pudge's Journal: Cell Phones While Driving

The news said tonight that using a cell phone is as dangerous as driving while drunk.

Except, um, no, it's not.

There is absolutely no difference between talking on a phone, talking on a hands-free headset, and talking to an actual, you know, LIVE PERSON IN YOUR CAR.

Washington just passed a law making it illegal to talk on a cell phone. No word yet on whether listening to music or talking to a passenger will remain legal. (Hm ... now that I think about it ... the Democrats in WA who hate local talk radio maybe would want to ban the use of radios in cars. Except they would probably only ban conservative radio, on the grounds that it tends to contribute more to road rage than NPR does.)

Stupid nannystatists.

What you are missing....

[BWJones]

What you are missing is that a number of studies, including in the New England Jounral of Medicine studied the number of errors or mistakes that drivers made while drunk versus those made when talking on cell phones. They have been pretty straightforward studies and unless you would like to perform your own study, you cannot really say whether or not talking with a passenger is the same as talking on a cell phone.

Re:

[pudge]

What you are missing is that a number of studies, including in the New England Jounral of Medicine studied the number of errors or mistakes that drivers made while drunk versus those made when talking on cell phones.

Even if that's true -- and honestly, those people they studied must be totally retarded -- it still does not follow that it is just as dangerous as driving drunk. When driving drunk, you are literally incapable of doing certain things to a certain ability level. When on the phone, you can always, you know, put the phone down or hang it up. Driving drunk is clearly more dangerous, even among retarded people who make a lot of driving mistakes while on the phone.

They have been pretty straightforward studies and unless you would like to perform your own study, you cannot really say whether or not talking with a passenger is the same as talking on a cell phone.

Of course I can. Why not? I don't have to

Re:

[BWJones]

Even if that's true -- and honestly, those people they studied must be totally retarded -- it still does not follow that it is just as dangerous as driving drunk. When driving drunk, you are literally incapable of doing certain things to a certain ability level. When on the phone, you can always, you know, put the phone down or hang it up. Driving drunk is clearly more dangerous, even among retarded people who make a lot of driving mistakes while on the phone.

But the truth is that people do *not* put down t

Re:

[pudge]

But the truth is that people do *not* put down the cell phone.

I do. In fact, I have. Dozens of times. I've been talking on the phone, and traffic gets hairy or something, so I put the phone down. By denying that people do it, in the way you do, you seem to be implying that if people did that, then they would be safer. I agree!

It is not cell phone use that is dangerous, it is people who use the phones in some unsafe manner. They are not inherently dangerous. No moreso than singing to the radio or talking to a passenger. Indeed, talking to a passenger can be si

Re:

[Talinom]

Washington just passed a law making it illegal to talk on a cell phone.

Um, no. They made it illegal to use it as a hand held device. Not illegal if you are using a hands free headset. We are free to yak our faces off.

But the danger caused by drunkenness is not merely a matter of loss of attention, but physical ability to react.

What is the difference between the inability to act due to loss of attention by being focused on a disembodied voice and the inability to act due to being drunk [wikipedia.org]?

If the dud

Re:

[pudge]

Washington just passed a law making it illegal to talk on a cell phone.

Um, no. They made it illegal to use it as a hand held device. Not illegal if you are using a hands free headset. We are free to yak our faces off.

Yes, looking at context, I obviously knew that; I should have been more clear.

What is the difference between the inability to act due to loss of attention by being focused on a disembodied voice and the inability to act due to being drunk [wikipedia.org]?

Clearly, being drunk is going to incapacitate you more.

And how would the outcome have been different had the person not been aware of you at all in the first place? Are you saying the the mental impairment of alcohol is completely discounted and are ascribing the accident purely to physical reaction time?

Huh? The person was not aware of me. That's the point.

Anecdote: I've seen people using cell phones in a parking lot walk into cars, seen them trip over their own furniture in their homes and seen them walk into walls in public places. No scientific backing there at all. No proof. Just my perception, just as it is your perception that you are unaffected by a cell phone. I also know people who feel that they are unaffected by alcohol.

I have never had any such problem while using a cell phone.

And there is no one who is unaffected by alcohol.

Yes, you and I are thoughtful in the use of the device. You and I take personal responsibility for our actions. Does the average person weigh the true consequences of their actions prior to the execution of them?

But there's the rub: should my freedom be taken away because of the inabilities of others?

So, should no law be put in place banning the use of a hand held device while driving and leaving personal choice the driving (heh) factor?

Yes, absolutely.

a national, daily, hazardous irritant

[Bill Dog]

The news said tonight that using a cell phone is as dangerous as driving while drunk.

Except, um, no, it's not.

Right, it's worse. At least according to the Mythbusters' testing. Although theirs might not have been completely representative. They only got drunk just up to barely past the legal limit. And on a cell phone they weren't just gabbing or listening, but were given various mental tasks to perform.

There is absolutely no difference between talking on a phone, talking on a hands-free headset, and talkin

Re:

[pudge]

Right, [talking on the phone is] worse [than driving drunk]. At least according to the Mythbusters' testing. Although theirs might not have been completely representative. They only got drunk just up to barely past the legal limit. And on a cell phone they weren't just gabbing or listening, but were given various mental tasks to perform.

There is no sense in which that makes sense to me. Ever watch NASCAR etc.? These guys are talking on their "phone" the entire race, doesn't seem to adversely affect them, in much more dangerous conditions. Why do you think that is?

There is absolutely no difference between talking on a phone, talking on a hands-free headset, and talking to an actual, you know, LIVE PERSON IN YOUR CAR.

There are several differences. Wrt to specifically the difference with a live person in your car, your passenger, at least a front-seat passenger, will probably notice that you're straying out of your lane, or that the person in front of you is stopping but you're not slowing down, as you gab away to him/her. Which a phone conversation participant can't do.

My passenger is often two rows of seats behind me. No difference.

A major class of differences, to me, is frequency of occurence, in practice. Maybe drunk driving is worse, but a given driver is likely to encounter far, far more fellow travelers driving under the influence of a cell phone than alcohol. Yes, that doesn't make driving with a cell phone more dangerous than driving drunk, but it makes it a bigger problem.

Right, and that means that an individual's relative danger to others -- even if everyone reacted similarly while talking on a cell phone, which isn't the case -- is dependent on their individual cell phone beh

Re:

[Bill Dog]

And I just cannot see how, for myself, talking on the cell phone is any different than listening to talk radio.

It might not be much different. You seem to be trapped in the idea that we should only ban activities based on the seriousness of the result of the activity, and not at all based on the sheer numbers engaging in it. A "problem" can be defined by frequency in addition to magnitude.

I don't believe at all that it is a huge problem,...

I appeal to popularity -- you're like the only one on earth who beli

Re:

[pudge]

You seem to be trapped in the idea that we should only ban activities based on the seriousness of the result of the activity, and not at all based on the sheer numbers engaging in it. A "problem" can be defined by frequency in addition to magnitude.

You seem to be trapped in the idea that because some people are a problem, or have a problem, that it justifies taking away the liberty of others.

It's not nannystatism to lay down some rules so that as a society we can reasonably live together and function.

It is absolutely is when you take away my liberty because other people are a problem.

Re:

[Miguelito]

Right, it's worse. At least according to the Mythbusters' testing. Although theirs might not have been completely representative. They only got drunk just up to barely past the legal limit. And on a cell phone they weren't just gabbing or listening, but were given various mental tasks to perform.

Ahhh yes, the Mythbuster's ep. I saw that. The problem with their test, and the problem with every study about how dangerous using cell phones is (that I've seen/read about anyway) all require the driver to give absolute focus to the phone. The Mythbuster's was even worse in that they were being asked questions and they had to answer them or it didn't count (IIRC). This is crap! Some of us (my thinking about cell phone usage and how I personally use it is like pudge in this case) know how to keep the m

Re:

[Bill Dog]

This is the crux of his arguments above about being under the influence vs phone usage as well.. you can consciously drop a phone,...

One can consciously not get behind the wheel when sauced. But people still do drive drunk. The number of times I've encountered someone driving haphazardly and obliviously under the influence of alcohol: Probably 2-3 in my life. The number of times I've encountered someone driving haphazardly and obliviously under the influence of a cell phone: Weekly. If drunk driving were as

Re:

[pudge]

If drunk driving were as commonplace, I'd be for banning alcohol as well. If I encountered a crazed gunman every week shooting up a building I was in, I'd be for banning guns.

Huh. I certainly would not. I would instead be for things likke increasing the penalties for driving drunk and shooting up buildings. Just like I wouldn't mind increasing penalties for actually driving while distracted, where there would need to be proof of actual distraction that led to some danger, rather than evidence of a potential distraction, which is all cell phone use is.

Liberty!

Re:

[Bill Dog]

I would instead be for things likke increasing the penalties...

In theory I would be for trying that first. Give it the same stigma as driving drunk, and the same kinds of penalties. And then greatly increase the penalties for driving under the influence of either.

I say "in theory" because, how are drunk drivers detected and caught? It's been deemed not enough to wait until after they make a wreck, and there's only so many cops on the road. So we have sobriety checkpoints, and we know what days of the year g

Re:

[pudge]

how are drunk drivers detected and caught? It's been deemed not enough to wait until after they make a wreck, and there's only so many cops on the road. So we have sobriety checkpoints, and we know what days of the year generally more drinking, sometimes to excess, occurs. But we don't have a test for are you the kind of person who gets lost in conversation, or are you currently going thru issues that make you prone to that, or will an issue suddenly come up later today that renders you a dangerously inattentive driver/talker. Inattentiveness doesn't linger after being pulled over, to be tested for, so unless the cop who was following you observing your erratic driving actually saw you using a cell phone, you can just say "no sir, I wasn't", and then nothing can be done about. "I was just scratching my ear, officer." It would be wonderful if an approach more respecting of our liberties would work, but this one wouldn't.

No, I think you are missing my point. My idea is to wait until you commit a violation with your car that the police deem is related to your allowing yourself to be distracted. So if you swerve, you don't get a $50 ticket or whatever for swerving, you get a $250 ticket for not paying attention. Make it a x5 multiplier.

Speeding too. I got a ticket for going 45 in a 35 or something, a couple of weeks ago. I didn't actually know it was a 35, and I still think it shouldn't be. But what if the reason I was

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Again, in theory, that would be fine too. And has precedent in robbery vs. armed robbery laws. The reason it won't work is because, in my (and many peoples', evidently) view, the problem's too commonplace. If we wait around for a cop to happen to be around and witness the swerving or whatever, we won't have made a dent in the problem.

Actually...

[Qzukk]

Washington just passed a law making it illegal to talk on a cell phone. No word yet on whether listening to music or talking to a passenger will remain legal.

In several states, young drivers are not permitted to have other kids as passengers in order to prevent them from chatting more than driving.

I support this law

[ces]

I understand your arguments against this, but you aren't most people. Most people are fucking idiots as it is when behind the wheel, doubly so when they have a phone pressed up against their ear.

In the past few years almost every time I've had a close call as a pedestrian or bicyclist it has been due to some fucktard yakking away on their cell phone. I'm sure every one of them felt they were perfectly safe while driving and talking on the phone too.

People need to shut the fuck up and drive, unfortunately they won't. Therefore some form of club is needed to discourage the behavior.

Re:

[pudge]

People need to shut the fuck up and drive, unfortunately they won't. Therefore some form of club is needed to discourage the behavior.

To me, this is sorta like (though obviously not, from my perspective, as egregious as) hate crime laws. How about we just hold people more responsible for causing accidents? Then we don't need to be concerned with what they do that may cause an accident.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Distracted people might cause the accident but not be the one who crashes. Too often they just drive away and then it's really difficult to hold them responsible. Or they might hit a pedestrian or bike and run. Try to keep people from getting in the habit of doing distracting things like holding a cell phone while driving and they'll be less likely to make mistakes while they drive.

Now if using a hand-held mobile is just as unsafe as going hands-free, and as unsafe as applying makeup while driving, class

Re:

[Miguelito]

I understand your arguments against this, but you aren't most people. Most people are fucking idiots as it is when behind the wheel, doubly so when they have a phone pressed up against their ear.

Maybe people that are so fucking stupid as to now know when/how to use a phone (or eat, put on makeup, talk to a passenger, etc etc) while driving shouldn't be driving in the first place! It'd make a lot more sense to make it a tad harder to be allowed to drive in the first place and keep morons off the road then to penalize everyone else.

I encounter so many complete idiots on the road every day that shouldn't be allowed to drive on the phone or not it's insane.