Total ban on cellphone use while driving

[Coreece 190]

fine....you win.

will you just click the red button already.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 2,991]

>My assumption is that it is more of a risk because there are more cell
>phone users on the road at any given time . . .

If that were true, then there would be more cellphone related deaths than alcohol related deaths. The opposite is true.

> If I was on the freeway and was surrounded by 5 cell phone users and 5
>drunks, I would say that it is far more likely to be in an accident with one
>of the drunks . . .

Cool. So we agree that driving drunk is a lot more dangerous.

>but I'm confident that it is more likely in reality that I'm
>surrounded by more cell phone users at any given time and far less
>drunk drivers if any at any given time.

Probably true! Which is a good thing, since you are far safer in such a situation.

>From these numbers one could assume that it is more likely to be
>involved in cell phone accident than a drunk driving accident.

The opposite is true.

>There is no
>garantee that you will surive any accident.

Quite true. And you can guarantee you will never be in an automobile accident by taking the bus.

> I'm in support of limiting the number of all needless accidents.

Cool. I know an orphanage in Mexico that would happily accept your car. They rebuild them and either sell them as taxis or give them to the kids when they leave the orphanage.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quite true. And you can guarantee you will never be in an automobile accident by taking the bus.

Not if operated by a Muni driver. Powerful brakes, no seat belts, and a driver less attentive than one on a cell phone tuned to CSPAN.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

My assumption is that it is more of a risk because there are more cell
phone users on the road at any given time . . .

>>If that were true, then there would be more cellphone related deaths than alcohol related deaths. The opposite is true.

Perhaps I should rephrase my propaganda. *sarcasm*

There are arguably more cell phone related car accidents than drunk driving accidents. This risk should be limited since sober drivers should have more sense than to drive while on the cell phone considering the overwhelming evidence that it impairs ones ability to drive safetly.

You may find this ironic, but with all due respect, why are you being so obtuse about this. Surely you can read in-between the lines or at least the context of my position...Is this some sort of test? I feel like I'm trapped in the Twilight Zone engaged in some sort of Mr. Miyagi wax-on, wax-off excercise.

btw, I still have yet to hear you state your postion in regard to the cell phone ban...are you waiting to see who wins?

Quote

I'm in support of limiting the number of all needless accidents.

>Cool. I know an orphanage in Mexico that would happily accept your car. They rebuild them and either sell them as taxis or give them to the kids when they leave the orphanage.

Actually, I was considering donating it back to GMAC!

But I think I'll just do my part by reconsidering to design that Duckmobile Extreme XLT we've discussed in light of new questions about your discernment.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There are arguably more cell phone related car accidents than drunk driving accidents.

You are making that claim, but it's hard to argue something you appear to have pulled out of thin air.

[n23x 0]

Look:

Quote

The risk of being killed because of an unecessary ____________, should not be accepted.

The problem is, the thingy you're going after is already low risk. If you want to save lives, one might suggest that you quit bitching about the low risk problems, and focus on the higher risk problems.

Seriously, if "saving lives" is that important to you, worry more about drunk drivers instead of how many people got stung to death by bees every year.

Let me point out that I narrowly avoided what would have been very traumatic injuries on my motorcycle, ultimately caused by a woman in a suburban on her cellphone, and I still have ZERO support cellphone/driving laws.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[billvon 2,991]

>There are arguably more cell phone related car accidents than drunk driving
>accidents.

I have not seen any data that suggests that. In 2005, police determined that alcohol was involved in 250,000 accidents that they investigated. If you had a similar number showing that police have determined that cellphone usage was involved in far more than that, then that would be a position you could argue.

Note that a study that _estimates_ the number of accidents caused by cellphone usage is not comparable to the number of _investigated_ accidents that involve alcohol. If you want to compare apples to apples, you would have to compare a study that estimates the number of accidents caused by cellphones to a study that estimates the number of accidents caused by alcohol.

However, for the sake of argument let's assume that cellphone users are involved in more accidents than drunk drivers. This is a somewhat meaningless statistic; there are more female-related car accidents than there are cellphone related accidents. This is not because driving while female is dangerous - it is just because roughly half of all drivers are female, and thus they get in roughly half the accidents (i.e. 2,500,000 a year.)

But all of this is sort of beside the point. For most people, cellphone users piss them off, and they want them banned. That's the basic motivation. Ask any driver or pedestrian why they'd support a ban, and they'll tell you a story about a driver on a phone who pissed them off, not cite stats on increase in accident rates when using a cellphone.

>Surely you can read in-between the lines or at least the context of my position . . .

Yes; you've made your position on this pretty clear. I am trying to point out that there is, as of yet, no factual backing for the assertion that they should be banned because they are "more dangerous than drunk driving."

>btw, I still have yet to hear you state your postion in regard to the cell phone ban..

I would approach it the same way I'd approach drunk driving.

It is not illegal to drive after drinking, even though any alcohol impairs your ability to drive. It is illegal to drive while impaired. Most states deal with this by coming up with a legal standard, which is generally .08. This does not say that everyone under .08 is OK to drive, nor does it state that anyone over .08 cannot safely operate a vehicle under any conditions. It is a compromise that balances public safety against individual rights - even though those rights can put others at risk.

I'd take the same approach to cellphones. I would be OK with a law that restricted the use of handheld cellphones or text devices while driving, because there are pretty clear impairments to driving that occur while physically manipulating cellphones. I would not be in favor of a blanket ban, because that is an undue restriction of people's rights.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But all of this is sort of beside the point. For most people, cellphone users piss them off, and they want them banned. That's the basic motivation.

This appears to be the base explanation, but it puzzles me. Since it appears that a majority of us use cell phones, including while driving, how does this irritation come about? Is it another case of everyone thinking they're above average drivers, and cell phone use is only a problem for the other guys?

[billvon 2,991]

>Since it appears that a majority of us use cell phones, including while
>driving, how does this irritation come about?

Primarily because it's very visible.

If someone cuts you off and they're drunk, you can't necessarily see it. If they don't have a license or insurance, they can't see that either. But they can see that phone - and thus they have an immediate target for their ire.

I use an integrated system. I get a call, I push a button on the steering wheel and talk. The microphone is in the rear view mirror. Their voice comes in over the car stereo system. When the conversation is over the call disconnects automatically. I have a feeling that if everyone had such a system, calls for banning would cease. Not because safety would increase (although it likely would) but because no one would see it.

[Halfpastniner 0]

But but.... how do you send text messages?

BASE 1384

[billvon 2,991]

>how do you send text messages?

I just have my trunk monkey send them.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

The problem is, the thingy you're going after is already low risk. If you want to save lives, one might suggest that you quit bitching about the low risk problems, and focus on the higher risk problems.

I think you may underestimate the risk of this thingy....but ultimately I'm bitching about it because we are in a thread entitled "Total ban on cellphone use while driving." please feel free and try to Hijack it if you so desire.

Quote

Seriously, if "saving lives" is that important to you, worry more about drunk drivers instead of how many people got stung to death by bees every year.

Well as cliche as that sounds...it is true, but I'm also in support of limiting the pain in the ass fenderbenders and boo boo's because some fucknuts was yaking on about how cell phone use is our most formidable nemesis; hardly an instictive defense mechanism to defend a colony of humans....but what can I say...I guess I'm just a "Fan O' Man!"

Quote

Let me point out that I narrowly avoided what would have been very traumatic injuries on my motorcycle, ultimately caused by a woman in a suburban on her cellphone, and I still have ZERO support cellphone/driving laws.

Well its cool you were ok...

I'm sorry you didn't learn anything from it. I can relate, like my statistical probability class junior year in college.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

There are arguably more cell phone related car accidents than drunk driving
accidents.

>I have not seen any data that suggests that.

Well, here are some links from a quick search that may support it...not sure if they're going to survive the scrutiny of SC though...but its a start.

AAA Foundation Report

...cell phones are a leading cause of car crashes.

Lawyer Advertisment - Common causes of car accidents

While the increase in cell phone use is believed to be a significant contributor to higher car accident statistics, in reality the influence appears just minor. As cell phones become even more widely used the effect may become more of an influence and it might take time for the actual impact to appear in studies.

Another "Alarming" Lawyer site!

IIHS Q&A - includes some international info.

Phase 1 Havard Report - doesn't necessarily support my claim, but its from 2000 - useful however.

Quote

If you had a similar number showing that police have determined that cellphone usage was involved in far more than that, then that would be a position you could argue.

Note that a study that _estimates_ the number of accidents caused by cellphone usage is not comparable to the number of _investigated_ accidents that involve alcohol. If you want to compare apples to apples, you would have to compare a study that estimates the number of accidents caused by cellphones to a study that estimates the number of accidents caused by alcohol.

I obviously would have to agree with this.

Quote

However, for the sake of argument let's assume that cellphone users are involved in more accidents than drunk drivers. This is a somewhat meaningless statistic; there are more female-related car accidents than there are cellphone related accidents. This is not because driving while female is dangerous - it is just because roughly half of all drivers are female, and thus they get in roughly half the accidents (i.e. 2,500,000 a year.)

Is it really that meaningless? I don't want to be labor this any more than we have to, but if its true that there are more cell phone accidents than alcohol related accidents, and cell phone use really does impair driving...whats wrong with using this statistic to draw attention to the risk, as long as it isn't a lie, or used to say that cells are more fatal than drunk driving?

I will admit however that perhaps it's not really that necessary after all to use this cell phone/drunk driving comparison anymore since the evidence supporting the notion that cell phones impair the ablity to drive safetly is rather sufficient.

Quote

But all of this is sort of beside the point. For most people, cellphone users piss them off, and they want them banned. That's the basic motivation. Ask any driver or pedestrian why they'd support a ban, and they'll tell you a story about a driver on a phone who pissed them off, not cite stats on increase in accident rates when using a cellphone.

I'd have to agree that just because something pisses you off, you can't go around banning everything....and though this is not necessarily the base of my argument, I'd have to admit that perhaps this popular consensus has influenced me to deal with this somewhat more haphazardly than I should have.

Quote

I would be OK with a law that restricted the use of handheld cellphones or text devices while driving, because there are pretty clear impairments to driving that occur while physically manipulating cellphones. I would not be in favor of a blanket ban, because that is an undue restriction of people's rights.

I agree and cannot really argue with this other than to say that the IIHS report listed above gave reference to international statistics that stated cellphone use while driving increased the risk by 4x whether it was handheld use or hands free use...

It seems somewhat difficult to discern some of this information.

Overall, I would just like to point out that if we are all just a little more responsible with our priveleges it is less likely that we will lose them.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 2,991]

>because some fucknuts was yaking . . .

. . . which is, IMO, the real motivation behind cellphone bans. People get pissed off at "fucknuts" and want to "sock it to them."

[Coreece 190]

Quote

because some fucknuts was yaking . . .

. . . which is, IMO, the real motivation behind cellphone bans. People get pissed off at "fucknuts" and want to "sock it to them."

ok Bill, I'm just trying to add some color to the argument.

I responded to this in my reply to you.

I just wanted to give him an example of a meaningless conversation that he might view as such.

sorry...that mentality can be rather unattractive at times...but some people on here can turn it into an art...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 2,991]

>Well, here are some links from a quick search that may support it...

I took a look. From the first one:

Listening to, or talking on, a handheld device - 30% increase in the odds of being in a crash or near crash.

Dialing that device - 300%
Applying makeup - 300%

Talking/listening to a handheld device contributed to 3.5% of crashes in that study.

So the first one would seem to indicate that laws that require hands-free phones would have 90% of the effect that an overall ban would.

The second is a lawyer site that quotes the aforementioned Harvard study.

The third one is another reference to the Harvard study. I looked at the original study and found this comment in the summary - "The weight of the scientific evidence to date suggests that use of a cellular phone while
driving does create safety risks for the driver and his/her passengers as well as other road users. The magnitude of these risks is uncertain but appears to be relatively low in probability compared to other risks in daily life."

That, to me, is a good statement of the issue.

The fourth is a summary without too much data, but does mention "the largest study on crashes involving distracted drivers has found that rubbernecking causes more accidents than cell phones related accidents." That doesn't make cellphones any safer to use, of course, but does highlight that it's just one risk factor in driving - and not the top one at that.

I took a look and found a pretty exhaustive study that estimated the additional risk that you accepted by using a cellphone. Their estimates was that your yearly risk of an accident went from 5.0% to 7.1% if you used a cellphone.

>Is it really that meaningless?

I think it is. It's like saying more crashes happen within a mile of your house. Which is true - but also pretty meaningless. It doesn't mean that you are in any greater danger within a mile of your house. You're just on those roads most often.

>Overall, I would just like to point out that if we are all just a little more
>responsible with our priveleges it is less likely that we will lose them.

I agree there! There is indeed a problem with people who use cellphones indiscriminately, and I think some solutions might be:

1) laws that require hands-free usage. It does not prevent all cellphone accidents, but prevents some of the physical distraction issues.

2) education on the increased risk you see when using a cellphone in the car.