NHTSA Suppressed Report Calling for Total Ban on All Phone Use While Driving

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Even hands-free is very unsafe. The study showed that even hands-free drivers had similar tendancies to a drunk driver. It's not your hands being occupied that's the issue. It's the fact that you aren't focused on your surroundings while talking with someone on the phone.

I'd expect a full ban of cell phones while driving in the very near future in most states, if not all.

I guess we need to ban allowing the driver to talk to anyone in the car then?

Driving poorly is driving poorly. That itself should be cause for ticketing, we don't need more "laws for dummies" on the books (see seatbelt law). There are people who can drive just fine while on a phone. I have not ever had an issue with hands free, the conversation is secondary to driving. I usually have more of a problem with the conversation and missing parts of it because of that. If it's going to be a conersation which requires a lot of attention I make that call when I am not driving.

Now texting, that I agree 100000000% with but what amazes me even more is that people actually think that this is a good idea. If it wasn't for the fact that innocent people also get hurt because of this I would gnerally be in favor of it due to Darwinism at work.

Hell, I was behind an idiot the other morning that was all over the road. Then I notice he was reading the freaking newspaper. Please allow these people to be plucked from this planet.

The biggest problem anymore is that people are stupid. I know it's easy to be distracted by something unexpected but texting, reading, putting on makeup, emailing, looking at your laptop, etc... is just plain stupid.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by rowech

Hands free should be okay...cell phones banned.

My Thoughts.

+1 I mean

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I refrained from posting earlier because Logan's threadkill was just too perfect, but I don't understand why this automatically means we need to ban all cell phone use.Why is it so difficult to make case-by-case decisions? You saw 8 people swerving in and out of lanes - so cite those 8 people with reckless driving.

I made this point earlier: what the studies show is not so much the obvious reckless driving / weaving (although cell phone users do plenty of this), it's the fact that they do not spot dangers as quickly (such as traffic stopping ahead of them) that means they cannot react to danger nearly as quickly as those who aren't on the cell phone, meaning they can't get out of trouble nearly as well. Their accident risk goes way up even if they are driving in what appears to be a perfectly rational manner.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I made this point earlier: what the studies show is not so much the obvious reckless driving / weaving (although cell phone users do plenty of this), it's the fact that they do not spot dangers as quickly (such as traffic stopping ahead of them) that means they cannot react to danger nearly as quickly as those who aren't on the cell phone, meaning they can't get out of trouble nearly as well. Their accident risk goes way up even if they are driving in what appears to be a perfectly rational manner.

There are similar studies for driving while sleep deprived.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

There are similar studies for driving while sleep deprived.

Shit, don't restrict that, I'd never be able to drive again.

Wait, that actually doesn't sound bad to me at all, but it'd be highly impractical.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

There are similar studies for driving while sleep deprived.

Agreed, it's dangerous as well. Unfortunately you can't tell as you drive past someone if they are sleep deprived.

Basically a car is a lethal weapon but too many folks do not treat it as such.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Atocep

There's numerous studies that have shown that hands free devices do absolutely nothing for safety and talking on a cell phone impairs a driver in ways similar (and sometimes worse) than alcohol does.

You guys need to learn to take such studies with a grain of salt. They ALWAYS end up with the conclusions that the funding source wanted when the study started. That's how you end up with a reputation as a good researcher with the funding sources, i.e. set yourself up for more funding.

Research costs money. Money is mutually exclusive with unbiased research. There are no "independent studies"

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You're definitely not, and while I would never agree with the latter statement, the former has always intrigued me. I drive drunk all the time with my golf cart on our secluded island in Maine, and based off that and how many college acquaintances drove drunk habitually I'd love to see some simulator or closed course where people actually drove drunk and saw the results, either to shut them up or shut the other side up. (It's also my idea for a reality game show - if NBC is showing America's Worst Drivers, people wouldn't tune into Drunk Driving Olympics?)

EDIT - long post short, people jump all over drunk drivers, speeders and now cell phone users because it makes them more likely to drive recklessly, but yet we rarely enforce the actual laws on the books regarding reckless driving.

It's not like the government randomly decided one day that driving drunk was bad and then banned it. We know A LOT about the effect of alchohol on people on all kinds of situations, driving included. There's been a ton of closed course research on that. Part of the danger is that people (especially habitual drunks) don't believe that their driving is impaired. Alchoholics can be very functional at high BACs on the surface, but their reactions times are still hugely compromised. The fact that they can "feel" normal at .25 is exactly why they kill so many people.

It's kind of disturbing that you feel people "jump all over drunk drivers", and have doubts about whether alchohol impacts people's driving. That kind of sentiment will put you someone on the road after a night of drinking at the bar because they feel like they're fine. I'm sure Andrew Gallo and Josh Hancock thought he was fine to drive, and that he felt pretty much normal at .20. (Hancock of course is a triple-darwin award winner as he was texting while drunk and didn't have a seatbelt on). Hancock was a pretty harcore alchoholic and I'm sure felt perfectly competent to drive in his state.

Yes, officers should in general probably (and this varies a ton by state/county) enforce more regular "bad driving" (though the sentiment of most people, and seemingly this board, is that cops are assholes for not focussing on the "real crime"), but that can be tough to do because people send to be a little more vigilent of the road and their behavior when there's an officer in the area. Which of course, makes any enforcement of a cell phone ban far from easy, but at least then we have more accountability for cell phone drivers that kill people (phone records can tell us if someone on the phone at the time of a fatal accident, which can then automatically become a more serious criminal charge).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A lot of people voted Obama last year too and they're far more dangerous, far more irresponsible, and far more unjustifiable than anyone who uses their cell phone or drives with a blood alcohol level of .99 (which would be a helluva trick in it's own right). Maybe we can start with banning those & then move on to the infinitely less serious threats.

There's objective data supporting the latter contention, but not the former.

So neener.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Shit, don't restrict that, I'd never be able to drive again.

Was thinking the same thing. Basically no new parent should be allowed to drive.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Agreed, it's dangerous as well. Unfortunately you can't tell as you drive past someone if they are sleep deprived.

You can't drive past someone and KNOW they are on the phone either unless you see the phone itself up to their ear. In the split second you get to look (which as mentioned is a dangerous activity itself) you could see someone moving their mouth. They could be on the phone (handsfree or otherwise), could be singing along with the radio, cursing out the driver in front of them, talking to someone in the back you can or cannot see etc...

Besides, how are you going to enforce this? Get auto manufacturers to no longer include handsfree systems? Make it illegal to manufacture bluetooth headsets? Are you going to allow police to pull people over on the suspicion of talking on the phone? Are police going to set up sting operations like they do with the seat belt enforcement zones? Don't the police have more important things to do like fighting real crime rather than determining whether or not someone was driving and talking on the phone? Even if you were using a handsfree device to talk on the phone and got pulled over how can the officer actually prove you were on the phone without going to court and having your phone records pulled? When you get pulled over drunk you can't hide that - you can easily say you were just singing along with the radio or whatever if you get pulled over for DWT (driving while talking).

EagleFan said it nicely - we have enough laws as it is and people who are bad drivers and don't consider they can cause great harm with their car will do so whether or not its illegal to make a phone call (and even if it was illegal its not going to stop most people from doing it)

[molson]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Even if you were using a handsfree device to talk on the phone and got pulled over how can the officer actually prove you were on the phone without going to court and having your phone records pulled?

There's plenty of traffic infractions and laws in general that are difficult to enforce. A cell phone ban would be easy by comparison (it's not difficult to see someone talking on the phone in the car) Even assuming ZERO pre-accident enforcement a ban would at least put people on notice that if they kill/injure someone while on their phone, they're going away for a while.

Edit: I see now that you were responding to something about the hands-free devices, not cell phones in general....I think, one thing at a time, the hands free people are obviously making an effort to be safe and responsible so I'm not targetting them and I'm positive they'll be free from any restrictions for a quite a while at least.

Maybe that's a first-step compromise. As in many states, you can't get a seatbelt ticket unless you're pulled over for something else, we could institute a cell phone ban, but only enforce it when serious/fatal accidents are involved. That will be a deterrent for at least some, and we can at least have accountability (in prison time and license suspensions). We don't have that kind of accountability now. While someone chatting on a cell phone can sway a jury/judge in a traffic case or civil case, it's not illegal, so you can't find guilt or liability on it alone. The people that think they defy science and logic and are not remotely impaired by cell phones shouldn't have a problem with this, but it presumably then wouldn't ever be an issue for anyone.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by molson

There's plenty of traffic infractions and laws in general that are difficult to enforce. A cell phone ban would be easy by comparison (it's not difficult to see someone talking on the phone in the car)

How can you tell if a driver is talking on the phone if you can't see a phone or even a bluetooth headset? Just because he's sitting there moving his mouth doesn't mean he's having a conversation on the phone and unless the potential offender is sitting still at a light or something an officer wouldn't get more than a quick look - again no way of telling if the driver is having a conversation on the phone or something like singing to the radio.

Even assuming ZERO pre-accident enforcement a ban would at least put people on notice that if they kill/injure someone while on their phone, they're going away for a while.

Why do we need a law for this? Don't we have laws that deal with people who cause accidents and kill or injure other people already? Why does everyone want more laws especially over something that is by no means absolute like talking and driving? Once you ban cell phone use - even if its simply post-accident like you say here and accidents still happen from people being careless and/or stupid then what will you legislate next? Fast food? Wouldn't be hard to prove there was an "open container" at the scene of an accident if the police find a half eaten Big Mac on the floor.

No matter how many laws you create you can never make stupidity or asshattery illegal and that's probably the real source of the accident in most cases.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

No matter how many laws you create you can never make stupidity or asshattery illegal and that's probably the real source of the accident in most cases.

So we are finally admitting that talking on a cell phone is stupidity? Awesome!

Because as I've said many times, the simple act of talking on the phone greatly degrades your ability to adopt to changing traffic conditions, whether it's folks stopping for construction or someone pulling out in front of you, meaning you are very dangerous behind the wheel even if your driving appears perfect. And that's why the behavior itself needs to be gone after, not the apparent driving skill.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Why do we need a law for this? Don't we have laws that deal with people who cause accidents and kill or injure other people already? Why does everyone want more laws especially over something that is by no means absolute like talking and driving? Once you ban cell phone use - even if its simply post-accident like you say here and accidents still happen from people being careless and/or stupid then what will you legislate next? Fast food? Wouldn't be hard to prove there was an "open container" at the scene of an accident if the police find a half eaten Big Mac on the floor.

No matter how many laws you create you can never make stupidity or asshattery illegal and that's probably the real source of the accident in most cases.

Because there's no test for whether someone was distracted (unless they make it easy for you and drive into oncoming traffic or something).

Again, I'm not suggesting that we need to ban everything that's remotely distracting. That's not a necessary part of a cell phone ban. Point me to the constitutional or other legal authority that says that you can't regulate something unless you regulate EVERYTHING else that's remotely related. That's the favored point of the cell phone supporters and it's incredibly weak. That's not how legislation is done. Nobody's going to ban eating while driving. Banning cell phones HAS support. You're suggesting that any restriction on driving is pointless, if there's other things that can potentially be dangerous also. People use that style of argument in many contexts (how can congress spend their time on X when Y is going on!), and its just a horrible point no matter the context. We're never going to have that magical candyland day where a single legislature will have the support and time to perfectly and consistently "finish" the entire law and legal system.

I'm a small government guy. This isn't "just more legislation". I really think that in a few decades it will be crazy for us to think that people were once arguing that talking on a cell phone while driving isn't dangerous.

But my main point in all this isn't even that cell phone driving should be banned - I'm more directly focussed on the selfishness and ignorance or those who chat away regardless of the danger to themselves and others. I think people really underestimate the danger of driving - not just with cell phones but with being distracted generally, and drinking. The odds of an American dying in a car accident is somewhere betwee 1-in-80 and 1-in-200. Think about how many people that is just on this message board.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So we are finally admitting that talking on a cell phone is stupidity? Awesome!

Because as I've said many times, the simple act of talking on the phone greatly degrades your ability to adopt to changing traffic conditions, whether it's folks stopping for construction or someone pulling out in front of you, meaning you are very dangerous behind the wheel even if your driving appears perfect. And that's why the behavior itself needs to be gone after, not the apparent driving skill.

No I do not feel that talking on a phone is stupidity nor did I say as much but thank you for interpreting what you want to hear - I think talking on the phone gives a bad driver another reason to act like an idiot but many people, myself included, can drive just fine while doing both. To many people its as minor of a distraction as many other things in the car. If its too much of a distraction for you to operate your car then by all means, pull off the road to make or take your calls.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I think talking on the phone gives a bad driver another reason to act like an idiot but many people, myself included, can drive just fine while doing both.

Mountains of evidence do not back this up, especially when it comes to reaction times in an emergency. You may be able to keep to your lane and maintiain speed, but you are not going to react nearly as quickly when someone pulls out in front of you as someone who is not on the phone. You have been lucky so far and you think it means you are not impaired in the least. A does not imply B.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by molson

Because there's no test for whether someone was distracted (unless they make it easy for you and drive into oncoming traffic or something).

Again, I'm not suggesting that we need to ban everything that's remotely distracting. That's not a necessary part of a cell phone ban. Point me to the constitutional or other legal authority that says that you can't regulate something unless you regulate EVERYTHING else that's remotely related. That's the favored point of the cell phone supporters and it's incredibly weak. That's not how legislation is done. Nobody's going to ban eating while driving. Banning cell phones HAS support. You're suggesting that any restriction on driving is pointless, if there's other things that can potentially be dangerous also. People use that style of argument in many contexts (how can congress spend their time on X when Y is going on!), and its just a horrible point no matter the context. We're never going to have that magical candyland day where a single legislature will have the support and time to perfectly and consistently "finish" the entire law and legal system.

I'm a small government guy. This isn't "just more legislation". I really think that in a few decades it will be crazy for us to think that people were once arguing that talking on a cell phone while driving isn't dangerous.

But my main point in all this isn't even that cell phone driving should be banned - I'm more directly focussed on the selfishness and ignorance or those who chat away regardless of the danger to themselves and others. I think people really underestimate the danger of driving - not just with cell phones but with being distracted generally, and drinking. The odds of an American dying in a car accident is somewhere betwee 1-in-80 and 1-in-200. Think about how many people that is just on this message board.

I will never disagree that driving is a very serious issue. People easily can be killed in a car accident. However I believe the people that do treat their car as such can operate them safely even while using a phone because they understand the responsibility of driving. Not saying those people can't be involved in an accident but chances are it would truly be an accident and not a blatant disregard for everyone else around them.

My point is that the people who don't give a damn about anyone else are the ones who cause a majority of the accidents whether you ban phone use or not. Why don't we get serious about the people who have MULTIPLE traffic offenses? How many times do you hear about a fatal accident where a driver had a suspended or revoked license? Oh wow, we "suspend" their license. Big deal - that doesn't stop them from driving a car. We don't want to get serious about getting those people off the road. Instead we'd rather focus on cell phones.

Look, the technology is here and you can't undo it. People rely on their phones - its part of everyday life and in some cases everyday business now. Why don't we focus on the people who are the bad drivers and not the tools they have at their disposal to make them even worse drivers? You can take away their cell phones on the road (even though those people will still use them) but they'll still drive just as shitty as they do now and cause as many accidents and I'm not for taking away the freedoms of people who do act responsibly with them because a portion of the population doesn't.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

My point is that the people who don't give a damn about anyone else are the ones who cause a majority of the accidents whether you ban phone use or not. Why don't we get serious about the people who have MULTIPLE traffic offenses? How many times do you hear about a fatal accident where a driver had a suspended or revoked license? Oh wow, we "suspend" their license. Big deal - that doesn't stop them from driving a car. We don't want to get serious about getting those people off the road. Instead we'd rather focus on cell phones.

I agree with all that 100% - and it's not that I'd "rather" focus on cell phones. Those aren't mutually exclusive positions. I've spent a lot of time in my job trying to do exactly those things - arguing for harsher penalties for those that drive on suspended licenses, rack up traffic infractions or drive drunk.

In the real world, like I was saying above, it's not like there's a single all-powerful entity that can "focus" on bad driving generally, then fix and perfect that, and then move on to something else. In the real world, there's a lot of moving parts and small battles in every state on these kinds of issues. Someone who's in favor of a cell phone ban isn't doing so at the expense of other types of traffic regulations. They're also not going to wait for general existing traffic regluations to be perfected before trying to explore other ways to make roads safter. Because that would never happen. It's not like we're presented with a choice, "you can get harsher penalties for DUIs and Driving While Suspended charges, OR you can ban driving while talking on your cell phone". If I had a choice, I'd definitely take the first one. But it doesn't work like that.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Mountains of evidence do not back this up, especially when it comes to reaction times in an emergency. You may be able to keep to your lane and maintiain speed, but you are not going to react nearly as quickly when someone pulls out in front of you as someone who is not on the phone. You have been lucky so far and you think it means you are not impaired in the least. A does not imply B.

If you have your focus on ANYTHING other than 100% on the road in front of you than your reaction time will be slowed.

You are talking about hypothetical things here - someone pulls out in front of you - ok well if someone does that then you have a split second to react. Your reaction time is going to be slowed by the same amount whether you are talking on the phone, changing radio stations, eating or doing ANYTHING other than two hands on the wheel-100% focus on the road at that particular moment. You are either distracted or not at that moment in time and even if you are not some people just don't have the ability to avoid the accident.

The only reason the cell phone is the point of attack (for now) is because you spend more time on the phone than changing radio stations or looking at the GPS not because it is inherently less safe of a distraction than anything else. Because there is more time spent using that there are more opportunities for one of the hypothetical "emergency situations" to arise. That's pretty basic logic that the more opportunities there are for an event to occur the greater the chance of it happening are. Banning use of cell phones isn't going to make fewer emergency situations to react to - it will still be a matter of whether or not the person is distracted by something at that moment in time and whether or not he or she can avoid the accident.

You can look at whatever studies you want (which Im sure show no bias whatsoever, right?) but pick any distraction you want - if the driver is doing it at the one split second he needs to react to something then his reaction time will be slower. Cell phones are just the low hanging fruit here.

[panerd]

i am posting this message while driving

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

If you have your focus on ANYTHING other than 100% on the road in front of you than your reaction time will be slowed.

You are talking about hypothetical things here - someone pulls out in front of you - ok well if someone does that then you have a split second to react. Your reaction time is going to be slowed by the same amount whether you are talking on the phone, changing radio stations, eating or doing ANYTHING other than two hands on the wheel-100% focus on the road at that particular moment. You are either distracted or not at that moment in time and even if you are not some people just don't have the ability to avoid the accident.

The only reason the cell phone is the point of attack (for now) is because you spend more time on the phone than changing radio stations or looking at the GPS not because it is inherently less safe of a distraction than anything else. Because there is more time spent using that there are more opportunities for one of the hypothetical "emergency situations" to arise. That's pretty basic logic that the more opportunities there are for an event to occur the greater the chance of it happening are. Banning use of cell phones isn't going to make fewer emergency situations to react to - it will still be a matter of whether or not the person is distracted by something at that moment in time and whether or not he or she can avoid the accident.

You can look at whatever studies you want (which Im sure show no bias whatsoever, right?) but pick any distraction you want - if the driver is doing it at the one split second he needs to react to something then his reaction time will be slower. Cell phones are just the low hanging fruit here.

That is an awfully specific assertion. Can you back this up?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

i am posting this message while driving

Did you hit anything?

[Gary Gorski]

Its also interesting to me that the biggest argument here against cell phone use seems to be "reaction time" - reaction time to what? The driver who is going to pull out when they don't have enough time without you slamming the breaks? The driver who is going to cut across four lanes of highway at 90 mph because their exit is here? The driver who's been in and out of every lane in the past 30 seconds as they advanced around a total of two cars? The driver who's flooring it as the light is turning red and he's five car lenghts before the light? The driver who decided he's going to stop in the middle of traffic and turn even though there's a no turn sign? The driver who knew the lane is closed ahead because of the giant orange signs and blinking arrow but still floored it in that lane to try and cut someone off up there?

Yes, the driver who is on the cell phone and has to avoid all of those people is definitely the one who needs to change his habits, right? He's the danger on the road - not any of those people.

If you can show me that those people perform those actions because they are on the phone and would not drive like asses if they were not...well then we'd be talking. Unfortunately I don't think those people drive that way making the road dangerous for everyone else whether they are on the phone or not.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

many people, myself included, can drive just fine while doing both.

A lot of people believe that they can drive just fine when drunk just as fervently as you believe that you can drive just fine talking on a phone.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

The only reason the cell phone is the point of attack (for now) is because you spend more time on the phone than changing radio stations or looking at the GPS not because it is inherently less safe of a distraction than anything else. Because there is more time spent using that there are more opportunities for one of the hypothetical "emergency situations" to arise. That's pretty basic logic that the more opportunities there are for an event to occur the greater the chance of it happening are. Banning use of cell phones isn't going to make fewer emergency situations to react to - it will still be a matter of whether or not the person is distracted by something at that moment in time and whether or not he or she can avoid the accident.

Precisely! You are distracted for a far greater percentage of your driving time, and the entire time you are on the phone you are a danger to those around you.

It's not just the "someone pulled out in front of you" situation here. There are plenty of normal driving situations affected, like construction stops, streetlights changing, etc.

The other activities are dangerous and should definitely be limited (I'm one who sets up my radio before pulling out of the driveway), but just because the other activities are hard to limit doesn't mean we should avoid going after cell phones as molson has already pointed out.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Its also interesting to me that the biggest argument here against cell phone use seems to be "reaction time" - reaction time to what? The driver who is going to pull out when they don't have enough time without you slamming the breaks? The driver who is going to cut across four lanes of highway at 90 mph because their exit is here? The driver who's been in and out of every lane in the past 30 seconds as they advanced around a total of two cars? The driver who's flooring it as the light is turning red and he's five car lenghts before the light? The driver who decided he's going to stop in the middle of traffic and turn even though there's a no turn sign? The driver who knew the lane is closed ahead because of the giant orange signs and blinking arrow but still floored it in that lane to try and cut someone off up there?

Yes, the driver who is on the cell phone and has to avoid all of those people is definitely the one who needs to change his habits, right? He's the danger on the road - not any of those people.

They're BOTH a danger, and combined, they are worse than either one of them is alone. It isn't an either/or situation.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is an awfully specific assertion. Can you back this up?

Um, simple logic?

Time required : split second

Action : looking at console to change radio station

Focus on the road at that time : zero - eyes looking at console, not at road

Action : talking on the phone

Focus on the road : well at least you're looking at the road. Zero if you're daydreaming or totally engrossed in the conversation but other than that at least can't be any worse than not looking at the road period.

Have you been in or seen an accident in which the drivers had several minutes of reaction time to avoid the accident? Seems to me the accidents we're trying to save everyone from by banning cell phones are the "happened in a blink of an eye" type and not the "driver totally sucks at driving and drove his car into a telephone poll when he saw it 300 yards away" type.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Time required : split second

Action : looking at console to change radio station

Focus on the road at that time : zero - eyes looking at console, not at road

Not necessarily, as people figure out where the buttons are on the console and are just reaching over to click it. Or there are those that have the controls on the steering wheel. The distraction is like a cell phone: your brain is focusing on something that is not driving, not necessarily that you are not staring at the road.

[Logan]

Another funny part of this: anyone thinking a ban on cell phones will make roads safer. Pretty sure speeding isn't legal, but people do it based on the assumption that the rare instance that they get busted for it is worth all the other times they aren't, along the lines of Jon's cost/benefit talk earlier. I talked before how my town was one of the first in the country that banned cell phones and required hands-free devices if you were using a phone. No one stopped talking on them...they just looked out for cops and put their phone into their lap if one was around.

The only thing is guaranteed to do, like others have said, is increase revenues.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Um, simple logic?

Time required : split second

Action : looking at console to change radio station

Focus on the road at that time : zero - eyes looking at console, not at road

Action : talking on the phone

Focus on the road : well at least you're looking at the road. Zero if you're daydreaming or totally engrossed in the conversation but other than that at least can't be any worse than not looking at the road period.

Have you been in or seen an accident in which the drivers had several minutes of reaction time to avoid the accident? Seems to me the accidents we're trying to save everyone from by banning cell phones are the "happened in a blink of an eye" type and not the "driver totally sucks at driving and drove his car into a telephone poll when he saw it 300 yards away" type.

You are using sarcasm here, right? You can't possibly mean to say that you can use "simple logic" to determine which parts of the brain are used to process visual information outside the car, visual information inside the car, audio information from the phone, higher-level reasoning and concentration in listening to and responding to a conversation on the phone, and to perform speed/distance calculations on all the other traffic on the road. You are going to use "simple logic" to determine that watching the traffic in front of you while talking on a phone leads to an equivalent reaction time as does watching the traffic without talking on a phone. You are going to use "simple logic" to determine that knowingly taking your eyes off the road for a second or two to change the radio station provides the "same level of distraction" as talking on the phone. You are claiming that all of the studies being done to test the affect of cell phone use while driving is pointless because "simple logic" can already answer those questions. Your post wasn't really meant to be serious, right?

[BrianD]

If anyone cares to go beyond "simple logic"...

Applied Cognition Laboratory

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Not necessarily, as people figure out where the buttons are on the console and are just reaching over to click it. Or there are those that have the controls on the steering wheel. The distraction is like a cell phone: your brain is focusing on something that is not driving , not necessarily that you are not staring at the road.

Ah ha! Now we're being honest. Let's continue...

Some people listen to the radio the entire time they are in the car, right? Some people will change the radio station because a commercial comes on or a song they do not like comes on, right? To do so means that at least momentarily your brain has taken SOME focus off of driving to a) listen to what is on the radio and b) decide whether or not you like it. If you do decide to change the station you are once again taking some focus in order to find the correct station or listen to others briefly to see what is on, right?

So basically a person actively listening to their radio could be distracted at ANY point in time while they are driving. The one split second they may have to avoid an accident could happen at ANY point in time while they are driving. Every three minutes or so your brain may be focusing on something that is not driving. That sounds dangerous, no?

How is a phone call different? You are listening to sound and your brain is processing it. Rather than your feedback being to decide to change a station or not your feedback is in what you speak back.

It seems the same "logic" is used in determining it to be an activity not worth banning. "I've never gotten into an accident because I had the radio on" is the same as "I've never gotten into an accident while talking on the phone". Both are distractions that cause your brain to focus on something other than the road over periods of time.

Everybody can't necessarily study with music on, can they? It does distract some people to the point where they can't focus on the material, right? So how is it that those people can operate a car that could cause injury or death to others while listening to music but they can't even read a book while doing it? The level of the distraction depends on the person...sounds like talking on the phone.

Are there people that get so engrossed in a conversation they forget what is going on? Yes. Are there people that get "lost in a song"? Uh, yeah.

I don't think radios or MP3s should be banned but I think its a little hypocritcal to say cell phones should be banned because they can be a distraction that goes on over the course of many minutes in some cases when music works the same way for other people. Just as there are people that can listen to the radio and drive just fine there are people that can use their phone and drive just fine.

Unless it can be proven that a majority of people operate a vehicle "badly" while talking on the phone while a majority of people do not do so when simply listening to the radio then I don't see why we want to ban one and not the other.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

You are using sarcasm here, right? You can't possibly mean to say that you can use "simple logic" to determine which parts of the brain are used to process visual information outside the car, visual information inside the car, audio information from the phone, higher-level reasoning and concentration in listening to and responding to a conversation on the phone, and to perform speed/distance calculations on all the other traffic on the road. You are going to use "simple logic" to determine that watching the traffic in front of you while talking on a phone leads to an equivalent reaction time as does watching the traffic without talking on a phone. You are going to use "simple logic" to determine that knowingly taking your eyes off the road for a second or two to change the radio station provides the "same level of distraction" as talking on the phone. You are claiming that all of the studies being done to test the affect of cell phone use while driving is pointless because "simple logic" can already answer those questions. Your post wasn't really meant to be serious, right?

Time to avoid accident? : split second

Looking at road? : no

Did you get in accident? Um, probably

I don't have a masters in physics or any other scientific field nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night but I don't think I need either to follow that logic tree.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Time to avoid accident? : split second

Looking at road? : no

Did you get in accident? Um, probably

I don't have a masters in physics or any other scientific field nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night but I don't think I need either to follow that logic tree.

With that kind of logic, you might want to head over to the thread on the craps systems. Read through some of the studies at the link I provided and let me know if any of that changes your mind.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

You are going to use "simple logic" to determine that watching the traffic in front of you while talking on a phone leads to an equivalent reaction time as does watching the traffic without talking on a phone.

And please point out where I said that reaction time is the same whether you are talking on the phone or not. I never said that you are as focused on the road talking on a phone as if you are not talking. Never. Please at least read what I posted.

I just stated that when you have a split second to avoid an accident that ANY distraction is going to lessen your reaction time whether that distraction is talking on the phone or a host of other things.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

With that kind of logic, you might want to head over to the thread on the craps systems. Read through some of the studies at the link I provided and let me know if any of that changes your mind.

Nothing you can post is going to make me think an accident is avoidable if you are not looking at the road but feel free to try.

On second thought, if word got out on how to do that it would only encourage more people to not watch the road while they are driving.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

And please point out where I said that reaction time is the same whether you are talking on the phone or not. I never said that you are as focused on the road talking on a phone as if you are not talking. Never. Please at least read what I posted.

I just stated that when you have a split second to avoid an accident that ANY distraction is going to lessen your reaction time whether that distraction is talking on the phone or a host of other things.

No, you said that any distraction is going to less your reaction time by the same amount.

[quote]Your reaction time is going to be slowed by the same amount whether you are talking on the phone, changing radio stations, eating or doing ANYTHING other than two hands on the wheel-100% focus on the road at that particular moment.[/b]

I'm saying that calling cell phone usage to be the equal of any other distraction greatly misses the point.

[molson]

Interesting stories in the news just this week about the Bush Administration holding back info on the dangers of cell phone usage, because they were afraid that Congress would cut funding to the DOT if it used its research to lobby states for laws limiting cellphone use. This stuff was only released after multiple FOIA requests.

Dial C for cover-up - The Boston Globe

The individual, amateur scientists in this thread aren't particularly compelling.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

No, you said that any distraction is going to less your reaction time by the same amount.

I'm saying that calling cell phone usage to be the equal of any other distraction greatly misses the point.

I said that in a split second any distraction is going to lessen your reaction time by the same amount. I didn't think it possible to distinguish significant times in that short of a time period.

Can you say that in less than one second there is a noticeable difference in the reaction time of a driver who is talking on a cell phone compared to one who is actively listening to the radio, eating a hamburger or checking their hair in their rear view mirror? Do you have data that says that I've got a significantly better chance of avoiding the accident with a Big Mac in my hand than I do a cell phone?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Nothing you can post is going to make me think an accident is avoidable if you are not looking at the road but feel free to try.

On second thought, if word got out on how to do that it would only encourage more people to not watch the road while they are driving.

So you simple logic is that talking on the cell phone while driving provides exactly the same distraction as switching a radio station. Your proof is that if you are looking at the radio during the split second that you need to react to a car stopping in front of you, you won't see the car and thus can't avoid the accident. Then you say this:

Action : talking on the phone

Focus on the road : well at least you're looking at the road. Zero if you're daydreaming or totally engrossed in the conversation but other than that at least can't be any worse than not looking at the road period.

So talking on the phone can't be any worse than not even looking at the road...which is your best scenario when you aren't paying close attention to the conversation? And not looking at the road at the precise moment you'd need to break means an accident can't be avoided.

By your logic, talking on the cell phone and not paying attention to the conversation still means you aren't going to avoid the accident.

[ISiddiqui]

molson: Uh... isn't that exactly what the OP stated?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Do you have data that says that I've got a significantly better chance of avoiding the accident with a Big Mac in my hand than I do a cell phone?

I still don't know what the Big Mac has to do with anything. We're talking about cell phones and whether they're dangerous or not.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

molson: Uh... isn't that exactly what the OP stated?

Yes indeed.....seems I lost track of that.

I guess it's a good reminder though, that this is based on research and data not on a desire to control people's moral decisions or whatever the usual backlash is.

All I hear is "I want to talk on my cell phone, and I don't care what anyone says, and I won't acknowledge any research because I want I want I want".

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I said that in a split second any distraction is going to lessen your reaction time by the same amount. I didn't think it possible to distinguish significant times in that short of a time period.

Can you say that in less than one second there is a noticeable difference in the reaction time of a driver who is talking on a cell phone compared to one who is actively listening to the radio, eating a hamburger or checking their hair in their rear view mirror? Do you have data that says that I've got a significantly better chance of avoiding the accident with a Big Mac in my hand than I do a cell phone?

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCog...ssment2003.pdf
Alcohol Baseline Cell Phone
Total Accidents 0 0 3
Brake Onset Time (msec) 888 (51) 943 (58) 1022 (61)
Braking Force (% of maximum) 69.6 (3.6) 56.4 (2.5) 55.2 (2.9)
Speed (MPH) 52.8 (.08) 54.9 (.08) 53.2 (.07)
Following Distance (meters) 26.5 (1.7) 27.3 (1.3) 28.5 (1.6)
½ Recovery Time (sec) 5.4 (0.3) 5.4 (0.3) 6.2 (0.4)
Table 1. Means and standard errors (in parentheses) for the Alcohol, Baseline, and Cell-Phone conditions.

This shows that reaction time is slower for people on a cell phone than people driving at a .08 BAC. Reaction times are not impaired at the same rate. I don't know of any studies that compare cell phone use to eating a Big Mac.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Time required : split second

Action : looking at console to change radio station

Focus on the road at that time : zero - eyes looking at console, not at road

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The distraction is like a cell phone: your brain is focusing on something that is not driving, not necessarily that you are not staring at the road.

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Ah ha! Now we're being honest. Let's continue...

My point was that "change radio station" does not imply "eyes looking at console, not at road". You were trying to make it sound like changing the radio was an even higher risk than the cell phone because you could not even see the road. I was just saying the risk MAY be equal (depends on studies), but is certainly for a much shorter duration and therefore overall much less risky than talking on a phone.

[BrianD]

For those talking about just listening to the radio or listening to a book on tape:

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/TRB1.pdf
Summary: This research assessed the effects of cell phone conversations on driving.
Our first study found that subjects engaged in cell phone conversations using either
a hand-held or hands-free device, were more than twice as likely to miss simulated
traffic signals than when they were not distracted by the cell phone conversation. By
contrast, performance was not disrupted by listening to radio broadcasts or listening
to a book on tape. Our second study, using a high-fidelity driving simulator, found
that subjects conversing on a hands-free cell phone were more likely to get into
traffic accidents. Analysis of driving profiles revealed that cell phone users exhibited
a sluggish response to changing traffic patterns and attempted to compensate by
increasing their following distance. We suggest that active participation in a cell
phone conversation disrupts performance by diverting attention to an engaging
cognitive context other than the one immediately associated with driving.

[Gary Gorski]

Just for the record let me sum up my feelings.

I think that anyone talking on a cell phone is driving at less than 100% focus on driving and that any time you take your eyes off the road or your focus off of the road for any distraction you are at a greater risk of accident than had you not done so.

I feel that a percentage of the population cannot walk and chew gum at the same time let alone drive a car in the first place and certainly talking on the phone makes them even more of a hazard than they already are.

I think that with the world the way it is today that some people do need to have access to their cell phones at pretty much any time and its impractical to think otherwise.

I think that banning cell phone use in cars would be costly, would take police efforts even further away from what they truly need to be doing and would prove to be ineffective in actually being able to pull someone over, prove use of and ticket for as well as open the door to liberal use for the very small percentage of officers with personal agendas.

I think that even if you ban cell phone useage in the car a very small percentage of people will stop using them and more likely people will only not do it when they think they might get caught.

I think that even if you ban cell phone useage in the car the same people who do not take the responsibility of driving a car seriously will still continue not to take the responsibility of driving a car seriously and still drive with other distractions and will still be a danger on the road.

I am not in favor of more laws but rather in enforcing the ones (careless/reckless driving) and improving the ones (finding a way to actually get suspended/revoked drivers off the road) we already have.

I think that even if you do find a way to keep phones out of cars you are not going to fix anything. The technology will be replaced with something equally or more dangerous (you know like DVD screens in the front seat) and you can keep making new laws to ban things but all you will end up with is a bunch of laws that are continually broken and that people will still do dangerous and stupid things with their cars simply because they don't care about anyone but themselves and that's how they operate in all walks of life - even if you take their cell phone away from them in the car.

[BrianD]

One more. A study which indicates much better situational awareness when talking to a passenger versus talking on a cell phone. This study also indicates no significant difference between talking to a passenger and not being involved in any conversation.

http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCog...4-000597-1.pdf

This doesn't mean that talking on a cell phone is always worse than every other distraction, but it sure indicates that not all distractions are equal.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

molson: Uh... isn't that exactly what the OP stated?

Time stamp bug?

[Kodos]

Stop trying to bring "facts" and "research" into this. Clearly, some people can magically drive while talking on the phone and suffer no downside in their driving performance. They can also see unicorns.