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: lilengineerboy (Mar 11, 2009 2:29 pm) They are just as unsubstantiated as your 950% increase in phone penetration not causing any issues on the road. Another "factiod". And you can certainly believe anything you would like, but fear as a motivator really only works in mind control in institutionalized religions. Sure and you are certainly free to believe talking on a cell phone and texting are as innocuous as eating a pizza. Chicken little, you are very funny. So people stopped doing visual/manual intensive tasks like READING(!?) while driving (a task that is argued to be 90% visual, although no one will actually say they said that in the literature, they just all cite eacth other), with a hands free, hands on wheel eyes on road task, and you complain about this? I would be laughing if it weren't what people actually do. The worst of the worst steer with the knee, while smoking a cigaretter with their hand hanging out of the window, holding a cell phone to their right ear. But I'm sure you've never seen it, you've been too busy avoiding pizza eating, kid smacking parents to notice the bad cell phone drivers? Right?
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 11, 2009 2:31 pm) You mean like the 950% increase in cell phone penetration rates. All of this would be moot, if in fact there were any real statistics to the issues cell phone usage causes on the roads. The fact the NTSB has blamed the crash on texting and a number of railroads are banning cell phone usage on the job, is good enough for me that we need to look carefully at acceptable behind the wheel activities that carries an acceptable risk. Finally: One study from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that 636,000 traffic accidents each year -- about 6 percent of all accidents -- are caused by drivers using their cell phones, resulting in an estimated 2,600 deaths. I guess as long as one of the 2,600 isn't related to anyone you know, the risk is acceptable. :sick http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/16/cellphones.driving.safety/index.html?iref=new- ssearch
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 11, 2009 4:11 pm) So you are mad about people that can't drive and make poor judgment decisions while driving? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 11, 2009 4:14 pm) So in lieu of statistics that match your hypothesis, you make them up to scare people? The fact the NTSB has blamed the crash on texting and a number of railroads are banning cell phone usage on the job, is good enough for me that we need to look carefully at acceptable behind the wheel activities that carries an acceptable risk. But not walkie talkie communicators, because those are very different, right? One study from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that 636,000 traffic accidents each year -- about 6 percent of all accidents -- are caused by drivers using their cell phones, resulting in an estimated 2,600 deaths. Okay, if you actually read the article and not the CNN media hypeline, it says: Two prominent studies that have investigated cell phone use while driving have concluded that the practice should not be banned. One finds that the benefits of calls made while driving substantially exceed their costs while the other finds that other interventions could reduce motor vehicles injures and fatalities (measured in terms of quality adjusted life a lower cost. -A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the use of Cell Phones While Driving. Cohen, J and Graham J. Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, No.1, 2003. Know your sources.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 11, 2009 6:14 pm) When you made up stuff, I countered with a likely hypothesis. But not walkie talkie communicators, because those are very different, right? Yep. That's like saying pilots can't communicate with the tower. Two prominent studies that have investigated cell phone use while driving have concluded that the practice should not be banned I disagree with that and in a related story they said: It put the estimated annual financial cost of cell-phone-related crashes at $43 billion. So in your mind, the cell phone related fatalities aside, the financial side of the benefits of yakking away has to be much, much more than $43 billion to support the acceptable risk of using the phones.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 11, 2009 6:33 pm) Yes, citing scientific research articles from peer reviewed journals definitely constitutes making things up. Especially compared to such credible sources as CNN. But not walkie talkie communicators, because those are very different, right? Yep. That's like saying pilots can't communicate with the tower. It IS A CELL PHONE I disagree with that and in a related story they said: It put the estimated annual financial cost of cell-phone-related crashes at $43 billion. And in the same line in the paper they said the estimated cost advantage of cell phone use at $43 billion. While this was once an interesting debate, those who live in a world of fear seem to have more trouble digesting facts and understanding credible sources, so I think its time to take a hiatus from the forum for a bit.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 11, 2009 6:50 pm) Well if you consider the "factoids" scientific research and CNN reporting the news not worthy of anything, we'll have to agree to move on. It IS A CELL PHONE With one number to dial Kind of hard to talk to your lawyer about divorce proceedings. While this was once an interesting debate, those who live in a world of fear seem to have more trouble digesting facts and understanding credible sources, so I think its time to take a hiatus from the forum for a bit. Yes, it was once an interesting debate. However those who are in denial, $43 Billion and 2600 fatalities, will keep on being in denial. And in the same line in the paper they said the estimated cost advantage of cell phone use at $43 billion. Assuming the number is true, the net is zero, minus the fatalities and loss opportunities due to the fatalities. No wonder people want a total ban. |
|
|
Shall we tone down the heat in here a notch? Don't want any lurkers to decide not to jump in and burn their toes. Thanks. |
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 10, 2009 3:37 am) No. In the REAL WORLD data obtained from surveys is how engineers and politicians make decisions. Only engineers and politicians live in a world where survey data is more valuable than actual real life experiences. That's the problem with engineers, they don't understand the real world. As for the last 8 years, come back to this forum (if the messiah still allows the free exchange of information 8 years from now) and let me know how you feel about the Bush presidency. If Obama keeps spending like a drunken sailor on idiotic social programs, we'll probably only have to wait 4 years. And until last year, vehicle miles traveled increased, the number of vehicles on the road increased, the number of immegrant drivers increased, etc. And so far, very little has been done to help a car AVOID a crash, just mitigate them. So, you don't think anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, smart cruise control, blind spot monitoring systems, improvements in tire technology and a myriad of other safety enhancements might help you AVOID a crash? Even that isn't exactly correct. If you look at skills and training, things like hand eye coordination, opportunity cost of task switching, etc that doesn't seem to be the case. Aging hurts the process, but driving skills compensate to a degree. An aging population alone offsets any advancements in skill and training. So why don't we do something about the poor performing drivers? What does that have to do with cell phones? We should do something about all poor performing drivers, but this forum specifically relates to cell phone users. As I said earlier, all these idiots applying makeup, reading, polishing nails, etc. should have their licenses yanked. |
|
|
"In September, a trucker talking on his cell slammed into the back of a school bus on U.S 301 in Citra, Fla. One child was killed. Now the trucking division of a Boise company, whose truckers have had two much more minor cell phone-related accidents, is banning cell phone use by its 250 drivers. "Last year we had 1.46 accidents per million miles driven, the third lowest in our history," said Craig Lockwood, BCT safety manager for trucking operations. "But we also know that one of the first things attorneys who represent victims of trucking accidents do is ask for the driver's cell phone records." Hanging up on Idaho truckers' cell phones (Idaho Statesman). |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
