Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > NTSB recommends complete cell phone ban while driving

NTSB recommends complete cell phone ban while driving (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:05 PM
 
Police have a whole computer to distract them in the driver's seat. I'm not sure how much we can extrapolate from them. Unless it's to support my automation idea, then of course these are exceptional insights
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Exactly. I'd much rather see someone yakking on the phone openly while driving rather than looking down in their lap cause they're trying to hide it from the cops.

OAW
The evidence indicates that how you are talking on the phone doesn't matter (handheld, hands free, whatever). It is the cognitive act of talking on the phone that causes a distraction significantly more impairing than other common tasks. Your mind is essentially taken out of the car.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
The evidence indicates that how you are talking on the phone doesn't matter (handheld, hands free, whatever). It is the cognitive act of talking on the phone that causes a distraction significantly more impairing than other common tasks. Your mind is essentially taken out of the car.
Perhaps, but I think we could all agree that keeping one's eyes on the road is of paramount importance n'est-ce pas? Secondarily, I think we could all agree that keeping one's hands on the steering wheel is a really good thing as well. If holding a cell phone conversation is dangerous then doing so with one hand on the wheel while you are looking down at your lap to dial or text has to be even more dangerous.

Now having said that, the evidence cited said the following:

Drivers talking by cell phone drove significantly worse than drivers talking to passengers. The cell-phone users were more likely to drift in their lane, kept a greater distance between their car and the car in front, and were four times more likely to miss pulling off the highway at the rest area.
Nothing in the study you listed said anything about a greater likelihood to be in accidents let alone fatal ones. And since when is keeping a "greater distance between their car and the car in front" a bad thing? I've missed more exits by zoning out in thought about something and driving on "auto-pilot" where I end up halfway to work when I was intending to go somewhere else. Now personally I don't like to hold a cellphone while driving. I don't even like to eat while driving. If I pick up some fast food in the drive through I'll just scarf it down on the parking lot before continuing on my way. But I've never even remotely come close to rear-ending someone or running a light as the result of a hands-free cellphone call. Glancing back over my shoulder to make sure someone isn't in my blind spot when I change lanes because the side mirror visibility on newer cars is for sh*t? Now that has caused a few close calls especially in heavy traffic where people like to hit their brakes for no apparent reason. And then there was that one time when this woman with a really nice ass was walking down the sidewalk in short shorts .....

And then what about this study?

Passengers, Not Just Mobile Phones, Contribute To Road Accidents

New research by Australian scientists has shown that drivers carrying two or more passengers are twice as likely to crash as unaccompanied drivers. Both the carrying of passengers, and having a larger number of passengers in the car, are associated with an increased likelihood of a crash, though not to the same extent as mobile phone use.
Should be ban more than one person in a car now? Might as well get rid of those HOV lanes in high traffic cities.

OAW
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
The evidence indicates that how you are talking on the phone doesn't matter (handheld, hands free, whatever). It is the cognitive act of talking on the phone that causes a distraction significantly more impairing than other common tasks. Your mind is essentially taken out of the car.
Yup and a study done a year ago maybe 2 years ago showed that the cognitive act of talking regardless of hands free or cell phone was more dangerous then some one legally drunk and not tired. Drunk and tired hands down was the worst combination. But awake and drunk was more responsive to situations then a cell phone user.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:34 PM
 
I think getting licensed to drive in of itself should be harder and the test to demonstrate driving ability should be harder with road retesting every 5 years to keep your license. People that crash while using a cell phone or any device or distraction is just the end result of a bad driver, a symptom more so then the cause. You have people that can drive while on a cell phone and those that cant drive period and adding a cell phone to the mix makes the bad driver even worse.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Should be ban more than one person in a car now?
It doesn't say that, does it? It says "more than two passengers". So one is OK.
So, we're back to the Clarkson school of motoring, which is: Buy a two-seater, take the prettiest girl with you, let everyone else fend for themselves, and tell the girl to shut up.

Sorted.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Perhaps, but I think we could all agree that keeping one's eyes on the road is of paramount importance n'est-ce pas? Secondarily, I think we could all agree that keeping one's hands on the steering wheel is a really good thing as well. If holding a cell phone conversation is dangerous then doing so with one hand on the wheel while you are looking down at your lap to dial or text has to be even more dangerous.

Now having said that, the evidence cited said the following:



Nothing in the study you listed said anything about a greater likelihood to be in accidents let alone fatal ones. And since when is keeping a "greater distance between their car and the car in front" a bad thing? I've missed more exits by zoning out in thought about something and driving on "auto-pilot" where I end up halfway to work when I was intending to go somewhere else. Now personally I don't like to hold a cellphone while driving. I don't even like to eat while driving. If I pick up some fast food in the drive through I'll just scarf it down on the parking lot before continuing on my way. But I've never even remotely come close to rear-ending someone or running a light as the result of a hands-free cellphone call. Glancing back over my shoulder to make sure someone isn't in my blind spot when I change lanes because the side mirror visibility on newer cars is for sh*t? Now that has caused a few close calls especially in heavy traffic where people like to hit their brakes for no apparent reason. And then there was that one time when this woman with a really nice ass was walking down the sidewalk in short shorts .....

And then what about this study?

Passengers, Not Just Mobile Phones, Contribute To Road Accidents



Should be ban more than one person in a car now? Might as well get rid of those HOV lanes in high traffic cities.

OAW
That's a lot of flim-flam. Here is what we know:

Cell phone use ranks up there as one of the most heavily impairing things for a driver's ability to function, right with up there with DUI.

Can you make up hypothetical situations where a driver can be just as distracted by other means? Unusually distracting passengers? The bra incident from Seinfeld? Sure. Are these situations as potentially pervasive as cell phone use? Of course not. It seems to me that banning cell phone use while driving is just as legitimate as banning driving under the influence of alcohol.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Not trying. Not caring.
Noted.

Game, set and match to me, I think.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Um... yes? That's the whole point of saving money. In Oregon and New Jersey you still have to sit in your car while a mouth-breathing high school drop-out pumps your gas for you, just to prevent an army of gas station attendants from losing their "industry." Dumb.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You mean to tell me that full-service gas stations still exist in the US? Haven't seen one of those in decades.

OAW
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Aren't they required by law in New Jersey or something?
Yes, and I hate them. There are plenty of people here who like the convenience of not having to get out of the car in the rain or snow, but personally I'd rather pump my own gas and not have to wait in long lines.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Can you make up hypothetical situations where a driver can be just as distracted by other means? Unusually distracting passengers? The bra incident from Seinfeld? Sure.
Actually, no. I've done the "naked chick in passenger seat" quite a few times and it's nowhere near as impairing as a cell phone call. Seriously. Even a BJ whilst driving isn't as distracting as a cell phone call.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Can you make up hypothetical situations where a driver can be just as distracted by other means? Unusually distracting passengers? The bra incident from Seinfeld? Sure. Are these situations as potentially pervasive as cell phone use? Of course not. It seems to me that banning cell phone use while driving is just as legitimate as banning driving under the influence of alcohol.
But therein lies the rub. It's way too pervasive to be enforceable. At this stage in the game banning cellphone use while driving would essentially carry the same weight as the ban on jaywalking. And I truly think the unintended consequences of a concerted crackdown effort by the police will cause more accidents as people try to hide what they are going to do anyway regardless of the legislation. The same way these red-light cameras have caused more people to get rear-ended since they suddenly slam on the brakes to avoid an automated ticket. Studies show that extending the yellow light for a few more seconds is a much safer approach. Unfortunately, that doesn't generate any extra revenue.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Actually, no. I've done the "naked chick in passenger seat" quite a few times and it's nowhere near as impairing as a cell phone call. Seriously. Even a BJ whilst driving isn't as distracting as a cell phone call.
Well if that's the case then she wasn't doing it right.

OAW
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 04:52 PM
 
I dunno I found good road head to be the most distracting thing of them all. Physical and mentally.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:15 PM
 
^^^^^

Maybe not as much as meteor showers .....

Man plunges off cliff while viewing meteor shower - latimes.com

OAW
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Noted.

Game, set and match to me, I think.
Maybe. I think what's needed is a survey to see how many drivers can tell a 1psi difference in their tires by 6th sense, and then another one to see how many would care about such a small difference.

I agree your point to be aware of your vehicle, but reality beckons. Can you also tell if the oil is low just by mind-melding with your car? I can.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:18 PM
 
The absurdity in this thread is quite amusing.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Should be ban more than one person in a car now? Might as well get rid of those HOV lanes in high traffic cities.
No because then you would have 2 cars. Two cars with x crash probability is just as bad as 1 car with 2x crash probability. There would be no savings there (even ignoring your error with 2+ vs 1 passenger ).


Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think getting licensed to drive in of itself should be harder and the test to demonstrate driving ability should be harder with road retesting every 5 years to keep your license. People that crash while using a cell phone or any device or distraction is just the end result of a bad driver, a symptom more so then the cause. You have people that can drive while on a cell phone and those that cant drive period and adding a cell phone to the mix makes the bad driver even worse.
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Unusually distracting passengers? The bra incident from Seinfeld? Sure. Are these situations as potentially pervasive as cell phone use? Of course not. It seems to me that banning cell phone use while driving is just as legitimate as banning driving under the influence of alcohol.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I've done the "naked chick in passenger seat" and Even a BJ whilst driving
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And I truly think the unintended consequences of a concerted crackdown effort by the police will cause more accidents as people try to hide what they are going to do anyway. red-light cameras have caused more people to get rear-ended since they suddenly slam on the brakes to avoid an automated ticket.
Thanks guys, these are all excellent reasons to push forward to automated vehicles being mandatory (first allowed, then mandatory). Rather than trying to take away people's toys and games, we should just enable a full commitment to them and not make people have to drive in the first place. And we haven't even gotten to the advantage that automated drivers would be able to adhere to tighter tolerances and benefit more from information sharing to minimize congestion.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But therein lies the rub. It's way too pervasive to be enforceable. At this stage in the game banning cellphone use while driving would essentially carry the same weight as the ban on jaywalking.
The same was true of drunk driving before it ever became illegal. Instituting the first ban on DUI and enforcing that ban was no easy task. Of course back then they didn't have the option of going the other way with it, allowing heavy drinking and just prevent people from driving. Now we do, and we should.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:31 PM
 
Automated vehicles wouldn't just improve transportation when the driver wants to be playing a video game, it would improve the game too. A car has a lot of freedom of movement within its own lane without compromising safety. Just imagine if your video game could request a swerve or a brake from the car, to augment gameplay. If the navigation unit decides it's available based on safety or whatever, it could toss the gamer around like a rag doll. This would be way better than anything you could realistically get out of a living room setting. Gamers would be looking for the longest commute they could find.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Maybe. I think what's needed is a survey to see how many drivers can tell a 1psi difference in their tires by 6th sense, and then another one to see how many would care about such a small difference.

I agree your point to be aware of your vehicle, but reality beckons. Can you also tell if the oil is low just by mind-melding with your car? I can.
You know, automated vehicles would have no problem detecting low tire pressure en route, even if the only passenger is enfeebled or deranged
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Maybe. I think what's needed is a survey to see how many drivers can tell a 1psi difference in their tires by 6th sense, and then another one to see how many would care about such a small difference.
All drivers should be able to tell. Riders, on the other hand...

And yes, they should care. 2 psi per tyre here will get you a year's ban. Plod doesn't do that for no reason.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Police have a whole computer to distract them in the driver's seat.
Maybe the real question is what training the police get to operate the laptop and drive safely. How many hours of practice, at what cost, etc.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:45 PM
 
And as expected, the BS begins. Surprised I missed this earlier .....

A federal safety board called Tuesday for a nationwide ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving.

The recommendation is the most far-reaching yet by the National Transportation Safety Board, which in the past 10 years has increasingly sought to limit the use of portable electronic devices -- recommending bans for novice drivers, school bus drivers and commercial truckers. Tuesday's recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road.

It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said.
NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving

Now if holding a cellphone conversation is so dangerous, why carve out an exception for hands-free devices installed by the manufacturer of the vehicle? Auto manufacturer lobby influencing the NTSB perhaps?

OAW
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You know, automated vehicles would have no problem detecting low tire pressure en route, even if the only passenger is enfeebled or deranged
I think this is where I'm supposed to say, don't we already have trains, and oh yes, they suck?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
with road retesting every 5 years to keep your license.
That's a rich one, Athens. Maybe if our car computers can self-administer those tests, but being held to the whim of DMV-shit bureaucrats every 5 years for a privilege essential to the daily lives of a large portion of the population? Never. Going. To. Happen. Besides, for the majority of people who are decently competent behind the wheel, all your grueling testing regime would produce would be tons of wasted time and resources.

When are you going to learn that more government doesn't make lives better most all of the time?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I think this is where I'm supposed to say, don't we already have trains, and oh yes, they suck?
Must be because they're not automated
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 05:56 PM
 
How about a law saying that new drivers, doesn't matter the age, can't have huge arse vehicles, sports cars, and are only allowed to drive "regular" cars until they haven't had an accident for 3-4 years?

Also, no cops around here enforce the no talking on cell phones; it's such a small money making ticket, they'd rather go for the bigger money makers. If they made the fines for talking on the cell phone while driving much steeper, then the law would probably be upheld.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Auto manufacturer lobby influencing the NTSB perhaps?
Or maybe the opposite, the NTSF thinks they can control what auto manufacturers put into cars, but controlling 3rd party products is hopeless. Maybe they'll even make built-in car phones smart enough to drop your call when things get hairy on your road
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But therein lies the rub. It's way too pervasive to be enforceable. At this stage in the game banning cellphone use while driving would essentially carry the same weight as the ban on jaywalking. And I truly think the unintended consequences of a concerted crackdown effort by the police will cause more accidents as people try to hide what they are going to do anyway regardless of the legislation.
OAW
I doubt it. The most reliable way to avoid enforcement (hands-free devices) would impose no additional distraction.

I don't see any possible argument for how this wouldn't be a net positive, even if mostly unenforceable. Maybe it will convince some small percentage of the population to not talk on the phone while driving. If so, it's a net positive.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Maybe the real question is what training the police get to operate the laptop and drive safely. How many hours of practice, at what cost, etc.
One would hope they are required to only use the laptop while parked, and are simply trusted more than the rest of us to abstain while moving. Does anyone know?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
That's a rich one, Athens. Maybe if our car computers can self-administer those tests, but being held to the whim of DMV-shit bureaucrats every 5 years for a privilege essential to the daily lives of a large portion of the population? Never. Going. To. Happen. Besides, for the majority of people who are decently competent behind the wheel, all your grueling testing regime would produce would be tons of wasted time and resources.

When are you going to learn that more government doesn't make lives better most all of the time?
I'll appease you, we can make the testing a private companies market
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² View Post
How about a law saying that new drivers, doesn't matter the age, can't have huge arse vehicles, sports cars, and are only allowed to drive "regular" cars until they haven't had an accident for 3-4 years?

Also, no cops around here enforce the no talking on cell phones; it's such a small money making ticket, they'd rather go for the bigger money makers. If they made the fines for talking on the cell phone while driving much steeper, then the law would probably be upheld.
no no no, you got it wrong. As part of getting your first license you must first go through a crash simulator. Bang up those little bastards while they are young enough to heal fully then let them drive with the knowledge of what a crash feels like
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:25 PM
 
A study by the Highway Loss Data Institute showing that cellphone bans while driving resulted in significantly lower cellphone usage with no appreciable decrease in accidents.

Highway Loss Data Institute Bulletin - Hand-Held Cellphone Laws and Collision Claim Frequencies

Driver phone bans' impact doubted - USATODAY.com

OAW
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:32 PM
 
...primarily because of the enforcement issue.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:37 PM
 
Um you missed the point. Cell phone usage decreased... Accidents did not...

What enforcement issue ?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Um you missed the point. Cell phone usage decreased... Accidents did not...
Hand-held cell phone use decreased. Did all cell phone use decrease?

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
What enforcement issue ?
No police have ever prosecuted anyone ever for using a cell phone while driving?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Um you missed the point. Cell phone usage decreased... Accidents did not...

What enforcement issue ?
Hand-held cell phone usage decreased. People switched to hands-free. We already know that hands-free usage is not less distracting than hand-held usage.

Edit: what Doofy said.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:44 PM
 
I was going by this statement

A study by the Highway Loss Data Institute showing that cellphone bans while driving resulted in significantly lower cellphone usage with no appreciable decre
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:47 PM
 
I read the actual linked report. It was comparing accident rates after bans on hand-held cell phone use.

"A number of jurisdictions worldwide, including several US states, have made it illegal to use hand-held cellphones while
driving. Evidence on the effectiveness of these bans is mixed. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has studied
driver response to three of the statewide bans on hand-held phone use (McCartt and Geary, 2004; McCartt and Hellinga,
2007; McCartt et al., in press). In November 2001, New York became the first state to implement a ban on hand-held cellphone use for drivers, and driver phone use immediately declined by an estimated 47 percent. The District of Columbia
passed a ban in 2004, and driver cellphone use dropped 41 percent. Connecticut's ban took effect in 2005, and hand-held
phone
use declined by an estimated 76 percent. The estimated effects of these three cellphone laws differ considerably, but
results indicate that banning hand-held cellphone phone use can affect phone use."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 06:59 PM
 
I find these findings from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) illuminating ....

- In 2009, 5,474 people were killed on U.S. roadways and an estimated additional 448,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved distracted driving (FARS and GES).

„„- Of those people killed in distracted-driving-related crashes, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction (18% of fatalities in distraction-related crashes).

„„- Of those injured in distracted-driving-related crashes, 24,000 involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction (5% of injured people in distraction-related crashes).
TRAFFIC SAFETY FACTS Research Note - Distracted Driving 2009

Which basically means that cell phones were NOT reported to be involved in 82% of "distracted-driving related fatalities" and they were NOT reported to be involved in 95% of "distraction-driving related injuries". All of these are listed as examples of "distracted-driving".

-Texting
-Using a cell phone or smartphone
-Eating and drinking
-Talking to passengers
-Grooming
-Reading, including maps
-Using a navigation system
-Watching a video
-Adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player

But what's interesting is that cellphones get all the attention and focus. Even put at the top of the list when they are nowhere near the primary cause of such accidents.

A new study of traffic accidents conducted on Virginia roads has found, unsurprisingly, that many car crashes are the result of driver distraction. But while cell phones are increasingly fingered as dangerous in-car distractions, the study, conducted by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), found that old-fashioned rubbernecking was the biggest single cause, accounting for 16 percent of distraction-related crashes.

Officer John Carney of the Fairfax County Police is not surprised that people gawking at an accident cause a lot of additional accidents themselves. "I've had as many as three accidents at one scene, at one intersection," says Carney. "Rubbernecking is the most dangerous distraction, in my experience."
Va. Study: Eyes on The Road (washingtonpost.com)

OAW
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 07:09 PM
 
I guarantee that automated vehicles won't be rubbernecking
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 07:13 PM
 
^^^^ Given the fact that I work in IT and know a thing or two about the inevitable defects that plague complex software .... I'm not sure if I'm quite ready to give total control over to an automated vehicle just yet.

OAW
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 07:14 PM
 
Don't discount the inevitable defects that plague biological software though (edit: oh yeah, I work in biology )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 07:16 PM
 
^^^^

There is that.

OAW
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Which basically means that cell phones were NOT reported to be involved in 82% of "distracted-driving related fatalities" and they were NOT reported to be involved in 95% of "distraction-driving related injuries".
I don't know if you expect me to find those figures surprising, but I don't. There are a lot of ways to be distracted in a car. 16% is a pretty significant chunk, especially when you consider that the 84% figure...

"could include cell phones [for States without cell phone identification on the reporting form], eating, talking to passenger, looking outside, etc.). It should be noted that the distracted-driving related crashes and fatalities may be associated with multiple categories of distraction. For instance, some of the fatalities may be associated with both cell phone use and operating a vehicle in a careless or inattentive manner."

I don't think the data is granular enough to really be illuminating. It's quite possible that cell phone use approaches a plurality of cases.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^ Given the fact that I work in IT and know a thing or two about the inevitable defects that plague complex software .... I'm not sure if I'm quite ready to give total control over to an automated vehicle just yet.

OAW
If its made by Microsoft like Sync then HELL NO lol
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2011, 07:34 PM
 
Guess what Athens, it's legal in Nevada
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2011, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
Maybe the real question is what training the police get to operate the laptop and drive safely. How many hours of practice, at what cost, etc.
Must of missed this,

Miami Cop Runs Police Car Up a Pole - Miami News - Riptide 2.0

What exactly was distracting the officer so much that he wound up driving off the road has not been officially explained. At least he wasn't driving an ATV on the beach.
Update,
Dropped a pen and was trying to find it.

What I find most infuriating about cell phone use and driving is texting.
Every day you see someone with their head down, driving, delaying people at green lights and yes, rear ending someone or worse and causing more delay.

I saw a guy texting while riding a bicycle and careened off a curb and almost got hit by a car.

Freaking knuckleheads.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2011, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Or maybe the opposite, the NTSF thinks they can control what auto manufacturers put into cars, but controlling 3rd party products is hopeless. Maybe they'll even make built-in car phones smart enough to drop your call when things get hairy on your road
There are accelerometers in many "hammerheads" in utility vehicles that disable the laptop or even handhelds while in motion.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2011, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Must of missed this,
And you must of missed that someone already posted that on the last page!!1one


Originally Posted by ebuddy
There are accelerometers in many "hammerheads" in utility vehicles that disable the laptop or even handhelds while in motion.
That's totally awesome, but I am left wondering how an accelerometer can tell the difference between idling and cruising. Wouldn't it be easier to patch it in to the speedometer?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2011, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Guess what Athens, it's legal in Nevada
What is?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,