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

[Subby]

Gov't Wanted Total Cell Phone Ban For Drivers, Report Reveals

America's national highway safety agency wanted a total ban on all cell phone use while driving, a new report reveals. So what happened?

JR Raphael, PC World

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 01:48 PM PDT

We've long heard about the dangers of using your cell phone while driving. Chatting or texting behind the wheel could be as bad as drunken driving, some studies have suggested. Now, a new report reveals America's federal transportation safety agency wanted a total ban on all cell phone use for drivers -- including the use of hands-free headsets -- because of the risk.

Cell Phone Safety Recommendation

The report, created by the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, was actually written in 2002 but kept under wraps until now. Two public interest groups were able to get ahold of the document as a result of a lawsuit citing the Freedom of Information Act. They released it publicly on Tuesday.

In the report, the NHTSA recommends that "drivers do not use [cell phone] devices when driving, except in an emergency." As for the use of hands-free headsets, which some states currently require for in-car cell phone use, the group is quick to knock their safety down; the headsets, the NHTSA says, create as much of a crash risk as the hand-held devices do.

"We are convinced that legislation forbidding the use of handheld cell phones while driving may not be effective in improving highway safety since it will not address the problem," the report states. "In fact, such legislation may erroneously imply that hands-free phones are safe to use while driving."

Study Suppressed

The reasons behind the recommendations are logical enough: The NHTSA's data showed that cell phone use by drivers was responsible for 240,000 accidents and 955 deaths nationwide in 2002. It also suggested hands-free and handheld devices caused comparable "cognitive distraction" that negatively affected driving ability. Why, then, did none of this come to light until now? That's where things seem to get messy.

The then-head of the NHTSA tells The New York Times he held back from releasing the recommendations because of "larger political considerations," saying that lawmakers might have felt the agency had "crossed the line into lobbying." As a result, The Times reports, the NHTSA feared billions of dollars of federal funding could have been jeopardized.

If anything, the risks now may be more extreme than they were at the time of the NHTSA's original study, too: The number of Americans with cell phone service has shot from about half of the population in 2002 to a staggering 87 percent of it now, according to measurements from a nonprofit wireless industry association.

The Times has posted the NHTSA's entire 266-page study online for public viewing.

[MikeVic]

They've banned cell phone use in cars in my city recently... supposed to use a hands-free device. At least that's what I've heard from people.

[Logan]

My hometown of Marlboro NJ was one of the first in the country to institute that ban back in 2000, which was the year I started driving.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I would be in favor of such a ban.

The study's are pretty conclusive that driving while talking on a cellphone impares one's driving significantly.

If there is some asshole swerving around, driving slowly, veering in and out of his/her lane, or engaging in some type of asshattery while in command of a 2 ton piece of metal hurtling along the road at dangerous speed, nine times out of ten that asshole is talking on his/her cellphone or, worse yet, texting.

BAN IT

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

They've banned cell phone use in cars in my city recently... supposed to use a hands-free device. At least that's what I've heard from people.

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.

[MikeVic]

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.

Yeah, I get that. I still use my cell phone anyway. I'm not for texting while driving, but I find it very convenient to talk.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Yeah, I get that. I still use my cell phone anyway. I'm not for texting while driving, but I find it very convenient to talk.

I felt that way too until a neighbor of mind was killed in an accident due to taking on the phone. I don't talk on the phone in the car anymore.

[larrymcg421]

Yeah, I agree with MBBF here. Hands free is still dangerous, especially in high traffic areas. I mean, if you're driving through Atlanta traffic without full concentration then you're a danger to others.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I felt that way too until a neighbor of mind was killed in an accident due to taking on the phone. I don't talk on the phone in the car anymore.

I don't know how to classify different conversation types... I mean, if someone is talking for an extended period of time about a subject matter that needs attention, that's not very safe. But what if I'm driving to meet some friends somewhere and they've changed the plans from meeting at restaurant A to restaurant B? Do I see an incoming call, and then pull into a parking lot to answer it? When I talk on the phone in my car, I pause a lot and don't really give the conversation my entire attention.

[rowech]

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

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah, I agree with MBBF here. Hands free is still dangerous, especially in high traffic areas. I mean, if you're driving through Atlanta traffic without full concentration then you're a danger to others.

Maybe it depends on the traffic then. I don't think Winnipeg has horrible traffic, but if I were in a city where I felt I needed to pay more attention to the road, I might feel differently.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I don't know how to classify different conversation types... I mean, if someone is talking for an extended period of time about a subject matter that needs attention, that's not very safe. But what if I'm driving to meet some friends somewhere and they've changed the plans from meeting at restaurant A to restaurant B? Do I see an incoming call, and then pull into a parking lot to answer it? When I talk on the phone in my car, I pause a lot and don't really give the conversation my entire attention.

Because you can't, right? The more you concentrate on your driving (especially in high-traffic areas), the less you can concentrate on the conversation. It goes the other way too. Any attention you give to the conversation is taking away from your driving attention.

[Kodos]

If you need to use your cell phone while driving, you should find a place to park. End of story.

Drunk drivers have a lot of excuses and rationalizations too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If you need to use your cell phone while driving, you should find a place to park.

I-75 traffic should get even better in that scenario I guess.

Of course I'm not sure how well we're going to handle all of the accidents & deaths caused by people hitting cars on the side of the highway but I'm sure the government will come up with a fine solution to that too.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I-75 traffic should get even better in that scenario I guess.

Find a SAFE place to park, sheesh! You don't need to talk right that minute barring a major emergency, and that's not going to clog up I-75.

I'm sick of people willing to risk the lives of everyone around them so they can chat. I know we've had this discussion before with people bringing up work needs and crap, TOUGH! Stop risking the innocent lives around you!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think what he might be getting at is that either don't use the phone until you get off the interstate, or if the call is that important, get off the interstate and pick up.

Should the government not regulate drunk drivers either?

[Kodos]

Yes. Get off the highway, find a nice safe parking lot that won't endanger anyone when you park, and return your VERY IMPORTANT call. If it's not important enough to stop for, it can wait.

[MikeVic]

If we're banning cell phones, then we should also force old people to re-take a driver's test. Maybe I just haven't been paying a ton of attention, but the majority of "what the fuck is this car doing?" responses form me end up being an old person at the wheel.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

find a nice safe parking lot that won't endanger anyone when you park

If you can find one of those in Atlanta, have at it. Oh, and do it from across six lanes of traffic just to make it more interesting.

Our economy is already in the tank, given the amount of business conducted quite literally "from the road" these days, a proposal like this is utterly ludicrous. Go back & uninvent next-day delivery, the fax machine, beepers, pagers, and cell phones & return all expectations about what constitutes timely service to the levels that existed before any of those and you might have a case. Otherwise, it's nothing more than another sadly laughable unwarranted government intrusion that fails to take anything remotely resembling reality into account. But our government tends to specialize in that sort of thing.

[CU Tiger]

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.

How about talking to a passenger riding beside you?
Should we ban riders in the front of cars because they too could distract drivers?

Originally Posted by Kodos

If you need to use your cell phone while driving, you should find a place to park. End of story.

Drunk drivers have a lot of excuses and rationalizations too.

I would go broke in 2 weeks if I had to stop to talk. I average 6-8 hours per day in the car and upwards of 300 minutes per day on the phone there simply arent that many hours in a day.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I-75 traffic should get even better in that scenario I guess.

Of course I'm not sure how well we're going to handle all of the accidents & deaths caused by people hitting cars on the side of the highway but I'm sure the government will come up with a fine solution to that too.

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yes. Get off the highway, find a nice safe parking lot that won't endanger anyone when you park, and return your VERY IMPORTANT call. If it's not important enough to stop for, it can wait.

Well interestingly enough I think the stat is more than 70% of all vehicle accidents involve a stopping or turning car. So stopping and turning are obivously the most dangerous vehicle maneuvers. By your thinking we should exponentially increase these maneuvers to make people safer...got it.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

If we're banning cell phones, then we should also force old people to re-take a driver's test. Maybe I just haven't been paying a ton of attention, but the majority of "what the fuck is this car doing?" responses form me end up being an old person at the wheel.

I am in favor of mandatory drive tests every few years for people over 70.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you can find one of those in Atlanta, have at it. Oh, and do it from across six lanes of traffic just to make it more interesting.

Our economy is already in the tank, given the amount of business conducted quite literally "from the road" these days, a proposal like this is utterly ludicrous. Go back & uninvent next-day delivery, the fax machine, beepers, pagers, and cell phones & return all expectations about what constitutes timely service to the levels that existed before any of those and you might have a case. Otherwise, it's nothing more than another sadly laughable unwarranted government intrusion that fails to take anything remotely resembling reality into account. But our government tends to specialize in that sort of thing.

I'm sure you think a smoking ban inside of restaurants and places of work is an unfair intrusion as well. Basically, you have no trouble putting at others at risk for your convenience.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

How about talking to a passenger riding beside you?

Agreed - how is this any different than talking on a hands free device? In fact its probably safer since there's no ability to look over at the person you are talking to. I'm all for banning the non-hands free and certainly for banning texting but you mean to tell me that people can have conversations with the person next to them, listen to the radio (and continuously look away from the road to change stations) and listen to a backseat full of screaming children (and sometimes all three at once) and drive safely but they can't have a conversation on a hands free cell phone?

[stevew]

Generally the bigger the vehicle is, the dumber the driver is. Minivans, especially. 95% of people driving those are useless pricks.

And I vary for use. If it's a highway stretch and there's no traffic, I'll use my phone. If it's a backroad or it's busy, not so much.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by stevew

Generally the bigger the vehicle is, the dumber the driver is. Minivans, especially. 95% of people driving those are useless pricks.

Hey! No more UtiliySuite for you!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Agreed - how is this any different than talking on a hands free device? In fact its probably safer since there's no ability to look over at the person you are talking to. I'm all for banning the non-hands free and certainly for banning texting but you mean to tell me that people can have conversations with the person next to them, listen to the radio (and continuously look away from the road to change stations) and listen to a backseat full of screaming children (and sometimes all three at once) and drive safely but they can't have a conversation on a hands free cell phone?

While I'm not against banning cell phones, I do agree with this as well. Eating, drinking, changing stations, swapping CDs, trying to follow directions not coming from a GPS...all distractions as well, but no one will stop those.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

From what I found at wikipedia, research is mixed on the issue.

Mobile phones and driving safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[molson]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Agreed - how is this any different than talking on a hands free device? In fact its probably safer since there's no ability to look over at the person you are talking to. I'm all for banning the non-hands free and certainly for banning texting but you mean to tell me that people can have conversations with the person next to them, listen to the radio (and continuously look away from the road to change stations) and listen to a backseat full of screaming children (and sometimes all three at once) and drive safely but they can't have a conversation on a hands free cell phone?

It's not necessarily intuitive but the studies do consistently find a difference.

Cell phones somehow bring people to another world in an attention sense. When we're on a phone, we're more locked into that conversation than we are if we're talking to someone right next to us. It's a different kind of conversation. When you're on the phone, you're in a conversation that's continuing until the phone is hung up. When you're talking to someone in person you may say something, stop talking for a while, then say something else. Attention more easily can drift away. You don't (usually) go with someone in a car to have a conversation, the talking is secondary to the driving. But when you're on the phone, the conversation is #1.

[Mustang]

The reason drunk driving is banned is because it impairs your driving. If something else impairs your driving like that, then it should be banned.

[Travis]

I think what this all boils down to is that unfortunately, common sense is a true rarity these days.

Cell phone, hands free, putting on makeup, eating, texting, screaming kids, conversations with passengers, in vehicle tvs/volume, etc all distract a driver. Are all proper precautions taken to ensure that the driver's driving setup is as safe and free of concern as possible? Do people choose to put themselves and others at risk for the sake of convenience even if the situation doesn't dictate it to be necessary?

I think that's an easy answer.

Eliminating cell phones won't change this. The smart/good drivers will still continue to be the smart/good drivers and be smart about when/if they need to do something other than driving while the vehicle is in motion. Those that tend to be distracted be it by music, cell phones or day dreaming are going to do so whether or not they can do it with a cell phone.

I for one would love to see 5 year testing for all ages, not just the elderly. That and more severe penalties for wreckless/endangering driving.

Unfortunately they'll be more effort put into eliminating one potential distraction source than getting to the true root of the problem and that lies with the drivers. The answer to that question is a long conversation and requires a lot more thought than I'm putting into it right now, but there are a lot of people behind the wheel out there that I'm damn well scared of even when their full attention is on the road.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Agreed - how is this any different than talking on a hands free device? In fact its probably safer since there's no ability to look over at the person you are talking to. I'm all for banning the non-hands free and certainly for banning texting but you mean to tell me that people can have conversations with the person next to them, listen to the radio (and continuously look away from the road to change stations) and listen to a backseat full of screaming children (and sometimes all three at once) and drive safely but they can't have a conversation on a hands free cell phone?

It's because of how our brain processes a phone conversation versus how it processes a conversation with someone in our physical presence.

We use different parts of our brain, parts needed to properly process our driving field, when we engage in a phone conversation. Those pieces fill in context when a lot of data is absent.

People who get into accidents while using a cell often report simply "not seeing" the obstacle they crash into, even though their eyes are open and they are looking straight at it. The pieces of their brains that would normally tell them "hey, stopped car in front of you" are focused on the phone call.

...

The question, to me, is whether the state has an interest in forcing drivers to behave in an optimal manner on the roads. Or whether that's not necessary as long as people take responsibility for all the results of their negligence.

So far, the state's a bit hypocritical. It comes down hard on driving while impaired from drug or alcohol use. But not at all on driving while impaired from physical distraction (turning to yell at a noisy four-year-old, or eating a sandwich) or cognitive distraction (cell phone use).

That's a social issue. We accept a degree of risk when we get on the roads. Given the studies, I think a ban on all cell use while driving is warranted.

[ISiddiqui]

If I recall, taking to a passenger and changing radio stations have been shown in studies to be very dangerous as well. Maybe not as much as one hand on a cell phone, but close enough to hands free.

[Logan]

I'd much rather see a ban on shitty drivers.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

People who get into accidents while using a cell often report simply "not seeing" the obstacle they crash into, even though their eyes are open and they are looking straight at it.

I guaranfuckingtee the same thing is said by people who get into accidents while not using a cell phone.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If I recall, taking to a passenger and changing radio stations have been shown in studies to be very dangerous as well. Maybe not as much as one hand on a cell phone, but close enough to hands free.

I guess the question, then, would be that since banning these would be unenforceable, should you no longer ban things that would be enforceable?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

If we're banning cell phones, then we should also force old people to re-take a driver's test. Maybe I just haven't been paying a ton of attention, but the majority of "what the fuck is this car doing?" responses form me end up being an old person at the wheel.

Don't most states already have laws concerning that? I know in Missouri, they're required to retake the test over a certain age and they have to renew every 3 years instead of every 6 years once they reach 70 years of age.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Agreed - how is this any different than talking on a hands free device? In fact its probably safer since there's no ability to look over at the person you are talking to. I'm all for banning the non-hands free and certainly for banning texting but you mean to tell me that people can have conversations with the person next to them, listen to the radio (and continuously look away from the road to change stations) and listen to a backseat full of screaming children (and sometimes all three at once) and drive safely but they can't have a conversation on a hands free cell phone?

Agreed.

The NHTSA report found that distractions which take your attention away from the road make driving more dangerous. Wonder how much that little nugget (already known by anyone with a whit of common sense) cost us?

As long as we're making a list, we need to ban eating and drinking in the car too. In fact, just to make sure noone is tempted, we need to outlaw drive through windows at places which serve food.

The most dangerous distraction for me in the car is easily the kids. We should ban children fighting in cars.

Banning children is obviously exaggeration to make a point, but I'd really like to hear the advocates of banning all cell phone conversations in the car differentiate that from eating, or listening to the radio (and using hands to change the channel) or having a live conversation. All are distractions, eating almost certainly more than talking, since one must eat with their hands.

And where would you draw the line? Most GPS users look at their screens at times, thus distracting them. Since their mass market popularity exploded, several states have taken laws preventing windshield mounts off of their books. Should those not onlybe reversed, but GPS's made illegal? Hell, I regulate my speed by glancing at the speedometer from time to time. Speed limits are clearly a danger, since their existence prevents me from looking at the road 100% of the time.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

As long as we're making a list, we need to ban eating and drinking in the car too. In fact, just to make sure noone is tempted, we need to outlaw drive through windows at places which serve food.

The goal isn't to ban everything that's dangerous. That's not possible, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore drunk driving or talking on your cell phone.

By your logic, there should be no restrictions about driving - whether drunk, with a blindfold on, while reading a book, etc, because we can't ban everything that might distract.

And a lot of the things you mentioned can be grounds for carless driving charges. If you get in an accident because you're turned around dealing with your kids, or eating, you're going to get cited.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Don't most states already have laws concerning that? I know in Missouri, they're required to retake the test over a certain age and they have to renew every 3 years instead of every 6 years once they reach 70 years of age.

Its pretty weak:

"Ages 70 and over

Drivers who are ages 70 and over receive a 3-year* driver license that expires on the applicant's date of birth in the third year after date of issuance.

Note: Renewal applicants are required to take a road sign recognition test in addition to the vision test."

Although I guess the vision test is the important part. No driving test though.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not necessarily intuitive but the studies do consistently find a difference.

Cell phones somehow bring people to another world in an attention sense. When we're on a phone, we're more locked into that conversation than we are if we're talking to someone right next to us. It's a different kind of conversation. When you're on the phone, you're in a conversation that's continuing until the phone is hung up. When you're talking to someone in person you may say something, stop talking for a while, then say something else. Attention more easily can drift away. You don't (usually) go with someone in a car to have a conversation, the talking is secondary to the driving. But when you're on the phone, the conversation is #1.

I guess this just doesn't register as true for me - I have sync in my car and my blackberry is hooked up to it so I always have hands free conversation and I never find it to be a distraction - in fact if anything the conversation often times keeps me focused and prevents my mind from just wandering - if you're on a highway and its crowded and everyone's moving at the same pace in obviously the same direction and you're just staring at the back of the same car - to me that's distracting.

I think Logan said it best - we need to ban the people who suck at driving. All banning cell phone use does is punish the good and responsible drivers because some people can't do both at the same time. I'm willing to bet that if you take away the cell phone the majority of the people still cause the accident - its just that they will be distracted by eating, putting on makeup, playing with the CD or MP3 or maybe in general they just drive like an ass and do dangerous things with their car in order to get one more car ahead in line.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by molson

By your logic, there should be no restrictions about driving - whether drunk, with a blindfold on, while reading a book, etc, because we can't ban everything that might distract.

Not so. My logic is to ask those proposing banning hands free calling to defend banning that while allowing other obviously distracting behavior that could also wait until one was not driving. I feel like eating is far more dangerous than hands free calling - you have only one hand left for driving, its hard to unwrap your meal without looking at it. I think its far more of a distraction than answering a call using a hands free device. I also think listening to books while driving poses the same level of distraction as listening to someone talk. In order to get anything out of it, you have to concentrate somewhat on listening to the book.

You make my point for me - we cannot ban everything that distracts drivers. I just don't understand why some people want to single out phone conversations while allowing other distractions that are also optional.

EDIT: The "cell phone conversations take more attention than live conversations" theory is absurd.

[Passacaglia]

The taxi cab drivers' unions will kill this.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Samdari, the distracting part of talking on the phone is figuring out what you want to say and then saying it, not listening. I don't feel the book on tape is a good counterexample.

Originally Posted by Samdari

EDIT: The "cell phone conversations take more attention than live conversations" theory is absurd.

Are you basing this on anything? Studies have shown it to be true.

PsycNET - Option to Buy

[molson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Not so. My logic is to ask those proposing banning hands free calling to defend banning that while allowing other obviously distracting behavior that could also wait until one was not driving. I feel like eating is far more dangerous than hands free calling - you have only one hand left for driving, its hard to unwrap your meal without looking at it. I think its far more of a distraction than answering a call using a hands free device. I also think listening to books while driving poses the same level of distraction as listening to someone talk. In order to get anything out of it, you have to concentrate somewhat on listening to the book.

You make my point for me - we cannot ban everything that distracts drivers. I just don't understand why some people want to single out phone conversations while allowing other distractions that are also optional.

EDIT: The "cell phone conversations take more attention than live conversations" theory is absurd.

If a police officer sees you unwrapping a meal and not looking at the road, you could very well be pulled over and cited.

The reason phones are a big target is that it's an easy, blanket-ban that can actually be enforced, and would make the roads far safer. You can ban it, some cities have already done it. You can't ban kids from cars. You can't ban people talking in cars.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Samdari, the distracting part of talking on the phone is figuring out what you want to say and then saying it, not listening. I don't feel the book on tape is a good counterexample.

I guess this is a good reason why making sweeping laws like banning all phone conversations in the car is a bad idea.

Personally, I hate talking on the phone. I've honestly never had an engaging cell phone conversation. I never have to think of what to say - I'm only on the phone because I have something very specific to say. Books do engage me, so listening to one takes far more of my attention than any cell phone conversation ever has. But to say listening does not require concentration is just not accurate. Processing the sounds that enter our ears takes some processing by the brain. There's no way around that. Any husband who has been yelled at for thinking about something else while his wife was taking ("what did I just say?") can confirm this.

And completely opposite to molson, a live conversation is also far more likely to engage me. Especially, say, an argument with my wife. Or between my kids that I need to referee.

So, it looks like we cannot really make blanket statements about what is the most distracting - although I stand by my statement that all humans eat by using a hand to bring food to their mouth. So banning behavior by all that distracts some of us is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by molson

If a police officer sees you unwrapping a meal and not looking at the road, you could very well be pulled over and cited.

The reason phones are a big target is that it's an easy, blanket-ban that can actually be enforced, and would make the roads far safer. You can ban it, some cities have already done it. You can't ban kids from cars. You can't ban people talking in cars.

Well, the "can be enforced" thing is also very debatable. Even where its illegal, talking on handsets while driving is not enforced. One reason for that is because cops are the worst offenders. Follow any cop around for an hour, and they'll pull out their cell phone and talk on it while driving. If I ever got a ticket for it, I'd be bringing pictures of that cop talking on his cell to my trial.

Where do you live that eating while driving is illegal? I've never heard of it being so, and if it is, why are drive throughs legal? It would also be the least enforced law on the books.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Well, the "can be enforced" thing is also very debatable. Even where its illegal, talking on handsets while driving is not enforced. One reason for that is because cops are the worst offenders. Follow any cop around for an hour, and they'll pull out their cell phone and talk on it while driving. If I ever got a ticket for it, I'd be bringing pictures of that cop talking on his cell to my trial.

Where do you live that eating while driving is illegal? I've never heard of it being so, and if it is, why are drive throughs legal? It would also be the least enforced law on the books.

Bringing a picture of a cop on a cell phone will say nothing about your own guilt or innocence, and it wouldn't be admissible. And the cop could very well be setting up a witness/victim meeting. They're trained, professional drivers, and have more leeway when it comes to thinks like obeying traffic rules, when they're carrying out their duties.

Eating while you're driving isn't per se illegal anywhere. But if you do it in a dangerous manner, and a cop sees you, he can cite you with carless driving. Because you're being careless - while you're driving. Same as if you're turned around talking to your kids. There's no specific crime targeting that behavior, but it's also careless driving.

It's much more difficult to make such case-by-case decisions regarding cell phones. You either have to ban 'em all, or make 'em all legal.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

But if you do it in a dangerous manner, and a cop sees you, he can cite you with carless driving. Because you're being careless - while you're driving. Same as if you're turned around talking to your kids. There's no specific crime targeting that behavior, but it's also careless driving.

So you're saying that if a cop observes you driving carelessly, he can give you a ticket, whether the reason you are doing so is because you're eating, turned around talking to your kids, or...I don't know...talking on your cell phone?

Careless driving is careless driving, the reason for being so is not important.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

So you're saying that if a cop observes you driving carelessly, he can give you a ticket, whether the reason you are doing so is because you're eating, turned around talking to your kids, or...I don't know...talking on your cell phone?

Careless driving is careless driving, the reason for being so is not important.

It's impossible to get in someone's head and see how distracted they are by a particular phone call they're making. Wheras turning around, or making a sandwich, is dangerous for everyone.

It's the same with speeding. Some people can drive safer 15 mph over the speed limit than others can drive 15 under. But it's not possible to make those kind of case-by-case judgments, so we just pick a workable number and go with it.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

It's impossible to get in someone's head and see how distracted they are by a particular phone call they're making. Wheras turning around, or making a sandwich, is dangerous for everyone.

Which is what I meant by "observes you driving carelessly"...visually seeing a driver swerving, drifting into another lane, following too closely, etc. All of these can be caused by eating or talking on a cell phone.

[gstelmack]

The difference between, say, eating or changing the radio and using the cell phone or driving drunk is that eating / changing the radio tend to be short bursts of inattention while cell phone use and drunk driving impair you for long stretches. That's why the odds go way up.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by molson

Bringing a picture of a cop on a cell phone will say nothing about your own guilt or innocence, and it wouldn't be admissible. And the cop could very well be setting up a witness/victim meeting. They're trained, professional drivers, and have more leeway when it comes to thinks like obeying traffic rules, when they're carrying out their duties.

Eating while you're driving isn't per se illegal anywhere. But if you do it in a dangerous manner, and a cop sees you, he can cite you with carless driving. Because you're being careless - while you're driving. Same as if you're turned around talking to your kids. There's no specific crime targeting that behavior, but it's also careless driving.

It's much more difficult to make such case-by-case decisions regarding cell phones. You either have to ban 'em all, or make 'em all legal.

Please find the statutes which define & ban 'careless driving.' I think you'll find them pretty sparse. You commit a specific violation while eating, you'll get cited for that violation. Stay in your lane, stop before the line etc. while unwrapping the sandwich and the cops won't bat an eye.

Have you ever been to a 'trial' for a traffic ticket? The judges/jp's there tend not to be, umm, educated in the law. Rules of evidence tend to be a little more relaxed. I agree that the picture of the cop on his phone has no bearing on whether or not he's guilty, but if he convicts me and not the cop, he looks like an idiot. Noone likes to look like an idiot.

Originally Posted by Logan

Careless driving is careless driving, the reason for being so is not important.

Thank you for saying in one sentence what I have been unable to say in paragraphs.