Slashdot Mirror
Study Confirms Mobile Phones Distract Drivers
An anonymous reader notes a Reuters report of a study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, confirming that Mobile phone calls distract drivers far more than even the chattiest passenger, causing drivers to follow too closely and miss exits. California's ban on using a handheld cell phone while driving, which went into effect last summer, is looking less than fully effective. A handful of other states have instituted similar bans, but none has forbidden driving while talking on a cell phone at all. "Using a hands-free device does not make things better and the researchers believe they know why — passengers act as a second set of eyes, shutting up or sometimes even helping when they see the driver needs to make a maneuver."
Sleeping at the wheel found to correspond to an increase in accidents.
There is a ton of supporting evidence that talking on your mobile while driving is dangerous. The legal situation has more to do with convention and historical artifacts than anything of substance.
In fact, not only is talking on your mobile more dangerous than talking to passengers, but talking on your mobile while driving can be as dangerous as driving intoxicated, at least according Mythbusters which did a cellphone vs drunk driving experiment on season 3 ("Killer Brace Position")
The two hosts arranged an obstacle course into four parts: accelerating to 30mph and then stopping at a stop sign, parallel parking, seeing how long it would take to do 15mph through the whole course, and while going 30mph, being told to switch left, right or center lane. Each part was graded by an instructor.
During a sober run of the course, both test drivers passed. However, during the cell phone run, Hyneman asked the drivers three questions in which they had to either think about the answer, repeat a sentence, figure out a verbal puzzle and list five things. Both drivers failed the obstacle course.
TurnKey Linux: if it can be easy, it should be easy
I have noticed first less people on their cell phones. However I have also noticed that when people are driving and using there cell phones they are even worse then before. I think that the people who are talking on the phone are now nervous about being caught talking on the phone. Which makes them even worse then distracted drivers because they are now distracted and stressed out.
I live in California, where it now looks like an army of cyborgs has invaded. Everyone walks around with one of those damn bluetooth headsets on since it became law to use a hands-free device while driving. Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
I sure wish I was in the bluetooth headset business.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Slashdot intrface is pants. I thin5 web devs share lots of the blame for disstracted drvers
Why? Because in California (and probably other states) we're allowed to talk on the phone while driving if we have a hands-free device. This is a boon to the hands-free device manufacturers, but not to safety apparently.
How long until the first news of an iPhone/Blackberry using driver who, upon a collision, is killed when the airbag drives the smartphone through their brain? Has it already happened?
Trolling is a art,
We needed a study to figure that out? : - )
In an other shocking study released today, one legged men consistently fared worse than two legged opponents in ass kicking contests.
I think the insurance companies have known this all along but never shared the data.
Now, not only do I see pricks driving about talking on the phone, but also they are emailing, texting, playing games, looking at google maps, trolling slashdot and all sorts of other stuff. (Full disclosure, I am one of these pricks from time to time, but I'm trying not to be).
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
that taking a hand or two off the wheel, staring at a small screen, and devoting your mind to a conversation while driving may result in automobile accidents.
To make matters worse here in CA, only talking on the phone is illegal. Texting is perfectly ok - what were they thinking?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
What shocks me is the people calling for tech support for their blackberry, while driving down the road and calling me from the blackberry. Half the time I'm worried I'm going to cause these people
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
First for a month, then for a year.
Then heavy fines and community service.
Then jail time.
Then the death penalty.
This will guarantee no repeat offenders.
How dangerous do cell phones have to be in order to be outlawed for drivers? If they result in 3 accidents and 1 death per year per 100,000 drivers, is that acceptable risk? What if the number of deaths goes up to 10, or 100?
Before you scoff, consider that speed limits are set in this manner. Raising limits adds convenience at the cost of higher rates of accidents and deaths.
However, I am inclined to view the convenience of cell phones much more harshly, because cell phone use is not an essential part of the driving process. If you want the privilege of using public roads and putting others at risk, you should take the responsibility of devoting your full attention to driving well. I would be glad to see cell phones outlawed on the road entirely.
UnLmtd Txt Plns 4 nVstng
The law was written a number of years ago, before texting was common. They kept delaying it taking effect though. If it had been written today there probably would of been a provision for texting too.
Because at least then I have a free hand to hold the steering wheel whilst I'm smoking a cigarette/eating some food/applying my makeup.
Last year I was rear ended by a young lady who sheepishly got out and tried to hide the cell. She was in a hurry to get to a liquor store before it closed. Fortunately it was her second accident as a novice driver in British Columbia. Which means that she had to go back to learner status. Hopefully she learned something!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Ok....I thought this would be handsfree vs. handheld talking vs shutting the hell up. If a person is in the car with you, OF COURSE they're going to tell you "Hey dumbass, get over. Your going to miss the exit."
Next thing you know they'll says
"PASSENGERS IN CAR MAY CARE ABOUT GETTING TO DESTINATION AND WILL HELP DRIVER GET THERE"
import system.cool.Sig;
small children, nagging adults, cigarettes, women in the next car topless, the CD you need just out of reach in the back seat, your MP3 player that's needs to be plugged into that &$*%$ lighter before it dies in the middle of that cool song, trying to figure out just how is that lady in the next car doing 75 on the I10 tying her shoe?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
The difference between a cell phone conversation and passenger conversation is due to the fact that the passenger is in the vehicle and knows what the traffic conditions are like, and they help the driver by reminding them of where to take an exit and pointing out hazards"
Passengers do probably have a small assistant role in the car like "hey would you change the cd?" ect... but that doesn't fully explain the deficit.
Reaction times and ability to stay in the lane are altered, something the passenger has little to do with. The big reason there is less of an affect on driving ability from passengers is that social rules of phone conversations and in person conversations place a different demand on the drivers.
Next time you are talking on the phone, try not talking for maybe 10 seconds. Now try it in the car with a passenger. Notice that in the phone conversation the silence is very awkward and jarring? While in person it feels more or less normal. This illustrates that the different social demands of different types of conversation. It's not that they help by actively doing much, it's that they can shut up and let you drive because they are also aware of the need to perform the task at hand!
No kidding phones are a distraction. Everything and anything is a distraction. No kidding it's more dangerous to drive with a phone than without a phone. It's more dangerous to drive with a book on your lap than without one.
But here's the thing. I drive year-round. I drive often, and I drive frequently. I dirve short and long distances. I drive in blizzards, at night. I drive in fog. I drive in rain. Each of these is way more dangerous than driving on a nice day with dry roads and infinite visibility.
So here's my question. If you, or anyone else, is going to say that I can't drive with the phone because the risk is too high on the sunny day, then you're going to have to say that I can't drive in a blizzard at all. There are certainly limits to my driving ability. Quite frankly, in the blizzard, at night, I'm not on the phone, I turn off the radio, and I turn off the fan. You want to say that I can't be on the phone in the blizzard at night on ice? You'll get no argument from me there.
Incidentally, the whole hands-free thing is also garbage -- for other logical reasons. I drive an automatic transmission. I have one hand on the steering wheel to steer, and one foot on the pedals. My other hand is available for radio and phone and picking my nose -- every driver's right. If I were to drive a standard transmission, I'd have one hand on the steering wheel, one on the gear shift, on foot on the pedals, and one foot on the clutch -- and I'd have to co-ordinate ALL FOUR limbs in stop-and-go traffic. Again, if you want to say that I can't be holding the phone while driving a manual transmission, you'll get no argument from me -- there are limits to the number of hands that I have. But if you're going to let me drive a manual transmission, then you can't say that I lack the second hand for a phone while driving an automatic transmission.
Look, no one's saying that it's safer to drive with a phone. Let's say that driving with a phone is like driving with 0.079% blood-alcohol level. Drinking and driving is perfectly legal. Driving while drunk is not, and legally drunk is 0.08% blood-alcohol. So, if the phone equals 0.079% blood-alcohol, and you want to say that I can't drive with a phone unless I'm completely sober, you'll get little argument from me.
Ultimately, it comes down to this in all of those cases. You're not going to say that I can only drive when everything is perfect and there are no dangers and no increased risk of any kind. That'd mean clear sky, visibility, no rain, no ice, no snow, no fog, no phone, to alcohol, no radio, no itch behind my left ear, no fatigue, no hunger, no bowel, no bladder, no boredom, no excitement. You're going to have to accept some level of risk. Do you need a road-sign saying "use at your own risk"? Do you need something on the form of your licence saying "you accept a level of increased risk"?
You're going to have to accept that driving is more dangerous than not driving, and you're going to have to accept a certain level of fluctuation and buffer. Air-bags and seat-belts increased the risk by decreasing the danger (people drive faster when they feel secure).
Incidentally, I'm all for improving the safety of phone use while driving. Teach drivers how to drive with phones. Make it another class of licence, like motorcycle. Teach drivers to physically drop the phone when something happens on the road.
Not me. I want a bluetooth screamer. Like the universal TV remote off switch, except this one shrieks static/feedback/tarzan yell onto all the bluetooth frequencies. I can just see all the people in an airport ripping that thing out of their ears all at the same time.
This is why I more or less ignore my cell phone when I'm driving - especially if traffic is tight, complicated, or even just "weird" that day. If it rings, I'll get it when I get the chance.
Most of the people I know who disagree with this tend to either be the same ones who insist they can drive with a few drinks in them (and some of them can, which doesn't make it any less dumb), or who are terminally hooked on their Crackberries and have to respond to every email and call immediately.
Even good drivers tend to drive a bit more like a crackhead when they're on the phone - which is why I simply refrain from it.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
Although I agree it is a serious distraction, it is not equivalent to drunk driving.
Maybe when you compare the accidents from alcohol (a small % of the population and usually reserved for Fri/Sat night) vs cell phones (+50% of the population everyday) you might find similar numbers but it's misleading to say it's the same as drunk driving.
Distraction is momentary, sobriety is not.
Instead of eliminating all communications in vehicles for everyone, they should try using age limits first.
You get a learning permit at 15. You get a license at 16. You can make short calls or hands free only after 18/21 while driving a motor vehicle.
While I hate to stereotype, one of the biggest issues based on my experience is teenagers yapping on cell phones while weaving in and out of traffic like it's a video game.
At least that's what caused the two fender benders I've been in. It seems friends and family have similar experiences as well.
Let's start with age limits and possibly mandating hands free, and go from there.
When driving on an interstate in good weather, using a headset, my talking on a phone is barely any distraction at all. However, when driving in bad weather or in city traffic, my using a phone in most situations is distracting to my driving, more so than most other things, which is why I won't use or answer it. The key is that I am aware of my *OWN* limitations.
But for SOME people, using a phone is overly distracting under any circumstances. People are different, conditions are different there is no one golden "rule" that is going to make any sense or be fairly applied to everyone or even most everyone. People need to be trained to NOT distract themselves and pay attention to their attention spans.
You can't legislate stupidity away. After phone use is made illegal in cars- what's next? GPS? Music? Food? Kids? Cold medication? Pets? Enforce laws about the RESULTS of poor behaviours, not the supposed causes. It doesn't matter why someone is weaving, following too closely, drifting, not using turn signals, not checking blind spots, etc... they should be ticketed just the same. Combined with education and public service messages, perhaps not everyone has to suffer for the lowest common denominator.
I think that the act of holding a phone to your ear in a car is negligible considering what's actually going on under the surface, namely, the scattering of an almost unfathomable amount of radio and microwaves through the space, probably collected and amplified into a bit of an eddy by the frame of the car, so essentially worst-case scenario for bioelectric brain health.
This all aside from the fact that the radio is already a brain-programming technology of mass mind control, so really I think this kind of debate is kind of a red herring in the face of the stark reality of what a freeway really is.
"But seriously dude, what is that in the radiator?"
Mobile phones are not the only thing distract drivers so banning cell phones won't help this issue entirely. However I live in California and I still see people using their cell phones without any hands-free device so I don't really see this law really being enforced. I seen enough idiots who drive and use the cell phone drive into different lanes and even off the road so I believe this study.
I wished that they would enforce this law more so they don't kill other people while blabbing or texting on the phone. Killing themselves will be win them into the Darwin Awards and this is okay.
When I was in school, we did an experiment that at 65 mph, you're going 95 feet/second. So if you close your eyes for a second, you've gone 95 feet blind. A lot can happen in 95 feet, particularly if you're following too close to the driver in front of you, or changing lanes with drivers in other lanes going variable speeds.
I think the reason the ban has been "less" than effective is as other posters have said, that having a conversation over the phone can be distracting enough to take seconds here where the conversation is particularly charged, or thought provoking or require active memory (such as getting a shopping list for dinner dictated or trying to recall a figure from a staff meeting for a co-worker), which are enough to cause accidents.
I would think the main kinds of events a bluetooth is going to help with are the 5-10 seconds spent fumbling for the phone in the pocket/purse when it rings, fatigue from holding the device to the head for too long, or not being able to make a wide enough turn single-handed to avoid collision. I don't think generally speaking it is going to overcome the situation where true "distraction" is taking place by the call itself, only minimizes particularly hazardous portions of all calls, less seconds means less risk, but depending on the sum of seconds spent distracted in-call, may be more-or-less effective overall.
This is why I'd say cell phones (which require mental dexterity) or makeup (requiring physical dextirity and concentration generally into a mirror) are more dangerous than eating, which is a mindless activity that if done well would have minimal impact.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
is that you can punch the person sitting next to you in the car to shut him up but you can't do it over the mobile phone.
A study by AAA says that the cell phone is #20 on the list of distractions with the radio being the number one distraction - for around 40 years! Banning the radio and passengers will do more good for safety.
Distraction does not equal accident. It doesnt even mean an increase likelihood. Only increased potential. While I support the hands free law here in CA, it's fairly totalitarian to out right ban the cell phone. If you want useful statistics look at the number of people who drive *successfully* while using cell phones. It's a staggering, overwhelming majority.
There have been so many studies into the effects of mobile phone use, but does anyone know of a study that shows that cell phone usage is any worse than using another comms devices such as a CB or UHF unit whilst driving?
Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
To make matters worse here in CA, only talking on the phone is illegal. Texting is perfectly ok - what were they thinking?
Inattentive driving is still against the law. And in 2004, SB1800 would have banned texting, among other things. I guess it didn't pass.
I'm pretty sure that an inattentive driving citation is a moving violation - worth points against your license. Talking on a cell phone is an infraction. No points.
the owners handbook to my dad's 2003 VW Passat states that mobile phones must never be used in the car while driving as the EM radiation they create can cause the ABS braking control computer to crash !!!!
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I live in California, where it now looks like an army of cyborgs has invaded. Everyone walks around with one of those damn bluetooth headsets on since it became law to use a hands-free device while driving. Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
A guy I work with who rides a motorbike to work took his headset apart and integrated it with his helmet. Very cool but when I am on my bicycle my phone lives in my backpack.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Driving drunk found to decrease driving ability and increase reaction time.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
I am too cheap and not trendy enough to get a headset, but upon reading the new law I discovered a hilarious loophole I use all the time! It is not illegal to talk on speakerphone, so just turn speakerphone on and chat away as you hold it in front of you.
The study found that drivers were most often distracted by something outside their vehicle (29.4 percent) followed by adjusting a radio or CD player (11.4 percent). Other specific distractions included talking with other occupants (10.9 percent), adjusting vehicle or climate controls (2.8 percent), eating or drinking (1.7 percent), cell-phone use (1.5 percent) and smoking (0.9 percent).
http://www.aaafoundation.org/multimedia/index.cfm?button=disdrv
How long have CB radios been in cars? Any correlation between CB radio use and accidents? Better ban CB radios out of all vehicles. Especially trucks, taxis, and police vehicles. If dispatch needs to talk to you, they can send a signal to automatically engage your emergency brake first.
Seriously: why only phones? Because they're relatively new and increasingly common, even though plain radio receivers are far more common and they aren't going after people who sing along in their cars.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
The problem with these studies is that they always assume that people (and when doing tests such as Mythbusters did prevent the test subject from) can not / will not say "hold on" and put the phone down when they need to concentrate or if it's an emergency just drop the phone.
My car is a manual and I rarely talk on the phone when I'm not on the highway (for obvious reasons). On the rare occasions that I am on it while not cruising at a constant speed, if I need to make a sharp enough turn that I need both hands or shift gears I simply say "hang on a sec", drop the phone in my lap, do what I need to do, and when I'm free to use the phone again I do so.
You cite the Mythbusters test, yet if the drivers had been allowed to drop the phone or stop talking when necessary to concentrate on the course, they'd most likely have passed just fine. That test was one of the few times that I was disappointed in a Mythbusters experiment for not being thorough enough.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I have not encountered any "obstacle" to my ability to both drive and talk on the phone anywhere near my house. It's pretentious to think that you need anymore then a left hand when driving for both the wheel and the left/right blinkers because as far as I'm concerned it's the god damn "Hello World" of the driving world. The only time you need to use your right hand is when you shift which doesn't happen on automatics unless you're pulling out or parking.
I find myself more of passive driver when on the phone. Making sure to keep my distance and also not hitting the gas excessively which is fairly easy on highways and single lane roads but as soon as you need to do something active like switching lanes you have to pay a bit more attention.
So my point is fairly simple.
#1 The Act of talking on the phone while driving is universal.
I dunno what the actual percentage is but lets assume it's less then 50%. Regardless it will still amount to a lot of time I'm sure spent on the phone while driving. Many people do it because they tried it and they found it safe.
#2 Banning it with Fines Won't Work
I certainly won't stop. Not that hard to put down the phone while passing a cop. Plus most cops won't pull you over for talking on the phone. You see they tend to have more significant worries. So the prosecution rate will be really low. If millions of people do it daily do you see all those millions paying that fine?
#3 Wasting Productive by Punishing the Few for the ... Few
Time = Money
Talking on the phone while driving makes better use of time and is almost always safe depending on the circumstances. Driving will never have 100% safety no matter how many regulations will be stuck to it either so when the issue at hand is a changing variable. Something that is safe 99% of the time shouldn't be legislated by government.
Politicians use this as a hot button issue to get elected by the unwitting masses who vote to get yet another tax placed on them passively and it's time we stop using fines as a form of income for our government. Let alone realize that we shouldn't be voting on insignificant issues like this. The police should be fighting crime, not handing out traffic tickets like they usually tend to do in the suburbs where they have nothing to do. This country should be spending more money on investments in our future like infrastructure and eduction and less on "Law Enforcement" which depending on where you live might as well mean "Fine Dispersement".
And I could rant on about this being in favor of turning the country into a "Nanny State" but I'm done. :P
Not trying to be mean, but if you can't even have the radio on while driving or you crash, you shouldn't be driving then. Same goes for CdBee who also replied to you. If you're that easily distracted, you're no safer behind the wheel than a person with narcolepsy.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Right now I'm driving and surfing Slashdot on my smartphone as I post this. As you can see, no probl{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
A previous study has found ferrets distract drivers in a similar fashion.
For this reason the study concluded by suggestiing a hands-free ferret.
Hands Free Ferret
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
I don't know if I believe this. We've had blind passengers riding around with people for a very long time and I don't recall anybody complaining that talking to blind people while driving a car increases one's risk of an accident.
I think our brains function differently when talking on the phone. They make us dumber. And my hypothesis can be readily observed in any public place where people are chatting on cell phones.
Driving fast is not in itself very dangerous (until you get to ridiculous speeds, such as the top speed of a Bugatti Veyron and have extremely short reaction times). What IS dangerous is tailgating, driving faster than your car is capable, driving faster than road conditions permit, or driving faster than YOU are capable of.
There's a reason why in Germany they focus more on tickets for tailgating than tickets for speeding on the Autobahn (and yes the speeding only applies to the restricted sections). Two cars driven by halfway competent people in capable cars at 100 mph aren't any more likely to crash than if they were doing 65 mph. However, if the one car is driving a foot behind the other car like many morons do, then it IS dangerous because there's no time to hit the brakes if the first car needs to slow down.
The problem isn't speed, it's people not leaving a safe distance to allow for stopping in an emergency.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
You describe "supposed" causes as if they were the result of some half-cooked speculation instead of solid experimental evidence like the TFA describes. There are laws against stuff that has a strong correlation with causing accidents. For example, drinking and driving. Are you suggesting that anti-DUI legislation also be done away with? Since talking on the phone has been shown to have similar risks as DUI, it should be treated the same way.
eww, you got toilet water on your hands!
In related news, studies confirm grass if often green, and water is often wet.
They needed to fund a study to figure this out?
Cell phones distract people? Yeah, So does eating in the car, and rocking out to Eddie Vedder. We don't need extra laws against each and every single thing you can do in a car that *might* distract a driver, if that were the case we would need hundreds of laws preventing things like "The building a campfire on the passenger seat while driving".
We only need ONE law against distracted or otherwise observed unsafe driving. Let people do what they want and if they don't take precautions to be safe about it *then* you can ticket them.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
"using cell phones while driving" laws.
If someone is driving recklessly, give them a ticket for driving recklessly.
I've seen people sue cell phones, read a paper, put on make up, shave and get a hummer while driving. DO we need an explicit law against each on of those?
No, just use reckless driving laws to cite them.
No excuse me, I have to bring up porn and masterbate while I drive home... Since there is no law, what's the harm?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
most cars and new stereos have bluetooth now....hooray!
In the wise words of Homer J. Simspon, and i quote: "DOOOOOH"
I have a simple system here: if my phone rings when I'm driving, I don't answer it, end of story. Nobody's ever had a problem that, not even my wife or boss. I'll call 'em back when I get to where I'm going.
I told my wife that if there is an emergency on the oh-noes level, to simply call me three times in a row, and the incessant vibrating will summon me to find a place to park and answer the phone. However, I can think of no life-or-death situation that requires me to immediately answer my phone.
I would be curious to know that given the evidence that having a passenger might actually be better than driving alone. What are the accident statistics for lone drivers versus with passengers?
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
... this all comes back to the fact that we have a limited amount of attention and the more we spend it focusing on conversation and thinking about what is being talked about (our minds eye being 'elsewhere') the less we are focused on our environmental surroundings, we're increasing the attention resolution for conversation on the phone while decreasing our attention to the surrounding environment.
This happens even without a phone, I remember driving and having something fall on my lap, just the momentary lapse of your mind focusing on something other then what you're doing takes your ability to focus attention on the environmental changes as needed. I remember almost hitting someone, even though just a few seconds before everything was clear. After that I promised myself never again would I ever change the focus of my attention. It's just too dangerous a lot of the time, in heavy traffic / slowed to a crawl, I don't mind if people are on their phones when traffic is going to be at a dead stop for a while but outside of that, I wouldn't personally.
It's the same thing - using your mind to assess the situation intelligently, it applies to everthing - if you exercise and don't overeat you won't get fat (barring extenuating circumstances like disease, etc).
Personally I think anyone who's a phone junky really needs to experience what it's like to have a near miss accident, there's nothing like a near miss to change your thinking about driving forever IMHO. I'm glad my near miss never hurt anyone, and it certainly smartens you up afterwards. For the people who say "eh I'll risk it", I just hope you don't one day end up regretting it.
Duh!!!!!How much did that study cost?
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Women, indeed. I've ran both a stoplight and a stop-sign before while arguing with women in the car. Go ahead and ban women; it would be an interesting experiment. (Or has Saudi Arabia already done it?)
Table-ized A.I.
Where's my citation? hmmm?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=995961&cid=25383145
man, I feel like mold.
To make matters worse here in CA, only talking on the phone is illegal. Texting is perfectly ok - what were they thinking?
Perhaps texting is safer? The choice of when to text is entirely the driver's, a conversation with someone not in the car continues whatever the surroundings or traffic conditions.
The reality is that this train left the station. For several years, studies have shown that talking on the phone while driving is dangerous. But most legislators and lobbyists talk on the phone while driving. They aren't going to ban it.
Given their age, they probably don't text as often, so that can still get outlawed.
Are they honestly suggesting that I focus my attention on my surroundings while I drive? I call shenanigans.
idk my bff jill?
This is just another stupid law passed because stupid people aren't disciplined enough to know when to use their cell phone and when not to.
Pass as many laws as you want, but people are going to do what they want to. In Washington, we have a similar law and I see people on their phones all the time. A law isn't going to fix the problem.
What's next, ban of radio's in cars?
I just don't buy the "second set of eyes" theory to explain why a passenger is less distracting to the driver than a person on a cell phone doing the same thing. There is something fundamentally different between talking on a cell phone while driving and talking to another passenger. I don't know what it is--something about where your mind is focused, maybe. If you are talking to someone in the car, at worst your mental focus is inside the car (or maybe it's that you can focus on what's outside the car without shortchanging the attention that you feel you need to pay to your passenger), but if you are talking on a phone, your mental focus might as well be on another planet--it is in a possibly imagined place which includes the other person, but that place sure as hell isn't in the car with you or on the road in front of you or on the cars around you. A little vague, I know, but maybe someone can tell me what I'm talking about.
I have always maintained that chatting on the phone requires more concentration and attention than talking to a live person next to you. There is the vast difference between the frequency range and quality of even the best phone connection versus natural sound -- listening to a phone requires much more concentrated effort. With a cellphone, a poor connection, lousy receiver, or ambient noise can all exacerbate this. Moreover, psychologically when we are talking to someone who is not actually "there," our minds are in a sense "far away."
Anecdotally, I can tell you that as a frequent pedestrian (no car), I have nearly been rundown in intersections or parking lots several times. Invariably, the driver has a damn phone glued to his/her ear. Any conversation short of a dire life-and-death emergency in which time is of the essence can wait until you have a chance to pull over, or have reached your destination.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
I'm no neurologist but I've noticed that while talking on a phone I have a tendency to imagine that person and their expressions, reactions, etc. Perhaps this results in the use of more brain "power" to use a cell than talk to a person?
Anyone know of any studies using fMRI or the like which suggest such a thing?
Marshall McLuhan noted this in Media: The Extensions of Man. Not sure about fMRI tests, but it is an easily observable phenomenon.
Or a more specific hypothesis, that talking to a person who is not in the car requires the use of the parts of the brain that are required for spatial-temporal reasoning.
Now just to fit the MRI in the car.
I live in Albuquerque, about once a month the Sunday paper comes out with a flyer of the latest DUI convictions. About 3%-5% are BELOW our minimum legal limit. Thus if you're at 0.06% BAC and get pulled over for driving like an a$$hole, you WILL be charged with DUI.
Just try talking your way out of your next ticket by saying:"Yeah I'm driving like crap but I ain't drunk enough to get a DUI".
Sorry but your best chance is to remove all "probable cause" indicator (blacked out headlights/tail lights, loud exhaust, stupid driving etc.) because the law CAN get you for ANY reason and still charge you with DUI whether you're above or below 0.08% BAC.
If you hear "enemy combatant", your screwed for at least six months, SFTU and hope.
I imagine that's going to change. A recent high profile train accident while the engineer was texting instead of driving the train has gotten people's attention.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
My friend hit a pole while driving down a hill because she (yes, SHE) was trying to reach the cell phone dropped on the car floor while driving.
Result: a wrecked car and a $2000 fine for the broken pole.
I think the problem of cellphone is exactly something like this!
just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
I'm sick of hearing this fucking argument. I never, ever had a problem driving safely while talking on the cell phone. There are people who can multitask and there are people who cannot. However since the ban on HOLDING the phone went into effect, I find it is significantly distracting to deal with those garbage doodads that you can legally use. The law should be that you should drive safely and that as a licensed automobile operator, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not engage in any activity that precludes said safety in your particular situation. Thus if you realize that you are driving unsafely while yacking on the mother fucking cellular telephone, you should avoid doing so. If you do something stupid, the officer that sees you should write a ticket for the stupid thing. The cell phone is not the cause. The driver is the cause. If having a state-issued license does not mean that you're qualified to determine what provides or precludes safety in your particular situation, then the license is meaningless and everyone should be allowed to drive without licenses and without cell phones. Because if a five year old kid isn't talking on his cell phone, then he is a safe driver. Stupid fucking government legislation is legislating about the wrong things.
What I find to be really stupid is when people are not talking or even texting while they drive, it's when they are reading/scrolling through their email on their smartphones. If you really have to check your email, then pull over or let someone else drive. Using a smartphone (or any other phone) while driving is not so smart.
And ban them from being a passenger in any car, they can just be pushed in the stroller. No more concern about rear facing car seats, air bags, etc.
Next, let's remove the passenger seats, cup holders, cigarette lighters, car stereos, and anything else that can distract the driver. Until we're ready to remove all the distractions, we need proof that the "singled out distractions" are worse than all the others. Without that, we're just making more stupid laws, which would be the status quo for politicians.
<personal rant>
I just mailed a check to the Maryland Traffic Processing center for speeding down I-95. I broke the law, so I'm paying like I should. But the cops were out in force ticketing to help minimize car-pedestrian accidents. Something tells me there aren't a lot of pedestrians being hit by cars on I-95. And it's not like there was a car within 20 lengths in front of me, or that the car I was passing wasn't within 5 mph of my speed. So while I mail the check, I'm forced to wonder if this is just to help fix the police budget for the year, or are they really trying to improve safety on the roads?
</personal rant>
Screw the studies. It's a waste of money (such as this rather blatantly obvious end result one), and it's not giving us real-world numbers.
Force all insurance companies to do a FULL investigation of cellular records with every accident report. Force them to publish the numbers. We see DUI numbers every day in the news, mainly because your arrest becomes public record. We need the same public record numbers for accidents involving cell phones.
I have a feeling we would all be in for a rude awakening if those numbers were published. Of course, nothing will really change with those statistics until the penalties are increased considerably.
When your insurance company tells you they're not going to cover your $2000 fender-bender because you were "too busy" texting your BFF, maybe then you'll wake up.
Ice is cold.
Stupid people are annoying.
Women fake orgasms.
Belongs in Idle or on FARK.
From my personal experience, I'm actually more distracted when texting. It's yet another control to operate along with the same need to focus mentally on the communication. As a result, I seldom talk on the phone while driving, and only very rarely text. When I do text, I type pretty slow (maybe 1-2 wpm) as I'm watching the road and only glance at the phone briefly to make sure my finger is over the right button before each key press.
Actually, they've directly addressed this problem in a new law that comes into effect in 2009.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/no_text_law.htm
If I should let the *sshole in front of me so i will go 10km/h for the next 10 minutes, or if I should risk the *sshole being behind me and crash into me killing me.
*sshole am I? Well, A speakerphone cellphone goes under $100 (compared to any half decent car cost under $2000 or more), and a bluetooth (superior to any $5 wired) solution starting at $15.
With studies going all the way back and forth for the subject and knowing myself how I drive holding a phone, I assume that no one should drive holding a phone and should be punished more than a drunk driver on the scene no questions asked.
Just my 2c..
after January 1
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1264432.html
Many people install TVs and DVDs, as well as PCs in their cars now, with TFT screens. Should we also see screens banned?
Scientists now believe there is a proven link between excessive alcohol consumption and Thinking You Can Dance.
Details at 11.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The origins of the expression: No Shit Sherlock
It's not passengers.
It's not a second set of eyes.
It's not driving with one hand.
It completely lies in the cerebral cortex, the spatial processing are of the brain that handles the conversation and it's connection with the world.
When there is a person driving while talking there is one world.
When there is a person driving while talking there are TWO worlds, and it takes practice to manage both well, and sometimes one context will collapse.
If it's the phone conversation collapsing, big deal.
If it's the car context, you are in deep trouble fast.
How do I know this? I felt it in my own head while doing this, and recognized it was the same type of mental problem as doing online presentations, two contexts (the presentation and the web interface) to it cause the same thing to happen.
Yes, some people can learn to do it, but if you are sitting at a desk the price of being wrong is low (you stutter in your presentation).
Most people can't do it. It is not the bloody earphone thingies, they do nothing to help, it's the goddamn conversation itself that is the problem. The other world talking about causes it. It's a single graphics pipeline card handling running on a dual-pipeline game. It just won't work without some compromises.
Hang up the bloody phone and drive numbskulls.
No, I don't do it either, I find myself losing too many important details of the drive when I do.
Spot on. Pilots are told by instructors that you "don't drop the airplane to fly the microphone". It is entirely proper to say "stand by" to a controller when you're busy with an aircraft control task.
If only driving instructors taught the same thing ...
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Any questions?
Like many hearing impaired I tend to listen with my eyes as well as my ears. From experience, I can tell you that's far more dangerous than even talking on a handheld device.
(Yes, hearing aids help, but only so much.)
My car was installed bluetooth device, but I don't know how to fix.
Why do people always favor studies and accept its conclusions unconditionally? Seriously, who's actually paid for a study to prove the opposite? A passenger could also grab the wheel from me when I doze off while sleeping, does that somehow make them safer? What about when they spill food, tell me to face them when I talk to them, talk too low that I can't hear them over the road noise, or point things out for me to look at?
If you can't drive safely while on a phone/eating food/talking to a passenger/picking your nose, then don't. But don't try to force people to adapt to your own inadequacies. People rarely drive in optimal conditions and a study doesn't truly reflect driving habits.
Here, I'll debunk the study already, if some goofball told me to drive from point A to point B which I was unfamiliar with, then yes, if I had a passenger with a second set of eyes to spot road signs for me while I drive will miss less exits than me by myself. Hell, I bet the passenger was probably one of the researchers, there to point out the signs for you. If I was forcibly told to come up with a conversation against my will and felt obligated to say things when I would normally sit in silence or hang up or say "hey let me call you back", then yes, I'm going to be very distracted.
On the phone, in silence, why am I still on the phone if I'm not talking? With a passenger, in silence, there is nothing awkward unless I'm on a date (also very distracting, and having someone grade your driving skills is also distracting). But if a researcher made me and obligated me to stay on the phone the whole time I'm driving (when I normally wouldn't), then yes, very distracted.
Why would you *ever* text while driving? Personally, I neither text nor talk on the phone while driving. If I really need to call someone, or read and answer an SMS, I can pull over. (fortunately I don't drive very frequently though, once a month perhaps)
try not talking for maybe 10 seconds.
Interesting. If you had 10 seconds of silence on a phone (cell or even landline) you'd wonder if the technology has failed. That's because the technology is actually failure-prone.
So if we could make phones that didn't drop calls except in the event of an EMP we'd have safer roads. It's funny where you'll find the ripples of consequences landing.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Using a mobile phone (for any reason, not just talking) has been illegal in Australia for a long time now, and is an on-the-spot file of around AUD$150 and 3 demerit points (lose 12 and you've lost your licence for a year). I was surprised to read this article and realise the US doesn't have the same rule... I just thought it fitted under the "common sense" umbrella.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. In other news, scientist have proven that sticking your hand in a blender may produce dexterity issues down the road.
Anyone ever used a driving simulator? It isn't the same thing as driving a car. I don't have a subscription the Journal that the original study is in, but like every other study that's used some proxy measure of driving behavior, I doubt they normalized it against actual behind-the-wheel behavior.
And what I really don't get is why doesn't someone actually just find out if cell phone use has an effect on driving safety? It's really not that difficult, it just takes some time in SPSS and some cooperation from local law enforcement, state DMVs, and the cell phone companies... all of whom have an interest in ensuring that the laws put in place are the least restrictive that have a beneficial effect.
Here's how you do it: you collect accident data and cell phone market penetration data from the last 15-20 years for a handful of markets, probably larger urban markets with earlier adoption of cellular technology and large populations of drivers, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, etc. You run a multiple regression analysis, with accidents as the dependent variable, cell phone market penetration as an independent variable, and a lot of other independent variables such as population, VMT (vehicle miles traveled) per capita, a couple dummy variables for proportion of driving population over 55 or under 25, etc. etc.... everything we have reason to believe has some effect on accident rates.
When the computer is done thrashing, what it spits out is an approximate percentage of the change in accident rates that is attributable to cell phone use. Then we know not just that they make driving more risky, but how much more. We may even find that they make accidents LESS likely... perhaps other factors that increase accident risk are mitigated by cell phone use, such as running late (since you can call ahead and tell people you're late) or getting lost (calling for directions).
Yes, not everyone uses cell phones while they drive... but increased adoption of cell phone use overall has probably maintained a fairly consistent relationship with cell phone use while driving. With a bit of additional funding (so far, the study is dirt cheap... way cheaper than human subjects protocols and running simulators, it's just a geek and a computer being fed data that's already on a hard disk somewhere), you could conduct surveys in the various markets, looking at the rate of cell phone use while driving as a percentage of total use, and thereby compare the influence in different markets. In Los Angeles, maybe people are twice as likely to talk on the phone while driving as they are in Boston, and we may find that oh, gee, cell phone market penetration has twice as great an effect on accident rates in Los Angeles as in Boston... so, bingo.
Meanwhile, enacting laws because of what people do when playing a souped-up video game is a waste of everyone's time and energy, and it makes me cranky.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
No! If you are an expert, sure it makes no difference. But the road is full on incompetent drivers, who are an unlucky event away from killing someone. Increasing the speed for these people makes it more likely they will have an accident, and more likely they will kill someone.
It is funny how drivers magically forget about all the morons on the road when they aren't behind the wheel. Most people loudly acknowledge them when they see them.
Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
There has been plenty of research and testing that has shown that hands-free systems don't decrease the risk from cell-phone mediated distracted driving. The issue is that people who write laws are not the people who are familiar with such research, you only hope that they can task some staffers to look into it. In this particular instance that communication simply got dropped. My dad does a lot of work on distracted driving, and a friend of mine was working in the office of a state senator back a few years ago when the law was being worked on. I tried to connect him with my dad so that the useful information could make its way into the bill, but my friend got re-tasked to another project and that conduit was lost. Given the law that got passed, it's clear that no other source of useful information made it's way into the legislature in its place.
Sausage and laws and all that...
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
I never talk on my cell phone while I post to slashdot on my laptop while driving.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
I've often thought that one of the chief dangers in the cell phone/driving combination is that communicating through the low bit rate/low fidelity channel of a cell phone (or any non-local communications) requires a degree of psychological projection, where one essentially partially abstracts oneself from ones environment in order to relate to the person on the other end. When both parties have a shared context this probably happens as well, according to the summary, but in a reinforcing fashion which is less likely to result in collisions.
I'm reading this article, and writing this post on my blackberry as I meander home through rush hour traffic...
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
I still see plenty of folks driving all over California with cell phones up to their ears.
The problem is there is no bite to the law. $20 fine? Who cares. Even at $50 for the second offence, people are still going to ignore it.
It's not even a moving violation or anything of that nature:
California Cell Phone Law Q&A:
Q: What is the fine if Iâ(TM)m convicted?
A: The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. With the addition of penalty assessments, the fine can be more than triple the base fine amount.
Q: Will I receive a point on my driver license if Iâ(TM)m convicted for a violation of the wireless telephone law?
A: No. The violation is a reportable offense; however, DMV will not assign a violation point.
Q: Will the conviction appear on my driving record?
A: Yes, but the violation point will not be added.
Pretty minor stuff, at least in the short run. If I was an insurance company and some moron got a ticket for this, I'd drop them or at least make their rates so high they cannot afford to keep coverage.
How many thousands of dollars did they waste to confirm what we already knew. I would just love to be a member of some obscure think tank, get paid 100k a year just to smoke pot and think of some stupidly obvious shit to study and waste money on. Hey how about they study how much money the government wastes and the effects of spending money that doesn't exist. That one was free but the study is going to cost 700 billion.
The American driver goes out of his way to CREATE DISTRACTIONS for himself while driving. A stereo, some food, a drink, toys, books, newspapers, even televisions and laptop computers. And, most recently, the cellphone. Someone explain to me, please, why the American driver is NOT A FREAKING IDIOT?!?! When you get in the car, you should DRIVE. If you must eat, drink, or be entertained, you should STOP DRIVING. Tend to business, then come back to finish your driving. Baby needs her diaper changed? STOP THE CAR! Mother in law wants to bitch about the way you treat her baby? STOP THE CAR!! Charles Darwin doesn't really need any more idiots to help him prove his natural selection theories. Automobiles are deathtraps, looking for a place in which to kill their passengers. People die in them every single day. You can't possibly escape the news of an accident occuring somewhere near you TODAY. And, you choose of your own free will to answer that telephone, accepting the distraction that may well mean your death? Go for it........
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I specially bought a new car radio for about the price of a bluetooth set. Call comes in and I press a button on the radio. I have a bluetooth headset as well, but don't use it anymore. Either the battery was empty or I had to look for it, being MORE distracted then without it or I forgot it.
I now also can play MP3s not only from CD, but also SD and USB. And I do not look like an idiot with a probe in my ear.
This should be standard, I think, for all new car radios.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
effectively it is worse than drinking and driving .. their consciousness is not fully in the car .. it is with the person that they are talking too ..
everyone is outraged by people drinking and driving .. but they don't think it is the same .. because they do it .. so it has to be OK ..
and what is worse is that there are a lot more of them .. than people drinking and driving ..
i can tell with 95% accuracy when someone driving in front of me is on the cell phone .. they act just like a drunk .. and that includes cops chatting with their girlfriends and wives on the phone .. on the job ..
in three years of watching the traffic at lights while riding my bike .. i have not seen one string of cars pass without at least one person on the phone .. and usually more .. highest count to date is 8 in one pass ..
oh! how i love Hippocrates ..
Not true!
Here in Soviet Russia,
drivers distract mobile phones!
Ander
@=
Don't drive. I want to build autonomous GPS navigating zeppelins that drive for you. You can talk on a video phone at that point, or take a bath, or cook a breakfast, play Urban Terror, or practice your yoga, all while on your way to any location, work, school, a nightclub, the library, to pick up the kids.
Driving is lame. It's time to take this party to the next level. I have designs and am looking for venture capitalists.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NLkpgt_0FJo&feature=related
So when can we wait an update for our drivers to effectively protect them from mobile phones?
Imagine my surprise at reading...
-hold on.. a call coming in-
Sorry what was I
-wait-...
uh.. oh. uhmm...
-Thanks bye-.
crap missed my exit...shit where'd that car come from? -- hold on.. gotta call commin....
Every time there is an article on over speeding look at the number of people saying they can handle it without risk. I would propose they use exactly the same think-path : "Sure, some people may have a problem," they'll say. "But not me. I'm a great driver. I've never had an accident and I drive over the local speed limit all the time.".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
is wet.
I've said this before - The problem with cell phones when driving (hands-free or not) is that it takes you mentally *out of the car*.
Anyone I talk to in the car knows to shut up and suspend the conversation if I say "hold on" (which I will say when I'm changing lanes, if there's more traffic than usual, etc.) They also know not to take offense if I say "traffic" and hang up immediately.
The distraction of a cell phone conversation comes when the person keeps talking when you're fighting for your life in intense traffic.
Perhaps we need to develop a standard set of language for such situations and run the tests mentioned in the article again using those.
I know I probably sound like one of those people who say "yeah, but I KNOW how to drive drunk." I hate those people...
DON'T drive towards the light!
Bikini Car Washes also distract people. Shall we get rid of them too and make them illegal? I think not!
(I actually got in an accident looking at one when I was younger (17). I waited for the police, and had to explain WHY I got into the accident to a female cop. Funtimes.)
Also some people find shiny objects pretty distracting, doesn't mean that you need a law for everyone.
Yeah, do you guys have any idea how hard it is to read and post to slashdot while I'm driving. Plus all these morons are taking up the road and driving like jackasses.
*slow applause* Wow, that was money well spent. Did we really need a scientific research study to prove this to ourselves? Are we so belligerent and delusional as a society that we need lab confirmation that yapping on a phone makes it tougher to drive in traffic? We all see the signs every day driving to and from our jobs, taking our families around town. I could have told them this for free if they'd have called me, and I'm no scientist. Great job, fellas, you cracked the unsolvable case.
It's not just driving. I've seen cell phone users having a hard time navigating doors to buildings. This isn't rocket science, however it is useful to have scientists studying this cell phone driver phenomenon; something might be done about it. On the other hand there is something in the Constitution about the right to bear arms! Must be related.
It's not that the research doesn't tell us anything; it tells us the obvious, but it tells it based on data rather than subjectivity. It doesn't tell us how to solve the problem however. There's been a lot of research on this cell phone and driving safety issue in recent years. The research seems to be common sense. I find that I can often predict when a person is speaking on a cell phone just by observing their driving behavior. They have more difficulty than most negotiating turns, getting moving at red lights, etc. The research indicates the obvious; something needs to be done about people driving and using cell phones. Maybe you're right that laws are not the answer. Maybe technology is the answer. The research I've seen does not suggest that the answer is new laws as you suggest.
I'll say this.
Despite the fact that talking on a cell phone may cause my death, and the death of others. . .
It's DAMN CONVENIENT to talk on the phone while you're driving. It's multitasking. It's taking advantage of otherwise "dead time" where you would otherwise be accomplishing nothing other than steering your car, going from point a to point b.
You fill this dead time with something productive - relating to other people. Why wait until you get home to talk to your mom on the phone, then risk a potentially deadly conflict with your wife - jealous that you're taking up HER time to talk with your mother?
That said: if you look at cell phone coverage maps - cell phone coverage is HIGHLY correlated to highway maps. Towers are in populated areas, and along highways, giving motorists coverage. There are very few major roads that do not provide solid coverage through otherwise remote areas.
(this is also where power/electricity to run the equipment is most accessible in most cases).
I'm not speaking as an advocate of cellphone driving. . . I'm just pointing out that this problem is far more complicated than simply the moral dilemma of "talking on the phone while driving is irresponsible".
Clearly there is a need for this - it's a problem that needs to be solved. I believe that there's no obvious solution to this problem - (maybe self-driving cars?) - and that just like speeding and drunk-driving, people will continue to talk or text while driving, they'll pay the fines when they're caught, and the behavior will just plain continue.
Hell - people still murder even though there are still jail sentences or capital punishment.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Texting is only legal in California up until January 1, 2009. From that point it is illegal to text while driving.
Not me. I want a bluetooth screamer. Like the universal TV remote off switch, except this one shrieks static/feedback/tarzan yell onto all the bluetooth frequencies. I can just see all the people in an airport ripping that thing out of their ears all at the same time.
I think I just found a new project!!!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Only until next month when enforcement of the no-texting law kicks in.
Actually, hands-free or not, most cell phones are illegal in the front seat of the car anyway, as they have video screens. A couple years ago, California outlawed video screens placed anywhere in front of the back of the driver's seat, unless the screen is part of a system that's 100% dedicated to navigation and vehicle status--which technically means even some GPS systems are illegal if they can also play games, control the radio, etc.
This always pisses me off. We make laws for idiots and then treat everyone like they are an idiot. .. should we all be forced to wear pedestrian helmets? ..should we all lose our kitchen knives?
I'm all for nailing people who cause accidents because they are talking on the phone. They should pay higher insurance and penalties.
Now I have had a satellite phone and a cell phone (brief case model) for a very long time and have talked on that phone when I could afford the attention to do so. Now the law says that I'm prevented from doing so because some people can't handle it.
I reject that notion and I reject the notion that any government has any authority to tell me that I can't.
It's a race to the bottom people. Some people can't walk down the street without helmets
(It'll save lives and please won't you think of the children)
Some people can't handle alcohol..should we all be prevented from drinking.(that idea worked out well)
Some people stab people
The idea that everyone should live under the same law is a ridiculous notion and one of the many fallacies causing the fall of western culture.
The fact is that everyone has an inherent RIGHT to make their own choices. Those who abuse this right and harm other people should be dealt with harshly. The law has no other rightful authority.
Some people just cannot multitask to drive and deal with interruptions. I think people need to be tested for distraction responses before being able to get a license. If you can't maintain concentration with a phone/with surprize loud noises/ with flashing lights from bilboards, whatever- you shouldn't be driving. I will say- I drive 28 or so miles on the 405 through LA most days of the week. Those 30 miles can take me up to 2 1/2 hours. (and I DO use alternate routes!) I spend on average 4 to 5 hours in a car per day, + work + sleep. I do use my phone, especially in slow, icky traffic. If I'm going less than 10 mph, my phone isn't exactly harmful. Driving straight isn't the problem for drivers with cell phones. I think it is the merging, turning, u-turns and other various trafficy things - is where people make mistakes. I would be interested to see a study in what types of driving skills are affected most by cell phone use, vs. say intoxication.
It's all good until a little kid runs out in front of your car SUDDENLY, right selfish yuppie cell pone talking drivers? Because we all know your S.O. telling you to pick up a quart of milk on the way home from work is way more important than some innocent child's life, right? I am sooooo sick of people who rationalize talking on a cell phone while driving, DON'T period, end of story. Is this advice saves one childs life, or even a dog or cats life then yes it WAS worth getting all in your face about it! No your trivial blather is NOT worth the life of anyone or another living creature get over your self centered self already!
I am going to start a new group ADACPD=
Angry dudes against cell phone driving.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Because talking on the phone, just like driving under the influence, is known to cause accidents. The laws are there to prevent accidents, not to catch people.
If there were a lot of accidents caused by masturbating while driving, there would be a law against that too.
Comparing the luxury of talking on a cell phone while driving to the necessity for many of driving to the store is amazing, I dub thee Sir. Douchebag the 1st douchiest of all douchebags for the entire millennium, Congratulations!!!!!!!
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I've seen no evidence of this. Unless you count the woman at my kid's school yesterday, trying to back into a parking space one-handed. She made it - eventually, and was almost between the white lines.