Rant about cell phones while driving

[rnelson0]

What struck me and started the rant was seeing several people that never once stopped talking on the cell. For twenty minutes, in congested traffic that was moving 50+ MPH.

On the other hand, how many of these people got into accidents? How many accidents result from drivers not on cell phones and traveling under 50mph?

The causes of accidents are myriad and a cell phone may or not lead to an accident. I haven't had an accident in 6 years and I've had a cell phone nearly the entire time. The last accident before that involved a parked car. We could each give our own accounts. The cause of most accidents, however, is loss of control, loss of focus, or true accidents (wheel flies off). If you can't focus while using a cell phone, don't do it, period. If you can, then fine.

Of course, this leads into my theory that like driving itself, cell phones should require a license. For that matter, so should skis, snowboards, and many other items that are unregulated. You can't enforce these things, however, and trying to do so is really just crazy talk. Give me liberty or give me death, and all that. We're not everyone's nanny and we shouldn't attempt to be, either.

[Black wallnut]

It has been my observation that a rather large percentage of the motoring public should not be driving period. There are many ways in which drivers are distracted. At one time bill boards were taken down from alongside interstate highways. Now in my state the dept. of transportation has placed signs drawing attention to thier safety enhancements.

I question any of the so called studies that attempt to assign the cause of the different distractions and how it relates to accident data. This information AFAIK is not even gathered on the forms that LEOs fill out for an accident. Once again refer back to what your statistics professor said on the first day of class...."cause and effect relationships are rather hard to pin down with any reasonable level of certianity." To claim to know the cause of an accident based soley on one person's observations while a reviwer is pouring through reams of data about accidents calls into question the judgment of the reviewer.

I've driven well over 1,000,000 miles. I've had plenty of opportunity to critic others driving abilities. For a number of these miles I have been in continous conversation with LOML and others via a cell phone and a hands free device. I've also done other things while driving that were way more distractive such as eating, drinking, pouring coffee from a thermos, and even wiping the fog off the windows.

IMHO there are a number of things that should be outlawed if the only aim is to enhance safer drivers: Vanity mirrors, travel cups, fast food, car sterios, ipods, dangling items from the rearview mirror, items on the dash, guages, and comfortable seats. For some to only go after cell phones while ignoring the rest of the distractions seems pointless and unfair.

[cgallery]

I question any of the so called studies that attempt to assign the cause of the different distractions and how it relates to accident data. This information AFAIK is not even gathered on the forms that LEOs fill out for an accident.

Fine, but then look at it from a much easier to study perspective:

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1

So, if talking on the cell phone while driving is the rough equivalent of having a .08 BAL, then should we allow those that agree not to talk on their cell phones to have a few shots before they hit the road? It would only be fair, right?

[Black wallnut]

Fine, but then look at it from a much easier to study perspective:

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1

So, if talking on the cell phone while driving is the rough equivalent of having a .08 BAL, then should we allow those that agree not to talk on their cell phones to have a few shots before they hit the road? It would only be fair, right?

Interesting reading for sure but I do not agree with their findings either. It requests us to make a leap of faith that first 40 people make up a large enough sample (of course this sample is not random in reference to age, race, sex, reading habits) second that 15 minutes in a simulator (with each set of stumli) built around a likely unfamiliar vehicle is enough to draw conclusions. I'm thinking that many of today's drivers have spent a far longer time in the vehicle they are currently driving and are driving on roads that they are very familiar with. The study of cell phone use of the 600+ accident involved drivers is also asking us to make a leap of faith as to weather or not the use of a phone was a contributing cause. Seems to me that they attributed their findings to prove what they wanted to prove. How about this: breathing O2 does in fact cause traffic accidents because it can be proven that 100% of those involved in accidents were doing so at the time of the accident.

Don't get me wrong I have little doubt that distracted driving endangers the motoring public and think folks should do their best to avoid distractions. I do not think that talking on the cell phone is the evil many will wish us to believe.

[MilDoc]

By entering a vehicle you are at risk.

True enough. But why increase your risk? Why add something that you don't have too? How many phone calls in the car are necessary and important?

Anything done while driving is a distraction. I have no problem with that. Put on makeup. Comb your hair. Talk to a passenger. Read the paper. Change your CD. Etc etc etc. All distractions, and all unnecessary (except maybe talking to a passenger, like LOML).

If you can eliminate a distraction, any intelligent person should. That's common sense. But common sense died years ago.

A Utah study, well done, confirmed that cell phones kill:

"A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and tying up traffic in general, and when young adults use cell phones while driving, they're as bad as sleepy septuagenarians.

"Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. The reason is now obvious:



"Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to brake lights, the new study found."



http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html

[annunaki]

Worst Case Situation-

Parking Lots!!!
Almost got Run Over Twice in a parking lot by a female drivers on their cell phones while they were backing out of a parking space.
Most drivers are right handed, so the cell phone goes into the left hand while the right hand is used for the vehicle. Being in the left ear, they don't turn to the left and LOOK, because it is awkward with the phone., so they just "wing it" and guess who's "Wing Bait"?

[MilDoc]

"WING BAIT!" Love it! LMAO!

[Bruce Cohen]

Here's a twist on cell phone use.

Yesterday, a NY State Trooper pulled me over and accused me of talking on a cell phone. What I was doing was taking a sip of coffee from one of those black and stainless thermoses.

He was in the left lane and I was in the middle, he's about 7 car lengths behind me for about 3-4 miles and then pulls up into my blind spot. At that point, he drops back into the middle lane and lights me up.

As I try to tell him I'm not on a cell phone, which in fact wasn't even on at the time and in my briefcase, he then asks me if I'm drunk, now this is 8:30 AM amd all I smell from is coffee.

He proceeds to tell me I been swerving in lane, and two cars had to avoid hitting me. There wasn't a soul behind me except for Officer Butthead. He then makes a muttered (rude) remark and goes back to his car to write me up.

He comes back and is almost human sounding as he proceeds to instruct me in how to plead guilty, mail in the ticket and wait for an amount to pay the court, which just so happens to be in the town I live in and am fairly well acquainted with (all three of them).

I tell him not to waste any more of my time and will see him in court, and to have a nice day, Trooper.

Bruce

PS I know that justice is blind, but I never thought it was brain damaged too.

[Thalermade]

I tell him not to waste any more of my time and will see him in court, and to have a nice day, Trooper.

Bruce

So what happens when in court you provide the cell phone log of your calls?

You might want to subpoena the Highway Patrol for a copy of the in-car video (I will be surprised if the car is not equipped). Hopefully that will have recorded your swerving as well as the license plates of the two folks that had to swerve to miss you.

Sounds like a "misunderstanding"
Be good and kind in court,
Russ

[cabinetman]

I tell him not to waste any more of my time and will see him in court, and to have a nice day, Troope

From the:It can only happen to Bruce Department

The day you show up in court, the trooper will be their with 17 witnesses. He doesn't have a dash recording. You'll be found guilty and the judge will tell you that you wouldn't have been pulled over if you innocent. Case closed.
.

[Tequila]

Not that I agree with the original post, but without enforcement, bans are useless. Littering is illegal, but when's the last time you saw somebody get pulled over for throwing a cigarette butt out the window.

[cgallery]

Not that I agree with the original post, but without enforcement, bans are useless. Littering is illegal, but when's the last time you saw somebody get pulled over for throwing a cigarette butt out the window.

I don't know that I really want a BAN, I want people to act responsibly.

I know it isn't gonna happen, I guess that is why they call 'em "rants."

[MilDoc]

Come on. Since when do people act responsibly?

Cell phone cancel devices exist. I would like to see one installed in every car that would prevent cell phone use while the car is in motion.

Then again, I'd like to see the same devices installed in movie theaters, restaurants, etc.!