Personally, I pretty much avoid using handheld while driving entirely, because I know it diverts my concentration.
I avoid using my phone at all, because I don’t generally care for talking on it.
I might not have an accident but I think it certainly increases the chances that I might. Or, another way of looking at it, is that it reduces my ability to drive defensively. And I consider myself to be a reasonable driver.
Then by all means, if it makes you uncomfortable or in any way less confident in your ability to drive safely, don’t do it. I’m not promoting forcing anyone to do anything here. I’m also not against using headsets - I have two Bluetooth headsets as well as a wired one. On longer drives, or if I know I’m going to be on the phone for a while, I use them. I just think it’s insane to make me go fishing around for a headset while I’m doing 70mph in order to take a call that’s going to last 20 seconds. It’s pure stupidity - I’d be much more likely to cause an accident digging through my glove box looking for something than answering my phone and bringing it to my ear (both of which I can do without ever taking my eyes off the road).
Life is risky enough as it is without people creating foreseeable harm to me or my loved ones.
We see things differently. I see anybody getting behind the wheel - even sober people who don’t even own a cellphone - as dangerous. There is no such thing as a “safe driver” unless that driver is me. Everyone else is a horrible driver who’s actively trying to kill me. From my point of view, the entire world is “creating foreseeable harm” just by getting behind the wheel.
As I set out in an earlier post, and as Tripper has just done, why are you ok with other road rules which infringe your freedoms (how fast and where you can drive)?
Don’t be an ass, CM. I’m not an anarchist, and you know it.
You say ‘without just cause’, but there are numerous studies that show impairment, or at least that people feel they are distracted to the point where their driving is not as good as it could be. Even to the point where it can have more of an effect than alcohol.
I’ve never participated in those studies, nor do I know anyone who has. I don’t know the methodology used, nor do I care. What I *DO* know, is that I see a LOT of people driving with phones to their ear every single day - WAY more than are likely to be driving under the influence (in this town, that’s really saying something), and I’m not hearing about them every night on the evening news. If it were truly as dangerous as driving drunk, it’d be getting the same amount of negative press and would have the same negative social stigma attached. It doesn’t.
Do you believe people should be able to drink and drive? If not, why not?
Seriously, CM. Stop being an ass. If you want to have a rational discussion, don’t throw out stupid crap like this. If you really, truly believe that they are equal, then there’s no point in continuing this conversation.
As I set out in an earlier post, and as Tripper has just done, why are you ok with other road rules which infringe your freedoms (how fast and where you can drive)?
Don’t be an ass, CM. I’m not an anarchist, and you know it.
I don’t think he’s being an ass.
My point about speeding was a direct response to Buzzion’s comment about responsibility but it applies to the whole cell phone topic I guess.
What about your freedom to drive at a speed you are comfortable with?
I could make the argument that I am most comfortable driving at 80mph on the open road. Personally I find that when I’m moving along at that speed I still have good control of my car, possess the ability to stop in a reasonable time and distance and am a good enough driver to handle it.
I’ve never had an accident in 11 years of driving. My worst driving offence is a parking ticket (last Saturday oddly enough)
As I start getting faster, especially above 90 I’m less comfortable, I feel that my car doesn’t respond as well and it generally feels a little to fast for my liking.
At 60 mph I feel like I’m dawdling along, I get impatient and fidgety, possibly making me a worse driver.
Often I drive 160 miles one way to visit my in-laws, almost all of it on the open road. At 60mph (the limit I think, it might be 55) that takes me 2 hours and 40 mins.
At 80 mph that takes me 2 hours (in theory, both times are slightly longer in practice)
Why shouldn’t I have the freedom to drive at whatever speed I feel comfortable with? I’m not advocating that the speed limit be increased to 80, I’m saying there shouldn’t be one at all and everybody should just choose the speed they feel comfortable with. If you can’t drive at a speed you yourself find comfortable you shouldn’t be driving, if other drivers on the road make you uncomfortable with their speed then don’t drive on that road.
The same argument can be applied to residential areas, somebody might feel they are safe/comfortable dirivng 45 in a 30 zone, they may have better breaks than I do and be able to stop quicker etc.
Why shouldn’t they be have the personal responsibility to choose their speed rather than have the government force restrictions on them nanny state style?
I’m playing devils advocate here of course, I don’t actually support getting rid of speed limits. I hope you can see the point I’m making and understand that I’m not being an ass.
I won’t talk on the phone while driving unless it can’t be helped. You can’t focus on driving if you’re on the cell phone and it really bugs me when I see a car full of teens and the driver and a couple other ones are all on their phones.
Two weeks ago while coming home I saw a green Ford Aspire coming up behind me at a pretty good rate of speed (especially considering the car). When the guy went around me I noticed that he had on a pair of over the ear headphones and it even had a cord presumably leading to his stereo system. Some people are just beyond help…
Just Yesterday I was charged with the job of taking my Step Daughter to her highschool so that she could participate in the schools softball camp. She only goes to school half-day in her senior year, so I was dropping her off at the same time all of the other students were getting out of school. I am suprised there is not an accident (or 20) on the street outside of that school every day. Every car was filled with either A) Students all talking with each other, the driver not paying attention to traffic, B) The Driver talking to people in other cars, some with half of their bodies outside of the window (obviously not paying attention to traffic), C) Drivers talking on Cell Phones, not paying attention to traffic, or D) Drivers actually texting while their car is moving in traffic, also not paying attention. I thought there was no way in hell I was getting home without getting dinged by someone, but I did. Make of that what you will, either cell phones/texting should be banned while driving because of all these idiots, or perhaps it’s not as big of a problem as some would have you believe. Personally, I’m never driving down that road again while school is getting out.
This is a tough call for me (pun intended). I think the main reason I would be ok with cell phone related driving laws is that it can and does affect other people. Whether or not I wear my sealtbelt is my choice, for example, and the only one likely to die as a result is me. However, if I talk on my cell phone and it distracts from my driving and I crash there is a good chance I will hurt another person.
I totaled my car about 9 months ago. You know what? It’s because I was a dumbass and was distracted by my cell phone. Head on into another car. Luckily it was low speed and neither of us was injured. But my car was totaled and his wasn’t much better.
I won’t talk on the phone while driving unless it can’t be helped. You can’t focus on driving if you’re on the cell phone and it really bugs me when I see a car full of teens and the driver and a couple other ones are all on their phones.
Same here, I can’t actually remember a time when I couldn’t have a passenger take the call for me, or pull over shortly after and respond. It bugs me with teens and adults alike.
crichton - 09 January 2008 11:00 AM
Two weeks ago while coming home I saw a green Ford Aspire coming up behind me at a pretty good rate of speed (especially considering the car). When the guy went around me I noticed that he had on a pair of over the ear headphones and it even had a cord presumably leading to his stereo system. Some people are just beyond help…
I don’t know about where you live but that is for sure illegal here in MN. There is an interesting question about where it applies to cyclists. I was reading the cycling laws on somebody’s site (techincally their interpretation of them) and they said there was no law saying a cyclist on a public highway couldn’t listen to music on headphones, but there is a law that states that bicycles are subject to all the rules of the road like cars. My interpretation would be that it’s against the law for Bikes then too.
Of course the law techincally says bicycles so I guess I’m free to choose :-D
I think everybody here recognizes my strong conservativeness, with a distinct lean towards libertarianism. That said, I have no serious objection to hand-held cell phone rules, or even seatbelt and helmet rules. Anybody that can afford a cellphone can afford a headset. Simply put the damn thing on everytime you get in the car, it only takes a moment. Its easy to argue that you can drive safely while using a hand-held, but there are too many others out there who can’t. The cost/benefit ratio (whether it be in money, convenience or civil rights) is more than sufficient to justify such laws. In any case, they’ll only be relevant for a few more years anyway. Some Japanese company has already produced a Bluetooth type unit that has the microphone inside the earpiece. I predict that within five years, they’ll have miniaturised it to the size of an in-ear hearing aid, and that style will become ubiquitous.
For the speed limit, I would say with the speed limit in place I would say the majority of drivers are driving withing a 15 mph window of speed. And that’s only because places like Ohio have a speed of 65 for cars and 55 for semis. You don’t have that an I would call a 10 mile window. This puts an overall reduction in required awareness around you. You can tell much easier how much faster or slower you are going to cars around you. And only need to really be alert for those vehicles outside that range which is a minority. You eliminate the speed limit and you could wind up with 20% of cars doing 55, another 40% doing 65, 20% doing 75, and the rest driving at 85 or faster. There would be a lot more danger there in no speed limit than deciding that I’m not capable of driving while my phone is to my ear for 1-2 minutes. Its an attempt to punish for something that hasn’t occured.
Xetrov for your personal story, that’s just high schoolers, the chaos would be no different if cell phones were removed from the equation. I experienced it before cell phones were even close to being common place and it was always hectic.
As for headphones while driving. Tripper can you actually think of a valid reasoning that someone shouldn’t be able to?
Xetrov for your personal story, that’s just high schoolers, the chaos would be no different if cell phones were removed from the equation. I experienced it before cell phones were even close to being common place and it was always hectic.
??? You just trying to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable or what? I made no absolute statement about the effect of cell phone use or what should be done about it, and gave two situations happening completely without the input of cell phones. Just a personal observation. I didn’t state highschool drivers weren’t idiots before cell phones, but my situation would seem to show that it is worse now than it was when I was in High School. I didn’t say it was anything but high schoolers.
As for headphones while driving. Tripper can you actually think of a valid reasoning that someone shouldn’t be able to?
Much harder to hear emergency vehicles (those things that make the weeereeeeerreeeerreeeeereeeer sounds with flashing lights) coming with headphones on. Same thing goes for the idiots who drive around with base systems loud enough to shake my car, let alone their own.
??? You just trying to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable or what? I made no absolute statement about the effect of cell phone use or what should be done about it, and gave two situations happening completely without the input of cell phones. Just a personal observation. I didn’t state highschool drivers weren’t idiots before cell phones, but my situation would seem to show that it is worse now than it was when I was in High School. I didn’t say it was anything but high schoolers.
No I’m not trying to disagree with you. But its definitely been that way for about 10 years. I was not addressing it only towards you, but just going off what you said.
Much harder to hear emergency vehicles (those things that make the weeereeeeerreeeerreeeeereeeer sounds with flashing lights) coming with headphones on.
So do you believe it should be illegal for a deaf person to drive?
So do you believe it should be illegal for a deaf person to drive?
Quite a leap there.
“People shouldn’t drink and drive.”
“Oh, so do you think bartenders shouldn’t drive then?”
No yours is the leap.
You’ve just given the reason to not wear headphones comes from not being able to hear sirens. Well if you’re deaf you can’t hear the sirens. In both cases its a lack of hearing what might be happening on the road. And since its not illegal for someone who can’t hear to drive, I don’t find it to be a very valid reason for it to be illegal.
Much harder to hear emergency vehicles (those things that make the weeereeeeerreeeerreeeeereeeer sounds with flashing lights) coming with headphones on.
So do you believe it should be illegal for a deaf person to drive?
Swagger, as Tripper sets out, I wasn’t trying to be an ass. I presume there is some point, in terms of vehicle safety, whereby you agree with laws that restrict freedom. I was just setting out to discover where that line might be. Thought I’d start with anti-drink-drive laws and work backwards. Even though this is apparantly all about an over-riding principle of ‘getting nanny state out of our lives’ presumably there is a point where you can actually justify it. The principle only kicks in at a certain point?
Here are two studies in the UK which are pretty clear about the dangers to others. I would have thought that this is when the principle needs to be set aside (which is kinda what the others here are intimating).
The Direct Line research showed a clear trend for significantly poorer driving performance
(speed control, following distance and reaction times) when using a mobile phone in
comparison to the other conditions.
• The best performance was by those drivers who were driving under normal conditions
without the influence of alcohol or the distraction of a mobile phone.
• Driving performance under the influence of alcohol was significantly worse than normal
driving, yet significantly better than driving while using a mobile phone. Furthermore,
drivers reported that it was easier to drive drunk than to drive while using a phone.
• The results demonstrate that drivers’ reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when
talking on a hand-held mobile phone compared to being drunk and nearly 50% slower than
under normal driving conditions. According to the tests, drivers were less able to maintain
a constant speed and found it more difficult to keep a safe distance from the car in front.
• Using a hand-held mobile phone had the greatest impact on driving performance. On
average it took hand-held mobile phone users half a second longer to react than normal,
and a third of a second longer to react compared to when they were drunk. At 70 mph,
this half-second difference is equivalent to travelling an additional 46 feet (14m) before
reacting to a hazard on the road.
• In addition, drivers using either a hands-free or hand-held mobile phone significantly missed
more road warning signs than when drunk.
• Hands-free was safer than using hand-held mobile phones. However, the conversation itself
is a major distraction, with the use of hands-free phones carrying hidden dangers. As a
result of this finding, even the use of hands-free proved more dangerous than driving under
the influence of alcohol.
This study demonstrates beyond doubt that using a mobile phone when driving significantly
impairs the driver’s attention to potentially hazardous situations, more so than having a blood
alcohol level at the UK legal limit (80mg/100ml).
In attempting to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, drivers subject themselves and other
road-users to unacceptable dangers.
Conclusions on experimental evidence for effects on driving
5.208 There is strong experimental evidence that engaging in a mobile phone conversation impairs
drivers’ ability to react to potentially hazardous road situations. The impairment appears to be
greater than that associated with merely listening to a radio or engaging in a relatively
“automatic” task such as repeating back words heard over the phone; is evident during a
“casual” conversation; increases along with the mental workload imposed by the conversation;
is greater in elderly drivers; and is unaffected by mode of phone use (hand-held versus
hands-free). There is less evidence as to whether aspects of driving other than speed or accuracy
of reaction to changing road circumstances differ according to mode of phone operation.
Consistent with what might be expected on the basis of common experience, one study found that
placing a call on a hand-held set is associated with a transient impairment in the basic control of
the vehicle. The extent to which this “peripheral” effect adds to the risk posed by the more
sustained “central” effects that are shared by hand-held and hands-free operation appears to be
unknown at present. It should be noted that none of the studies reviewed above compared the
effects on driving performance of phone use to the effects caused by conversing with a passenger.
Thus it remains to be established whether an in-car conversation that places a cognitive load on
the driver equivalent to that imposed by a mobile phone call has similarly detrimental effects on
performance. There are, however, good reasons to suppose that the effects of an in-car
conversation will be less than those associated with the use of a phone. In contrast to the
individual on the other end of a phone call, a passenger can monitor the road situation and
“pace” the interaction according to circumstances (for example, suspending conversation during
an overtaking manoeuvre). In addition, a passenger can act as a second “pair of eyes”, alerting
the driver to potential hazards.
Conclusions on epidemiological evidence for effects on driving
5.214 Experimental studies provide compelling evidence that engaging in a mobile phone conversation
impairs driving performance. Consistent with this evidence, epidemiological research points to
an association between mobile phone use while driving and an increased risk of involvement in
an accident. Together, these two sources of evidence indicate that current concerns about the
impact of mobile phones on road safety are well founded. As already noted, however, current
experimental evidence suggests there is little or no justification for the assumption that the
detrimental effects of phone use on driving are ameliorated by hands-free operation, a
conclusion supported by the limited epidemiological evidence relevant to this question
(Redelmeir and Tibshirani, 1997). There is therefore no strong empirical justification at present
for the enactment of a policy or legislation that differentiates between the use of hand-held and
hands-free phone sets in motor vehicles. While an argument might be made for focussing
legislation on the more detectable of these two modes of use – it is of course much easier to
detect the use of a hand-held set than a hands-free set – such an approach runs the risk of
seeming to condone, or at least to tolerate, the use of hands-free phones.
Forgot to add: I’m don’t particularly care if people hurt or kill themselves because of this. My goal is not to protect people from themselves. It’s the potential of putting other people’s lives in danger that gets me on board.
So do you believe it should be illegal for a deaf person to drive?
Quite a leap there.
“People shouldn’t drink and drive.”
“Oh, so do you think bartenders shouldn’t drive then?”
No yours is the leap.
You’ve just given the reason to not wear headphones comes from not being able to hear sirens. Well if you’re deaf you can’t hear the sirens. In both cases its a lack of hearing what might be happening on the road. And since its not illegal for someone who can’t hear to drive, I don’t find it to be a very valid reason for it to be illegal.
If someone deaf is driving, that’s cool. I assume they’ve developed the common sense to use other senses more, and to look around get an idea of what is happening much more than I (or someone with hearing) would. Not just when driving, but in their life generally. If they are driving, presumably they got a licence. Presumably they passed the required test and were found to be capable of not posing a danger on the road (to themselves or others).
But someone with headphones on is taking away a sense that they actually do use and rely on when doing things like driving. Whether they realise it or not. So I KNOW it will be impairing their ability to drive safely.
I’ve ridden a bicycle with headphones on and I remember feeling pretty vulnerable as I was removing my ability to hear things coming. If I was deaf I wouldn’t have been removing anything.
Tripper:
Speed laws exist for the basic safety of everyone. I know you (or CM) are going to come back with how talking on a cellphone is dangerous, blah blah blah, but I just don’t agree. It’s that simple. Obviously, I don’t think there’s much risk of increasing the odds that the driver will be in an accident, or I wouldn’t be against the law. If either of you bring up speed limits or drunk driving again, I’ll be ignoring you for the rest of the thread - IMO, there’s absolutely no comparison to be made there whatsoever.
Seriously, you guys both have the WRONG impression of me (which after 3 years or so, you’d think that you’d know me at least a little better than that!) if you think that I believe we should have no laws at all just because I’m willing to call the government on it when they pass one that infringes on my personal freedoms just to generate some more revenue.
LD:
Whether or not I wear my sealtbelt is my choice, for example, and the only one likely to die as a result is me.
<devilsadvocate>
But when you’re strapped into your seat, you’re able to maintain better control over your vehicle. You could reduce the damage and injury or even avoid the accident altogether by wearing your seat belt. Also, if you’re not injured as badly, your insurance company doesn’t have to pay as much, which keeps everyone’s premiums down.
</devilsadvocate>
Obviously, I’m against such nannyness as helmet/seat belt laws, but there’s always an argument to be made for this garbage that gives the appearance that the laws are for “the common good”. There are some laws that are overwhelmingly advantageous for the average Joe (e.g. speed limits), and the “common good” argument passes the smell test. Others, such as seat belt and cellphone laws, belong in the mulch pile with the rest of the BS.
Diogenes:
I really don’t understand your position on this. You, of all people, I would have expected to be against such nanny state nonsense. There is no epidemic of cellphone users crashing into people. Sure, it happens, but people crash into things all the time - cell phone or no cell phone. I’m quite surprised at your stance.
Deaf people/headphones:
Deaf people have a disability. They don’t have the option of “taking off the headphones” so they can hear the emergency vehicles coming. They’re also quite used to using their other senses to compensate for their lack of hearing as much as possible. We accommodate disabled drivers all the time, and I’m fine with that. I’m not fine with some idiot putting on headphones and deliberately reducing his awareness of what’s going on around him just so he can crank up the latest Fitty Cent track.
I’m going with a combination of personal experience (seeing drivers talking on their phone and as a result clearly not concentrating on the road, and also feeling that myself during the few times I’ve used a phone) and the clear results of various studies into this specific issue (some of which I’ve posted, but there are more out there, including American ones).
Whereas you seem to be basing your opinion on a general over-riding principle. But then even that is confusing because somehow seatbelt, helmet and handheld phones laws are nanny-state bullshit, and yet drink-driving laws, speed laws, and headphone laws are completely fine. Surely these things are on a continuum rather than being either 0% or 100& justifiable?
Oops, I said drink-driving laws. Does this mean I get ignored now?
Can you prove that these laws have been passed just to generate more revenue?
I’m not fine with some idiot putting on headphones and deliberately reducing his awareness of what’s going on around him just so he can crank up the latest Fitty Cent track.
Deliberately reducing your hearing ability = Bad
Deliberately reducing your steering ability = Fine
Diogenes:
I really don’t understand your position on this. You, of all people, I would have expected to be against such nanny state nonsense. There is no epidemic of cellphone users crashing into people. Sure, it happens, but people crash into things all the time - cell phone or no cell phone. I’m quite surprised at your stance.
My stand results from a few things. I realize that the danger of using hand-helds is grossly exaggerated by those ‘studies’. That doesn’t nullify the fact that concentration and dexterity are significantly impaired by their use (not to the extent that drunk driving does, but significantly nonetheless). That decrease in concentration and dexterity is unnecessary. Headsets, whether wired or Bluetooth, are inexpensive and easy to use. Secondly, the roads are public. I will tolerate an imposition on my rights on public property that I won’t tolerate on private property.
I hold that the cost/benefit ratio for such rules as this is more than acceptable.
