Sign In Join 

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / Should cell phone drivers be singled out?



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

What is this discussion about? Car Safety


Messages Page 8 of 370
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
370
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#65 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [tpe] by saabgirl
Oct 17, 2006 (2:04 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tpe (Oct 17, 2006 4:51 am)

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.
 
Some of us can remember a pre-cell phone period of automotive history in which cars didn't come equipped with belts, airbags, crumple zones nor other safety devices intended to protect us. Highways have also been designed to be less retributive to errant motorists.
 
In short, it's easier to make vehicles and highways safer than it is to educate drivers. On the other hand, drivers are ingenious in finding edgy new ways to test safety technology, including the absurdist notion that drivers can multitask because built in safety devices are so effective.
#66 of 3688
Make cell phone usage an add-on by gagrice
Oct 17, 2006 (7:22 pm)
Reply
Maybe the DMV needs a simulator for testing drivers. Have them answer questions on a cell phone call while driving the simulator. If they pass the multitasking test they get a sticker for their car similar to the HOV sticker. It would say it is legal for them to be talking on the phone while driving. talking with No sticker you get a big fat fine.
#67 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [saabgirl] by tpe
Oct 18, 2006 (4:13 am)
Reply

Replying to: saabgirl (Oct 17, 2006 2:04 pm)

In short, it's easier to make vehicles and highways safer than it is to educate drivers.
 
What's your point? The objection to cell phones and driving seems to be the additional danger they bring to the roadways. If this can be overcome with technology as opposed to anti-cell phone laws what does it matter? The fact is that these safety features you mention primarily make accidents more survivable but do little to prevent them. So why isn't the accident, not fatality, rate going up? Look at page 17 of this report and see if you can find a trend that supports cell phones adding danger? What's interesting is that of the 4 categories of vehicles (passenger, light truck, large truck, and motorcycles) the only category not showing a decline in accident rates is motorcycles. Probably the only group not using cell phones.
 
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2004.pdf
#68 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [tpe] by gagrice
Oct 18, 2006 (4:45 am)
Reply

Replying to: tpe (Oct 18, 2006 4:13 am)

I don't think accidents are the only issue with cell phone usage. It is Inattentiveness that slows traffic flow. If the green arrow is short and the yahoo in front is too busy talking on the phone to respond quickly, the people behind are stuck. Same at 4 way stops. That would be my biggest gripe. Cell phone use is rude and could be another cause for road rage. People have enough stress, why add someone talking on a cell call holding up traffic? I don't think using hands free will help in those situations.
 
If it can be proven the average person's reaction time is impaired when talking on a cell phone the punishment should be the same as for drunk driving.
#69 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [gagrice] by snakeweasel
Oct 18, 2006 (5:47 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 18, 2006 4:45 am)

It is Inattentiveness that slows traffic flow. If the green arrow is short and the yahoo in front is too busy talking on the phone to respond quickly, the people behind are stuck. Same at 4 way stops. That would be my biggest gripe. Cell phone use is rude and could be another cause for road rage.
 
But the same can be said of many other activities that people do at stop lights. People reading maps, reading directions, changing radio stations or CD's, talking to a passenger, looking for something in the back seat, yelling at kids..... the list goes on and on.
 
I will admit that I have been guilty of this myself. I stop for a light then try to do something and the light turns green sooner than expected. We all have done this and if you have driven enough and are honest enough you would admit that you have too.
 
My point is its not the cell phone its the inconsiderate lugnut behind the wheel.
#70 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [gagrice] by tpe
Oct 18, 2006 (5:50 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 18, 2006 4:45 am)

There are driving situations and environments that don't require our full attention. I know that some will disagree and say that 100% focus is always necessary. Maybe I'm gifted in this regard because I can assure you that when I'm driving down a highway with no cross traffic, minimal congestion and an artificially low speed limit it definitely does not require 100% of my attention. IMO, there is nothing wrong with using a cell phone in these situations. Unfortunately that requires judgement, which is a foreign concept to our legislators.
#71 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [tpe] by snakeweasel
Oct 18, 2006 (6:00 am)
Reply

Replying to: tpe (Oct 18, 2006 5:50 am)

Well spoken, well said.
#72 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [snakeweasel] by gagrice
Oct 18, 2006 (6:34 am)
Reply

Replying to: snakeweasel (Oct 18, 2006 6:00 am)

I don't disagree with either of you. It is the person driving that should be responsible for what ever distraction they allow themselves to fall victim to. And as was pointed out WE ALL have held up traffic by some distraction or another from time to time.
 
It is just my observation that cell phone use is far higher in its distractiveness than any other single distraction. I know I am not alone in this opinion. If that was the case this thread and the 39 states with laws against cell phone use while driving would not have been enacted.
 
I just do not understand defending a practice that is so openly abused.
 
PS
distractiveness: is my new word meaning a high level of distraction
#73 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [gagrice] by tpe
Oct 18, 2006 (6:54 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 18, 2006 6:34 am)

You definitely are not alone, in fact, your views represent the majority. Laws are being enacted in this country on the premise that people posess zero common sense or intelligence. Using this rational we are heading towards a society where more and more of our everday activities have rules attached to them. Here's a couple examples that comes to mind. I saw a story a few years ago about how two young kids in Florida got hold of a parent's loaded handgun that was on the nightstand. Tragically a child was shot and killed resulting in a law that states it is illegal to have an unlocked loaded gun that children can access. When I fly and go through the security checkpoint I can't help but be amused by the sign of prohibited items. They use pictures to accomodate those that can't read. There is a picture of a pair of scissors, a knife, a handgun and a lit bomb. I want to ask one of the TSA guys if it would be okay for me to take my bomb onboard as long as I extinguished it first. Of course it would be illegal for me to say that.
#74 of 3688
Re: Why, pray tell, can't ... [gagrice] by snakeweasel
Oct 18, 2006 (6:54 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 18, 2006 6:34 am)

If that was the case this thread and the 39 states with laws against cell phone use while driving would not have been enacted.
 
No its just that its the flavor of the month. Instead of actually dealing with the root of the problem they slap on a flintstones bandaid onto the sucking chest wound then strut around pounding their chest saying "see, I fixed the problem" when in fact they did no such thing.
 
I just do not understand defending a practice that is so openly abused.
 
Its not a defense of any practice, it is a realistic look at an issue and questioning a "solution" that doesn't really address the root problem.

Messages Page 8 of 370
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
370
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / Should cell phone drivers be singled out?

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement