Talking on the Cellphone While Driving

[Brainteaserfan]

Where I live, it is illegal to talk on the cellphone while driving if you are not using a hands-free device. Is this a good law? Curious to see what you think.

[Moontanman]

Driving while talking on a cell phone is quite unfair to the people you kill when you ram them because you weren't paying attention... and don't say you can drive just as good while talking as you do when you are not, you know it's not true and no study has ever shown that talking while driving is anything but impairing to the driver and dangerous to every one else...

[rktpro]

Where I live, it is illegal to talk on the cellphone while driving if you are not using a hands-free device. Is this a good law? Curious to see what you think.

 

Yes it is, because it would divert the mind of driver and it can cause accidents.. Even hands-free shouldn't be used. To talk, stop your car and then talk.

[Ophiolite]

Cell phone use while driving should definnitely be outlawed. Regular offenders should be offered a Darwin Award Special Deal.

[Ringer]

This is the main study I've seen sourced and it shows very little difference in reaction time using hands free cell phones than hand held. I find it hypocritical that the laws still allow hands-free if they are basing laws on this sort of study. You would also think that if cell phones were such a danger that there would be an increase in driving related fatalities, but that really doesn't show in the statistics either.

[rktpro]

@Ringer, We are talking about whole of the world for this idea.

[StringJunky]

This is the main study I've seen sourced and it shows very little difference in reaction time using hands free cell phones than hand held. I find it hypocritical that the laws still allow hands-free if they are basing laws on this sort of study. You would also think that if cell phones were such a danger that there would be an increase in driving related fatalities, but that really doesn't show in the statistics either.

 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "distracted driving," where the driver's attention is focused on an activity other than the road ahead, is a growing problem. In fact, the proportion of fatalities linked to distracted drivers rose from 10 percent in 2005 to 16 percent in 2009.

 

While the overall number of U.S. traffic deaths is on the wane--from 43,510 in 2005 to 33,808 in 2009--the percentage of fatalities associated with driver distraction is on the rise.

 

Nearly one in five (18 percent) of all fatal distracted-driving crashes last year reportedly involved cell phones as the distraction, according to a new NHTSA study. In those crashes, the phone was either in use at the time of the crash, or was "in the presence of the driver" when the accident occurred.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/205795/cell_phonerelated_driving_deaths_on_the_rise_govt_study.html

 

The NHTSA Study the article refers to.

[Brainteaserfan]

IMO, it is a bad law. Here's why.

 

When I see people drive, I see that some do fine while talking, and others don't. My dad can NOT be on the phone, or engage in a deep discussion, while he is driving or there are approx 3 wrong turns for every right 1!

 

If some people then are distracted, then the law should also not allow hands-free devices. Secondly, I think that 95% of laws are useless because nobody can possibly learn all of our laws. Maybe some common sense should be used in our court cases. IMO, this falls into the 95%, partly because I have never seen it enforced, although I see many cars on the road who have drivers holding cellphones - even policecars! (was too slow pulling out the cam though.)

[CharonY]

I would extend it to texting, which is probably worse than phoning. One advantage I might see from hands-free devices is that you cannot text and that you cannot drop it.

[Ringer]

@Ringer, We are talking about whole of the world for this idea.

 

I know, but this is the data I have and is still relevant. I think the data is similar around the world, but I could be wrong because, like any good American, I am blind to the rest of the world . But of course I could be mistaken I guess I'll look into it when I have some extra time.

 

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "distracted driving," where the driver's attention is focused on an activity other than the road ahead, is a growing problem. In fact, the proportion of fatalities linked to distracted drivers rose from 10 percent in 2005 to 16 percent in 2009.

 

While the overall number of U.S. traffic deaths is on the wane--from 43,510 in 2005 to 33,808 in 2009--the percentage of fatalities associated with driver distraction is on the rise.

 

Nearly one in five (18 percent) of all fatal distracted-driving crashes last year reportedly involved cell phones as the distraction, according to a new NHTSA study. In those crashes, the phone was either in use at the time of the crash, or was "in the presence of the driver" when the accident occurred.

http://www.pcworld.c...govt_study.html

 

The NHTSA Study the article refers to.

 

But this doesn't mean that cell phones are the cause of the the distractions. According to the data in the NHTSA study there were 45,230 drivers involved in fatal crashes 5,084 were distracted and 1,006 were distracted with cell phones. That means that only around 2% of fatal crashes involved drivers on their cell phones. Sadly it doesn't give the cell phone distraction numbers for all years but I would assume, admittedly bias, that it is similarly low.

[JohnB]

It's a good law. We have the same in Australia.

 

Talking on the phone is a different form of distraction from listening to music etc, because they are passive and having a conversation is active, it requires thought. It's also different from talking to somebody in the car with you.

 

When conversing we use many signals to flesh out what the person is saying, the look on their face, hand movements, stance, the whole box and dice. When conversing with a passenger we still get al lot of those extra signals as we can see the passenger. However when using a phone we are trying to get all these extra signals out of their voice alone which requires concentration not just on the words spoken but on the tone and inflection as well. We do this to compensate for the lack of visual signals.

 

Logic dictates that anything that diverts a drivers attention and concentration away from steering 2 tons of metal down a road is not a good thing.

[Brainteaserfan]

It's a good law. We have the same in Australia.

 

Talking on the phone is a different form of distraction from listening to music etc, because they are passive and having a conversation is active, it requires thought. It's also different from talking to somebody in the car with you.

 

When conversing we use many signals to flesh out what the person is saying, the look on their face, hand movements, stance, the whole box and dice. When conversing with a passenger we still get al lot of those extra signals as we can see the passenger. However when using a phone we are trying to get all these extra signals out of their voice alone which requires concentration not just on the words spoken but on the tone and inflection as well. We do this to compensate for the lack of visual signals.

 

Logic dictates that anything that diverts a drivers attention and concentration away from steering 2 tons of metal down a road is not a good thing.

I think that I am equally distracted with music, the radio, a podcast, or talking on the phone.

[StringJunky]

 

 

But this doesn't mean that cell phones are the cause of the the distractions. According to the data in the NHTSA study there were 45,230 drivers involved in fatal crashes 5,084 were distracted and 1,006 were distracted with cell phones. That means that only around 2% of fatal crashes involved drivers on their cell phones. Sadly it doesn't give the cell phone distraction numbers for all years but I would assume, admittedly bias, that it is similarly low.

 

954 drivers (2%) killed people or were killed as result of mobile phones but how many people were affected by the deaths of those people...thousands would be reasonable guess I think..

 

Simultaneous phone use and driving is a cocktail of activities with a high potential for killing someone...commonsense is all one needs really to know that it's really not a good idea.

 

Sometimes, although not necessarily by design, statistics gloss over and minimise the true impact. Converting this apparently trifling little number of 2% into 954 people, I find my perspective changes what it really means. That's the best part of 3 families a day in the USA alone losing someone as a consequence of mobile phones.

 

It's not trivial and above all it's easily preventable...that's the saddest part.

Edited June 29, 2011 by StringJunky

[Ringer]

I'm not at all saying that distracted driving doesn't kill people, it most certainly does. My problem with these laws is the assumption that it's purely being on the phone that is the cause of the distractions and, by extension, these deaths. Why would you outlaw phones when people can still legally read, eat, etc. which is just as dangerous. It's a problem with consistency.

 

I realize that some countries do have laws against of most of these other things but I'm unfamiliar with those laws so I can't say anything about them. That's why I am only talking about the states.

[StringJunky]

I'm not at all saying that distracted driving doesn't kill people, it most certainly does. My problem with these laws is the assumption that it's purely being on the phone that is the cause of the distractions and, by extension, these deaths. Why would you outlaw phones when people can still legally read, eat, etc. which is just as dangerous. It's a problem with consistency.

 

I realize that some countries do have laws against of most of these other things but I'm unfamiliar with those laws so I can't say anything about them. That's why I am only talking about the states.

 

It's illegal to eat, read, smoke and manually use a phone in the UK whilst driving where I live. I suppose the attention and possible bias on mobile phones is because it's the new kid on the block in accident statistics and it's full impact on driver safety has not yet been fully assessed or maybe even just coming to light. Of all the other activities you mentioned, mobile phones are by far the most attention-distracting and hence the attention drawn to it. The laws, in time in your country, will probably tighten around the other activities as well like it has in mine...basically you can't do any thing that may remove your hands from the wheel or avert your eyes for any significant time from the road.

Edited June 30, 2011 by StringJunky

[Ringer]

It's illegal to eat, read, smoke and manually use a phone in the UK whilst driving where I live. I suppose the attention and possible bias on mobile phones is because it's the new kid on the block in accident statistics and it's full impact on driver safety has not yet been fully assessed or maybe even just coming to light. Of all the other activities you mentioned, mobile phones are by far the most attention-distracting and hence the attention drawn to it. The laws, in time in your country, will probably tighten around the other activities as well like it has in mine...basically you can't do any thing that may remove your hands from the wheel or avert your eyes for any significant time from the road.

 

And I like to think if we did outlaw all these things I would be more welcome to the idea. I still wouldn't like it, because who likes being told to stop doing what they do, but I hope I would be more open to the idea if the laws were at least consistent.

[StringJunky]

And I like to think if we did outlaw all these things I would be more welcome to the idea. I still wouldn't like it, because who likes being told to stop doing what they do, but I hope I would be more open to the idea if the laws were at least consistent.

 

Societal responsibility towards its citizens as a whole trumps personal liberty everytime and so it should.

[imatfaal]

Societal responsibility towards its citizens as a whole trumps personal liberty everytime and so it should.

 

Everytime? Surely an argument could be made that we should eat our greens, do our homework quietly, and get to bed on time; but society enforcing our compliance - perhaps not!

[StringJunky]

Everytime? Surely an argument could be made that we should eat our greens, do our homework quietly, and get to bed on time; but society enforcing our compliance - perhaps not!

 

I meant with respect to the subject at hand...I apologise for appearing too general.