Cell phone ban while driving

Quote: weaselman

I won't enumerate the "skills", its starting to feel too much like a pissing contest.

Oh, on the contrary. I'll be the first to admit my skills are laughable, properly speaking. I've had my ass handed to me on quite enough occasions to know. It's not that I haven't done at least as much handing out on my end - but I've seen what real driving looks like and where exactly do I stand in comparison.

The problem is, most drivers never had such a handout, so still remain under the illusion that if their ass isn't the greatest thing to ever grace a car seat, it must certainly be one of the greatest. Uh, yeah, they only bought a slushbox because of the resale value.

Quote: weaselman

I spent seven years driving heavy military trucks for a living.

So you have professional driving experience. Good enough. So you could tell, then, what vehicle handling skills does the actual average US driver have, in your opinion. Does he have the skills of recovering from a spin, a slide, understeer, hydroplaning, obstacle avoidance at high speed, or, and I'm talking seriously here, does he even know his car's front from its rear.

Quote: weaselman

First, don't be so quick. I know a kid who almost died from a flu vaccination. It is far not as uncommon as you might think.
Second, I am not seeing the difference. You can't die in a car accident if you aren't on the road. So what?

The difference is life-years lost. Medical causes are overwhelmingly weighted towards the older and oldest populace. You know one kid who almost died; but me and you too knew dozens of old people who died, and for good this time.

Quote: weaselman

Yes! Exactly the point!
Driving the car is not anywhere near as hard or as risky as you are trying to paint. It is a piece of cake!

But the number of accidents - high enough that pretty much everyone has been in one, and millions are injured to varying degrees yearly - disagrees.

Driving is not as deadly as the accident rates suggest, due to the cars being overengineered to accommodate drivers that just can't help drinking, eating, chatting and crashing in their cars, but it's still an accident-prone, high-risk activity.

Quote: weaselman

I don't know. It is just a number, hard to say if it is significant or not without something to compare to. What do you think is the corresponding number for airliner accidents?

Well, the direct cost is a bit over 1 billion. Presuming indirect costs to be similarly about 1.5-2 times as much, the total cost should be around 3 billion dollars, possibly 4. That's global.

Quote: weaselman

That is why even a trained professional cannot come close to a casual driver in safety.

But they don't come close, they are much safer. Risks "per trip" are meaningless; if I make 1,000,000 trips from my garage to the road and back, does that make me any safer a driver than someone driving across the country? The meaningful metric is passenger-miles.

Quote: weaselman

Really ... Well, apparently, some people have more diverse reflexes than others :)

They really don't. There is only a limited number of reflexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reflexes_%28alphabetical%29

As can be seen, there is no reflex that involves lifting the right foot slightly up to about 20% throttle, tapping the left foot lightly, straightening the wheel and depressing the right foot again gradually while rotating the wheel.
It's a conscious sequence of actions that can only be performed using higher brain functions, requiring situational awareness, prior experience and readiness to perform correctly.

Quote: P90

So you have professional driving experience. Good enough. So you could tell, then, what vehicle handling skills does the actual average US driver have, in your opinion. Does he have the skills of recovering from a spin, a slide, understeer, hydroplaning, obstacle avoidance at high speed, or, and I'm talking seriously here, does he even know his car's front from its rear.

The most important skill required when driving a passenger car on a public road is choosing a safe speed. Most drivers I see on the road are actually more cautious than necessary in my opinion. I do get irritated by it sometimes, but in the larger scale of things, this is good.
In terms of recovering from various situations you mentioned, I think, most people do have a basic set of skills necessary, which is not a lot. Basically, people know to let go of the pedals, not do anything abrupt and steer in the right direction. This is good enough for 99% of situations they will ever have to handle.

I agree, that most people don't know the "advanced" stuff, like flooring the gas in a bad case of a spin, but for somebody casually driving on public roads at reasonable speeds, chances of ever needing that skill are extremely slim.

Quote:

The difference is life-years lost.

But we were not talking about which is "worse". The topic was which is riskier.The life years do not matter. The point is you risk more by going to the doctor than by getting into a car.

Quote:

But the number of accidents - high enough that pretty much everyone has been in one, and millions are injured to varying degrees yearly - disagrees.

No, it does not. The number of accidents is high because people drive a lot. I mean a lot.
The fact that pretty much everybody has been in one is actually good, because it tells you that most accidents are actually minor or at least non fatal. Unlike, say, airline crashes - we get three times more of those per journey, which is a lot, but do we know anyone, who has been in one?

Quote:

Driving is not as deadly as the accident rates suggest, due to the cars being overengineered to accommodate drivers that just can't help drinking, eating, chatting and crashing in their cars, but it's still an accident-prone, high-risk activity.

Safety is not overengineering. If you disagree, look at how "overengineered" airplanes are.
And, for the hundredth time, no driving is not a high risk activity any more than going to a doctor's office or eating a meal of wild mushrooms.
Downhill skiing is high risk activity, playing hockey is hockey is high risk activity, going to your dentist or driving a car is not.

Quote:

Well, the direct cost is a bit over 1 billion. Presuming indirect costs to be similarly about 1.5-2 times as much, the total cost should be around 3 billion dollars, possibly 4. That's global.

Sounds like a lot ...

Quote:

But they don't come close, they are much safer. risks "per trip" are meaningless; if I make 1,000,000 trips from my garage to the road and back, does that make me any safer a driver than someone driving across the country? The meaningful metric is passenger-miles.

For cars, yes. For comparing cars to airplanes risk per mile is meaningless. First, because airplane goes a lot faster than a car.
Second, and more important, because planes very rarely crash during cruising - they are flown by a robot, that does not make mistakes, and they are in a mostly empty sky during that time, without obstacles or other planes to crash into. That part of the travel is not risky at all, because planes are so "overengineered" to be reliable, and redundant to protect against mechanical and electrical failures. And that's where the most flying miles are made. 92% of fatal accidents happen during takeoff (and initial climb) or landing (and final approach and descend). Not much miles are flown during that time, so, a per mile accident number is misleading.

Yes, if you are comparing what you risk traveling NYC to LA by different modes of transportation, you want to see the per-mile numbers. But if the question is what you risk by getting on the plane vs. in the car, then per trip is what you need.

Quote:

They really don't. There is only a limited number of reflexes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reflexes_%28alphabetical%29

Ok, I misspoke. Turns out, what I meant is called classical conditioning.
An equivalent term in my first language is like "conditional reflex", that is why I called it that.

Quote:

As can be seen, there is no reflex that involves lifting the right foot slightly up to about 20% throttle, tapping the left foot lightly, straightening the wheel and depressing the right foot again gradually while rotating the wheel.
It's a conscious sequence of actions that can only be performed using higher brain functions, requiring situational awareness, prior experience and readiness to perform correctly.

There are lots of very complex stuff you do without thinking about it. Like talking on the cell phone. Speech formation requires work of over 100 different muscles in close, exact coordination. Or smoking, that you mentioned earlier as not requiring any mental effort ... it is actually an even more impressive and complex sequence of exact elementary actions if you choose to look at it in close detail.

Quote: weaselman

The most important skill required when driving a passenger car on a public road is choosing a safe speed. Most drivers I see on the road are actually more cautious than necessary in my opinion.

And the many drivers on cellphones, texting, navigating etc. tend to drive at 10 miles or so below the prevailing flow and leave extra space in front of them, presumably because they realize (perhaps intuitively) that they might need extra time and distance to stop in case of an emergency. Those drivers are also more variable in their speeds, depending on how much they are concentrating on the non-driving task.

Quote: SanchoPanza

And the many drivers on cellphones, texting, navigating etc. tend to drive at 10 miles or so below the prevailing flow and leave extra space in front of them, presumably because they realize (perhaps intuitively) that they might need extra time and distance to stop in case of an emergency. Those drivers are also more variable in their speeds, depending on how much they are concentrating on the non-driving task.

Yep, some people do that. But cell phones is not a culprit. They drive the same way while putting cream cheese on their bagel, lighting a cigarette, reaching to wipe baby's nose etc. ...

Quote: weaselman

Yep, some people do that. But cell phones is not a culprit. They drive the same way while putting cream cheese on their bagel, lighting a cigarette, reaching to wipe baby's nose etc. ...

Which no one will say are anywhere as prevalent.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Which no one will say are anywhere as prevalent.

What is not prevalent? Babies in the cars? Bagel eating? Smoking? Coffee? Radio channel surfing?
Come on ... What roads are you driving on???

Quote: weaselman

In terms of recovering from various situations you mentioned, I think, most people do have a basic set of skills necessary, which is not a lot. Basically, people know to let go of the pedals, not do anything abrupt and steer in the right direction. This is good enough for 99% of situations they will ever have to handle.
I agree, that most people don't know the "advanced" stuff, like flooring the gas in a bad case of a spin, but for somebody casually driving on public roads at reasonable speeds, chances of ever needing that skill are extremely slim.

So we agree on it. Most drivers don't have any dynamic handling skills, they only know how to drive without concerning themselves with handling and know to brake or freeze if they get into trouble.

But it isn't handling. Put it this way, they aren't dealing with vehicle dynamics, only kinematics, or, more accurately, kinematics and dynamics of a point mass. In normal driving, your vehicle effectively behaves as a point mass with perfect grip; you could have your engine in the back or in the front and barely know it.
Handling skills are skills of maintaining control of a vehicle that behaves as a real physical body - with separate centers of gravity, grip and thrust, moment of inertia, partial grip, where thrust is determined not by how hard you push on the pedal, but how well you match your torque with available grip, and where you have to correctly respond to vehicle dynamics.

99% of the time, you remain within the point mass behavior envelope. It's only on a track or in performance driving classes that your vehicle exhibits its full range of behavior. But that remaining 1% of the situations is when accidents tend to happen. (Other than those resulting from applying makeup while talking on the phone and never noticing the intersection in front of you, of course.) And it's what most drivers are completely unprepared to deal with, even when they often could save the situation, if only they had practiced it a few times.

Quote: weaselman

But we were not talking about which is "worse". The topic was which is riskier.The life years do not matter. The point is you risk more by going to the doctor than by getting into a car.

Medical complications are not a valid comparison, as you get into a high-risk situation when you get sick. Receiving medical aid is making the least bad out of a bad situation; your net risk is actually reduced by treatment, even if the treatment itself has its risks.

Now, getting sick, that one is not a good decision. Never do that, it's high risk, it's heavily -EV, and really just bad. The next time someone offers you a free sample of hepatitis or tularemia, just say "no".

Quote: weaselman

Unlike, say, airline crashes - we get three times more of those per journey, which is a lot, but do we know anyone, who has been in one?

I think your figures were comparing fatal (or at least serious) crashes to similar airline crashes, not all accidents.

Quote: weaselman

Safety is not overengineering. If you disagree, look at how "overengineered" airplanes are.

Automotive safety requires a degree of overengineering. We could drive 500kg cars with fiberglass bodies, saving a lot of fuel in the process, but we don't, and safety is one of the major reasons. Leaving aside people who buy SUVs for a feeling of "extra safety".

Quote: weaselman

Sounds like a lot ...

Very little compared to ~400 billion for car accidents.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, if you are comparing what you risk traveling NYC to LA by different modes of transportation, you want to see the per-mile numbers. But if the question is what you risk by getting on the plane vs. in the car, then per trip is what you need.

What if I get in the car, then out of the car, then in again, every time I go somewhere - did I just double my safety?
It's not the act of getting in that brings you utility.

Quote: weaselman

There are lots of very complex stuff you do without thinking about it. Like talking on the cell phone. Speech formation requires work of over 100 different muscles in close, exact coordination. Or smoking, that you mentioned earlier as not requiring any mental effort ... it is actually an even more impressive and complex sequence of exact elementary actions if you choose to look at it in close detail.

Speech we have partially come from genetic memory (basic operation), and partially conditioning from the moment of birth. So it's complex, but we have been doing it for a million years as a species and have a lot of practice in life.
Smoking comes down to pit cig in mouth, put cig out the window. The rest is handled by basic muscle control.

This is not the case with driving maneuvers. There is nothing natural about them. It's not releasing or depressing your foot that saves your ass - it's releasing it or depressing it by the right amount at the right time. You might not handle this sequence of actions on a fully conscious level, and you most certainly shouldn't verbalize it, but that doesn't mean you don't need your mental faculties to perform it.

Quote: P90

So we agree on it. Most drivers don't have any dynamic handling skills, they only know how to drive without concerning themselves with handling and know to brake or freeze if they get into trouble.

Yeah... They also do not have any advanced math skills or even basic familiarity with hydrodynamics ...
The majority of them do have enough skills to safely drive a modern passenger car on a US public road.

Quote:

99% of the time, you remain within the point mass behavior envelope.

99% is enough. Most people do not know the right techniques to survive a heart attack or would panic if an oil tank in their house explodes. This is how life works. You cannot know everything about everything. You just need to know enough to operate in 99% of possible situations, because you are unlikely to encounter anything else in your life time anyway.

Quote:

It's only on a track or in performance driving classes that your vehicle exhibits its full range of behavior.

Exactly. That's why the majority of people on the road do not need those skills.

Quote:

But that remaining 1% of the situations is when accidents tend to happen.

Not really. Most accidents happen for a lot more prosaic reasons - the driver is tired, or drunk, or distracted, or is going too fast, or runs a red light, or is blinded by high beam, or forgets to yield, or hits a deer, or gets angry at someone cutting him off and tries to "get even", or just makes a stupid mistake like hitting gas instead of brake, or all four people on a stupid "four way stop" intersection start moving at the same time, or a mechanical problem etc.

Quote:

And it's what most drivers are completely unprepared to deal with, even when they often could save the situation, if only they had practiced it a few times.

Yes. Just like most people are unprepared to dealing with a stroke, or choking, or an earthquake, or a terrorist attack, or even just a severe nose bleed.
You can't be prepared to everything. So, you prioritise and practise those skills that you are likely to need in real life.

Quote:

Medical complications are not a valid comparison, as you get into a high-risk situation when you get sick.

Not really. Like I said, you may be just getting a flu vaccination, or a routine teeth cleaning.
You are getting into a high risk situation by visiting doctors office or a hospital, just like your risk heightens when you get into a car.
But that's beyond the point. We were actually talking about doctor's competence. The point was that just like the high number of complications from medical treatment does not suggest that doctors are incompetent, the high number of automobile accidents by itself does not say anything about competence of drivers.

Quote:

I think your figures were comparing fatal (or at least serious) crashes to similar airline crashes, not all accidents.

Yes, the numbers were for fatalities.

Quote:

Automotive safety requires a degree of overengineering. We could drive 500kg cars with fiberglass bodies, saving a lot of fuel in the process, but we don't, and safety is one of the major reasons. Leaving aside people who buy SUVs for a feeling of "extra safety".

That's fine. I just don't agree with you calling it "overengineering".

Quote:

Very little compared to ~400 billion for car accidents.

I lost track. I think the last number you mentioned about car accidents was something like 300 million or something like that?
Could you quote both numbers again, on the same scale, along with the source(s) you are getting them from?

Quote:

What if I get in the car, then out of the car, then in again, every time I go somewhere - did I just double my safety?
It's not the act of getting in that brings you utility.

No. It is taking the trip. The numbers we are discussing are per trip, not per "getting in". I think, you knew that ... just trying to make a joke?

Quote:

Speech we have partially come from genetic memory (basic operation), and partially conditioning from the moment of birth. So it's complex,

Yes. Same with driving. There is fewer genetic memory, and conditioning starts later, so we generally are not as good driving as we are uttering words, but we still are good enough, and, yes, it is the same basic mechanism.

Quote: weaselman

Yeah... They also do not have any advanced math skills or even basic familiarity with hydrodynamics ...
The majority of them do have enough skills to safely drive a modern passenger car on a US public road.

To drive somewhat safely most of the time if they put their effort to it.
Nowhere near to really drive safely.

Quote: weaselman

Not really. Most accidents happen for a lot more prosaic reasons - the driver is drunk or distracted, or is going too fast, or runs a read light, or just makes a stupid mistake like hitting gas instead of break, or all four people on a stupid "four way stop" intersection start moving at the same time, or a mechanical problem etc.

Let's break it down a bit more.
Being drunk is illegal.
Being distracted comes, among other things, from using cell phones while driving.
Going too fast has an effect of getting your vehicle outside the point-mass behavior envelope, where you can no longer just turn it without thinking. You can still control it safely and avoid accidents - if you have appropriate handling skills.
Stupid mistakes come, among other things, from distractions.
Mechanical malfunctions are another situation where the outcome is affected by handling and driving skills. For instance, I usually try to maintain speed and position where I would remain able to handle a single-point failure, be it brake failure, blown tire, power failure, other possible incidents. If you know your car and know how it behaves in partial loss of control scenarios, you have a much better chance of managing it with mechanical problems.

Quote: weaselman

But that's beyond the point. We were actually talking about doctor's competence. The point was that just like the high number of complications from medical treatment does not suggest that doctors are incompetent, the high number of automobile accidents by itself does not say anything about competence of drivers.

By itself, it doesn't. But the common causes of accidents do. And their high occurrence just shows that this level of competence is not sufficient. It's compounded by inflated self-assessment of driving skills.

Quote: weaselman

I lost track. I think the last number you mentioned about car accidents was something like 300 million or something like that?
Could you quote both numbers again, on the same scale, along with the source(s) you are getting them from?

This source produced the 358 billion estimate: www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm58.htm
Of these 150 billion is direct costs (vehicle damage etc) and the rest indirect.
I might have mistyped, of course it's billion, how could it be million.

And by the way, this chart is pretty interesting, comparing factors in the cost of car ownership:

Quote: weaselman

No. It is taking the trip. The numbers we are discussing are per trip, not per "getting in". I think, you knew that ... just trying to make a joke?

Not exactly. It illustrates a point. You can have a trip that's only 100 yards (leaving aside the kind of trip you can have without going anywhere), and it will of course have a lower accident rate. Apples are to be compared to apples - the risk of flight is to be compared to the risk of a road trip between the same points, not to the risk of going to your neighbors'.

Quote: weaselman

Yes. Same with driving. There is fewer genetic memory, and conditioning starts later, so we generally are not as good driving as we are uttering words, but we still are good enough, and, yes, it is the same basic mechanism.

There is no genetic memory related to driving. And it does require higher brain functions - even someone almost devoid of them (temporarily or permanently) can scream, but he can't spontaneously get into a car and drive it, even if it's just into a tree.

Airline accidents are closely related to the number of takeoffs and landings because most accidents happen at takeoff and landing. For fatal car accidents, there is no relationship between stopping and starting from your origin and destination. Therefore you are comparing apples and oranges. If you are driving from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, you are far more likely to be involved in an fatal accident than if you take a plane.

Being distracted means that your reaction time is much higher -or- that don't see something critical to driving. In any case, braking distances and car performance are finite. The cell phone ban is an attempt to reduce distractions in the car. It will have a limited effect as I believe that the act of conversation in a car over a phone takes more of your attention away from the road. This is because the voice is more difficult to hear and your brain must concentrate on filtering the conversation over everything else going on.

When you're in a car that you are unfamiliar with, you will spend a great amount of time fiddling with the car, changing the radio station, finding the defrost button. These are equally as distracting as talking on the phone. You don't have those issues when you are driving in a car that you're familiar with, because the car is known. Eating and drinking are the same way. Putting your hand into a bag or picking up fries are not distracting. Using a knife and fork on the other hand is.

I also think that someone who is conversing all of the time in the car is less likely to get into an accident than an occasional caller. Practice makes perfect.

Quote: P90

To drive somewhat safely most of the time if they put their effort to it.
Nowhere near to really drive safely.

No. Really safely, 99% of the time, and even more.

Quote:

Let's break it down a bit more.
Being drunk is illegal.

So?

Quote:

Being distracted comes, among other things, from using cell phones while driving.

And also is illegal. So?

Quote:

Going too fast has an effect of getting your vehicle outside the point-mass behavior

Not not really. Not that fast.
What's more important, it is also illegal.

Quote:

You can still control it safely and avoid accidents - if you have appropriate handling skills.

If you have appropriate skills, you will never go that fast in the first place.

Quote:

Mechanical malfunctions are another situation where the outcome is affected by handling and driving skills.

If your wheel falls off at 60mph, good luck using your skills ...

Quote:

For instance, I usually try to maintain speed and position where I would remain able to handle a single-point failure, be it brake failure, blown tire, power failure, other possible incidents.

You can continue thinking that you do, if it makes you feel good ... But you really can't do that. Nobody can.
If the car in front of you brakes to stop, and you are, even 100 feet behind (nobody maintains distances this long, but for the sake of argument, let's imagine you do), and your brakes fail, you will hit it. What you need to concentrate on is minimising the damage (especially, to people involved into the crash), not lulling yourself into believing that you may be able to avoid the crash.

Same goes to most other mechanical problems. Just look at what happened to Senna.

Quote:

By itself, it doesn't. But the common causes of accidents do.

No, still don't. Remember the earlier example about hospital deaths.
The most common cause of airplane crashes is also a human error. It does not mean pilots are incompetent. It just means that the equipment is very mechanically reliable ... and that everybody makes mistakes.

Quote:

Not exactly. It illustrates a point. You can have a trip that's only 100 yards (leaving aside the kind of trip you can have without going anywhere),

Yes, you can. But that's not a typical trip people use their cars for. It is possible that you have such a trip, but when talking about statistics collected over hundreds of billions on trips, these aberrations will not have any significance.
In fact, as I am sure you know, there are statistical methods to handle deviations, less extreme than your examples, that detect outliers, and either exclude them from consideration entirely or include with a smaller weight than the general population.
I still can't believe I have to explain this to you. I hope you are just pretending to not understand this to drag the argument further.

Quote:

Apples are to be compared to apples - the risk of flight is to be compared to the risk of a road trip between the same points, not to the risk of going to your neighbors'.

No, this is not apples to apples, for reasons I have already explained earlier.

Quote:

There is no genetic memory related to driving.

Maybe, not (yet). But how do you know? :)

Quote:

And it does require higher brain functions

Yes, and so does speech. Initially.

Quote: weaselman

No. Really safely, 99% of the time, and even more.

99% of the time yes. And even more, about 99.95-99.98% of the time.

Quote: weaselman

And also is illegal. So?

Thread title.
Using cell phones while driving is one kind of distraction you can have, and a very prevalent one.
Now, I'm not supporting making it equivalent to DUI or anything of the sort, but even a non-enforced token law against it can, at least, change the perceptions. Make most people only talk on the phone while driving when they actually need to, not on a whim.

Quote: weaselman

Not not really. Not that fast.

Fast enough. You are driving that fast already any time you are on the highway. Normally you'll brake to a crawl before making any sharp turn, and any time you don't have this luxury, you are entering a scenario that's harder to get out of if you can't handle your car beyond straight line.

Quote: weaselman

If your wheel falls off at 60mph, good luck using your skills ...

Even in this situation, high school kid vs experienced driver can make the difference between flying into the opposing lane and an oblique crash into the road barrier.

Quote: weaselman

You can continue thinking that you do, if it makes you feel good ... But you really can't do that. Nobody can.

I said try. I never said I can. And yes, I don't mean necessarily get off scott-free, just have a backup plan of actions if something goes wrong, to minimize potential damage for one. Your speed and position do make a difference in just how bad the things will go.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, you can. But that's not a typical trip people use their cars for.

But it is safer because it's so short. And so is the average road trip. If you have to go the same distance a plane goes, the risk is much higher. As such, planes are a safer mode of transportation, when used for what they are designed to do, long-distance travel.

Quote: weaselman

How do you know? :)

Pretty sure The Flintstones was fiction, though you never know.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, and so does speech. Initially.

Throughout the lifetime, not just initially. No higher brain functions, no speech, just screaming and groaning.

I think somehow this thread I started got off track LOL.......on one is saying using you cell while driving wont lead to more accidents....just like no one is saying drinking and driving wont lead to more accidents....the QUESTION is does the FEDERAL goverment have the power to legislate(not thought funding) traffic laws.....or are they wrong to intrude on states rights?

Quote: P90

99% of the time yes. And even more, about 99.95-99.98% of the time.

That's good enough. Better than airline pilots, and ER docs.

Quote:

Thread title.
Using cell phones while driving is one kind of distraction you can have, and a very prevalent one.

No. Distracted driving is already illegal.
Using cell phone may or may not be distracting, depending on many different conditions. In general, it is not.It is also (still) legal, unlike distracted driving.

Quote:

Fast enough. You are driving that fast already any time you are on the highway.

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said something to the effect that 99% of time the car behaves as a point mass. Then you said that when you driving "fast enough" it does not. Now you are saying that whenever I am driving on a highway it is "fast enough". The only possible conclusion from this chain of reasoning is that 99% of time people are not driving on highways, which is obviously false.

Quote:

Even in this situation, high school kid vs experienced driver can make the difference between flying into the opposing lane and an oblique crash into the road barrier.

Yes, an experienced driver (or anyone else) is generally better in handling extraordinary situations than an inexperienced one. That point was never in question though.

Quote:

But it is safer because it's so short.

Yes, it is safer. it is just not in the scope of this discussion, that's all.

Quote:

And so is the average road trip. If you have to go the same distance a plane goes, the risk is much higher.

Yes, it is. For the reasons I have explained earlier. Yet you keep bringing it up. Did you find my explanation unsatisfactory? If so, a more constructive approach would be to point out the weaknesses you see rather than endlessly repeating the same argument, that was refuted more than once.

Quote:

As such, planes are a safer mode of transportation, when used for what they are designed to do, long-distance travel.

Yes, planes are safer when you need to go from NYC to LA. But the risk of a typical plane trip is higher than the risk of a typical car trip. Therefore if you consider driving a high risk activity, than you should concede that flying is even more high risk ... let alone going to a dentist or eating wild mushrooms.

Quote:

Throughout the lifetime, not just initially.

Nope. Initially. That's what conditioning is all about.

Quote: weaselman

No. Distracted driving is already illegal.
Using cell phone may or may not be distracting, depending on many different conditions. In general, it is not.It is also (still) legal, unlike distracted driving.

In general it is distracting, although to varying degrees.

Quote: weaselman

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said something to the effect that 99% of time the car behaves as a point mass. Then you said that when you driving "fast enough" it does not.

99% of the time your car behaves similar to a point mass. It applies to driving either slowly or in a straight line (even if reasonably fast). If you attempt to perform maneuvers at highway speed or above, it no longer behaves that way.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, it is. For the reasons I have explained earlier. Yet you keep bringing it up. Did you find my explanation unsatisfactory?

I find it irrelevant: it doesn't matter that going 5 miles on an airliner would in theory be almost as dangerous as going 500 miles, because airlines don't even offer 5-mile flights. It's an option for long trips, and should only be compared to other ways of making such a trip.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, planes are safer when you need to go from NYC to LA. But the risk of a typical plane trip is higher than the risk of a typical car trip. Therefore if you consider driving a high risk activity, than you should concede that flying is even more high risk...

What, there are people who don't consider it high-risk? Of course it is. That's why they don't let just anyone fly an airliner. They even try selling you insurance coverage for the flight.

Quote: weaselman

let alone going to a dentist or eating wild mushrooms.

Do you have figures specifically for dentist-related fatalities, or are you extending overall statistics (that likely include "pain relief") to dentists?
As for teaching you not to eat wild mushrooms until and unless you learn to id and correctly cook them, that's what parents are for.

Quote: P90

In general it is distracting, although to varying degrees.

In a way, everything is "distracting". Like thinking about missile control systems or using gps etc.
The question is if it is distracting enough to be dangerous. Does it distract enough of a reasonable person's attention from driving, that the amount left is not to be considered "due care"?
My answer is, in general, no it does not. And the cases when it does are already covered by distracted driving law.

Quote:

99% of the time your car behaves similar to a point mass. It applies to driving either slowly or in a straight line (even if reasonably fast). If you attempt to perform maneuvers at highway speed or above, it no longer behaves that way.

If you attempt to perform maneuvers at highway speeds, and you are not on a racetrack, you are an idiot. And a dangerous one.

Quote:

I find it irrelevant: it doesn't matter that going 5 miles on an airliner would in theory be almost as dangerous as going 500 miles, because airlines don't even offer 5-mile flights. It's an option for long trips, and should only be compared to other ways of making such a trip.

This is indeed irrelevant. I never mentioned anything about 5-mile flights.

Quote:

What, there are people who don't consider it high-risk?

Of course. I don't consider it high risk, as you should know by now (yes, I am a person!).
In fact, pretty much, every one I know does not consider it high risk.

Quote:

They even try selling you insurance coverage for the flight.

That actually works to my point more than yours.
They also sell you insurance coverage for life. But not if they consider that your lifestyle is "high risk" - if they do, they will refuse you coverage.

Quote:

Do you have figures specifically for dentist-related fatalities, or are you extending overall statistics (that likely include "pain relief") to dentists?

No, I don't have numbers specific to dentists. Just like I don't have numbers specific to 2007 Toyota Sienna car accidents. Those numbers can be found, but I don't think they are relevant.
We are talking about (all) car-related fatalities vs. (all) medical treatment related ones (and yes, "medical treatment" actually includes dentists).

Quote:

As for teaching you not to eat wild mushrooms until and unless you learn to id and correctly cook them, that's what parents are for.

Same parents who teach you to drive safely I presume?

Quote: weaselman

The question is if it is distracting enough to be dangerous. Does it distract enough of a reasonable person's attention from driving, that the amount left is not to be considered "due care"?
My answer is, in general, no it does not. And the cases when it does are already covered by distracted driving law.

That's really where opinions in this thread split. Whether the distracted driving law provides sufficient deterrence, or if a specific law would serve to change the perceptions better.
I'd be strongly against rounding up everyone who is talking while driving, but legislation on the books with lower fines than for current offenses that could be applied is OK with me.

Quote: weaselman

If you attempt to perform maneuvers at highway speeds, and you are not on a racetrack, you are an idiot. And a dangerous one.

Either that, or you are in an emergency situation that calls for such a maneuver.

Quote: weaselman

Of course. I don't consider it high risk, as you should know by now (yes, I am a person!).

Then we are simply employing different thresholds for what to consider high-risk. I applied it to anything involving higher risks than primary activities during the day.

Quote: weaselman

They also sell you insurance coverage for life. But not if they consider that your lifestyle is "high risk" - if they do, they will refuse you coverage.

Actually, people in high-risk professions, up to and including warfare, tend to have life insurance, probably even a lot more often than the rest. It just tends to cost more, but it covers these activities.

Quote: weaselman

No, I don't have numbers specific to dentists.

So going to the dentist has nothing to do with it, unless it indeed has as high a fatality rate as hospitals in general.

Quote: weaselman

Same parents who teach you to drive safely I presume?

For that you have driving school (however inadequate its standards are).

Quote: P90

That's really where opinions in this thread split. Whether the distracted driving law provides sufficient deterrence, or if a specific law would serve to change the perceptions better.

It definitely would. That's not where the opinions split.
Of course, if you forbid something explicitly it will provide a better deterrence. For example, forbidding heterosexual sex would provide excellent deterrence against future crime (there will be no criminals).

Where the opinions actually split is whether or not such law would be overly restrictive to the point where benefits from it are outweighed by the inconveniences and problems it creates. My opinion is yes, it definitely would be the case. I also believe it is plain stupid and hypocritical to focus on cell phones while such "evils" as babies, kids, girlfriends, and dogs in the car are not properly addressed, and while such terrible things as GPS units and CB radios are considered "necessary for driving" and therefore "OK".

Quote:

I'd be strongly against rounding up everyone who is talking while driving, but legislation on the books with lower fines than for current offenses that could be applied is OK with me.

Can you elaborate? What is the difference between "rounding up" and "legislation on the books"?
Are you basically saying that if the fine was $10, you would not mind paying it every now and then just hoping that it would deter some stupid people from using the phone when they should not?

Quote:

Then we are simply employing different thresholds for what to consider high-risk. I applied it to anything involving higher risks than primary activities during the day.

Then everything is high-risk by your definition. Even going to a barber shop.

Quote:

So going to the dentist has nothing to do with it, unless it indeed has as high a fatality rate as hospitals in general.

Going to the dentist has as much to do with it as driving down Elm St. at 5 pm on Saturday has to do with overall risk of auto accidents.

Quote:

For that you have driving school (however inadequate its standards are).

So, you agree, it is the same thing basically, right?

Quote: weaselman

Where the opinions actually split is whether or not such law would be overly restrictive to the point where benefits from it are outweighed by the inconveniences and problems it creates. My opinion is yes, it definitely would be the case. I also believe it is plain stupid and hypocritical to focus on cell phones while such "evils" as babies, kids, girlfriends, and dogs in the car are not properly addressed, and while such terrible things as GPS units and CB radios are considered "necessary for driving" and therefore "OK".

The legislation, if passed, is most likely to look like it does in countries and locales that already have it. For instance, as this:
http://www.safeny.com/phon-vt.htm

As can be seen, you can still use your regular handheld cell phone to call hospitals and emergency services. If you have a hands-free device, you can use it for any purposes. It's a reasonable compromise, if you need to conduct phone calls in your car on a regular basis, get yourself a permitted device that at least leaves both your hands available.

As for the cost of devices, distracted driving, which is usually just another word for using a cell phone, is responsible for 15-20% of accidents. If this number is reduced just by a quarter, that's about 20 billion (going by formerly quoted figures) in saved costs of accidents, annually. Many people already have hands-free devices, some people won't need them anyway, so maybe about 100 million would be needed, at say $100 average cost each, or 10 billion first-year investment. The rest is savings, especially if devices function for more than a year.

Quote: weaselman

Can you elaborate? What is the difference between "rounding up" and "legislation on the books"?

Presence of a specific law doesn't mean a witch-hunt for all drivers who ever take a phone call in their car.

Quote: weaselman

Are you basically saying that if the fine was $10, you would not mind paying it every now and then just hoping that it would deter some stupid people from using the phone when they should not?

Likely a good bit more than $10: current laws in US (extra restrictions for kids are a good idea, BTW, but indeed best left at state level).
No, I wouldn't be offended by the need to pay it, should I break this law and get caught, similar to how I'm not offended by the need to pay fines if I commit other traffic violations.

Quote: weaselman

Going to the dentist has as much to do with it as driving down Elm St. at 5 pm on Saturday has to do with overall risk of auto accidents.

So we agree that both are of no relevance to anything whatsoever.

Quote: P90

As can be seen, you can still use your regular handheld cell phone to call hospitals and emergency services. If you have a hands-free device, you can use it for any purposes. It's a reasonable compromise, if you need to conduct phone calls in your car on a regular basis, get yourself a permitted device that at least leaves both your hands available.

Well, so far, we have been talking about a complete ban on the cell phones because the conversation itself is distracting, not requiring to use hands free kits because using your hands is distracting. I find the latter supposition even more laughable than the former.

Quote:

As for the cost of devices, distracted driving, which is usually just another word for using a cell phone, is responsible for 15-20% of accidents.

Distracted driving is "another word" for using a cell phone in the same exact sense as hospital death is "another word" for a dentist appointment.

Quote:

Presence of a specific law doesn't mean a witch-hunt for all drivers who ever take a phone call in their car.

Huh?
If the "specific law" is about banning cell phones in the cars, then, of course, it does. That is exactly what it means.

Quote:

No, I wouldn't be offended by the need to pay it, should I break this law and get caught, similar to how I'm not offended by the need to pay fines if I commit other traffic violations.

I did not suggest you would. I think, it is the other people who should get offended by your patronizing attitude towards them.

Quote:

So we agree that both are of no relevance to anything whatsoever.

No, that's not what I said. Both are equally relevant. A risk of a particular road trip is inferred from overall accident statistics in the same way a risk of a particular dentist appointment is inferred from the overall medical mortality rate.

Quote: weaselman

Well, so far, we have been talking about a complete ban on the cell phones because the conversation itself is distracting, not requiring to use hands free kits because using your hands is distracting. I find the latter supposition even more laughable than the former.

So you are have the same driving capability with only one hand available as with two?

Quote: weaselman

Distracted driving is "another word" for using a cell phone in the same exact sense as hospital death is "another word" for a dentist appointment.

Infractions for distracted driving usually involve cell phones or other electronic devices. Egregious cases like makeup or exotic causes are relatively rare.

Quote: weaselman

If the "specific law" is about banning cell phones in the cars, then, of course, it does. That is exactly what it means.

So there will be more road cops or they will work double shifts and pull people over twice double rate?
They just get an easier (and preferably less severe) charge to slap you with when you are caught talking on a phone in a situation where you shouldn't.

Quote: weaselman

I did not suggest you would. I think, it is the other people who should get offended by your patronizing attitude towards them.

Well, you asked if I'd mind paying the fine, and I wouldn't if I broke the law.
What I should get offended by though is some of the driving I see on a daily basis, but I manage not to 99% of the time.

Quote: weaselman

No, that's not what I said. Both are equally relevant. A risk of a particular road trip is inferred from overall accident statistics in the same way a risk of a particular dentist appointment is inferred from the overall medical mortality rate.

Neither can be done with any degree of informative value. It's no more accurate than attempting to estimate blackjack table rules from casino's annual revenues - all you can figure out is that there probably is some house advantage, or that a road trip probably presents some risk.

Quote: weaselman

What is not prevalent? Babies in the cars? Bagel eating? Smoking? Coffee? Radio channel surfing?
Come on ... What roads are you driving on???

On roads that are so congested that more than a couple of seconds of distraction is enough to cause severe problems for the subject vehicle, as well those around it. I'm tried of paying high insurance and medical rates for people who think that their business is so damned self-important that they can't wait 30 seconds or 2 minutes to pull over at safe spot and conduct it.

While on the subject of cost.
As cited previously, in 1988, car accidents cost 5% of national GDP, 358 billion.
Adjusting for inflation (cars became more expensive) and assuming the accident count didn't increase (it did, but collisions are less lethal now, so that should even out), the CPI inflation correction is 1.89x, for ~$675 billion in costs for today.
Rounding down to $600 billion, it still comes down to $2,000/year for every man, woman and child.
With over 90% of accidents related to driver error, even discounting the few errors made by sober non-distracted drivers, at least half of these are caused by insufficient driving discipline or outright lack thereof.

That's easily more than $1,000 a year that everyone on the average pays for the idiocy of people who mistakenly believe they can drive after a few beers, mistakenly believe they can drive while talking or texting, mistakenly believe they don't need to maintain their car, mistakenly believe they can drive half-asleep, or just mistakenly believe they can drive.

Might be the only belief more expensive than religion.

I've been hit by 3 distracted drivers, all women. One rear
ended me because she was looking at her passenger and
not where she was going. Another was completely turned
around in her seat swatting one of her kids in the back.
The other was adjusting her radio. Women are fun drivers,
I won't ride with my wife because she uses the car as a
weapon, scares me to death. She drives with her emotions
and not her common sense, I wonder how many women
are like that.

Quote: P90

So you are have the same driving capability with only one hand available as with two?

Yeah, pretty much. I usually use one hand for "cruising" anyway, when I don't need to shift gears. That gives you a better control of the steering wheel, and a better range of motion in case of an emergency.
Besides, I have no problem dropping the phone on my lap should I suddenly need the other hand for something important. It is a much easier decision, than when your hand is occupied with something like hot coffee ... that nobody is talking about banning from cars for some reason.

Quote:

Infractions for distracted driving usually involve cell phones or other electronic devices. Egregious cases like makeup or exotic causes are relatively rare.

Source? And btw, does "other electronic devices" include radios, GPS units, back seat TV sets, kid's laptop computers, mp3 players, ipods, shavers, epilators?

Quote:

So there will be more road cops or they will work double shifts and pull people over twice double rate?

I don't know. That's up to the state's budget committees, or whoever decides these things, but from what I can see from outside, cops right now are not exactly pulling people over full time. It seems that keeping the number of cops the same they could easily double the number of people they pull over without any overtime by simply removing/relaxing various obsolete restrictions, like probable cause etc.

Quote:

They just get an easier (and preferably less severe) charge to slap you with when you are caught talking on a phone in a situation where you shouldn't.

Where does the last part of this sentence come from? Who says it will happen only "in a situation where I should not"? Wishful thinking?
I got fined for $90 in NYC for a 1-minute call on the cell phone while stopped on red light.
I was not sure which of three houses in front of me was the one I need, so, while stopped at red light, I called my friend that I was coming to visit and asked, he told me which house was his, and hang up. A cop sitting in the car behind me pulled me over after the light went green and fined me $90 for using a cell phone.
This is how it really is going to be. Face it, municipal cops are in desperate need of an additional stream of income. If you get pulled over for a sobriety check, and a cop catches a glance of a phone in your pocket, rest assured, you will be fined for it if only there is that "law on the books" you want so badly.

Quote:

Well, you asked if I'd mind paying the fine, and I wouldn't if I broke the law.

No, I asked if you awere actually planning on breaking this particular law should it be enacted.

Quote:

Neither can be done with any degree of informative value.

So, you retract your statement that driving is a high risk activity then?
I mean, perhaps, "driving in general" is, but nothing can be said about driving of my particular car on the particular routes where I drive it "with any degree of informative value" ... or about any other particular car or a particular driver. Right?

Quote: SanchoPanza

I'm tried of paying high insurance and medical rates for people who think that their business is so damned self-important that they can't wait 30 seconds or 2 minutes to pull over at safe spot and conduct it.

Oh, come on! How soon do you expect your insurance and medical rates to drop after cell phones are banned?
Where do you think insurance rates are higher - in NY (no hand held cell phone while driving), MA (cell phone use allowed,if you are over 18, but no texting) or NH (no restrictions)?
Also, a few years ago, while cell phones were still allowed while driving in NY, do you think insurance rates there were higher or lower than now?

Insurance rates are driven through many factors. For automobiles, they look at the car you're driving (make, model, and age, odometer reading), gender, age, driving record, and your driving habits. They can't tell whether you are making calls or not. What they know is the accident rates for a car class. And of course, competition drives down rates as well as efficiency in service. So, if a cell phone ban does indeed reduce accidents by 20%, then there would be a corresponding drop in rates (of course not by 20%, but something to remain competitive).

However, a cell phone ban doesn't mean compliance, at all. I'm a reasonable driver and I use my phone when driving, from time to time, despite the ban. And despite the ban here, I see all kinds of drivers using their hand held devices.

Quote: boymimbo

I So, if a cell phone ban does indeed reduce accidents by 20%, then there would be a corresponding drop in rates (of course not by 20%, but something to remain competitive).

Do you have any data to support that statement beyond "common sense"?
The rates in NY went up after cell phones were banned. They are also higher than rates in states that do not restrict cell phone use. There is actually a negative correlation. I am not arguing that cell phone ban actually causes insurance to go up, I am saying that there is no data I know of that would support the opposite conclusion even just as a mere correlation, let alone actual causation.

BTW, does any one have any data from a reliable source demonstrating the danger of cell phone use in general? I tried googling the statistics, and, given how hot this topic has been lately, expected a whole bunch of various links ... But only found one pretty old AAA study, that says:

Quote: AAA

Research has shown that use of cellular phones does not interfere significantly with the ability to control an automobile except among the elderly, where potentially dangerous lane excursions can occur.

All other sources I looked at, all say that (1) cell phone use effect on accident rate is actually "unclear", and (2) hand held cell phone bans do not reduce accident rates. ( I did see some statements here and there like "we all know", or "studies indicate" etc... but not a single reference to an actual source).

Quote: weaselman

Besides, I have no problem dropping the phone on my lap should I suddenly need the other hand for something important. It is a much easier decision, than when your hand is occupied with something like hot coffee ... that nobody is talking about banning from cars for some reason.

Hot coffee will get you fined for distracted driving if you're caught, same way as a phone did.

Quote: weaselman

Source? And btw, does "other electronic devices" include radios, GPS units, back seat TV sets, kid's laptop computers, mp3 players, ipods, shavers, epilators?

Mostly just phones. As for relative rate: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=131136308495017900

Quote: weaselman

No, I asked if you were actually planning on breaking this particular law should it be enacted.

No, I'm not. And not waiting for it to be enacted either.

Quote: weaselman

So, you retract your statement that driving is a high risk activity then?
I mean, perhaps, "driving in general" is, but nothing can be said about driving of my particular car on the particular routes where I drive it "with any degree of informative value" ...

I suppose it could better be described as "elevated risk activity", if that sits better with you.

Quote: weaselman

BTW, does any one have any data from a reliable source demonstrating the danger of cell phone use in general?

Really?
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4006.pdf
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4305.pdf
In other news: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3808.pdf - New Yorkers don't give a crap about the ban and keep using cell phones - that's why the rates don't drop.
http://www.iihs.org/research/advisories/iihs_advisory_21.pdf
In some states people do respond however.

Habits change slowly. And currently cell phone use rates are going up, not down, including in cars. Bans will not reverse that, but they can at least slow down the increase. Before half the driving populace is typing on facebook while googling pron and chatting on skype, since what's legal can't be a bad idea.

Quote: P90

Hot coffee will get you fined for distracted driving if you're caught, same way as a phone did.

If you are caught drinking coffee in the car? No way.
Source?
Do you know of any state that has a law forbidding consuming hot drinks while driving?

Quote:

Mostly just phones. As for relative rate: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=131136308495017900

You are kidding me, right? Talking on cell phone is illegal in Oregon, so they set up a "check point" and fine everybody they could see with a phone in the car. That is exactly what I was talking about - the "witch hunt", that you said would not happen.
What "relative rates"?
They fined another nine drivers for "other moving violations", and one guy for DUI. How are you using this to conclude that cell phone is the largest distraction? For sure, it is the largest source of income for the Oregon police (in that particular ambush), but that's not the same. If anything, this statistics actually confirms that using a cell phone is safe, because the majority of drivers who used it did not commit any other violations.
They could as well fine everybody for missing first aid kits in their cars, and then you'd claim that not having a first aid kit is the greatest distraction of all based on that data.

Quote:

I suppose it could better be described as "elevated risk activity", if that sits better with you.

It does not.
And that is beyond the point. We were talking about your statement concerning general applicability of statistics.
You said in effect, that even if there was a study, showing that using phones was deadly, it would have no utility value because, as you are claiming it would be impossible to deduce the riskiness of it in a particular situation.

Quote:

Really?
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4006.pdf

Yeah, really.
This is not it (I know there is plenty of this stuff on internet, unfortunately, as well as in actual physical people's mailboxes). I asked for an actual study, describing the methodology (and ideally, the raw results as well) of data collection and analysis, not for a junk mail flier with scary graphic pictures and vague references to some "data" and "common sense".
Like my AAA link above.

Quote:

In other news: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3808.pdf - New Yorkers don't give a crap about the ban and keep using cell phones - that's why the rates don't drop.

Actually, the link I quoted before, explicitly said that the rates of cell phone use did drop.

Quote: Article

http://www.iihs.org/research/advisories/iihs_advisory_21.pdf
The study involved 5,980 Canadian drivers who had been in collisions ... Overall 170 drivers have used cellular phones 10 minutes before crash

Huh? Really? This is the "data" you are talking about??? And this means that cell phone use increases risk of accidents?
How in the world does one draw this conclusion:?

Quote:

In some states people do respond however.

They do? Where? Source?

It goes against the all of the info I was able to find. For example:

Quote: Article

Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association acknowledges that there is no evidence proving that state bans reduce crashes.

"People in the safety community have been able to show that enforcing the ban has reduced the number of people actually using the phone while they drive," he says. "But we haven't been able to show that that actually reduces accident or crash rates."

Quote:

And currently cell phone use rates are going up, not down, including in cars. Bans will not reverse that,

Source? The data I have seen (and presented to you) so far supports the opposite conclusion, regarding bans reversing cell phone trends.


As for the trend itself, Russ Rader from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says:

Quote: Russ Rader

The curious thing is that even as cellphone use has increased exponentially by drivers in vehicles, we see no surge in crashes.
So as this trend has accelerated, with more and more people having phones in their cars and using them, the number of overall crashes has been declining.

"Curious thing", huh? Go figure ...

Quote: weaselman

If you are caught drinking coffee in the car? No way.

Yes, people got distracted driving for snacking in their car. You can google it up.

Quote: weaselman

This is not it (I know there is plenty of this stuff on internet, unfortunately, as well as in actual physical people's mailboxes).

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is not a junk mail center, it's a serious, commercial research organization. There is valid information in the links provided.

Quote: weaselman

Like my AAA link above.

The conclusions of which are a polar opposite of what you summarized the studies as, and in fact are completely in line with IIHS conclusions. There is nothing inconclusive or unclear there: cell phones in all forms significantly distract drivers, and the effect is not alleviated by being an older driver or an experienced cell phone user.

Quote:

Relative increase in chances of a highway-traffic situation going unnoticed ranged from approximately 20% for placing a call in simple conversations to 29% for complex conversations.

Quote:

All of the potentially distracting conditions yielded some degree of distraction, that is, they produced reaction times and non-responses that were different from the no distraction condition. The overall level of distraction was highly significant for both non-responses (F = 36.07; DF = 1,136; P<.01) and for response time (F = 286.75; DF = 1,136; P<.01) and under all four potential distractors (P = <.01). Overall, the various distractions increased the length of time needed to respond to highway traffic conditions by from .4 to .9 seconds, and the proportion of situations missed entirely from .06 to .09. "

Quote:

"Turning to the time it took to respond, we see that placing a telephone call rose from one of the least distracting to one of the most distracting conditions. The differences across distractions are statistically significant (F=4.37;DF=3,134 ;P<.l0). Considering that those who failed to respond are included within the response times, it is clear that it is the delay in responding among those who actually responded that account for the difference in outcomes. What the results seem to say is that the act of placing a cellular phone call may be no more distracting than carrying on a casual conversation in so far as noticing highway traffic conditions is a concern. However, it does seem to extend somewhat the delay in responding. When a non-urgent situation arose while a call was being placed, many subjects delayed responding until they had completed the call. But they did respond, indicating that the situation had not gone unnoticed. "

Quote:

Conclusions
From the results of the study that has been described in this report, the following conclusions may be offered.
1. All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant increases in the establishment of non-response to highway-traffic situations and increase in time to respond.
...
4. Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no relation to the distracting effect of cellular phone use.

I'm not even sure how should I respond to the action of presenting a study and claiming it says one thing, cherry-picking an introductory statement, when in reality it says the exact opposite. I'll assume the best-case scenario of not reading it fully before citing as anything else just wouldn't be worth it.
The discussion isn't that interesting to me, since we are not in Congress, and there is nothing more to add to the quotes above. So I rest.

Here is an abundant source of data that seems quite evenhanded. Anyone can follow the Wikipedia footnotes:

"As a percentage of distraction-related accidents

In September of 2010, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a report on distracted driving fatalities for 2009. The NHTSA considers distracted driving to include some of the following as distractions: other occupants in the car, eating, drinking, smoking, adjusting radio, adjusting environmental control, reaching for object in car, and cell phone use. In 2009 in the U.S. there was a reported 5,474 people killed by distracted drivers. Of those 995 were considered to be killed by drivers distracted by cell phones. The report doesn't state whether this under or over represents the level of cell phone use amongst drivers, and whether there is a causal relationship.[5]

A 2003 study of U.S. crash data states that driver inattention is estimated to be a factor in between 20 to 50 percent of all police-reported crashes. Driver distraction, a sub-category of inattention, has been estimated to be a contributing factor in 8 to 13 percent of all crashes. Of distraction-related accidents, cell phone use may range from 1.5 to 5 percent of contributing factors.[6] However, large percentages of unknowns in each of those categories may cause inaccuracies in these estimations. A 2001 study sponsored by The American Automobile Association recorded "Unknown Driver Attention Status" for 41.5 percent of crashes, and "Unknown Distraction" in 8.6 percent of all distraction related accidents.[7] According to NHTSA, "There is clearly inadequate reporting of crashes".[8]

Currently, "Outside person, object, event" (commonly known as rubbernecking) is the most reported cause of distraction-related accidents, followed by "Adjusting radio/cassette/CD". "Using/dialing cell phone" is eighth.


A 2003 study by the U.S. University of Utah psychology department measured response time, following distance, and driving speed of a control group, subjects at the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit of 0.08%, and subjects involved in cell phone conversations. Data from the report are listed to the right.

As the study notes; "... this is the third in a series of studies that we have conducted evaluating the effects of cell phone use on driving using the car following procedure (see also Strayer & Drews, 2004; and Strayer et al., 2003). Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. When results of this study are taken at face value it suggests that it is actually safer to drive drunk than sober. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.[9]
[edit] Meta-analyses

A 2005 review by the Hawaiian legislature entitled "Cell Phone Use and Motor Vehicle Collisions: A Review of the Studies" contains an analysis of studies on cell phone/motor vehicle accident causality. A key finding was that: "No studies were found that directly address and resolve the issue of whether a causal relation exists between cellular telephone use while operating a motor vehicle and motor vehicle collisions."[10]

Meta-analysis by the Canadian Automobile Association[11] and the University of Illinois[12] found that response time while using both hands-free and hand-held phones was approximately 0.5 standard deviations higher than normal driving (i.e., an average driver, while talking on a cell phone, has response times of a driver in roughly the 40th percentile).
[edit] Arguments from increase in mobile subscription

In the US, the number of cell phone subscribers has increased by 1,262.4% between the years 1985-2008. In approximately the same period the number of crashes has fallen by 0.9% (1995–2009) and the number of fatal crashes fallen by 6.2%.[13][14][15] It has been argued that these statistics contradict the claims that mobile use impairs driving performance.[16] Similarly, a 2010 study from the Highway Loss Data Institute published in February 2010 reviewed auto claims from three key states along with Washington D.C. prior to cell phone bans while driving and then after. The study found no reduction in crashes, despite a 41% to 76% reduction in the use of cell phones while driving after the ban was enacted. [17][18]
[edit] Handsfree device
Hands-free car kit

Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[19][20] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[9] and meta-analysis[11][12]. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[21][22][23] For example, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that merely listening to somebody speak on a phone caused a 37% drop in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are managed.[24]

The consistency of increased crash risk between hands-free and hand held cell phone use is at odds with legislation in many locations that prohibits hand held cell phone use but allows hands-free. Nevertheless, dialing a cell phone is more distracting than talking on a cell phone,[25] and hands-free devices that offer voice-dialing may reduce or eliminate that increased risk.
[edit] Comparisons with passenger conversation

The scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a cell phone versus those of talking with a passenger. The common conception is that passengers are able to better regulate conversation based on the perceived level of danger, therefore the risk is negligible. A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening. Measurement of attention levels showed that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening.[26] The Accident Research Unit at the University of Nottingham found that the number of utterances was usually higher for mobile calls when compared to blindfolded and non-blindfolded passengers across various driving conditions. The number of questions asked averaged slightly higher for mobile phone conversations, although results were not constant across road types and largely influenced by a large number of questions on the urban roads.[27]

A 2004 University of Utah simulation study that compared passenger and cell-phone conversations concluded that the driver performs better when conversing with a passenger because the traffic and driving task become part of the conversation. Drivers holding conversations on cell phones were four times more likely to miss the highway exit than those with passengers, and drivers conversing with passengers showed no statistically significant difference from lone drivers in the simulator.[28] A study led by Andrew Parkes at the Transport Research Laboratory, also with a driving simulator, concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than other common in-vehicle distractions such as passenger conversations.[29] However, some have criticized the use of simulation studies to measure the risk of cell-phone use while driving since the studies may be impacted by the Hawthorne effect.[30]

In contrast, the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone ones.[12] AAA ranks passengers as the third most reported cause of distraction-related accidents at 11 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for cellular telephones.[7] A simulation study funded by the American Transportation Research Board concluded that driving events that require urgent responses may be influenced by in-vehicle conversations, and that there is little practical evidence that passengers adjusted their conversations to changes in the traffic. It concluded that drivers' training should address the hazards of both mobile phone and passenger conversations.[31]
[edit] Texting
Main article: Texting while driving

The scientific literature on the dangers of driving while sending a text message from a mobile phone, or texting while driving, is limited. A simulation study at the Monash University Accident Research Centre has provided strong evidence that both retrieving and, in particular, sending text messages has a detrimental effect on a number of critical driving tasks. Specifically, negative effects were seen in detecting and responding correctly to road signs, detecting hazards, time spent with eyes off the road, and (only for sending text messages) lateral position. Surprisingly, mean speed, speed variability, lateral position when receiving text messages, and following distance showed no difference.[32] A separate, yet unreleased simulation study at the University of Utah found a sixfold increase in distraction-related accidents when texting.[33]

The low number of scientific studies may be indicative of a general assumption that if talking on a mobile phone increases risk, then texting also increases risk, and probably more so. Market research by Pinger, a company selling a voice-based alternative to texting reported that 89% of U.S. adults think that text messaging while driving is "distracting, dangerous and should be outlawed."[34] The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has released polling data that show that 87% of people consider texting and e-mailing while driving a "very serious" safety threat, almost equivalent to the 90% of those polled who consider drunk driving a threat. Despite the acknowledgement of the dangers of texting behind the wheel, about half of drivers 16 to 24 say they have texted while driving, compared with 22 percent of drivers 35 to 44.[35]

Texting while driving received greater attention in the late 2000s, corresponding to a rise in the number of text messages being sent. Over a year approximately 2,000 teens die from texting while driving.[35] The 2008 Will Smith movie Seven Pounds deals with Smith's character committing suicide in order to donate his organs to help save the lives of seven people to make up for the seven people he killed in a car accident because he was receiving a text message while he was driving. Texting while driving attracted interest in the media after several highly publicized car crashes were caused by texting drivers, including a May 2009 incident involving a Boston trolley car driver who crashed while texting his girlfriend.[36] Texting was blamed in the 2008 Chatsworth train collision which killed 25 passengers. Investigations revealed that the engineer of that train had sent 45 text messages while operating.

On July 27, 2009, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute released preliminary findings of their study of driver distraction in commercial vehicles. Two studies, comprising about 200 long-haul trucks driving 3 million combined miles, used video cameras to observe the drivers and road; researchers observed "4,452 safety-critical events, which includes crashes, near crashes, crash-relevant conflicts, and unintended lane deviations." 81% of the safety critical events had some type of driver distraction. Text messaging had the greatest relative risk, with drivers being 23 times more likely to experience a safety-critical event when texting. The study also found that drivers typically take their eyes off the forward roadway for an average of four out of six seconds when texting, and an average of 4.6 out of the six seconds surrounding safety-critical events.[35]--wikipedia

You did not have to paste the whole Wikipedia page. A simple "no, I have not heard of any credible studies supporting that point either" would be sufficient :)

Quote: P90

Yes, people got distracted driving for snacking in their car. You can google it up.

I know they are. I was asking what makes you think that you could get fined for drinking coffee in the car.

Quote:

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is not a junk mail center, it's a serious, commercial research organization. There is valid information in the links provided.

Yes. I know it is not a junk mail center, it is actually the organization that published that statement about lack of correlation between cell phone use and accident rates. :)
But the documents links to which you provided are in fact junk mail posters.
I don't know whether "there is valid information" in them (that, probably, depends a lot on what information to consider "valid" to begin with). But they definitely do not contain information I was looking for (methodologies and data of particular studies establishing a causal link between cell phones and accidents), valid or otherwise.

Quote:

The conclusions of which are a polar opposite of what you summarized the studies as

I did not summarize it. I quoted the conclusion. How can it be opposite of itself?
I admit that I did not read the whole study (because it did not seem to be what I am looking for - supporting the hypothesis of cell phone danger), so I am not sure where your quotes are coming from. Mine is the very first sentence of the executive summary. Here it is again:

Quote: AAA

Research has shown that se of cellular phones does not interfere significantly with the ability to control an automobile except among the elderly, where potentially dangerous lane excursions can occur.

And he next sentence

Quote: AAA

However, the effect of cellular phones as a possible distraction has not been investigated.

Also, note that this study is more than twenty years old. I was looking for something fresher ... Like the links I quoted earlier, about the lack of correlation between cell phone use and accident rates.

Quote: weaselman

I did not summarize it. I quoted the conclusion. How can it be opposite of itself?
I admit that I did not read the whole study (because it did not seem to be what I am looking for - supporting the hypothesis of cell phone danger), so I am not sure where your quotes are coming from.

Quote: weaselman

" However, the effect of cellular phones as a possible distraction has not been investigated."

- which is why the study set out to investigate it, rather than driving ability loss itself, and concluded that the distraction effect is highly significant.

All the quotes come from there (http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone).

The fact is, every study related to cell phone use while driving that did arrive at conclusions found significant danger increase. That you think you are just as capable, just as attentive and just as quick to react while talking on a cell phone may indicate either being exceptionally good at multitasking, or the same overconfidence that seems to be bundled with every car. When assessed scientifically, drivers involved in studies demonstrate, time after time, significant degradation in factors that affect accident prevention performance.

Quote: P90

The fact is, every study related to cell phone use while driving that did arrive at conclusions found significant danger increase.

What are you talking about? "Every study"?
So, finding a lack of correlation between cell phone use and accident rate is "not arriving to conclusions" in your book?
Would you say it is ever possible to arrive to a negative conclusion? Because if not, then your statement about "every study that did arrive to conclusion..." is trivial.

Quote: weaselman

You did not have to paste the whole Wikipedia page. A simple "no, I have not heard of any credible studies supporting that point either" would be sufficient :)

In view of the inability or unwillingness here to examine studies on the question, it is notable that even after a fairly even-handed review has been posted, the twisting of conclusions persists. For example, here is one relevant passage that was apparently too difficult to digest:

"The Accident Research Unit at the University of Nottingham found that the number of utterances was usually higher for mobile calls when compared to blindfolded and non-blindfolded passengers across various driving conditions. The number of questions asked averaged slightly higher for mobile phone conversations, although results were not constant across road types and largely influenced by a large number of questions on the urban roads.[27]

A 2004 University of Utah simulation study that compared passenger and cell-phone conversations concluded that the driver performs better when conversing with a passenger because the traffic and driving task become part of the conversation. Drivers holding conversations on cell phones were four times more likely to miss the highway exit than those with passengers, and drivers conversing with passengers showed no statistically significant difference from lone drivers in the simulator.[28] A study led by Andrew Parkes at the Transport Research Laboratory, also with a driving simulator, concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than other common in-vehicle distractions such as passenger conversations.[29]"

The AAA is not exactly an unbiased company. Their interest is in drivers and most particularly driver freedom.

Studies or no, it should be obvious that texting is a driver distraction. Talking on a cell phone I believe can be distracting to some while not so much to others. It's distracting to some because they don't do it all of the time and it's an extraordinary activity beyond their normal driving activities. As well, because the voice is difficult to hear (over a conversation with someone next to you), more attention is diverted to understanding the conversation. The University of Utah study illustrates that. These are obvious distractions that will raise the accident rate over time.

How many times have I driven behind someone driving slow in the fast lane because they are talking on a cell phone? Cell phone bans raise compliance, and when the ban here in Ontario came into force, I still saw people driving in the fast lane slowly who were on their phone (phone is at their ear) but not as much. The same was true in New York State before and after the ban.

Personally, I'm of the belief that practice makes perfect. Give everyone a hands free device with their phone and tell them to use it in the car and over time, people will get better at it. I don't mind truckers on their CBs as they use them all of the time and the use of the CB is natural, just like the steering wheel or the radio.

It really is common sense.

Quote: boymimbo

Studies or no, it should be obvious that texting is a driver distraction.

Texting - yes. I believe, one has to be stupid to do that.

I am talking about talking on the phone while driving. And actually am not disputing that it is distracting too. I am just saying that it is as distracting if not less as it is to drink coffee, listen to a radio, or kids arguing in the back sit, use a GPS unit or argue with wife.

More over, to my earlier point, not all distractions are actually fatal. Like I said earlier, driving a modern passenger car on a US public road is a very easy task. While it does require a somewhat heightened alert and attentiveness, it is obvious that there are degrees to that. One can afford diverting some of his attention to a conversation without putting his (or anyone else's) life at risk.

The evident lack of correlation between cell phone use and accident rates, that has been pointed out by many different sources and never disputed, is objective evidence in support of that point.

Quote: SanchoPanza

A 2004 University of Utah simulation study that compared passenger and cell-phone conversations concluded that the driver performs better when conversing with a passenger because the traffic and driving task become part of the conversation.

Two things.
First, I was looking for the description of the study itself, not a mere mention of its conclusions.

More importantly, the studies I am looking for should establish the link between use of cell phone while driving, and increased risk of an accident compared to "cell phone free" driver, not some artificial measure like "driver performance" etc.

While "common sense" tells us that the better "driver performance" the lower risk of accident, statistics seems to disagree in this case - as it has been pointed out earlier:
* Cell phone use has been growing exponentially over the last couple of decaded, but the accident rate did actually went down during the same period.
* States that have explicitly banned cell phone use while driving have seen a significant drop in cell phone use, but none at all decrease in accident rates.

As far as I can see, until these two facts are explained or refuted, it is pointless to keep talking about how "distracting" cell phones may be. Apparently, if they are distracting, one just has to conclude that not all distractions are dangerous, that's all.

Weasel,

I think it's the nature of the act that makes it distracting. And distractions are what causes accidents. If you're unfamiliar with your phone and the numbers are small, and you're dialing (not from a contact list), that is very distracting. Holding the phone to your ear trying to listen to a conversation when you can't hear the other end well is also quite distracting, because all of your attention is diverted to trying to hear the conversation.

When I'm driving, if I put the iphone through the speakers of the phone and I make a call, it's no more distracting than a conversation, naturally. I can hear the voice crisply and it's like I'm talking to the person next to me. If however, i'm putting the phone up to the ear, more of my attention is focussed on the conversation, and my speed drops and my attention span drops. It's because talking on a cell phone in the car is a rare occurrence and is infrequent enough to be learned everytime. If I am talking on a cell phone in the car, I'm going along a straightaway road at a speed with no impediments. I just won't use a cell phone in urban areas or when the traffic busy. I won't eat or drink coffee either in those situations. Those things can wait. But i'm old enough to have that sense of judgement.

On the other hand, a seasoned business traveller with a bluetooth is probably fine. S/he is probably used to talking in the car all of the time and is likely less a danger.

The age of the driver and their experience makes a difference. An inexperienced driver needs to pay attention to the road, not to the conversation. In many jurisdictions, there are graduated driving that limit privileges such as the time of day, number of passengers in the car, speed limit, and zero alcohol tolerance.

Quote: boymimbo

Weasel,
I think it's the nature of the act that makes it distracting. And distractions are what causes accidents.

Right, that's "common sense". But common sense is only "usually" correct, sometimes it fails you. When observed facts disagree with the common sense, that's an indication of such a situation, and it just means that the common sense perception needs to be adjusted, not that the facts should be ignored.

In this case, the common sense tells us that cell phones are distracting, distractions cause accidents, therefore cell phones cause accident. But the facts disagree. There is no correlation between cell phone use and accidents. That means that there must be something wrong either with the "common sense" or with the way we apply it to the situation at hand.

Perhaps, not all all distractions really cause accidents? Perhaps, driving the car is a kind of activity that does not require all of the driver's attention in its entirety, perhaps, there is some excess of this resource that can be used for multitasking?

It is one possible explanation. There may be others. But either way, I don't think it makes any sense to continue talking about how distracting cell phones are. The goal should not be preventing any and all distractions while driving. The goal should be preventing accidents. If a particular kind of distraction is not causing accidents according to observed facts, it does not make any sense to waste time and resources on preventing it for the sake of "common sense".

Quote: weaselman

First, I was looking for the description of the study itself, not a mere mention of its conclusions.

It is on page 2 of this journal article. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting

Quote:

More importantly, the studies I am looking for should establish the link between use of cell phone while driving, and increased risk of an accident compared to "cell phone free" driver, not some artificial measure like "driver performance" etc.

The listed and footnoted studies that do that include the work by Hawaiian Legislature, the Canadian Automobile Association and the University of Illinois.

On the way to the casino yestersay, I was paying attention
to the dynamics of the conversation we had on the way. I
realized I was not straining in the least to hear what my wife
was saying. I was listening with both ears and her voice filled
the car. On a cell phone, I'm always straining to catch
all the words. The voice is tinny and far away, and I'm only
listening with one ear. It takes far more of my concentration.

Quote: EvenBob

On a cell phone, I'm always straining to catch
all the words.

Get a better phone. Or a better car, that offers integration of cell phone with the stereo system via bluetooth. Or just an aux cable.
I am listening to Pandora and shoutcast radio in my car all the time via my phone. No strain on ears whatsoever.

Quote: weaselman

Get a better phone.

I'm sure you have it all figured out. Its not laws
that we need, its the phones fault. Just get better
phones and nobody will be distracted. Thats the
ticket..

Quote: EvenBob

I'm sure you have it all figured out. Its not laws
that we need, its the phones fault. Just get better
phones and nobody will be distracted. Thats the
ticket..

Absolutely. I suspect you are trying to be sarcastic, but this is actually right.
Try listening to an mp3 player in your car through head phones and not be distracted. It's not illegal, just stupid. Get an integration kit, and plug it into your stereo system - much better.
Same thing with phones. If you don't like listening with one ear, fix it. No, you don't need laws for that. Just brains :)

And it's actually not like "get better phones and nobody will get distracted" at all. First, "better phones" are being sold, and even given away for free everywhere you care to look. And second, don't speak for everyone. Most people I know, including myself, don't feel strained at all talking on the phone, and listening with one ear. It's not really "phone's fault" any more than your ear's :)

Wow, such an easy fix, no more distracted drivers.
If only you could convince all the state legislaters
and gov't, I'm sure such an obvious answer has
never occurred to them. (snicker)

Quote: EvenBob

Wow, such an easy fix, no more distracted drivers.
If only you could convince all the state legislaters
and gov't, I'm sure such an obvious answer has
never occurred to them. (snicker)

Looks like you are trying to be sarcastic again?
I am guessing you have a lot of confidence in all those legislators, and don't know about any other stupid law ever coming out of them, so you find a suggestion that they have done something less than perfectly so hilarious?

In fact, it (the cell phone laws they are making) is even more stupid than you think. Look at my earlier posts in this thread. There is no correlation between cell phone use and car accidents. They are fighting distracted driving, while the real goal should be to fight car accidents. Go snicker ... emm ... figure :)

Quote: weaselman

There is no correlation between cell phone use and car accidents.

I've witnessed it for the last 10 years. Countless times seeing
people mess up in traffic because they're on the phone. We had
2 teens rear end a bus here because the 16 year old driver was
on his phone. But I'm sure its just another urban myth, talking
on the phone while driving actually makes you a better driver,
the truth will come out eventually.