Cellphone talkers as bad as drunk drivers?

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.

[Tyler @ Jun 30th 2006 9:59AM]

While this study obviously isn't testing drivers with a .20+ BAC (which would probably drastically change the results), people need to not be driving while on the phone. It is unsafe. And while I'm not so sure it needs to be banned, drivers need to restrict their phone usage while driving (except in the case of emergency). Being responsible will keep the politicians out of where they don't belong (or at least it's supposed to work that way).

I purposely crank the music so I can have an excuse as to why I ignored my phone while I'm driving. Of course, I'd probably be cranking the music anyway just for fun.

[Marc @ Jun 30th 2006 10:02AM]

Another study reveals that 90% of technical journalists can't spell the word 'brakes' whilst under the influence of alcohol.

[Spencer Lewis @ Jun 30th 2006 10:04AM]

Agreed. I would hazard a guess that 95% of conversations had while driving are unecessary anyway. Add to the fact that there are simply more drive talkers than drunk drivers and that it cuts across all segments to included teens, distracted parents, the elderly, etc. makes it a bigger problem.

[Mike T. @ Jun 30th 2006 10:08AM]

They did this on Myth Busters a while ago...

[Mad Gerald @ Jun 30th 2006 10:08AM]

I lost a friend who drove her car headlong into another while talking on her mobile. In the UK more needs to be done to bring those who drive while holding their mobiles to book - they know they're breaking the law, but they don't seem to care.

[andrewfit @ Jun 30th 2006 10:08AM]

Mythbuster on the Discovery Channel did a study on this. They had two people get a BAC above the legal limit and then try to drive a police obsticle course. They they tried while talking on a cell phone.

The results between driving drunk and driving while talking on a cell phone were similar (they failed the road course). As far as which one was worse talking or drinking? I don't remember.

[Lord of My Pants @ Jun 30th 2006 10:10AM]

They demonstrated this on "Mythbusters". If you do some casual research on Google for studies on how human attention/concentration works, then this kind of stuff comes as no surprise.

[Dillon Dixon @ Jun 30th 2006 10:10AM]

That car got owned!

[jorellh @ Jun 30th 2006 10:10AM]

Ever notice that you don't think you drive like an idiot when you're talking on the phone and driving? I'm sure those idiots who actually drive in 3 lanes at the same time think that their driving is as perfect as we think ours is. I don't think you will ever convince people to stop driving and talking unless it is illegal. The same way you can't force senior citizens to stop driving even though the evasive maneuvers you make to avoid their 20-mph pace is likely to cause an accident. I spend over 6 hours a day driving so I know that I don't drive like an idiot. I may speed a bit and aim for apexes on every turn, but I've never had an accident.

[Mike T. @ Jun 30th 2006 10:15AM]

On MythBusters there BAC was actually just below the legal limit.
Also they found that the cellphone test were failed by a bigger margin.
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/06/mythbusters_killer_brace_posit.html

[Wonderboy @ Jun 30th 2006 10:20AM]

Studies have shown that idiocy causes more accidents than drunk driving and cell phones combined. Forget banning cell phones, let's ban idiots from driving and solve the real problem.

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 30th 2006 10:25AM]

Anyone who has had a Statistics 101 course knows 40 samples of a population isn't sufficient to detect a trend. Even so, a driving "simulator" isn't the same as driving. This wouldn't get anywhere.

Cell phone use in the car is pretty helpful when you're lost.

Granted, most people do drive like idiots when they're on their cell phones. I've been rear-ended while at a stop at a red light by a realtor yakking on her phone (yes, she was driving a mini-van...) and can't count the number of times I've been cut off while trying to merge because some idiot isn't paying enough attention to what's going on around them.

5 will get you 10 that a higher percentage of tinted-glass, mini-van driving soccer moms will have accidents if you put them in a simulator with a bunch of kids who are acting up...

[Mark Kent @ Jun 30th 2006 10:28AM]

Umm...when are you posters going to ban changing radio stations? Or having kids in the back seat fighting? Or just talking to your passenger in the seat next to you? Or a million and one other things that are distractions? I'm sorry for the person that lost a friend while she was on the phone, but I hardly think that proves she had the accident BECAUSE she was on the phone. I am sure there are people who shouldn't talk on the phone and drive, but these are probably the people that shouldn't have been granted licenses in the first place. And this "study" only used 40 people, who are all going to have differing driving ability before adding the affects being studied, which is hardly a large sample. I would also think you have test the same person under each condition to measure accurately how their driving changes. I have had 2 fender benders in my 15 years of driving, neither while using a phone. I've had close calls by changing radio stations, I've had close calls by picking up stuff that fell on the floor. I can't see how talking on a phone, especially on a handsfree, can cause that level of distraction. And I also watched the "MythBusters", and I'm not sure I could have driven that course without any distractions, much less holding a cellphone to my ear trying to go backwards around cones on a course. They were also trying to get him to solve riddles, not your usual cellphone conversation.

[rj @ Jun 30th 2006 10:29AM]

I'd be curious to see how performance during handsfree cellphone talking compares to performance while having a conversation with someone in the car.

[Chris @ Jun 30th 2006 10:31AM]

Death...err...a lot of pain to the conversationalists!

Where can I find a small, portable cell phone jammer?

[Grant Thompson @ Jun 30th 2006 10:35AM]

"We'd still rather have a talker behind the wheel than a drunk ... but we're guessing legislators will see otherwise"

This comment makes no sense. It's not as if legislators have to choose between one or the other: they're both dangerous; they should both be off the road.

[Scott Lippert @ Jun 30th 2006 10:42AM]

Several studies show that over 50% of drivers believe they are better than the average driver. As for myth busters... who in their right mind drives through obstacle courses while they are drunk or on the phone? My point is, I don't think there is any real way to gauge real-life impairments. Of course talking is a hindrince. So is eating, so is listening to Tyler's loud music (genius solution, btw, when you can't hear the ambulence crashing into you), so is talking to your passenger! A handsfree cellphone setup is rather close to just talking to someone next to you. The only thing that really is a danger on the road is checking text messages... that and drunk drivers.

[Andy S. @ Jun 30th 2006 11:03AM]

The difference between listening to the radio, etc. and talking on the phone is that the portion of your brain that works to parse language has to share bandwidth with the portion that has to process visual stimuli. So once you're actively engaged in a conversation, you're actually reducing the amount of attention that you are *capable* of giving to your driving.

Oh, and Chris? http://www.suresafe.com.tw

[Kirk Fernandes @ Jun 30th 2006 11:09AM]

Only a moron thinks he's not impaired when he drives while talking on a cell phone. The problem is that while everyone knows this, most are not willing to give up the opportunity to have a conversation in their cars. It can't be enforced either. And since we're talking about cell phones, can we please ban walkie-talkie and speaker cell phones? Are people too lazy to lift up their phones to their ears? Why must they force all of us within ear shot to listen to their painfully pathetic conversations? Sorry for the rant.

[Jeff @ Jun 30th 2006 11:10AM]

Why does no one point out what this study has clearly revealed? That the current legal BAC limit is obviously too low. =)

[AirBlock @ Jun 30th 2006 11:11AM]

I haven't read this paper, but here are some questions I have about this study. First, 40 people doesn't seem like its that large of a sample set. You get three jerks in there, and congrats you now have three accidents. Second, why not look at groups with varying blood levels? Third, is a BAC of 0.08 the average level of impairment of people who cause accidents, or people who are pulled over? Fourth, how does this compare to nation-wide statistical data on accidents?

[Racekarl @ Jun 30th 2006 11:15AM]

@Mark Kent and rj:

As previous posters have noted, you need to do a little homework on how the human brain maintains concentration and processes information to understand why talking on a cellphone is more distracting than talking to someone in the car with you, or changing radio stations, etc.

Basically, the brain uses a lot more information to process a conversation than you might expect. Changes in speech pace, intonation, etc. as well as non-verbal cues such as body language are all used by your brain to derive meaning from your conversation. A cell phone has low fidelity audio which masks much of the subtlety in people's speech, and obviously there can be no non-verbal cues over the phone. The upshot is that your brain must dedicate significantly greater attention on processing a cell phone conversation than an in-person conversation, even when you can't actually see the person (e.g. they're in the back seat)

[James @ Jun 30th 2006 11:16AM]

Get real. Anytime your attention is not on the road, you're a danger to yourself and others. That includes everything that's been described, possibly up to and including talking to someone in the passenger seat.

You shouldn't be doing _any_ of that while you're driving. Kids need a pacifier? Fine, get off the goddamn road and give it to them.

And btw, to the idiot that said loud music would result in being rear-ended by an ambulance.... Where the heck do you drive? Ambulances where _I_ drive have big flashing lights that you see LOOOONG before you hear them. They also don't rear end anyone just because their path isn't cleared. That would be kind of stupid, don't you think? And you really think he's going to miss an ambulance tail-gating his ass just because he has some music on?

The only thing that's dangerous about music is if it's distracting you from being able to pay attention to the road. You do that mostly with your eyes, not your ears.

Even with hands-free, if you're having an interactive conversation, ie one where you sit there and have to think about what to say and respond to the person, then you're not thinking about the road and you're suddenly the most dangerous thing around you. Studies show it, and if you were honest with yourself you wouldn't need the studies, because you would know it just from _doing_ it.

[Seo @ Jun 30th 2006 11:18AM]

I'm with Chris on this. >=D

[David @ Jun 30th 2006 11:20AM]

About a year ago, I started to commute to work on a Vespa and I must admit that this experience has changed my position on cell phones in cars.

Up until a year ago I worked at a well known cell phone company and seriously believed that cell phones in the hands of most drivers was not a problem.

Since riding the scooter daily, I've become much more aware of the behavior of the drivers around me. I am constantly amazed that when I see erratic or clueless drivers, they are almost always on a cell phone. Not scientific, I know, but I would feel much safer if cell phone use while driving were restricted.

I agree that there are other distractions while driving, but if there is a pervasive problem we should work to solve it even if we can solve every problem.

David
www.theangrybees.com/blog

[Yoyodyn @ Jun 30th 2006 11:21AM]

Why do none of these "studies", including the one on Mythbusters, include someone having a conversation in the car? Don't you think that having a heated discussion with someone in the back or passenger seat is just as distracting as talking on the cell phone, and maybe more so because you can turn to look at them when you want to?

So when are auto manufacturers going to start making the drivers side sound proof and isolated from the rest of the car? Never. I think we should adopt what one comedian I saw proposed. We add Cell phone usage and radio management to the drivers test. And we make the driving part of the driving test that much harder. This will cut down on traffic, and increase the use of public transportation. Everyone wins.

[zed @ Jun 30th 2006 11:28AM]

Some of the cell phone/car users need to give it up. Changing the stations takes one second, whapping the kids on the head (joke) maybe five? People talking in their car yap the WHOLE trip while unknowingly running over a children, dogs, what have you. When you play your racing games, do you chat on the phone while doing it? What happens if someone tries to interrupt you? You crash! It's not rocket science.

[GadgetGav @ Jun 30th 2006 11:37AM]

Fifth Gear in the UK did a study of driving drunk vs driving tired and the tired people were worse. There was also one on driving drunk vs stoned but I don't remember which was worse there.
I know some who was lucky to walk away from a rollover after hitting a tree because they were changing tracks on their iPod.
I've seen people crossing lane to lane while yelling at the kids in the back.
Point is that anything that is taking your concentration from contolling your 1 or 2 ton projectile at 60mph while 20ft away from stationary opbjects or other fast moving projectiles is very dangerous. More people need to think of driving as a skill that needs concentration and practice and not as a reflex action of one foot and two hands.

While we're never going to have legislation against shouting at your kids or arguing with your passengers, we can and should have laws against the more easily enforcable distractions like drink, drugs and phones.

[Ian @ Jun 30th 2006 11:55AM]

I don't really think the MythBuster's test was very fair. They were asking pretty hard questions while going through cones. I know if I was driving down the streeet and encountered some cones, I would completely stop responding to the person on the phone and after the cones were through be like "Hey.. there was an obstacle course I had to cross..can you please repeat?"

Of course, the cell phone group on myth busters didn't have that option. I bet this test made similiar misstakes.

Either way, banning cell phones on the road should be considered a much bigger deal than banning drunk drivers. Why? Because allowing people to talk on their cell on the road adds value to society. By the time I get home, I can have plans for the evening. It makes the time stuck in traffic useful. It allows us to do more work, etc.

Is the cost in driver-impairment > cost of lose of communications? I really doubt the answer is yes.

[Jack @ Jun 30th 2006 11:56AM]

Junk science!! So what does that prove. Smoking a cigarette, changing the channel on the radio, adjusting the A/C, eating a taco or drinking a cup of coffee will also impair your driving. What an F-ing revelation!!! While I do believe common sense dictates that these activities should be limited, should we have the bureaucrats pass another law banning all these normal activities so that they can fill their coiffers. Why don't we just ban cars all together and have people walk or ride bicycles. Ridiculous!!

[Ben @ Jun 30th 2006 12:01PM]

It's amazing to me how many people "need" their phone while driving. I guess it's also amazing how much work they get done, cause they start at 6 in the morning! Wow, how did we ever accomplish anything as Americans before cell-phones?

I would absolutely vote for my state to ban all cell phone usage by the driver in the car. Say what you want about changing stations and such...it can be hazardous potentially, but one big difference is that it takes 1 second. Cell phones on the other hand are a constant distraction.

I know it only takes 1 second for you to get in a wreck, but no serious person thinks that changing your radio station is just as dangerous.

I am thinking of writing my governor and asking him to ban cell phone usage in cars. I'm serious.

[Pinkerton @ Jun 30th 2006 12:03PM]

> having a heated discussion with someone in
> the back or passenger seat is just as
> distracting as talking on the cell phone

A heated conversation, maybe. A normal conversation, no way. Here's the difference between in-car and cell phone conversations. Safe driving is all about being alert to your surroundings. The passanger is usually aware of things that need the driver's attention. They can also see when the driver is trying to concentrate on driving. Passangers anticipate silences in the conversation, where a person on a cell phone will be saying "hello, hello" and basically irritating the driver as much as they are distracting him/her.

[LeJupp @ Jun 30th 2006 12:29PM]

|| the blood-alcohol level shoots
|| past 0.08 -- as it tends to do

A blood alcohol level of 0.08? 0.08 parts of alcohol in 1 part of blood? That would mean a blood alcohol concentration of 8%. I doubt that anyone could survive a bac like that, let alone drive a car...

Or do they mean 0.08%?

[Yaks @ Jun 30th 2006 12:37PM]

I'm sure they mean .08 % which is the legal limit in most states -- coincidence? I got hit head on by a drunk driver with BAC of .29 % hours later when it was taken at the hospital, I'd much rather she was talking on the cell phone then reaching for her vodka bottle that she dropped.

[Matt E. @ Jun 30th 2006 12:48PM]

I don't know know if this is dangerous or not...
Sometimes I don't even remember driving to work or back home. I just get in the car..POOF! I'm at work.

[Scott Lippert @ Jun 30th 2006 12:54PM]

The point is... where do you draw the line? Where do the benefits overcome the costs? Driving in itself is not safe. It kills people. It'd be safer if everyone flew everywhere. But they'd have pilots, and it's not like we're going to get professional taxi drivers for every person's morning commute. If you want to solve car deaths fix the driver, not the car. If we went only by studies to secure our roads, then middle-aged black women and asians would never drive (I know that sounds terribly racist, but then so was the study I guess). The freedom to drive is not one to be restricted, but rather appreciated. If people want to make mistakes, let them. The benefits of cell phone use in cars is immeasurable, the price of life is invaluable, the appreciation of danger is essential. Make wise decisions, not stupid laws.

[hobgoblin @ Jun 30th 2006 1:10PM]

"They were also trying to get him to solve riddles, not your usual cellphone conversation."

get a girlfriend and see if statement still holds ;)

[rgm @ Jun 30th 2006 1:20PM]

Great, if this is proven I want to see headlines like:
"Drunk driving safer than talking on a mobile"
*cracks a beer*

[tekdemon @ Jun 30th 2006 1:33PM]

This one time I saw this moron in a huge SUV talking on his cell phone in my rearview mirror, and I noticed that he seemed fairly into the conversation (I scan my rearview mirrors while driving). At any rate, it seemed pretty obvious that this idiot wasn't paying attention to anything at all. So I got the hell out of that lane, and stopped for the red light.

Of course, he blows right past the red light doing 50...keep in mind this is a crowded NYC street here.

Now, I'm not saying that I've never used the phone in the car, because that would just be lying, but this idiot wasn't even putting a little bit of effort into trying to keep alert. If you're paying a lot of attention to the conversation you're probably not paying a lot of attention to driving.

So keep phone calls to a minimum, only for like really simple non-involved things maybe, like "I'll be home a little late, bye" or something.

[Ellen @ Jan 30th 2007 10:27PM]

"I scan my rearview mirrors while driving"

While I'm on my cell phone, I have my eyes on the road. How is this more dangerous than scanning your rearview mirror?
(not bashing the mirror scans, just making a point)

[Rob @ Jun 30th 2006 1:56PM]

Coming from an aviation background...each individual should be responsible enough to figure out whether or not what they are doing in the car is degrading their driving performance. If you are really honest with yourself I'm sure 9 out of 10 people will realize they have far less a margin of safety when talking on a phone and driving. Unfortunately we can't rely on people being responsible enough to do this for themselves, as statistics probably show, and while we can't eliminate the problem of people letting themselves get distracted while driving, we can at least make this one thing illegal, just like driving while intoxicated. It has been identified as a very major problem across every demographic. The science is there, no matter what people think, they are impaired.

If people just can't possibly give up talking on the phone while driving even though theres a chance that it will save some lives, that's pretty indicative of what kind of society we have today.

Back to aviation kind of, any of those other distracting activities described are also a problem, but may be at times hard to prevent. The key here is that a driver should identify a problem and manage it immediately. If this involves pulling over, then do it. If it involves taking steps so that it doesn't happen next time, then take those steps. If you are in a rough situation, ignore the distraction until your workload allows you to deal with it. I think the cellphone thing is just one part of a whole big attitude problem that American drivers exhibit to me every time I go out on the road. I'll even admit to screwing up at times myself, but when I drive I try to drive as expertly and courteously as I can. The safety of myself and others is far more important than any petty conversations or entertaining myself.

Given there are times where you have enough margin of safety to make an important call, and there are emergencies, but this is all part of responsible management. Our current licensing system obviously does not train people to recognize any of this. And, since American drivers have demonstrated an inability to be responsible, generally, everyone might have to give up the freedom of using a phone in the car.

I dunno, just what I think. Sorry it was long, I'm on no sleep and a lot of caffeine.

[Jeff Foster @ Jun 30th 2006 2:18PM]

"I know if I was driving down the streeet and encountered some cones, I would completely stop responding to the person on the phone and after the cones were through be like "Hey.. there was an obstacle course I had to cross..can you please repeat?""

but the point is that most people wont. most people "think their fine" and that their are some sort of super-driver that can do anything.

...then when they rear-end you, somehow it was your fault, you moron!

that's the point. People are retarded, and unless someone is TELLING them that what they are doing is scientifically considered dangerous, that'll just ignore the risks. Especially when they drive a goddamn SUV and think "who cares? i will be safe, i dont really care if i kill that little girl in the hybrid, because i cant fucking drive."

fuckers.

[Cell Phone @ Jun 30th 2006 2:24PM]

The only people that seem to have a problem with cell phone use are politicians. What do politicians do all day long? They try to leave their legacy. They try to save us from ourselves. I can't think of ONE person who has been in an accident due to a cellphone. And I work in telecommunications!
Alcohol, on the other hand, that's a completely different matter. Alcohol impairs the judgement and reaction time. There isn't any pill. You can't drop your drink. You won't be able to press the brakes, turn the wheel, etc. Cell phone users are NOT handicapped in the same way.

I will tell you what cell phone use is doing... it's annoying. But it's not the only thing that is annoying. Traffic congestion is annoying. Cell phone use is easy to spot though, so it's the "habit" that gets the most attention. Everyone targets the cell phone.
No one targets McDonalds. No one targets the makeup companies. Yet every day, day after day, I see women putting on mascara and lipstick in their mirrors.

Why is it legal to eat a cheeseburger, shave, and put on lipstick, yet talking on a cellphone is soon to be illegal?

[Rob @ Jun 30th 2006 2:26PM]

I think you summed up my thoughts much more succintly there.

[Hannah @ Jun 30th 2006 2:43PM]

I see a lot of people asking "what's the difference between talking on a cell/cordless phone while driving and having a conversation with a passenger/screaming kids in the backseat/changing the radio station/etc.?" Well, there are a number of differences.

First of all, let's get one thing straight: driving is a long-term exercise in multitasking and situational awareness. A person can only keep track of so many things at a time, or for so much of the time. You have to consider the impact of various factors on your "multitasking load," and all the things people have mentioned previously.

As Racekarl pointed out, humans devote a lot of brain processing power to personal interaction, and when the usual subtle cues aren't there, your brain basically goes into overdrive looking for them, and that adds quite a lot to your multitasking load, in such a way that you don't notice. It uses the unconscious parts of your brain that would normally pick up on shifts in the traffic pattern around you. You may be able to keep a decent amount of attention on both the road and your phone conversation for half a minute or so, but after that, it's one or the other.

When you're talking to a passenger, that person knows that you're driving, and they are also generally keeping an eye on the road. Additionally, they will quiet down (or you can tell them to quiet down) when you're in a difficult position and driving requires your full attention. They can cooperate in easing your multitasking load. Not so with a person on a cell phone - they can't see what's going on and can't react appropriately, and it's not as easy to tell them to be quiet without offending them.

As for the radio, or screaming kids in the backseat, you can tune them out to a certain degree. Since you're not interacting with the radio it doesn't add that much to your multitasking load, and of course you can shut it off at will (if you're an inexperienced driver, however, or have some attention deficit problem, you shouldn't listen to it while driving. I speak from personal experience).

Screaming kids are harder to tune out, but you can tell them to shut up. And if they don't, pull over and deal with the situation. Of course, you can be stupid and turn to yell at them while you're driving. It isn't sensible to ban yelling at your kids in the backseat, but unlike when you're talking on a cellphone, you have the option of devoting a minimal amount of attention to the situation, and more people comprehend the dangers of being distracted by kids than being distracted by a phone conversation.

Finally, if you're doing something like turning off the radio or opening the glove compartment, it only takes a couple of seconds, so it will not strain your multitasking load (at least not for long). Eating or drinking while driving is the same, because you can do it in a series of short-term actions. Although, again, I do not recommend that inexperienced drivers do it.

I think the use (or misuse) of cell phones while driving is partly due to a universal, constant human problem: we develop new technologies more quickly than we can adapt to them. Our behaviors and common sense have yet to catch up to the task of handling this relatively new technology. One can only hope that society will come to its senses in a timely fashion. Until then, I'm all for banning cell phone use while driving.

[Dwain @ Jun 30th 2006 2:44PM]

Just as long as I can eat tacos while I'm driving, let 'em take my cell phone. It just rings while I'm going through the drive-through anyway. How's a guy supposed to scarf down an extra value meal on a crowded interstate with a phone ringing in his ear?

[Matt E. @ Jun 30th 2006 3:08PM]

The answer is simple: Ban automatic transmissions in cars. You rarely see someone driving a stick and talking on the phone. Its almost physically impossible.

[Hannah @ Jun 30th 2006 4:28PM]

@Matt E.

Well, I probably don't have to tell you that your idea is not all that practical. But really, it would not solve the problem of hands-free car phones. And you KNOW a lot of idiots would try to drive and talk on the phone at the same time anyway.

[Bill @ Jun 30th 2006 4:38PM]

I followed a guy the other day I could have swore was drunk until he hung up and began to drive normally. Plenty of people can handle both activities but plent more can't.

People will continue to drive while on the phone because it hasn't the same stigma drunk driving has. And look how effective stigma has been in preventing that.

Although I own a cell phone I consider it nothing more than an electronic leash so it's a good excuse to turn it off while in the car. I enjoy my commute a lot more.

[JayR @ Jun 30th 2006 5:24PM]

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.