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: snakeweasel (Oct 16, 2006 5:05 pm) NOPE, just a long memory of all the yahoos that made me miss a left turn light because they were talking on the phone and not paying attention to the lights. Or sitting at a stop sign in a cell phone fog letting several of their turns go by, making me wait for them. Some times honking does not get their attention as they have an ear plug. What amazes me is how far behind CA is on this subject. Many places beat them to the punch. usually CA is at the leading edge of making new restrictive laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: saabgirl (Oct 16, 2006 5:57 pm) Or someone putting on makeup, or shaving or reading a book, or yelling at their kids, or reading a map or.....point is its not always cell phone users. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 16, 2006 6:21 pm) |
|
|
|
|
don't forget, a cell phone to the ear is one of the few distractions you could observe as you drive by. Many distractions would be below the window line, and you wouldn't be able to see them. And as for the Mythbusters, they should do the same test, only force the non-drunk driver to eat a full Big Mac combo, taking care not to drip on the upholstery. Or drive in an unfamiliar area, and find his destination on a paper map, or use his car's navigation system without voice commands, while driving. All things I regularly see people do. I bet we would find that many of them would be as impaired as a drunk person too. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Oct 16, 2006 5:02 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: saabgirl (Oct 16, 2006 5:57 pm) Airbags may save lives but they don't prevent accidents. The accident rate per 100 million vehicle mile travelled has continued to decrease during the cell phone age. Would the rate have gone down further? Maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: phinneas519 (Oct 16, 2006 8:30 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Oct 16, 2006 5:02 pm) I highly recommend the box set. Lots of stuff gets set on fire or blown up. It seems like cell phone usage is just the target-du-jour. I wonder if significantly fewer people are now dying in car accidents since most states passed seat belt laws... the hot issue some 5 years ago.
|
|
|
Replying to: kirstie_h (Oct 17, 2006 7:10 am) Would agree that seat belt laws have helped. But, consider a whole range of things that have improved over last 5-10 years: vehicle structures to help protect occupants, emt response times, hospital procedures and doctors, vehicle dynamics (tires/susp/steering), numerous air bags (front, side, etc), highway design/lighting/signage/traffic controls/etc, attention focussed on drunk driving by MADD and others and so on. In one way, cell phone usage has probably also helped cut down on accident deaths because most motorists probably have cell phones and they can call 911 when they observe or encounter an accident. The emts can get to the accident quicker than they would have back in pre-cell phone days. This can save lives. Think about how it was 20+ years ago. If you saw an accident happen, had to find a nearby house, store, gas station, phone booth to call emt/911. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
