Cellphone talkers as bad as drunk drivers?
By Paul Miller 
posted June 30th 2006 9:46AM
posted June 30th 2006 9:46AM
We've heard the word that hands-free setups don't make cellphone driving any safer, but this new study comparing phone use to driving under the influence seems like it's taking things a bit far. Apparently some new research, using a driving simulation device as to not expose any real drivers to the dangers of those who talk, is showing cellphone users to be as bad or worse than the average drunk driver. Forty volunteers used the simulator, taking turns trying it undistracted, with a handheld phone, with a handsfree device and while blowing a 0.08 blood-alcohol level -- the average level of impairment in the US. Three participants ended up rear-ending the car in front of them, and all three were talking on the phone, not drunk. The study noticed little difference between hands-free and handheld phone talkers, and found they were 9 percent slower to hit the breaks, and varied their speed more than normal drivers. Drunk drivers would drive slower, yet more aggressively, and all three groups were under the impression that they weren't impaired. We'd still rather have a talker behind the wheel than a drunk, especially when the blood-alcohol level shoots past 0.08 -- as it tends to do -- but we're guessing legislators will see otherwise and jump at the chance to clamp down on conversationalists.
A lot of valid points are made here, but it should be pointed out there are a few things that some people's points fail to address.
First, public transportation infrastructure in the United States is thirty to fourty years behind it's counter parts in Japan and the European Union. In both of these locations, public transportation is affordable and reliable. Furthermore, you can pretty much take public transportation anywhere in the country becuase Public transportation goes pretty much everywhere (or close enough). This is no so in the U.S. where the public transportation system is overpriced and inconvenient. Unless you live near a thriving metropolis, people in the United States are forces to drive to get to their destinations. Forcing people into the public transportation system isn't going to work unless you fix the major underlying problem--that public transportation in the United States sucks and needs major overhauls. This could eliminate a large number of drivers on the road, but it's likely to not change any time soon, since American's seem to have such a negative stigma associated with taking a bus or commuter train.
Second, in most of the states of the U.S. driving is not a "right". It is a "privilege". I keep seeing people talk about their "freedom to drive" and treating it like it's some guaranteed right which is protected by the constitution. It is not. Driving, at least since driving laws were established in most states, is and has been for some time a granted privilige. A privilege which is -not- guaranteed. This is why individuals must undergo driver's testing to _EARN_ the "privilege" to drive, and the reason why states can revoke that privilege for drunk driving or any other vehicular activity which it deems unsafe. To argue that you have the "freedom to drive" is just blatant wishful thinking and fallaciously illogical as there are no credible grounds to justify such a claim. People need to treat this privilege with more respect than they do instead of acting like it's thier god given right. It's not.
Next, it was argued above that obstacle courses and simulators do not reliably test someones ability to drive and are therefore junk science. The problem with this arguement is the complete lack of deductive reasoning. Obstacle courses and simulators DO actually test one's driving basic skills and reaction times. The very same basic skills which are used while actually driving. One does not actually need to be driving to test ones reaction or basic skills. To argue otherwise is sheer blind stupidity. Real driving is inclusive of this set basic skills and if those basic skills are impared in some small part, then a person actual driving will be impared too. You do not actually have to put someone on the road to prove this, this is common sense!
Last, all the arguements which are along the lines of, "Well why don't we ban talking in the back seat," or "Why don't you ban " are all straw-man arguements. They not even on topic, they're a sad attempt to distract the arguement by throwing up a weaker arguement that only a fool would argue against. The major point is, this is about wether talking on the cell-phone while driving is dangerous. It is, to argue otherwise would be pure idiocy. The point is not to restrict all behaviors which might be dangerous on the road, but to resrtict behaviors that make things worse when viewed en masse.
Just from a common sense point of view alone, there are a lot more people talking on cell phones then there are people being distracted by their children, the radio, or any other possible road distraction at the moment. Cell phone use while driving has become a pandemic and that's why it needs to be looked at, not becuase it is one of many distractors in our daily driving lives.
This is yet another regurgitation of the age-old question...how much should government get involved in saving us from ourselves?
The unfortunate thing is that it won't be long before in-vehicle cell-phone use is banned nationwide, because we live in a society that legislates to the lowest common denominator (or those we affectionately refer to as 'stupid people'). So, instead of actually changing any other variables - let's just eliminate the "cause", because it's more expedient.
Making talking and driving illegal will certainly make the insurance lobby happy, and to a lesser degree - mass transit. On the flip side, telecom might be a little upset and the overall economy will suffer marginally (lower overall productivity - like it or not).
So, here goes the radical concept...instead of forcing us to change our behavior, why not (for once) let the government adapt to our behavior - I know, I said radical. Serve us for a change. Instead of a knee-jerk, path of least resistance piece of legislation - let's actually look at alternatives that don't force us to give up rights.
How about widening traffic lanes. I bet an extra 2 feet on either side of the lane would result in less cell-phone (and drunk driver) related accidents. Obviously, not practical from a cost-standpoint, but cleary would be more effective.
How about allowing me (presumably not one of the 'stupid people') to take an additional driving test while talking on a phone, solving riddles, shaving, yelling at some crash-test kids in the back seat, changing radio stations, smoking a cigarette and eating a Big Mac? Seriously, we have seperate license classes for motorcycles, vehicle sizes, semi's, etc. - why not add a new class for 'able to multitask while driving'.
Or, what about the mother of all proposals...let's ticket people who are weaving in and out of traffic, running red lights, speeding or otherwise driving poorly for any number of the laws currently on the books that deal specifically with those behaviors (wreckless driving, speeding, running a red light, etc.)
Just my 2¢ - and it's probably not worth that.
Being an avid bicyclist and motorcyclist, cell phone use during driving is one of my biggest pet peeves. I’d venture to say maybe 80-90% of the time I see people driving erratically (in the bike lane or on the center divider line) or that I have a close call with someone almost smashing me dead while on my roadbike or motorcycle, it’s with some zoned-out cell phone user… GET OFF THE F-ING PHONE AND DRIVE!
Yesterday, I saw a woman actually sitting at a green light that had been green for about 15 seconds (enough time for me to walk across the street), just sitting there dialing her phone while traffic backed up behind her, not even mildly concerned that the cars in the adjacent lane were zooming by…
Is driving THAT boring that people can’t be bothered to actually concentrate anymore? And Microsoft is planning to offer web-surfing software for automobiles now?? Are they fricken NUTS? (you just know there’s gonna be a hack to allow people to websurf while the car is in motion)
Don’t even get me started about these cellphone freaks yacking in the movie theater or at the grocery store checkout!!!!!!! Ok, I must chill…
Fast-forward 18 months, in-vehicle cell-phone use has been banned nationwide because, for seemingly no other good reason than it annoys people.
Now, I'm tooling down the road and some yahoo (no disrepect to the search engine) is yakking it up on his phone - what do I do? Do I throw up a flare? Do I grab my pad and pencil and write down his plate while driving with my knees? I know, I'll grab my phone and call 9-1...oh, wait! Can't do that.
You see, the only way for someone to actually get tagged for this is if they are spotted by a cop in the act of talking on the phone while drivig. How is that any different than a cop catching them weaving in and out of there lane or stopped at a green for 15 seconds? The laws are adequate as they are to deal with this.
If we're going to do this, let's go all the way. How about we install transmitter in speed limit signs and receivers in cars to limit our speed to only what is posted. Or, make it illegal to drive without your hands and 10 and 2. Where does it end?
I realize the 10-2 comment was sarcastic, but I always hated that rule. I drive stick, I drive with one hand on the shifter and one hand on the wheel. In the city traffic I usually deal with being able to shift in a hearbeat in a necessity.
That being said, you can drive stick and talk on a cell phone. When I was first learning I couldn't even have the radio on while driving, but you learn how to multi-task. It's just an additional task, much aided by a bluetooth headset.
I think it's a judgement call. As a whole I think most people realize that their phone call is fucking up their driving. When I see that and realize it I either get off the phone or I get off the road.
I feel that these touch screen will make driving just as dangerus since you have to focus your eyes on the screen just to use them.
What's the difference between alking on a cell phone and talking to the person next to you?
Pity they never bothered to test this obvious distraction - it's got to be more distracting having the "other end" of the conversation in the car *with* you, than just having them on the other end of the phone...
... but then... nobody can outlaw passengers, so there's no fun in that...
I remember almost plowing into a Mustang full of girls while driving and talking on my cellphone. Sometimes I fantasize about hitting that car and having to pay off the debt with sex!
Ask any motorcyclist who are the biggest morons on the road and 90% will say "cell phone users"
Hannah:
I was just being silly.
The difference is scanning your rearview mirror is something you are TAUGHT to do and keeps you aware of your surroundings. It also only takes a quick second.
i fully admit, i drive worse on the phone vs under the influence...
now what they need to do is have a study comparing driving while on a cell, drunk, and high
i guarantee the high people would come out on top :)