Cellphone Drivers Drive Like Drunks 1032
TDavid writes "A University of Utah study claims that drivers who use a cell phone will be 'more impaired than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.' The study also says that use will turn a driver who is age 20 into age 70. Hands-free systems apparently don't help much either as they still require a driver to 'actively be part of a conversation.' What about in vehicle systems like OnStar?"
Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
turn SOME drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be fair here, cell phones turn SOME drivers into worse-than-drunk drivers. ANYONE with a .08 BAC is going to drive poorly, only some folks who talk on a cell phone while they drive will drive poorly.
I'm going to be preemptive here, the solution lies in education, training and responsibility, not prohibition.
OnStar (Score:3, Insightful)
-b0lt
Re:Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
One reason (Score:3, Insightful)
When people are driving with cellphones, rather than realizing how hindered their attention is, they just continue on thinking their fine, because hey, they're not drunk!
And yes, I realize this is not the exact thought process, but my point was that for the vast majority of people, they do not see in-car cellphone use as a huge risk compared to say...drinking while driving. And good luck convincing people otherwise. People aren't going to like being told that they cannot talk to other people while driving. Thank god for cordless headsets and speakerphone.
Re:Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if a truck suddenly pulls out in front of you, you will suddenly focus on it; your passenger will tend to notice this and stop talking. Someone on the other end of a phone won't.
Re:Old People (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Old People (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:THIS AFFECTS YOUR CHILDREN! (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, I love the word "likely" which means that they really don't know.
Actually, it's very possible that they are using the word "likely" to refer to the probabilistic nature of the data they have. You can't say that everytime you are involved in a conversation there is a 100% chance that that you will be a poorer driver. "Likely" refers to "likelihood".
GMD
Pull 'em over! (Score:5, Insightful)
Inevitably, anyone on a cell phone is breaking about 15 other driving laws because they can't concentrate. The drunkenness or cell-phone conversation is not the problem -- the swerving and going 20 miles an hour under the speed limit in the passing lane is. Pull them over for those things, and the idiot cell phone holding driver would quickly become a thing of the past.
Re:Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
A passenger is aware of the traffic situation. If you suddenly stop talking to a passenger, they'll look and see it is because a bunch of brake lights just came on up ahead, you need to pay attention to traffic, and the passenger should just sit quietly until it's smooth sailing again.
In a cell phone conversation, the person you're talking to has no awareness of what traffic conditions are like. You, the driver, could suddenly need to jam the brakes and swerve to avoid somebody drifting into your lane--and the person on the phone would just keep on chirping away about how "so anyway, then I said that there's no way my card is overdrawn because you paid those bills, right, and so..."
It may not command all of your attention, but in an emergency traffic situation, every slightest bit of attention that gets pulled away from the road can make the difference. A cell phone conversation can make the difference between missing that other guy's bumper by inches and getting clipped into an uncontrolled spin at 60 miles per hour.
Re:Old People (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:turn SOME drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but I bet you drive poorer when using a phone than you drive when not using a phone.
I don't care if it still doesn't knock you into the general level of "poor" driver, if I'm driving around you I want you at your best.
I'll grant you the same courtesy.
Why Old People Rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they control the government: police, courts, armed forces, etc.
Because they run the economy -- banks, corporate boards, regulations. (Alan Greenspan is no spring chicken [google.com].)
Because they can -- or think they can -- continue to drive forever, and they don't want to stop.
I remember one old guy who'd been in an accident, mainly because his driving skills had eroded badly. When challenged, he stated that he would give it up when he killed somebody
-kgj
Re:turn SOME drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than hoping that a load of people are going to admit, first to themselves, and then to the rest of the world, that they're really crap drivers when on the phone, better to just ban it for everyone.
It's not so different to alcohol - some people may be able to drive OK with high levels, but is it really worth taking the chance? Would you trust someone who claims to be able to drive OK even after a load of drinks?
Re:Old People (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly question. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.
How many world-class metropolitan cities in the U.S. have subway systems? How many lesser-class metros have comprehensive bus systems?
And how many corner stores, how many neighborhood main streets, have been eaten by suburban WalMarts?
For that matter, where is the nuclear family? You live in the same city as your parents? They live with you? And will your kids be there for you?
The U.S. transportation system is a basket case.
(Stated as it is announced that Amtrak will lose funding because it hasn't paid for itself. [And what transport system has? But no matter.]) I'll miss it.
Re:Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite. "A combination of shared situational awareness and greatly increased audio bandwidth".
Shared situational awareness: If I'm talking to a driver and I see a hazard, I'll either STFU if it appears the driver has noticed the hazard, or I'll road hazard: tire fragment ahead on left mention it in midsentence if it looks like it's something out of the driver's field of view.
Increased audio bandwidth in meatspace relative to cellphonespace: When I'm talking to someone in meatspace, I'm getting a full uncompressed analog signal of that person's voice. Real easy for my brain to parse that into words, because that's what my ears evolved to receive, and what my brain evolved to parse.
When I'm talking on the cellphone, I'm getting the analog voice, downsampled to 8 KHz analog bandwidth for the POTS connection, and then digitized and recompressed to what sounds like a swishy watery-sounding MP3 at 16 Kb/s (with squelch/dropouts for near-silent bits of the conversation, to save the phone company even more bandwidth). Ugh.
Even off the road, my brain has to work a lot harder to reconstruct that into human speech than it does in meatspace. A fraction of a second pause, a few milliseconds of a breath that don't make it past the squelch, all of those things make a difference. Was that stunned silence? Was it "whoa?" [as in whoa, that's stupid], or was it "whoa!" [as in whoa, that's brilliant].
Our brains evolved to detect those nuances in meatspace speech. The nuances can sruvive text transmissions like email, because we've trained ourselves (unless we're insensitive clods!) to manually reinsert them. It all gets stripped out at downsampled, 16 KHz compressed audio, with bandwidth-saving squelch.
And that's why your driving-brain runs out of CPU cycles more quickly when talking on a cellphone than when talking to a passenger.
Re:So what's next? (Score:1, Insightful)
2. Actively concentrating on a distant voice coming from a person in a completely different environment is nothing like interacting with a person in your immediate presence.
3. Listening to music is a passive activity that can be and is immediately blocked out in an emergency.
Get the fuck off your goddamn phone and drive the motherfucking vehicle you stupid shit.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
By this logic, why require people to have driver's licenses? After all, if they're not qualified to operate a motor vehicle, then they're clearly going to be held for the consequences of their actions when they plow headlong into oncoming traffic, right?
The difficulty with this reasoning is that your actions can have direct and easily fatal consequences for the fifty-odd people sharing the freeway with you at any given moment. Yes, we can't outlaw everything because it might be a distraction to driving, but we can isolate things that tend to cause a person to drive significantly worse than they otherwise would--like DUI, cell phones, and dash-mounted television sets.
To point at the culprit and say "HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS" provides little consolation to the family of the guy he just killed in a wreck. There's nothing wrong with taking preventative action to minimize the risk of traffic accidents.
Re:THIS AFFECTS YOUR CHILDREN! (Score:1, Insightful)
Driving whilst participating in a casual cell phone conversation is not, however, necessary to pursue happiness, and thus should be regulated. The simple semantic attack on this: "Cell phone users should be allowed to pursue happiness" is invalid, because the cell phone use necessary to pursue happiness can easily be done at times when one is not driving.
Note that I tolerate this line of argument, but don't accept it completely. AFAIC, it would be a good idea to get the bad drivers in general off the streets. However, in order to not infringe on the general right to pursue happiness, this would necessitate substantial spending on public transportation, which is not going to happen any time soon.
Your final comment about the "triple whammy threat" is kind of ironic, because the research being discussed DISCREDITS it. I take the conclusion to mean something like "the reaction time penalty, which is a function of amount of reduced sensory awareness, saturates at level X" and has nothing to do with being older/younger.
I'm open to arguments that the elderly are not impaired drivers, but I doubt you'll find any support. Finally, note that I'm not concerned about the elderly, so much as I am about poor drivers in general. By no means do I mean to imply that it would be a good idea to force people off the road at age 50-whatever or 60-whatever. I mean only that everyone should be subject to rigorous competency checks.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
When someone else is physically present, they are aware of what else is going on; they will make allowances for this in the conversation. It's naturally what we do.
Yesterday, for example, I was in a restraurant and there was a loud crashing noise from the kitchen. There was a group of guys at the table next to me, and one was talking. He paused for the sound, then resumed talking when it was over. Everyone understood what he said fine. It was an automatic thing.
If you're talking to someone on a cell phone in a car, they aren't aware, for example, if you're in heavy traffic and maybe they should let you focus on the driving. Compare car conversations to normal conversations the next chance you get.
two thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Everyone is different. Some people are better drivers even when drunk or distracted than many of the idiots on the road are at the best of times. I think if you want to drive while talking on your cell, say, you should be able to take a special driving test that demonstrates you have the talent to do so safely, and get a special license that says so.
Re:Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree- but possibly because I have Asperger's. It takes a lot more energy and attention to communicate with somebody physically present due to the increased data from body language, than to talk to a disconnected voice on the other end of a telephone line. Still- I find that saying "oops- hold on a second" usually gets the person on the other end of the line to shut up- especially if they know you're driving.
Re:Old People (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of three reasons:
1. They paid for the road, built the road, designed the road....
2. Safer drivers don't vote.
3. We, as a society, choose to accept the added risk out of respect for our elders.
Common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're in a situation where you can't talk and drive at the same time, don't make phone calls and don't answer the phone. Your phone has voicemail and caller ID for a reason.
You are not available 24/7. If someone can't understand this, this is their problem. If it's your job to be available 24/7, get a hands free device or something.
If you have a passenger, have them make phone calls if possible.
Avoid lane changes while on the phone (unless you have tons of room). Even if it means following that truck at 60mph for a minute or two.
If you suddenly need to pay full attention to driving, do so. Being impolite is better than totalling your car.
If you were in a traffic jam, but aren't anymore, it's OK to tell the person on the other end of the line and say you need to hang up.
Re:Old People (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats why Ford spent so much money lobbying to stop public transportation development in LA and Chicago.
Re:Old People (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians care about one thing more than any other - getting rellected. If you look at all the lobbying groups that are successfull it is for two reasons - they have a large influence on a large voting block, or they make large contributions to the politician's campain funds. One of these is mostly good, as it represents the (politically active) people through proxy (and in a populace this large, it is impossible to get attention any other way). The other is mostly bad, as it only represents the will of a few wealthy contributers. Not all lobbying is equal.
In this case it is simply democracy in action - the majority of voters think that old people should be allowed to drive, so they are.
Re:Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Add to this the fact that if you're talking--either on the phone or to another person in the car--you're not going to be as aware of your surroundings as you would be were you focusing that extra attention on the road. You may or may not be aware that there's another car just entering your blind spot in the direction you're about to swerve. Talking could even make the difference between seeing an accident coming a second sooner than you otherwise would have.
Every last ounce of concentration helps when you're driving. That's why DUI levels are set so low; while you may be able to walk around, open doors, talk to people, and turn the key in your car without any real trouble with a BAC of 0.05, that extra few tenths of a second it takes you to react makes driving much, much more dangerous.
Driving is a fundamentally dangerous activity for the driver and those around him--it's easily the most dangerous part of your typical American's daily routine. Even a cheap-ass Geo Metro is capable of instantly rendering a human body unrecognizable as such. Every slightest bit of extra attention you can give the road helps.
This is troubling. (Score:3, Insightful)
But these studies that show that hands-free devices are also unacceptably dangerous make me worry about having another person in the car with me? If I have an 'active conversation' with a passenger as I drive, am I at the same risk as with a hands-free cellphone?
I've never used a hands-free cellphone - but I certainly don't *feel* like my driving is suffering when I talk with a passenger as I drive.
So if that's an accurate observation - and a hands-free phone conversation is somehow worse than chatting with a passenger - then what makes the difference?
Is it that a passenger notices when driving conditions require more of my attention and stops talking? Is it something to do with the quality of the audio from the phone? What?
Seems like a study of *THAT* distinction would provide interesting data on the nature of the problem.
Re:Old People (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that here in the U.S., in many areas it is very difficult to live indepentently without a car. I don't just mean rural areas, I mean cities like my hometown of Baltimore with suck-ass mass transit. (Though some U.S. cities are great in this respect - I just got back from San Francisco with it's excellent Muni and BART systems.)
Take someone's licence away, and thanks to our automobile-centric planning they quite possibly can't even get to the grocery store anymore.
If the AARP was smart, they'd be lobbying for good public transportation - it would be a great benefit for senior citizens who can't drive safely.
A bit of research and reason show it to be BS (Score:5, Insightful)
A rant... (mainly cause it seems like they keep re-publishing this identical article every 3 months, and it gets annoying)
"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. "It's like instant aging."
In fact, motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunk drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding
What this really says article says...
Is that Elderly are a helluva a lot more dangerous than drunk drivers and should really be taken off the road.
Secondly, there is much question as to the validity of the tests.
"The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked."
The first part is in deed a concern. The second is not. The 17% increase length to regain speed is most likely due to a cell phone user being extra cautious after such an ordeal and double-checking before they regain speed. This is NOT a bad thing.
Anyways, how much time are we talking here?
"The numbers....come down to milliseconds"
"The new research questions the effectiveness of cell phone usage laws in states such as New York and New Jersey, which only ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. It's not so much the handling of a phone, Strayer said, but the fact that having a conversation is a mental process that can drain concentration."
First off, we have to start admitting that not everyone can multi-task. We also need to see the statistics on an individual level. If 1/3 showed minimal impairment, and 1/3 showed no impairment, and 1/3 showed dramatic impairment. What is the breakdown?
I know plenty of drivers who are often 'distracted drivers'. Particularly when they have people in the car. How do these statistics compare to the same driver with a passenger? with four passengers? And I am sorry....a cell phone user is NOT more impaired than a drunk driver. It is political BS. I refuse to buy it and no statistic will prove it to me. Simply put...I see tons of people driving on the cell phones - and driving fine. Sometimes a momentary reaction issue...yes. But when I see a drunk driver they are all over 2 or three lanes. They nearly hit everyone. They often run off the road. Somehow it is hard for me to accept that I can see a 100+ cell phone users who are supposedly "more impaired" and they don't perform as poorly as drunk drivers.
So let's look at the truth instead of the non-stop media propaganda bullcrap.
-
According to the American Automobile Association, wireless phones were not among the top five contributing factors in auto accidents. From the more than 32,000 accidents analyzed, wireless phones contributed to 1.5 percent of accidents, according to the AAA research published in May.
The most distracting was an outside object, person or event, which contributed to 29.4 percent of accidents analyzed. AAA also determined that cassette or CD players were more distracting than cell phones, resulting in 11.4 percent of accidents analyzed.
Distractions from another occupant in the vehicle, such as a chatty passenger or baby, contributed to 10.9 percent of accidents. Eating or drinking contributed to 1.7 percent, according to the AAA study.
-
Well, 1.5% compared 11.4% for CD players. Sure seems like car CD players should be banned before cell phones does it not. Let's ban whiny babies from cars as well.
In truth, I spend much of my time driving on the cell phone. And drive much better than most of my local area residents. Furthermore, it has helped me remain awake and vibrant on long road trips.
In truth, I've been bitched out on a few
Re:Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you've never experienced small children in the back seat; a situation that can be as bad, or worse than a driver on the phone.
The real issue is not that people drive poorly when they're on the phone, the issue is that people are allowed to drive at all without better training and testing. Being slightly impared wouldn't be such a big deal if you could drive properly in the first place. Not only that, but if you were better trained and a better driver you would potentially be able to deal with the phone conversation in a way that wouldn't impair your driving.
Instead of driving test focusing on worthless crap like how many points you get on your license for passing a school bus, you should be forced to prove you can handle a variety of traffic situations, and you should have to get a perfect score. Once you've passed the test, traffic law enforcement needs to stop focusing on the easily prosecutable offences like speeding and start giving tickets for failure to signal, following too close, incorrect yielding of the right of way, blocking traffic because you never learned how to parallel park correctly, etc. Additionally, instead of just a vision test when you go to get your license renewed, you should have to prove that you retained some of those skills in order to retain permission to use the roads.
Taking the cell phones away from drivers is a symptom fix. We should attack the root of the problem.
Re:turn SOME drivers (Score:2, Insightful)
That's no more or less true than the same statement about cell phone usage, or about a million other things.
EVERYBODY is impaired in some way almost all the time. Whether it be the result of cell phone use, a headache, a bad day at work, a divorce in progress, a few drinks, tired, whatever.
The key, like with everything else, is to operate within your ability and within the abilities of your vehicle. Impaired? Pulling a trailer? Driving in a rain storm? The solution is the same. Move into the slow lane, pull over, whatever. Solve the problem if possible (as in, hang up the damn phone). Increase your following distance. Turn on your lights. Signal sooner. PAY A-FUCKING-TTENTION to what you're doing and what's going on around you. If you're unable to properly pay attention, SLOW DOWN SOME MORE, or pull over, or just stay off the freeway.
Everybody automatically thinks it's fair to throw a person in the slammer for driving with a
Re:Related article on The Register (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why the older you get, the more likely (on average) you are to slow down. After driving for 20 years, you have a lot more memories of close calls than you do after driving for 1 year. After driving for 50 years, it's even worse. AND you know that your reaction times have slowed down so you compensate by trying to give yourself more time to react.
My point is that safe driving is a lot more than just reaction time. Scientific American Frontiers [pbs.org] says so, too.
Re:Old People (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a news-documentary a few years ago about this elderly guy wearing a neck brace. He was totally unable to move his head to the left, at all. The reporter was in the car with him, and he asked her to check left. She asked what he does when hes alone in the car, and he replied that he just listens and hopes for the best.
I also witnessed an elderly woman who was standing in front of me at the BMV line fail her eye test 14 times (I counted) before she finally passed. I took my eye test, filled out my paperwork, and started pulling out of my car before she even finished getting IN her car.
The problem is, no legislation will ever pass to restrict this, for two reasons:
1) Most of congress would probably fall into this category
2) The highest percent of voters is the elderly. They would never vote to have their own licenses put in jeopardy.
Re:Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it worse with the person in the car. A cellphone I can drop or tell them to hold on if traffic gets rough. With someone in the car you can't make them shut up or stop blocking your view.
That's the problem with these types of studies. It's nice to compare the effects of cell phone use with the nominal "no distraction" case, but doesn't answer the right questions. At least this one compared it to drinking, which is a start. But has anyone compared other distractions (radio, passengers, kids, drinking coffee, etc.)? People tend to use these studies to justify outlawing the use of cellphones in cars, but if they are comparable to other normal distractions then by the same argument those things (radio, passengers, kids) should be outlawed too. (Actually, there were attempts to outlaw car radios in the 20's and 30's in some places.)
What I find more impressive studies is the change in accident rates correlated to cellphone usage. In the last 10 years cellphone usage has skyrocketed and I've seen it reported several times that accident rates have actually dropped by 10% in that time. If true, which I'd need to see the actual statistics and studies to believe, then these arguments against cellphones in cars are pointless.
Re:A bit of research and reason show it to be BS (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you know when you are watching a drunk driver? If you answered "when they are swerving all over the road", then you can't use this as evidence that drunk drivers always swerve all over the road. Perhaps most drunk drivers don't swerve all over the road, and the problem is the slowed reaction that will cause a wreck if a quick reaction is needed but is otherwise invisible.
Re:After almost getting hit this morning... (Score:2, Insightful)
I absolutly agree with you. By no doubt there are still teenage guys street racing, running red lights, and other things, but teenage girls are doing the exact same things now.
Maybe back in the 50's, girls were great drivers and acted like sugar, but now this is no where near the case. The insurance companies should update their statistics, and also take into account that guys cant cry or show a nipple to get out of a ticket.
Moot point (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not drop all these nonsense and give reckless driving tickets to those who are driving recklessly. If someone elderly/on a cell phone/looking for an address/etc. is swerving or being troublesome then cite them for what they did wrong. If they can handle themselves in these situations then they're not harming anyone.
Funny how preemptive war is automatically bad, but preemtive limitations of our rights are a-ok.
Re:And edit like? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, my point was you can't just outlaw everything tha'ts a distraction. There's a general law against driving recklessly. If someone is talking on a cell phone, and because of this, driving recklessly, they should be pulled over for driving recklessly. That's all.
It boggles my mind that the same community who gets outraged at every tiny little law that's passed that infringes on your right to be completely anonymous, no matter what the reason for that law, at the same time fights for these ridiculous limitations on our daily lives on a whim. It's hypocritical beyond belief.
In a free society, you are supposed to be allowed to do whatever you want UNTIL IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER. The mere act of talking on a cell phone DOES NOT DO THIS. Driving recklessly does, and that is the crime.
I really do see where you're coming from. And honestly I find it hard to say this while saying that DUI should be illegal, which it obviously should, but I think tehre is a significant difference between being physically impaired, and engaging in an action which has been shown to cause "distraction." Because next comes you can't listen to the radio while driving. And then you can't smoke a cigarette while driving. And then you can't speak to passengers. And if you believe that all of those rights should be taken away, I will fight you to my bloody death.
Re:Old People (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here is a practical test (Score:2, Insightful)
It holds true for the football analogy as well. I've never written down yards lost or gained, nor the number of the jersey. My brain isn't good at it, because it's never done it before, so naturally when I'm talking on the phone I wouldn't be able to do it.
That being said, I am not everyone. I've seen first hand, phones reducing drivers to gibbering swerving idiots.
I'm fine with stupid reports being made as long as stupid laws don't get put in place. There's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to talk on my phone while I drive because someone else does it poorly when they talk.
Part of the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Different portions of your brain (Score:3, Insightful)
A better example would be another motor activity combined with a cell phone conversation. Talking while cooking, talking while walking, talking while chewing gum (well, maybe not that one). While it is more distracting, it's not as onerous a task as you're making it out to be. You may miss reading some street signs, but the designers of those were smart enough to make the important ones recognizable even if you can't read.
I see it a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be you'd see people reading, brushing their teeth, checking their hair or even dancing. Now all the drunk looking drivers are on cell phones, except the very rare very extreme alcoholics (I hope they die alone).
I drive a long distance on a nasty interstate, through a couple of major cities, so I've seen all kind of driving styles (even seen a drunk hit someone) and cell phone problems are getting worse and worse. I don't think this problem will solve itself without some kind of government involvement. I wish we had a hand signal for "hang up and drive, you look drunk."
I admit I have my own problem, but I've finally convinced my wife that just because she wants to have a fight over the cell phone and I hang up, it isn't personal, since if she wants me to live long enough to fight again, I need to hang up and drive. I've exaggerating, I've never really had a girlfriend.
cell phones aren't evil - driving distracted is (Score:2, Insightful)
I can think of lots of things just as distracting as cell phones:
* actively listening to the radio
* actively carrying on a deep conversation
* monitoring the kids in the back seat
* changing the radio station or CD track
* trying to remember the name of the next exit
* going over the meeting you will have with your client in 15 minutes
And the list goes on.
Some people can multitask well, others can't. Others can only on familiar roads.
Cell phones aren't the problem. People trying to multitask in situations that require full concentration is the problem.
The bottom line:
Don't ban or restrict cellphones for most users. DO restrict them for new drivers including teenagers. DO restrict them for drivers who have a recent history of careless driving which resulted in a ticket or accident. DO allow phone use to be considered in civil cases after an accident, but do NOT make it a presumption of fault: Give the cell-phone user a chance to show the court he can drive and talk at the same time.
If you do ban cell phones, ban kids in the car, radios, and anything else that might be a distraction to the driver.
20 vs. 70 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old People (Score:3, Insightful)
I've driven in quite a few large cities where that's the attitude of most drivers regardless of age.
What about... (Score:2, Insightful)
But what I don't see much difference in, and wish to be corrected if I'm wrong, is having a hands-free cell phone conversation while driving and having a conversation with someone in the car while driving.