CA to ban most popular form of entertainment in cars

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 16 2006, 09:58 AM) [snapback]320491[/snapback]</div>

Actually cell phones are the only "documented" non-human distraction that can be accurately quantified. Because many people simply do not like the concept of cell phones the results of their effects on driving have been quantified more than other driver distractions such as cd players, ipods, coffee cups, dogs, cb-radios, climate controls...

Anything that takes the drivers concentration away from the act of driving is raising the level of risk. I suppose police talking on their radios are safer than cell phones? Truckers have been communicating using CBs for decades yet they have a better safety record in general than do general drivers.

The problem is at the core, the inability of a driver to determine when it is a reasonable risk to use a device, any device, while in a moving vehicle. Banning cell phones specifically is one more waste of legal and taxpayer resources so politicians can look like they are doing something.

If we truly want to make the roads safer we would have a continuing education system in place for all drivers that would be self supporting. We could make the roads safer, have less accidents, perhaps even lower our insurance rates, and remove the need for these rediculous product spefici legislation that politicians seem to favor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 16 2006, 08:58 AM) [snapback]320491[/snapback]</div>

I totally agree. They are so ubiquitous in society that practically everone has one.

And yes, as Tony said, Chicago has a cell phone law already on its books. That it's not well-enforced doesn't mean it's not a valuable law. It has been my personal experience that people with cell phones glued to their ears tend to be less attentive to their driving & surroundings.

It's worthy of mention in this Prius group that driving a Prius presents its own distractions, especially to the new owner like myself. Not that it's much, but I had never spent some much "driving" time looking away from the road as since I began driving this new car. And I don't even have a DVD or BT system to fiddle with.

We certainly can't legislate away every potential distraction, no more than we can legislate away "spiders" (c.f. Koa), but we can try our best to create the safest driving experience for everyone.

 

I'm not a fan of more laws restricting personal freedom, but the stats are starting to mount on this one. At some point, the evidence gets piled up high enough that the problem of yet another infringement on personal freedom is offset by public safety concerns. Unlike helmuts for bikers or seat belt laws, the proponents of this one are claiming that people using cell phones are running into innocent, non-cell phone talkers.

I'd like to see if there are any less accidents per mile driven in the states that have banned cell phones over the ones that have not. Not accidents involving cell phones, but less accidents overall. It might help differentiate between the stupid drivers who you expect to be distracted ("Look! Cows!"), and the people specifically distracted by talking on the cell phone.

I actually don't think its TALKING on a cell phone that gets men in trouble ... its trying to dial the darn thing. What's that number? Look down, find the keypad, look up at the road, let's see ... 1, 215 ... look up, swerve, look down ... 555 ... look up, all OK, look down ... 1212. I had a phone that used "voice commands for dialing". Right. You went through a complicated programming routine to record a voice command ... "Call Home!" ... but when you went in the car, the background noise changed what the phone "heard". Holding the phone, I said "Call Home!" and the phone responded "Calling the police!". Hit stop and try again, "Call Home!" and the phone said "Calling Mom!". I only receive calls on the thing now.

Women seem to get more involved in cell phone conversations, so perhaps its different for them. I wonder if there is a gender difference in the car phone accident stats? My cell phone conversations, heard from my side only, go something like this: "Yes. OK. How much? No, I don't think so. Oh, OK. Sure. No, its OK. Love you. Bye." That's in about a 4 minute call. I'm too zoned in on driving to actually TALK to someone.

If we're passing laws because certain things irritate us, I have a number of possibilities for cell phone use, but they all fall into the "incredibly rude things that people do" category. I just hope that they never approve cell phone use in airplanes, as I think I would go crazy with a "chatty Kathy" next to me on a 6 hour flight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 16 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]320541[/snapback]</div>

Only because stats are not taken on the hundreds of other forms of distractions in cars. Have they measured the safety of Prius drivers watching their MFD as they try and pulse and glide for example? That has to be real safe. No, they havn't. How would they measure the hundreds of other things people do, turning into the back seat to tell the kids to keep quiet, and so on??? Cell Phones are simply thbe most obvious, easy ones to measure.

It's a total waste of taxpayer money and time for lawmakes to spend so much time on such an obvious item. Laws already prevent unsafe driving! It's a way to justify their existence (lawmakers).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Steve F @ Sep 16 2006, 04:14 PM) [snapback]320577[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. that was the point I was trying to make as a basis for creating a plan to actually create safer driving as opposed to simply banning distractions.

 

I applaud a ban on the use of cell phones while driving. I've seen tons of dangerous stupidity masquerading as driving where the root cause was an idiot holding a cell phone to their ear. Heck, even hands-free devices divert the drivers' attention, as does the radio, but a cell phone in a driver's hand has become a deadly weapon of late.

The question is whether a ban will actually solve anything. Innate stupidity does its best to express itself.

Godfrey

 

Some people can drive with thier "subconcious" better than others.. but since you can't be selective over he gets to and who does'nt.. I think the ban is good.

I"ve seem people sit at green lights, turn into traffic etc etc etc.

I admit I have gotten done with a conversation and wondered how I got so far down the road and wondered how safe I had been driving because It was like I wasn't there "I wasn't".

If I remember right, Folks who drive drunk at the non legal limit do better than those with cell phones.

 

Drivers who can't talk and drive at the same time should be banned. Don't punish those of us who can do it safely.

I'd like to see a study of how many accidents are caused by people PULLING OVER to the side of the road so they can (legally) talk on their cell phones. I'm guessing that it's more dangerous.

Also, a Virginia State Patrol study found cell phone use was the 6th highest cause of distracted driving. Rubbernecking was #1 (16%) followed by driver fatigue (12%); looking at scenery (10%); children (9%); adjusting radio/CD (7%) and cell phone use (5%).

"Pilot Study of Distracted Drivers" Transportation and Safety Training Center, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Let's get nice scenery banned, and make it illegal to look at an accident as you drive by. That should help.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 17 2006, 04:04 PM) [snapback]320911[/snapback]</div>

It is normal to drive for some distance and not remember "getting there" because what you did was second-nature.
People often drive through intersections and later think back, not remembering the color of the light or even going through it. That's because they are so accustomed to driving safely and legally through an intersection, that unless there is something UNUSUAL about the event, it is not worth remembering. It is not a sign of bad driving, bad memory, or a mental disorder.

This is only my opinion, but I think I can defend it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kryten @ Sep 20 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]322487[/snapback]</div>

I get pretty amused by the folks who, like the children in Lake Wobegon, "are all above average."

Defend this:

Do we have a section of the driver's test dedicated to testing the ability of talking and driving? Lots of posts on PriusChat are written by people who seem never to have had an accident attributable to distraction. The first thing everybody tries to do is disable every warning device on the car because "I don't need such junk. I'm a faultless driver." Even though the Prius is different than any car they had driven before.

I was an airline captain. I'd like to inform you that most of us could walk and chew gum at the same time. We knew our airplanes inside and out and had done the job for years without harm. We were seasoned pros.

Yet we were absolutely forbidden, by law, to carry on any non-required communication below 10,000 feet where the dangers of distraction multiply. Nobody would dream of starting a discussion about where we would go for dinner that evening in a sky so full of potential hazards.

But, although the collisions are heard farther when they happen in the air, there are a lot more people and things to hit while wandering around deep in discussion on the local streets. I can pretty accurately predict, when I see a car ahead of me driving loosely, that, when I pass him/her, there will be a hand stuck to the ear. Am I alone in being able to see this?