taking attention from the road - whereas swiping to answer a call on a speakerphone or via bluetooth to your audio system is?

Let's just take a step back. You are so righteous and self absorbing that you blame others for driving distracted when you admit to taking photos while behind the wheel. You are pressing physical buttons - or if yours is an iTouch or iPhone or of some variant, then you are pressing non-captive buttons.

Let's just say that I am on the road a considerable amount of the year, and that my iPhone is hooked into my car via an audio cable and power cable. I had a Bluetooth receiver but didn't like the audio quality for 320kbits. When someone calls, I can just swipe at the bottom of the phone to take it, which is then piped through my audio system. I just speak normally and it is picked up by the microphone flawlessly.

I also have an app to read and send text messages, but I generally just use Siri for that. Accuracy rate is about 85%-90%, but I don't bother to read it and check unless stopped.

But hey, you're one pole fits all holes analogy works just fine here. As long as I don't take road pictures.

[tradephoric]

I can take road pictures without my eyes leaving the road.  I can turn the radio up without looking away.  I can't answer a phone without looking away.  That is where the line in the sand lies.

It sounds like you support cell phone bans because answering a phone requires the driver to take their eyes off the road.  The Monash University study linked below found that the average parent takes their eyes off the road for three minutes and 22 seconds during a 16-minute trip.  Driving with kids was 12 times more distracting than talking on a mobile phone.

http://monash.edu/news/show/children-more-distracting-than-mobile-phones

Should parents be banned from driving when their kids are in the vehicle?

[english si]

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.

How about only enforcing the law, and enforcing it severely, when an incident has happened?

In other words, if you are the lowest common denominator and have been cocky enough to think that it was safe to use your cell phone when it wasn't, you get a big fine on top of another criminal or civil penalties.

And if you are as good at driving as you say, then you won't get done!

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.

Same rules apply - hit property or persons while using that and get a 'driving distracted' penalty.