Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
3688 messages, Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 06, 2009 5:42 am) A Virgina Tech grad student did a bunch of research on the task times for invehicle tasks, I don't know if she included eyes off road time for it or not...I think it was somewhere around 2000 or 2001...you can google for it.
|
|
|
I'm not sure why we non-statisticians keep reverting to calls for statistical evidence that drivers using cell phones are more dangerous than drivers who are not. I don't need numbers to tell me that the more activities I engage in while driving, the less attentive I can be to my primary duty of driving safely. I also don't need statistics to tell me that dialing a cell phone or texting is more distracting than picking my nose while driving. Why? Because I can pick my nose without taking my eyes off the road. (For those who will argue that I must take my eyes off the road to make sure that I've flicked the booger off completely, I'd respond that I still don't need to look away from the road as long as when I'm dialing or texting). The same applies for eating a hamburger, changing the radio station (done hands-free on the steering wheel), or flipping to a new song on the I-pod. I won't even try to address the idiots applying make-up, reading books, or painting their nails because they should have their licenses revoked on the spot. Every time I take my eyes off the road, the risk of having an accident increases. It's called common sense--something we used to have in this country.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 06, 2009 4:03 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Mar 07, 2009 7:42 am) Truer words were never spoken. I recently found out two "new" drivers, new is defined as driving less than 5 years, had thankfully, minor, car crashes adjusting the radio. Taking your eyes off the road, even for a few seconds can have unintended consequences. As far as cell phone usage and texting, the tragic train crash in LA, which the NTSB blamed squarely on texting, and now many railroads are banning cell phone usage in general for working train employees, should put to bed the notion the cell phone usage is no harm no foul in the context of this conversation. For those who say prove it, that unfortunate train wreck is the proof. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 08, 2009 6:41 am) That study was cited as a reference to the time required for every other in-vehicle task, the majority of which have been deemed an "acceptable risk" by both legislation and the motoring public. Cell phones conversations according to every study are different because your eyes could be on the road, but your brain isn't processing the information effectively. This argument has a logical flaw. Every study did not say that, and every study used different criteria to measure driving performance. Speed maintenance, lane keeping, and most surrogate measures of situational awareness were comparable. Response time to a stimulus, while the driver was performing certain visual/manual intensive tasks, was the main difference. Oh unless you are referring to the study where for "normal conversation" they had people talking about abortion, 9-11, and taxes, because that is definitely representative of the conversations most people have while driving every day. Even when asking ridiculous questions over a simulated cell phone while driving (how many windows in your house, how many days since your birthday) the affect was negligible.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 08, 2009 6:48 am) Yup, and this is something legislation and the motoring public has defined an acceptable risk, that is they feel it is "safe enough." The experience you gain as a driver is knowing when you can take your eyes off the road and when you can't. Taking your eyes off the road, even for a few seconds can have unintended consequences. A few seconds is a pretty long time. With a glance at about 250 msec, that is a long time to be staring off into space. As far as the visual demand of driving, I think you are overestimating the visual demand. The more literature on the occlusion method (the person wears goggles that occlude the driving scene a percentage of the time, depending on study type), the less visually demanding driving appears to be. As far as cell phone usage and texting, the tragic train crash in LA, which the NTSB blamed squarely on texting, and now many railroads are banning cell phone usage in general for working train employees, should put to bed the notion the cell phone usage is no harm no foul in the context of this conversation. Except for that is, well, a bunch of BS. So some trained professional responsible for controlling a piece of machinery that has a stopping distance measured in miles failed to do his job and that is a cell phone's fault? I don't think so. To borrow a line from the late Charlton Heston, cell phones don't kill people, people kill people. One high profile case that is obviously not the norm (if it was the norm, it wouldn't be news, nor high-profile). And I don't think the argument is that cell phones/texting are "no harm no foul." I think the argument is those that can't make a good decision about when is and when is not an appropriate time to use a phone should be penalized and the other 9 million cell phone users should be left to go about their business.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 08, 2009 8:27 am) With neglibile being defined as legally intoxicated by some studies.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 08, 2009 8:48 am) Yes I agree. I hope the parents find their insurance increase "acceptable". Except for that is, well, a bunch of BS. So some trained professional responsible for controlling a piece of machinery that has a stopping distance measured in miles failed to do his job and that is a cell phone's fault? I don't think so. To borrow a line from the late Charlton Heston, cell phones don't kill people, people kill people. The NTSB and FAA both disagree with you in what constitutes acceptable behavior controlling large machinery. 'Nuff said. And I don't think the argument is that cell phones/texting are "no harm no foul." I think the argument is those that can't make a good decision about when is and when is not an appropriate time to use a phone should be penalized and the other 9 million cell phone users should be left to go about their business. I disagree. For my safety I do not want you operating your cell phone next to me while driving 60 mph in heavy traffic. The era of personal responsibility is way past, which is why government needs to step in. And don't spout any of this "acceptable risk" BS. That is not to me an acceptable risk. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 08, 2009 11:11 am) Actually, it was as study about that study that defined it as being legally intoxicated. Even within the original study, the one published in the medical journal, mentions that they do not feel the experiment was robust enough to guide public policy, nor that the sample was representative of the population at large.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 08, 2009 12:09 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
