Are cell phone bans dangerous?

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,467
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name

Display name:
Fox McCloud
Out here in CA we have a ban on texting and handheld calls ($25 fine + fees = $164+ ticket). Police do enforce the ban, but in doing so don't they actually make the activity even more dangerous?

I've seen dozens of people hold their phone so low that it seems they lose sight of the road. Then there's others who talk and scan the road and mirrors for cops so much that I fear they risk losing sight of the forest in looking for that 1 black & white tree. In essence they are forced into more hazardous methods that further removes their eyes from the road or compromise the "big picture" in driving.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskt...ce-crashes-effects-are-slight-crash-increases
IIHS said:
"Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all. In a perverse twist, crashes increased in 3 of the 4 states we studied after bans were enacted. It's an indication that texting bans might even increase the risk of texting for drivers who continue to do so despite the laws," says Adrian Lund, president of both HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
 
Way back in the early days of ubiquitous cell phones before hands free stuff was common NY banned driving and talking without a hands free device. Idjits would just stop their cars on blind corners, busy roads, wherever they were when the phone rang. No idea if the accident rate went up, but the stupidity rate went up.
 
Yeah, nobody cares about the ban… Just another tax and like all taxes we try to get out of it.
 
Way back in the early days of ubiquitous cell phones before hands free stuff was common NY banned driving and talking without a hands free device. Idjits would just stop their cars on blind corners, busy roads, wherever they were when the phone rang. No idea if the accident rate went up, but the stupidity rate went up.

The funny thing is, that it doesn't matter if the phone is in your hand or wired to your ear. But hey, they have to tax it somehow.
 
The funny thing is, that it doesn't matter if the phone is in your hand or wired to your ear. But hey, they have to tax it somehow.

Actually, it does matter. It's not talking that is distracting, it's diverting your gaze and looking for information. A bud in your ear doesn't divert your gaze except for placing a call where you need a contact list. Talking on the phone itself is the same.

Texting requires long looks and is why it's so bad. Tuning the car radio requires just a glance so is relatively safe.

The OP is correct...bans INCREASE deaths and accident rates. Politicians who push for them knowing they cause death rate to rise should be liable for man slaughter. Citizens who blindly follow their leaders and their 'x is bad so we ban x simply so I look like I'm doing something' should have their voter card revoked.
 
They claim talking hands free on a cell while driving is more distracting then talking to a passenger. Theory is it takes more mental energy to parse hinted at social cues over the phone. No idea how much science there is backing the claim.
 
For what it's worth...

Both of my cars have hands free connectivity via Bluetooth. I've been using it for about two years now.

I have found that whenever I'm driving a different car, say a rental, I feel very uncomfortable talking on a cell phone. I find it very distracting and it just feels unsafe.

It kinda surprised me, for years I thought I was just fine talking while driving.
 
And when seatbelts were introduced to cars, the accident rate went up as perceived safety led drivers to act more dangerously. Does that mean seatbelts are a bad idea? No, the common denominator is the idiot behind the wheel.
 
They claim talking hands free on a cell while driving is more distracting then talking to a passenger. Theory is it takes more mental energy to parse hinted at social cues over the phone. No idea how much science there is backing the claim.

I call schnangains. In BOTH a call and a conversation with a passenger social cues are limited.
 
They claim talking hands free on a cell while driving is more distracting then talking to a passenger. Theory is it takes more mental energy to parse hinted at social cues over the phone. No idea how much science there is backing the claim.

When you are talking in person there is an implied requirement to look at them. Though I think a missing piece of info is the nature of the phone conversation. A casual conversation is one thing, but even with hands free I often pull over I'm troubleshooting computer stuff by phone or another mentally taxing convo cause the area I'm aware of shrinks unacceptably.

Some of the studies that equate a cell phone to dui so so by having the driver perform arithmetic by phone while driving.
 
Actually, it does matter. It's not talking that is distracting, it's diverting your gaze and looking for information. A bud in your ear doesn't divert your gaze except for placing a call where you need a contact list. Talking on the phone itself is the same.



Texting requires long looks and is why it's so bad. Tuning the car radio requires just a glance so is relatively safe.



The OP is correct...bans INCREASE deaths and accident rates. Politicians who push for them knowing they cause death rate to rise should be liable for man slaughter. Citizens who blindly follow their leaders and their 'x is bad so we ban x simply so I look like I'm doing something' should have their voter card revoked.


Study says that's not true for text to speech and references a 2006 study that shows it isn't true for talking either.

http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/hands-free-talking-texting-are-unsafe/
 
I call schnangains. In BOTH a call and a conversation with a passenger social cues are limited.
Why? When talking with a passenger, you can actually turn around to see what they are doing. On the phone, you have to mentally process the smiley.
 
I'm confused. Is there really a reason to make a call or answer a call while driving? I'm sure YOU think you can handle multiple tasks simultaneously but tell that to the woman who nearly clipped me while screwing with her phone HEADS DOWN!
Except for an emergency, just leave the damned phone alone. Take the call while parked if you have a screaming need to talk.
 
Actually, it does matter. It's not talking that is distracting, it's diverting your gaze and looking for information. A bud in your ear doesn't divert your gaze except for placing a call where you need a contact list. Talking on the phone itself is the same.

Texting requires long looks and is why it's so bad. Tuning the car radio requires just a glance so is relatively safe.

The OP is correct...bans INCREASE deaths and accident rates. Politicians who push for them knowing they cause death rate to rise should be liable for man slaughter. Citizens who blindly follow their leaders and their 'x is bad so we ban x simply so I look like I'm doing something' should have their voter card revoked.

The comparison was taking on the phone with a earpiece vs talking on the phone by holding the phone in your hand and actually, it doesn't matter.
 
There was another study that showed that talking to a passenger was as much or more distracting as talking on the phone because most people want to look a the person they are talking with, and they take their eyes off the road. The only saving grace was that with a passenger there was a second set of eyes to look out for traffic. Unless of course the passenger was blind, too short to see, etc...
 
And when seatbelts were introduced to cars, the accident rate went up as perceived safety led drivers to act more dangerously. Does that mean seatbelts are a bad idea? No, the common denominator is the idiot behind the wheel.

And what will happen if they ever put ballistic chutes in airplanes? Oh... the mayhem!!!

No, wait...
Never mind :mad2:
 
I have a newer Ford with the Sync system... if you don't know what it is it gives you voice control over your phone/music/etc. One feature of this system is it will read your text messages to you... which is a great idea IMO. Satisfies your curiosity about what that incoming text is that your phone keeps dinging over without you having to take your eyes off the road.

The problem is, someone at Ford, probably with the idea of having something to point to for proof they're thinking of safety, set it up so you can't reply while in motion. This does not lock out your phone in any way, you can pick up the phone and text back which is what most people will probably do. Way to think it through. One nice thing though is now with the new iPhones you can just hold down the home button and get siri... if paired it goes through the car phone mic/speakers and ask Siri to do the same thing.

My wife has a Subaru.. also with a hands free voice activated system although nowhere near as good as the ford. One day she was driving and found the phone wasn't paired. Since I was the passenger, I attempted to pair the phone through the radio panel only to find the system told me it wouldn't let me do it because we're in motion. No reason why I shouldn't be able to do that as passenger.

Software lockouts are just going to make people get creative and try to get around them. Rule 1 of interface design.. PUT THE USER IN CONTROL.
 
A $25.00 fine jumps up to $164.00 after the fees are added? This is what we should be up in arms about. That is plainly gouging, nothing more.

It seems to me, if this is how the government wants to raise their income, then other taxes, like income and property should be abolished.

-John
 
A $25.00 fine jumps up to $164.00 after the fees are added? This is what we should be up in arms about. That is plainly gouging, nothing more.

It seems to me, if this is how the government wants to raise their income, then other taxes, like income and property should be abolished.

-John
Awesome live in a big house don't drive pay no taxes.:rofl: Long commutes are already a dumb tax traffic tickets just make it dumber. If people stop driving states would go broke. Oh wait people are stopping driving or young people just aren't starting. Good for them.
 
Out here in CA we have a ban on texting and handheld calls ($25 fine + fees = $164+ ticket). Police do enforce the ban, but in doing so don't they actually make the activity even more dangerous?

Here, the cops are talking on their cell phones more than the rest of the drivers.
 
NHTSA statistics for accidents rates show steady accident rates (or slight decrease) over the period of time when cellphone use went from zero to whatever high percentage rate it was/is.

It's not the cell phone. It's the people that are unable to safely drive. It doesn't matter if it's a cell phone, changing the radio station, inserting a new CD, applying makeup, or whatever.
 
NHTSA statistics for accidents rates show steady accident rates (or slight decrease) over the period of time when cellphone use went from zero to whatever high percentage rate it was/is.

It's not the cell phone. It's the people that are unable to safely drive. It doesn't matter if it's a cell phone, changing the radio station, inserting a new CD, applying makeup, or whatever.
Something to that. Long Islands last snow storm had the same driving outcomes as the Southern ones. 8 hours to go a few miles and people abandoning cars all that fun. Never had such trouble there 20-30 years ago.
 
Here, the cops are talking on their cell phones more than the rest of the drivers.

Some states exempt LE from this law due to the equipment that is used during patrol (radio, computer, etc). It is very dangerous still, LE or not.

I know of several times where as I was running code to a hot call, I was receiving constant traffic via radio and computer that I had to monitor and respond. All while fighting with the vehicle traffic. MOVE TO THE RIGHT!! some slam on breaks, move left into oncoming traffic, I've seen it all. Nerve racking...definitely.
 
Some states exempt LE from this law due to the equipment that is used during patrol (radio, computer, etc). It is very dangerous still, LE or not.

There have always been Lords and serfs. Us lowly peasants aren't allowed certain provisions.
 
I'm confused. Is there really a reason to make a call or answer a call while driving? I'm sure YOU think you can handle multiple tasks simultaneously but tell that to the woman who nearly clipped me while screwing with her phone HEADS DOWN!
Except for an emergency, just leave the damned phone alone. Take the call while parked if you have a screaming need to talk.


Best thing would be to mandate that the cell phone manufacturers take a hint from Garmin (road units) and detect movement in excess of 5 knots -- and disable the unit at all speeds above that. The NEED to use units at that time are fantasy in 99% of the cases; unless another 9/11 situation takes place and you are in the "Let's Roll" situation.
 
Best thing would be to mandate that the cell phone manufacturers take a hint from Garmin (road units) and detect movement in excess of 5 knots -- and disable the unit at all speeds above that. The NEED to use units at that time are fantasy in 99% of the cases; unless another 9/11 situation takes place and you are in the "Let's Roll" situation.

And when you're a passenger in the car, or on a greyhound bus, or a train, or any other vehicle where you are not the driver?
 
I cannot believe the number of drivers out there that text and drive at the same time.
 
And when you're a passenger in the car, or on a greyhound bus, or a train, or any other vehicle where you are not the driver?

Now now, don't let logic get in the way of a "solution."
 
Best thing would be to mandate that the cell phone manufacturers take a hint from Garmin (road units) and detect movement in excess of 5 knots -- and disable the unit at all speeds above that. The NEED to use units at that time are fantasy in 99% of the cases; unless another 9/11 situation takes place and you are in the "Let's Roll" situation.

It would be worse. People would be stopping in the left lane of the highway to use their phones. Traffic jams would all be speed limited to 4.9 knots. My old garmin nuvi works at all speeds guess they gayed up the new ones.
 
They are only dangerous to people who insist on using them while driving and the people they kill - maim every year.
 
Like most nanny-state regulations, cell phone bans are pointless. Those who have common sense don't need them, those who don't have common sense ignore them, and that's basically the end of the story.

Speaking of ignoring laws...

One thing I've noticed is that women are far less likely than men to use hands-free devices. I noticed this all the time when I lived downstate. Men usually had some sort of headset or earpiece, whereas women were usually holding the handset to their ears.

I've had a few women tell me that they didn't want to mess up their hair, but I don't buy it. How can that little earphone mess up your hair? I think it's just vanity, to tell you the truth. Women look at the earpiece as really ugly jewelry. Men just look at it as an earpiece for a phone, and don't expect it to be pretty.

Actually, I do have some basis for that suspicion. I have a good friend (more like an adopted son, actually) who owns a cell phone store in Queens. I used to mind the shop for him once in a while, and I noticed that women would look at earpieces when they bought new phones, but would almost never buy one. The reason they gave almost always was that the earpieces were ugly. Men, on the other hand, tend not to care.

Earpiece or no earpiece, I rarely talk on the phone (and never text or check email) while driving. I usually have it turned off, actually, because what we have where I live are pockets of service separated by miles of dead zones; so the phone just winds up running its battery down looking for non-existent towers if you leave it on.

But even when I lived downstate, I rarely answered the phone while driving, even though I did use a Bluetooth earpiece. I used it all the time, actually, not just while driving. It kept my hands free to do useful things -- like my job, for example. The very few people whose calls might actually be important enough for me to bother with while driving had special rings. (My ex, for example, was assigned the chorus from "Leave me Alone" by Helen Reddy.) Everyone without a special ring went to voice mail (as did my ex, most of the time). :lol:

-Rich
 
My cell takes less attention than tuning my radio on the move.
 
NHTSA statistics for accidents rates show steady accident rates (or slight decrease) over the period of time when cellphone use went from zero to whatever high percentage rate it was/is.

It's not the cell phone. It's the people that are unable to safely drive. It doesn't matter if it's a cell phone, changing the radio station, inserting a new CD, applying makeup, or whatever.


I think the Driver's License is way too easy to get. It's meaningless basically.
 
One thing I've noticed is that women are far less likely than men to use hands-free devices. I noticed this all the time when I lived downstate. Men usually had some sort of headset or earpiece, whereas women were usually holding the handset to their ears.


I noticed Karen was pretty bad about it, too. For years I offered to put a high quality speakerphone in her vehicles, etc... she didn't like turning them on, charging them, etc.

Recently her factory Ford/Pioneer high end stereo in the Lincoln LT decided to have its 6-CD changer crap out. Researching fixes, I found that they all eventually do it, and in-dash changers are ultra-prone to death. Vibration, too small an area for the mechanism, no easy way to design it into the deck where you can get at the mechanism to maintain it, etc. Almost no one does in-dash changers anymore. Plus living at the end of two miles of washboarded dirt roads didn't help, I'm sure.

A few weeks before that happened I had replaced the stock stereo in the Subaru with a cheap Kenwood deck. I was very impressed with the Bluetooth speaker phone and mic built in and found that Kenwood decided (smartly) to not build their own Bluetooth. They bought the technology from Parrot, a very popular and high quality noise canceling BT headset company. Very smart.

So we went back and got her a Kenwood. Great BT and built in Garmin Nuvi. The deck mutes for BT calls and partially or fully mutes (option in the menu) for GPS announcements. The deck also automatically pairs with any phones it knows about when you get in the vehicle and does seem to be good about not trying to connect at long ranges if you leave the deck on and get out of the vehicle. I think it's this last feature that really fixed the non-use.

No charging, no messing around. You get in and the phone attaches to the deck and the audio quality in both directions from the vehicle speakers and a remote mic mounted on the roof near the center of the windshield is stellar. No noise, works great. Any time I call her and she's in the truck, I can tell she's on the handsfree now.

Kenwood not only integrated the Parrot but they gave full control over the mic gain and three levels of noise cancellation. That's a tinkerer's dream. I played around and found the mic gain to be too high in my setup and too low in hers. With a little tweaking, it's even harder to notice we are in the vehicles.

Soooo... It may not be a gender thing. It may be a "not willing to screw around with tech that makes using it harder than it should be" thing.

I liked the darn thing so much, I had one installed in my truck, too. I've asked people if they could tell I was in the diesel with the window open (very loud Cummins 5.9L engine). They say if I hadn't mentioned it, they wouldn't have thought about it. The Parrot noise-cancellation is that good. My mic is also mounted at the top of the outer pillar on the driver's side so that is an awful place for the "window open diesel test".

Kenwood does make a deck that will log into Facebook and read you posts. Hahaha. That's utterly ridiculous. No. We didn't do it.

Oh, these decks will play DVDs. That's also silly, but I did buy a $5 used copy of Disney's Planes and loaded it in mine, just for when I have to sit in the truck and wait for something. Haha. I suppose the video output and ability to play two sources is really the way to use the DVD for folks with kids... Put a monitor in the back for the rug rats... We obviously didn't install that option.

We also didn't install backup cameras but I'll probably do that later. The decks will do that and can be set up with reverse switch triggering to go to the video input.

Puuuurty fancy. But the low end Kenwood had all the nice Bluetooth stuff also. $150 and free installation with factory/stock speakers. Very cheap if it gets someone to use handsfree and not be messing with the phone.
 
Back
Top