Slashdot Mirror


US Agency Blocked Cellphone / Driving Safety Study

By now you've probably seen the NY Times's long piece on distracted driving — about how most drivers and most legislators willfully ignore the evidence of the dangers of talking on a cellphone, texting, and other electronic distractions while behind the wheel. According to this article, cellphone use while driving causes over 1,000 fatalities a year in the US. Another shoe has now dropped: it seems that the US National Highway Safety Administration blocked a proposed definitive study of the risks. The NHSA now cites concerns about angering Congress. Two consumer safety groups had filed a FOIA request for documents about the aborted study, and the Times has now made the documents public — including the research behind the request for a study of 10,000 drivers.

50 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. First Po by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    *SCREEEECH* *KABOOM*

  2. scary thing by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The highway safety researchers estimated that cellphone use by drivers caused around 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents over all in 2002.

    The scary thing about this is that those numbers were from 2002. Think about how many more cellphones there are out there today than there were in 2002.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:scary thing by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      now think about how many touch screen phones that are out now. You can easily fumble your way through a phone number on a pad... but a flat touch screen requires a bit more focus.. that should be on the road anyways.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
    2. Re:scary thing by AndrewNeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've noticed that with my new touchscreen phone, even with text prediction it's a lot harder to do it because I have to look at the screen to make sure I'm hitting the right buttons, or at all. With my previous phone, I could just feel the buttons, and I knew what the text prediction would come up with, so I could write entire texts without looking at the phnoe until it was done. Not that it's still entirely safe, but if you're going to do it anyway..

    3. Re:scary thing by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the interesting part is that having a bluetooth headset provides no significant improvement.

      Its not holding the phone to your ear that causes accidents, its the cognitive distraction of being on the phone with someone who can not see the dangers in front of the vehicle.

      Passengers in the vehicle (at least those over 12) STFU where the driver is busy or when a situation develops, and their silence or their warnings actually calls attention to some dangers.

      But this verifies other studies that state that bluetooth or earbuds add nothing to safety.

      One can only hope that over time people learn to deal with and shut out the distraction, because I don't see cell phones getting restricted for drivers anytime soon.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:scary thing by acrobg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Out here in California, there is a law about not talking on the phone while driving without a handsfree device. The problem is that now people all the time are just using their phone as before, but spending three times the effort hiding their phone so the cop on the side of the road doesn't pull them over. So now, rather than them just talking on the phone, they're talking, trying to hide it, and driving with whatever level of brain power they have left.

    5. Re:scary thing by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know why handfree is considered significantly better than holding the cell phone up to your ear, any more than holding a coffee/pop/hamburger.

      Unless you are having a totally trivial, meaningless conversation, it's the attention your brain has to give to listening to what the person is saying and how you will respond that screws up driving.

      I've personally noticed that for non-trivial calls that last more than maybe a minute, I'll have gone miles without knowing exactly how (basically, driven on autopilot).

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:scary thing by michaelhood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Closed captioning sponsored by Apple.

    7. Re:scary thing by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not any better, I think subsequent research demonstrated that it's a questionable assertion. Really at this point, the prudent thing is to turn off all audio devices and anything that isn't really necessary so that one can more easily concentrate.

      These sorts of laws aren't terribly useful until they ban it for all drivers and make it a primary offense.

    8. Re:scary thing by multisync · · Score: 4, Funny

      how is this flamebait?

      Mod lives in parents' basement

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    9. Re:scary thing by Al+Dimond · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are differences between cell phones and other distractions; although I'm sure there's a distraction factor from both radios and conversations with passengers, the cell phone conversation demands more from the driver than either of these for the following reasons:

      1. The driver can very easily tune out the radio. He knows that the radio doesn't care. Often when I'm driving and listening to a CD I'll realize that my favorite song played two tracks ago and I didn't even notice it go by. That might be less true of radio, especially if you're listening to a stimulating discussion, but at least you're not in the conversation and expected to reply. In long, boring stretches of freeway driving music can help keep a driver alert, while it's easy to just ignore when the situation requires it.

      2. Passengers in the car with the driver can pick up non-verbal communication from the driver that requires less effort than speaking. A passenger knows when a difficult merge is coming up, or can look at the driver's eyes to see when he needs to really concentrate. In my experience, also, people on the phone expect answers quicker than people talking in-person. A lot of the ways we stall for time when responding to people aren't verbal -- one of the big ones is just being present. Phone calls tend to be a very demanding way to have a conversation. Often passengers help drivers navigate and operate the radio and heat or AC.

    10. Re:scary thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      o kmiw jidt wjst u mesn

      This message was sent from my iPhone.

    11. Re:scary thing by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've noticed that with my new touchscreen phone, even with text prediction it's a lot harder to do it because I have to look at the screen to make sure I'm hitting the right buttons, or at all. With my previous phone, I could just feel the buttons, and I knew what the text prediction would come up with, so I could write entire texts without looking at the phnoe until it was done.

      And this is why "smart" (AKA unpredictable) computer interfaces are worse than dumb ones: you have to constantly find out what it did in response to your last input before you continue. It's essentially like a TCP connection with a very small window, preventing the sender from sending a lot at a time. Even though the "smart" interface might reduce the amount of input needed, it introduces lots of delays while you verify each step. Give me an interface I can simulate in my mind and therefore fire a lot of input at without constantly verifying that it's accepted as I expected.

    12. Re:scary thing by SpaceCadets · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here in Australia (Victoria specifically), myself as a "P" (probationary) plater can loose my license for driving while being on the phone, handsfree or not. The initial demerit point loss was 3, and that has been doubled to six points. Given that a P plater only has 5 demerit points, they bust you once for talking on your phone, you're gone. Personally I take the view that I have voicemail for a reason, but I will glance at the caller and if it's important I'll pull over and call them back. -My 2 cents worth.

    13. Re:scary thing by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

      Its not a bromide, its been studied quite extensive in Sweden and the US.

      Read this study before you start your rant:
      http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/xap144-drews.pdf

      Passenger conversation is no where near cell conversation in degree of disruption resulting in missed tasks.

      Your assertion, sir, is indefensible.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re:scary thing by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Laws only apply to little people like us.

    15. Re:scary thing by dkf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While cellphone use is definitely a potential distraction and reduces focus on driving, I claim that most people who can drive properly can actually learn to talk over the phone while driving safely.

      I really doubt your claim. There have been studies done, and apparently talking on the phone makes your reaction times slow more than having drunk quite a lot of alcohol. It's not exactly rocket science to go from "slower reactions" to "more accidents", especially when you consider that one person's inattention can cause a lot of damage to others.

      Illegality or not, get off the phone while driving. If not for your own sake, then for mine and everyone elses. OK?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    16. Re:scary thing by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if never look at your phone and just say "call home", a study by the AAA Car Club has shown that merely *talking* on the phone distracts the driver.

      I've seen this myself in real life, where a woman almost clipped my front end when she drove straight through a redlight. Her eyes were on the road, they saw the redlight, but her brain never processed the information, because she was animatedly talking to her somebody on her phone (held in her right hand against her head). The mere act of talking means you are not giving your full attention to the world outside your car.

      Remember our brains are poor multitaskers - like an old IBM 8088 PC but much worse. Studies have found that a multitasking brain given two separate tasks does not split them 50-50. It's more like 30-30 with 20% wasted on overhead as the brain struggles to taskswitch.

      Talking on a phone while driving should be banned. ALL the driver's attention should be on the road.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:scary thing by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your discussion reminds me of the registers at JCPenney. The old machines were from the 1980s and they were slow as heck, but predictable so you could type 1 - scan - TOTAL - 1 - 1 - $100.00 - ENTER and just wait for the machine to catch-up (the cash drawer would pop open about 60 seconds later).

      The new 2005-era registers are "smart" and try to predict what you desire, and most of the time they guess wrong. So instead of a fast automatic interface, everything operates more slowly as the clerk has to type one key at a time, and then doublecheck to make sure the machine did the right thing.

      Instead of a fast 1-2 minute transaction, now it drags-on for 10 minutes.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:scary thing by greed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thing about passengers....

      They can at least look at what's going on outside the car. (Though passengers who _do not drive_ tend to not know when to shut up.)

      But you're right: there's plenty of people driving distracted by conversations in their own car. Kids yammering in the back seat, "domestic dispute" in the front, lots of things taking their mind off the task at hand.

      Too bad we can't ban the lot. And mandate, "Only drive when neutral or happy, never in anger."

    19. Re:scary thing by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that it's still entirely safe, but if you're going to do it anyway..

      This is the mentality that causes accidents in the first place isn't it? Why would you be doingit anyway? I hate to break it to you, but there's very little in life that's so urgent that you simply must deal with it NOW, damn the consequences. And in the rare event where something /is/ that urgent, why wouldn't you pull over to deal with it - and give it the attention it deserves?

      Understand - I'm a crackberry addict. Can't go a day without having it attached to me - access to all of my remote servers and shells, web sites, email, etc. Nonetheless -- you won't ever see me driving down the road and typing on it. (Traffic lights are another story ;) And that's with a full qwerty that can be navigated by touch.

      Please don't contrive ridiculous corner cases to justify this -- in everyday usage, what justification is there for placing your own sense of urgency above the lives and safety of the people you share the road with?

  3. Stop being such pussies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can we expect to remain the most powerful country in the world if we turn into a bunch of big pussies, trying to stop anyone from taking any type of risk? I am much more productive if I can talk on my cellphone and respond to e-mails during my commute. Sometimes there is an accident; such is life. Eggs must be broken to make omelets. What happened to the can-do, damn-the-torpedoes attitude that got us to the moon?

    1. Re:Stop being such pussies. by Hunter0000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eggs must be broken to make omelets. What happened to the can-do, damn-the-torpedoes attitude that got us to the moon?

      Everyone in the space program that got us to the moon knew the risks and accepted them. By your logic drunk driving should be legal because its a known risk on the roadway. I'm sure that logic will be comforting if one day you "break an egg" (or are broken yourself) because you were distracted responding to an email. This isn't about your right to do whatever the hell you want, its about the right for some degree of safety on a public transit network.

    2. Re:Stop being such pussies. by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 5, Funny

      "What happened to the can-do, damn-the-torpedoes attitude that got us to the moon?"

      It got outsourced to China?
      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    3. Re:Stop being such pussies. by Hunter0000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no difference between having a cell phone conversation while driving and having a conversation with the guy/gal in the seat next to you, unless you somehow drop the handset...

      Bullshit. Since you obviously lack the common sense to figure this out from experience, here is was 30 seconds with Google will tell you. http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/xap144-drews.pdf http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cfm?id=2293 http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/HFES2004-000597-1.pdf

    4. Re:Stop being such pussies. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have no problem with you taking risks that effect just you. But as far as I'm concerned, if you make my next drive unsafe, then you're behavior must be modified, either willingly or be force.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Stop being such pussies. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is, driving is neither a right nor a liberty. It is a privilege. This privilege comes with some conditions. One of the condition is that you may not use your car on a public road when either your car is not fit for it or yourself aren't. It actually makes your argument about not being at your peak alertness a moot point - yes, it is already illegal, it is just too difficult to prove and no one cares. There also clear rules about turn signals. For example from the German traffic law: "whoever wishes to turn must make their intention clearly and in a timely manner, using the vehicle indicators".

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  4. how does it compare to lightening? by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful



    Meanwhile, every public pool has a policy of emptying everyone if thunder is heard. "Oh, you might get struck by lightening!" Yeah, well, you know what the chances of that are? A hell of a lot less than the risk that one of these brats is going to run out into the street and get run over by a car (perhaps while the driver is calling to see if the pool is open).

    It's like people take all these precautions against the least likely dangers, while the more likely risks are ignored.

    Seth

    1. Re:how does it compare to lightening? by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the main problem is that while it's unlikely you'll be struck by, much less killed by lightning, if you're in the pool and lightning strikes within 200 ft or so (ballpark figure), well, you've got a bunch of people in the pool. Stick a fork in the toaster to get the bagel out, you're in for a shock, drop the toaster into the bathtub and you're done. The current for the lightning comes from the ground and goes to the sky, so if the pool is in the vicinity, there's a good chance of shocking/electrocuting a lot of people, particularly children, which is bad PR. The shock might be enough to trigger an epileptic seizure, or knock out someone's pacemaker, or give an elderly fatty a heart attack, any of those causing the person to drown. The kids who get run over in the street leaving the pool, well that's probably for the best, they won't pass on the bad parenting skills they learned from their parents. The rest of us survive to adulthood playing in the street, keeping an eye out for traffic with zero problems.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:how does it compare to lightening? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From an economic standpoint, 1000 deaths a year is a small price to pay for the productivity gains had by communicating while in transit.

      You are making the assumption that most cell phone conversations in cars are 'productive' in some sense of the word. From what I have seen, I seriously doubt that is true. Most of conversations are just mindless babble that could just as well never happen.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:how does it compare to lightening? by dhaines · · Score: 4, Funny

      In my lifeguardin' days, the policy for when and how to clear the pool in anticipation of lightning wasn't based on concern for anyone being shocked, it was based on preventing a panicked stampede.

      Electrocuting the cattle was a very minor consideration, but herding them was a huge one.

  5. stunned by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am honestly completely stunned by this article. I had thought the majority of countries had passed laws about the use of cell phones while driving, I did not know the US was so far behind. Many studies in other countries have shown use of cell phone (even hands free) is the equivalent to driving with a mid range blood alcohol level or worse and has been banned in most western countries with hefty fines for using your cell phone while driving.

  6. Dangers of blocking by syousef · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets say you block cell phone usage. Does your technology exclude calls to emergency services? If not that's going to lead to deaths. Does your technology differentiate between the driver and a passenger? (I don't know how you'd even try to do that).

    For starters we could enforce the existing laws. Caught talking on your cellphone twice, hand over your license.

    Better would be to teach drivers to better cope with distractions including cell phone usage. If a pilot be required to be communicating on a radio while they land and take off - in a fast moving vehicle that falls out of the sky if not kept within parameters, at the edge of those parameters - I think drivers can be taught to drive safely on a cell phone. Not just left to their own devices to work out how, but taught. Where are the studies on how effective it is to teach drivers to drive while distracted by cell phones and other modern devices?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Dangers of blocking by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For starters we could enforce the existing laws. Caught talking on your cellphone twice, hand over your license.

      All the existing laws are "feel good" laws for sanctimonious pricks. All the studies that have been published show that it isn't the act of holding a phone up to your ear that causes a driver to be distracted, it is simply talking on the phone that matters. But all of the laws give free passes to anyone with a handsfree phone. That's arguably worse than holding the phone to your ear - if you do that, at least the other drivers have a chance of noticing that you are on the phone and giving you a wide berth, handsfree makes you look like all the other drivers even though you are not as engaged with the road as they are.

      If a pilot be required to be communicating on a radio while they land and take off - in a fast moving vehicle that falls out of the sky if not kept within parameters, at the edge of those parameters - I think drivers can be taught to drive safely on a cell phone.

      One difference is that he is talking on the radio ABOUT what he is doing. His brain isn't focused on flirting with the ATC.
      Another difference is that the ATC knows when to shut the hell up and let the pilot do his job if something goes wrong, just like someone in the passenger seat would. But someone on the other end of the phone may not even know he is talking to a driver.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Dangers of blocking by bigdavex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a pilot be required to be communicating on a radio while they land and take off - in a fast moving vehicle that falls out of the sky if not kept within parameters, at the edge of those parameters - I think drivers can be taught to drive safely on a cell phone.

      I think a key difference here is that the people on the radio are communicating with the pilot about flying the plane, not, say, where to eat or how to fix the toilet.

      --
      -Dave
    3. Re:Dangers of blocking by seifried · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can't even teach people to signal turns and lane changes reliably. Teaching cell phone safety to the public is about as likely to happen as someone winning the lottery jackpot 37 times in a row by finding discarded tickets in the street.

    4. Re:Dangers of blocking by Falconhell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Avaiators have a little saying that goes;

      Aviate, navigate, communicate.

      Meaning, the last priority is to communicate.

      It is extrememly doubtful any pilot worth his salt
      (I certainly would not)would make radio calls whilst taking off or when about to land. Such calls are made well before critical periods of a flight-as they may be a distraction.

      What you advocate is to say the least dumb.

    5. Re:Dangers of blocking by fractoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, while the consequences for mishap in a plane are generally more severe, flying a plane generally takes a helluva lot less attention than driving a car. If you're sitting at 100km/h on the freeway, the wrong control input for 1/10th of a second could easily kill you. If you're in the cockpit of an airliner, you have an exclusive packet of airspace that's literally kilometers wide, and unless you're in final approach you're probably at least a kilometer off the ground. Take your eyes off the controls for a few seconds and there's not going to be any huge consequence since there's nothing to hit.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  7. The Details that Matter by rueger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The NYT article is pretty specific that the study of 10,000 drivers was needed because all of the current estimates of the impact of cel use on driver accidents are based on unproven assumptions and (one might suggest) speculation.

    The problem as always is that so much traffic safety "data" is founded on police reports of the "speed was a factor" variety. These are subjective guesswork, not scientific evidence

    Certainly any distraction raises the likelihood of driver error, but that includes a multitude of things including loud music, scantily clad women on street corners, animated electronic billboards, and kids fighting in the backseat

    You can't eliminate all distractions, so how can we teach drivers to filter out non-essential stimulation, or create auto technology that will protect drivers in moments of distraction?

  8. Are cell phones really a big deal? by dirk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Driving while distracted is (and always has been) dangerous, there's no questioning that. But my question is if cell phone usage is as huge a deal as everyone makes it out to be. There hasn't been a huge increase in car crashes since cell phone came into common usage. In fact, the number of deaths from auto accidents has actually gone down as a percentage of the population according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year). So the number of deaths from car accidents hasn't increased with the introduction of this huge danger.

    I think the issue is that cell phones are something easy and visible for people to blame. Where before an accident was caused by someone playing with the radio, or changing the CD, or eating or whatever, that was easily ignored or missed, now everyone sees that the person was on their cell phone and they KNOW that was the cause. Even when someone cuts them off in traffic, it must be the cell phone, when it is probably the person is either just an asshole or a bad driver. But because they were on the phone, it must be the phone.

    If they want to do studies, why not do them on cell phones as well as other common things people do while driving? What effect does playing the radio, changing the CD, programming and following your GPS, eating and drinking, or anything else have on your driving?

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:Are cell phones really a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe you should also research the change in DUI laws, automobile safety and total number of auto accidents, not just fatalities.

      Anytime 50 fucktards would be jumping up and down screaming that correlation != causation. This time, since the evidence suits their needs, they keep their mouths shut.

      As for the rest of the causes, yes, they are causes of accidents. No one said they should be exempt.

    2. Re:Are cell phones really a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      he hardly introduced facts. merely stated a number of deaths on roads without taking into account the reduction in deaths from improved roads, improved vehicle safety (airbags etc) and improved vehicle control mechanisms and as such his fact is completely meaningless and does not help either side of the argument. For all we know when put in context cell phones could be causing 40,000 deaths a year 300% a year since 2000 or they could be causing zero. Simply throwing a statistics into the argument without any context is idiotic. In effect he has used facts and yet provided absolutely ZERO substance and relevence to the debate.

    3. Re:Are cell phones really a big deal? by sarkeizen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Driving while distracted is (and always has been) dangerous, there's no questioning that. But my question is if cell phone usage is as huge a deal as everyone makes it out to be. There hasn't been a huge increase in car crashes since cell phone came into common usage. In fact, the number of deaths from auto accidents has actually gone down as a percentage of the population according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year). So the number of deaths from car accidents hasn't increased with the introduction of this huge danger.

      Perhaps it's because your statistics degree was revoked.
      I don't know who "everyone" is but for example cell phone usage can be a "huge deal" in it's contribution to someone's ability to drive successfully but still equate to a small number of deaths. I don't really see how you can't see that. Now what you are likely doing is using a special definition for "huge danger" but that's par for the course here.

      If they want to do studies, why not do them on cell phones as well as other common things people do while driving? What effect does playing the radio, changing the CD, programming and following your GPS, eating and drinking, or anything else have on your driving?

      At least one study appeared to do a comparison to other distractions: Research also shows that drivers conversing with fellow passengers do not present the same danger, because adult riders help keep drivers alert and point out dangerous conditions and tend to talk less in heavy traffic or hazardous weather.

    4. Re:Are cell phones really a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wah, wah, wah, the nanny state won't let me use my heavily-subsidized three-ton piece of heavy machinery without basic safety precautions, and just because it's a leading cause of early death and injuries. WHERE IS MY FREEDOM?

  9. And so it was... by msimm · · Score: 5, Funny

    in the year 2009 the majority of earths then human population began the struggle to implement true multithreading.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  10. Shocked and dismayed... by ghostis · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was shocked and dismayed as I read this article on my iPhone while headed into work on the turnpike this morning.

    --


    Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
  11. Ban Ban Ban, I wanna be sedated by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Driving while arguing with a woman is also dangerous. I ran 2 stop-signs because of such. Are they going to ban that too?

  12. There is already a perfectly adequate law by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It called Maintaining Control of Your Vehicle.

    Good drivers don't really need any other law in order to comply with the above.

    They observe what's going on around them, and adapt accordingly - whether it's slowing down, stopping for a nap, adding following distance, or refraining from phone use.

    What we actually need is enforcement of the above.

    Involved in an accident?

    The burden is on you to prove you did everything a reasonable person would to prevent it.

    Currently, I can pull out from an intersection and deliberately t-bone someone and suffer no serious repercussions, unless I'm proven impaired, or some other gross act.

    "Oops - I didn't seem him" gets people out of what should have been criminal charges all the time.

    I blame mandatory insurance for some of this.

    Everyone looks at accidents like "you were insured? no harm - no foul.

    I see people every day who should be locked up for the lack of common care they put into their driving.

  13. Re:What about... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Maybe some people can handle it. Maybe they can't."

    It isn't terribly different from drinking and driving - both affect judgement. Drinking is outlawed for drivers, so cellphones should be too. Saying that "I can handle it" is one of the macho things men said 40 years ago, before they ran a kid over on the way home from the bar.

    Anyone who claims that the cell phone doesn't impair their driving is being dishonest with himself, not to mention being dishonest with the rest of us.

    --
    "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
  14. This is easy to fix. by Therefore+I+am · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The insurance companies have the whip hand here. If they refused road accident claims for drivers on the phone/texting at the moment of an accident the problem would instantly go away. . . . . . . . If you also added large fines for bosses who demand that their employees answer when driving, then that would also go a long way to help reduce accidents.