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: grbeck (Oct 18, 2006 8:12 am)  I have no doubt you'd make a great professor.  Rocky |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Oct 18, 2006 5:50 am) I have made cell phone calls on interstates in the past. One was for viewing a single vehichle rollover accident in front of me (maybe 300-400 ft ahead) at 60-65 mph (dry road, daylight) and having to slow down and move around to avoid wreckage loose parts being dispersed over road surface. Many other times for encountering debris in road (truck tire carcasses, lumber pieces, etc.). The calls were to *99 emergency. I always get over to the right lane first and get to slower but not obstructing speed. I can sense that my attention is being diverted in order to compose my thoughts, communicate, give location, etc and can feel a little incapacitated. I would guess that a greater amount of my attention is being diverted from driving for these situations then if I were idley chatting (which I don't do) on the interstate with a friend about last night's playoff game. I would like to know how one can determine what part of the 100 percent attention can be diverted to a cell call and then how to actually apply. Can one control the percent of attention (5, 10, 50, etc) that will be applied to a cell call and the rest to driving? Does some one know how to do that? When someone is making a cell call, can any test instruments actually measure what amount of brain is directed to driving and what amount to the call? If there is such a device, would it not be interesting if it were found that vast amount of "attention" and brain were involved in the call and a lesser amount to driving. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 18, 2006 7:41 am) Wonder if all those who are concerned with this matter would agree to an optional fee on their auto insurance premium. You could pay the standard amount or you could pay it plus an optional additional fee to cover medical fees for all those folks who don't wear belts/helmets for their "extra" injuries that could have been prevented. This optional amount could also help cover those injured in accidents caused by cell phone users. |
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Oct 18, 2006 8:10 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Oct 18, 2006 8:31 am) I don't expect a straight answer about which liberties are being violated.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: wideglide (Oct 18, 2006 7:09 am) Indeed just like when I had a walk signal and almost got hit by a young girl making a right turn. Was she on a cell phone? NO. Was she applying makeup? NO. was she reading a book? NO. What was she doing? Just driving and nothing else including paying attention. I saw nothing that was distracting this driver as she came within a foot of me as she made a right turn but I seriously doubt she saw me, or realized where I was. just remember; it only takes a second or two of inattention. Yep it just takes a second or two which can be taken up by changing radio stations (BTW when radios first appeared in cars people were all outraged saying it would distract drivers), checking directions, looking at your Nav system (hey if cell phones are outlawed they should get rid of nav systems too), reading a sign alongside a road, and on and on. Hey I almost got into trouble a few months ago when I took my eyes off the road and someone came out onto the street when my eyes were not focused on the road ahead of me. What was I doing you ask? I was looking to see if the lane next to me was clear in order to make a lane change. |
|
|
Replying to: wideglide (Oct 18, 2006 7:09 am) According to the NHTSA pedestrian and pedacyclist fatalities have declined by 30% since 1975. Injuries have declined by 40%. And that is total number not some rate per miles driven or registered vehicle. I realize that is not going to impress anyone as much as their anecdotal evidence of something they've witnessed. 10 or 12 years ago, there were no cell phones, and we somehow managed to survive! 100 years ago there were no cars and we also managed to survive. How many of the over 40k traffic fatalities per year are a result of driving? |
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Oct 18, 2006 8:59 am) That is why you need BLISS. Speaking of changing radio stations or CD's, climate setting, etc, that is why a Voice Recognition System should be safety standards. Rocky
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Oct 18, 2006 8:31 am) Better yet after that wrap yourself up in bubble wrap, then fill the car with some soft compress able material (like those shipping peanuts) hang tires all around your car (like a tugboat) and drive less than 20 MPH.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Oct 18, 2006 8:40 am) Personal choice regarding something that just effects yourself.
|
|
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
