has AMA or any organization endorsed banning mobile phone use while driving?

[NoHeat]

In my state, some legislators are proposing bills to ban or limit cell phone use while driving.

 

I'd like to write some of the legislators to encourage these bills. It would help if I could cite some authority, beyond just my opinion as an individual, that such a ban would be good for motorcycling safety.

 

Does anybody know of a recommendation by the AMA or any other organization or government entity that I can cite? Besides the US, something from outside the US could be helpful, too.

[David]

It's going to be inconsistent unless you ban them--and GPS units, too--from riders.

[gosilver]

Cellphones banned whilst driving in Ireland since 2006

Haven't seen official figs on success rate but I have to believe it makes sense.

 

This may help Cell Study

[smiller]

It's going to be inconsistent unless you ban them--and GPS units, too--from riders.

And CD/MP3 players, and children in the car, etc. Cellphones may be one of the more obvious forms of driver distraction but it isn't the worst. You're going to have to ban a lot of things if you want such a law to be based on reality vs. appearances.

 

To answer the subject question, the AAA is against an outright ban on cellphone use while driving but does recommend that drivers try to minimize cellphone use while driving and/or limit to essential calls only, and make an extra effort to remain vigilant while on the phone. In other words, be personally responsible.

[tobyzusa]

It's going to be inconsistent unless you ban them--and GPS units, too--from riders.

 

The legislative process is wrought with inconsistencies. Might as well throw one more on the pile.

[Boffin]

Use of or holding a hand-held mobile phone has been illegal in the UK for a couple of years, Hands-free is not included (too hard to enforce). Current penalties are £60 ($120) fine and 6 penalty points (12 loses your licence for 1 year, new drivers have to re-sit test after 6 points).

 

More info

 

Andy

[Deadboy]

It's going to be inconsistent unless you ban them--and GPS units, too--from riders.

 

Ding Ding Ding....so far the AMA has only monitored cel phone and related distracted driving legislation but has not activly lobbied for or against these type of bills.

 

It is kind of redundant to enact these laws by my logic anyway. A phone (or radio or GPS) can be used poorly or well, and the behavior (i.e. distracted or not) should be the determining factor not the equipment....but it is easier to just ban the use of them I suppose....

 

Be sure that GPS and the like will be on the list soon if it isn't already....

[Dave McReynolds]

It's going to be inconsistent unless you ban them--and GPS units, too--from riders.

 

I'm not sure it's the same thing having a GPS say "Turn right at the next corner," as your boss/customer on the cell phone saying "We need to talk."

 

I thought I was as immune as everyone else apparently thinks they are from being distracted by talking on the cell phone while driving until I realized that whenever anyone had anything IMPORTANT to say, I got distracted. I don't believe that would be true with the GPS.

[smiller]

GPS often requires your visual attention and that can easily be more dangerous than talking on a cellphone. Such things will always vary based on specific circumstances of course, but personally I'm much more concerned with my own potential distraction when I'm using my GPS vs. a cellphone, but maybe that's just me.

[Dave McReynolds]

I agree. When I had a no-voice GPS, I would stop to consult it, just like a map, and would only use it while riding for speed verification or distance to my destination. I don't find the GPS voice to be very distracting.

[Deadboy]

Depends on the GPS unit. I recently rode in a rental car where you could not fiddle with the GPS while moving, but other units allow "on the fly" inputs and adjustments which can be very distracting (at least they were to me when I used one in Europe)....

 

Once again it gets back to the behavior vs. equipment question.

[Lawman]

It's going to be inconsistent unless you ban them--and GPS units, too--from riders.

 

The legislative process is wrought with inconsistencies. Might as well throw one more on the pile.

 

Absolutely...No different than any other law..It's a matter of where the line is drawn..On most interstates 70 mph is legal...71 is not..The law has to be set somewhere..Most would agree cell phones are a greater distraction than GPS..I for one would support banning them while driving..Maybe then I would quit doing it..

[Lets_Play_Two]

GPS often requires your visual attention and that can easily be more dangerous than talking on a cellphone. Such things will always vary based on specific circumstances of course, but personally I'm much more concerned with my own potential distraction when I'm using my GPS vs. a cellphone, but maybe that's just me.

 

Not nearly as big a problem as trying to read that map attached to the top of the tank bag!!!

 

Guess we are all in too big a hurry to just pull over when we are lost or have to make a phone call.

[90%angel]

It is quite disturbing to me that today Americans' first response to something that they consider dangerous is "Let's ban it!" How about "Let's take some personal responsibility and not be a distracted driver". There's a lot of people out there that can successfully talk on the phone and drive. Then there are others that can't be trusted to change the station on the radio and drive.

 

Unless we ban radios, children in the car, phones (handheld or hands free), passengers in the car, food in the car, billboards, nice scenery (very distracting), sunlight (might blind people, don't you know), animals, GPS's, CDs, ipods...you get my point...we're always going to have distracted drivers.

 

You know, motorcycles are dangerous too; perhaps we should ban those for gosh sakes! Save those people from themselves!!

[tobyzusa]

It is quite disturbing to me that today Americans' first response to something that they consider dangerous is "Let's ban it!"

 

Lisa, I'm right there with you on the majority of things - it's just not government's place to get involved with protecting us from ourselves. That being said, there are a few instances where I take the other side. Smoking bans are one, and cell phone use while driving is another. I think the difference is that both of these have the potential to impact others, not just the user.

[Ken H.]

It is quite disturbing to me that today Americans' first response to something that they consider dangerous is "Let's ban it!" How about "Let's take some personal responsibility and not be a distracted driver".

Calls for personal responsibly are accurate and find & dandy, but the reality is it just plain isn't going to happen. It's a pipe-dream.

 

So mandating (against) things for the protection of others from irresponsibility is the only actual choice. Or of course be willing to accept the accident/death toll as a price worth paying to have the freedom to behave irresponsibly.

[Joel]

I'd like to see a crackdown on the consequences of distracted or negligent driving, and making people more accountable for those consequences, instead of focusing on isolated behaviors that might or might not contribute to the problem.

 

I'm not optimistic about changes in the law or in drivers' behavior -- after all, we continue to tolerate tens of thousands of drunk driving deaths, and billions of dollars in related costs, annually, in fighting a phenomenon that nearly everyone agrees is an outrage -- but I'm not ready to give up.

 

When the main perceived consequences of causing an accident due to distraction or negligence are a few points on a driver's license and a bump in car insurance premiums, we've lost our way. The behavior has effectively become tolerated. Apparently the consequences need to be considerably more severe before people will pay attention. I'd like to see more energy spent on that.

[smiller]

Or of course be willing to accept the accident/death toll as a price worth paying to have the freedom to behave irresponsibly.

No longer speaking about cellphones specifically, in general I'm quite aware that there are consequences associated with personal freedoms and I'm quite willing to accept the risks that come with them.

 

With regard to cellphones, it's unfortunate that it seems to be too much trouble to enforce already-existing laws that cover negligent driving... so we take the easier route and just ban an electronic device. If we're going to accept that distinctly sub-optimal solution we should at least recognioze what we're really doing.

[90%angel]

I'd like to see a crackdown on the consequences of distracted or negligent driving, and making people more accountable for those consequences, instead of focusing on isolated behaviors that might or might not contribute to the problem.

 

 

Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner!

 

But, that's harder than just saying "ban it".

 

 

To TobyUSA, I don't know how I feel about the smoking bans. As a non-smoker, I love them. And, you're right; second hand smoke affects me, so there should be restrictions on smoking. I guess your argument is that cell phone drivers affect you too. I guess I just don't see that being as dangerous. Anyway, back to smoking bans, part of me feels bad for smokers. We're now looking at blocking people from smoking in their cars, or apartment buildings...THAT seems like a horrible infringement on their rights, even though secretly inside I'm saying "YAY!". It's a tough one for me. I think of it as, when are they going to go after the things I like to do?

[russell_bynum]

It would help if I could cite some authority, beyond just my opinion as an individual, that such a ban would be good for motorcycling safety.

 

If you're relying on someone else to to something/pay attention/act a certain way to ensure your personal wellbeing, you're in for a very rude awakening.

 

 

 

I'm opposed to a cell phone ban while driving...it would just be more useless feel-good legislation that doesn't accomplish anything.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm opposed to a cell phone ban while driving...it would just be more useless feel-good legislation that doesn't accomplish anything.

 

Where I draw the line is legislation to protect you from yourself, and legislation to protect you from others. I think cell phone restrictions falls on the "protect you from others" side of the line.

 

It's similar to drunken driving restrictions. I'm sure nobody who drives drunk feels like he's putting anyone else at risk, despite the huge body of evidence to the contrary. So we have to pass laws to prohibit that, since experience shows that not very many people are going to voluntarily restrict their own conduct. True, the line is arbitrary, and many people may be able to drive just fine with .08, but a lot of people can't.

 

Same with cell phones. Many people may be able to drive just fine and talk on them, but experience is beginning to show that a lot of people can't. I thought I could drive just fine and talk on them, but a few years ago I drove right past my exit during an intense conversation, and I figured if I could do that, I could get into a wreck.

 

I don't know of any effective way of determining who drives okay with .08 and who doesn't, or who drives okay with a cell phone and who doesn't. And checking for erratic driving wouldn't have caught me; all you would have seen is me driving by my exit with the cellphone glued to my head.

[Gregori]

Lisa - I take it then you would advocate lifting the bans in place on driving while intoxicated?

 

SOME people can drive just fine while drunk - so we should make it a matter of personal responsibility, and surely those who can't drive well while drunk will cease to do so, right?

 

Just so you don't think I'm trying to compare apples and oranges - talking on a cell phone and drunk driving are not so far apart. Several researchers have demonstrated that being engaged on the phone is actually MORE of an impediment to safe operation than being at or slightly above the legal limit in most states, and roughly equal to that of being TWICE the legal limit.

 

Proponents of cell-phone use will argue that 'you can just put the phone down' and be unaffected. Unfortunately, by the time you've recognized the need to, and done that, the circumstances that required you to be paying attention is past -- the blood and wreckage has already occurred.

 

Ban 'em I say. And hands-free be damned. It's not the holding of a phone in hand that's the problem - it's having your attention elsewhere.

Maybe it's on the grocery list, on the in-laws squabble with neighbors, gossip from the office, or an offspring's requests to visit friends. None of which are nearly as important as keeping control of your 5,000 lbs of death hurtling down the road...

[russell_bynum]

And checking for erratic driving wouldn't have caught me; all you would have seen is me driving by my exit with the cellphone glued to my head.

 

I miss exits from time to time when I'm not on the phone.

 

The difference between cell phone driving and DUI: I can pick and choose when to talk on the phone, and how much attention to put into the conversation. If I'm drunk, I'm drunk and I can't turn that off when I get into a situation that requires more of my skills.

 

I also wonder about how a cell phone ban could be enforced. If we're just talking about requiring hands-free, I don't see how that fixes the problem. Are people crashing because they are distracted or because they only have one hand on the wheel since they're holding the phone? If it's an outright ban for talking on the phone while driving, how do you know if I'm on the phone? I wear my headset a good bit of the time (I forget to take it off), so all an officer would know is I'm either on the phone, or talking to myself. Sure, they could take me to court and get my cell phone call logs, but that seems like a very expensive and inefficient way to go.

[russell_bynum]

Ban 'em I say. And hands-free be damned. It's not the holding of a phone in hand that's the problem - it's having your attention elsewhere.

Maybe it's on the grocery list, on the in-laws squabble with neighbors, gossip from the office, or an offspring's requests to visit friends. None of which are nearly as important as keeping control of your 5,000 lbs of death hurtling down the road...

 

I assume you're in favor of banning all other distractions that have been known to cause accidents, then? No more car radios, no talking to other people in the car, no looking at the scenery, etc?

[onmyrt]

Fortunately, in the case of cell phones, there is a technological solution that could be implemented should the powers that be ever get the nerve to impose such a ban.

 

The same technology that currently passes cell phone signals from one cell to another cell (called roaming) could be used to drop the signal if it were determined to be moving at more than say 10 mph. If you need to use the phone while your in your car, stop your vehicle somewhere safe and the signal won’t get dropped. A simple solution to a serious problem.

 

Yes, your passengers will be inconvenienced, subway and train passengers too, but for safer roads, I think it would be worth a consideration.

 

 

If a technological solution were available that could effectively reduce the number of drunk drivers on American roads by say 99 percent, there would be public outrage if it weren't imposed.

[russell_bynum]

Fortunately, in the case of cell phones, there is a technological solution that could be implemented should the powers that be ever get the nerve to impose such a ban.

 

The same technology that currently passes cell phone signals from one cell to another cell (called roaming) could be used to drop the signal if it were determined to be moving at more than say 10 mph. If you need to use the phone while your in your car, stop your vehicle somewhere safe and the signal won’t get dropped. A simple solution to a serious problem.

 

Yes, your passengers will be inconvenienced, subway and train passengers too, but for safer roads, I think it would be worth a consideration.

 

 

 

Unbelievable.

 

 

If a technological solution were available that could effectively reduce the number of drunk drivers on American roads by say 99 percent, there would be public outrage if it weren't imposed.

 

There is...we could put breathalysers in cars that prevent the car from being started if the driver's BAC is too high.

[leikam]

Fortunately, in the case of cell phones, there is a technological solution that could be implemented should the powers that be ever get the nerve to impose such a ban.

 

The same technology that currently passes cell phone signals from one cell to another cell (called roaming) could be used to drop the signal if it were determined to be moving at more than say 10 mph. If you need to use the phone while your in your car, stop your vehicle somewhere safe and the signal won’t get dropped. A simple solution to a serious problem.

 

Yes, your passengers will be inconvenienced, subway and train passengers too, but for safer roads, I think it would be worth a consideration.

Unbelievable.

 

Perhaps you would prefer my technical solution: cut off the offending hand. You get two chances to mend your ways and then you're forced to use a hands-free method. As an added bonus, there's no worrisome impact on those who aren't driving. For safer roads, I think it would be worth a consideration.

 

By the way, this very same technique can also be applied to drunk drivers should the powers that be ever get the nerve to impose such a ban.

[steve.foote]

Michael, that's rediculous.

 

The only sensible thing to do is to prohibit all the rest of you from driving on public roads altogether. Think of how much safer it would be for me if I was the only one on the road.

[smiller]

Think of how much safer it would be for me if I was the only one on the road.

Would that really make you much safer?

[steve.foote]

Think of how much safer it would be for me if I was the only one on the road.

Would that really make you much safer?

 

Well, safer from...

 

 

 

...you.

[leikam]

Steve, I see your privatization of the roads and the highway patrol leading to an exciting future as a taxi-driver. Good luck with that!

[ghaverkamp]

Well, safer from...

 

 

 

...you.

 

Maybe not if the rest of us could do nothing more with the roads than watch you make use of them. I'd expect just a little resentment.

[NoHeat]

Thanks, gosilver and Andy.

 

The news story Gosilver mentioned led me to the studies at the University of Utah, where they put real drivers in a driving simulator, and had them yack on the phone, or get drunk, and test their reaction to sudden traffic problems.

 

Here's an excerpt from a 2005 news release:

 

"... there was also a twofold increase in the number of [simulated] rear-end collisions when drivers were conversing on cell phones,” the study says.

 

Strayer and his colleagues are widely known for their 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as hand-held cell phones, and for a 2003 study showing that the reason is “inattention blindness,” in which motorists can look directly at road conditions but not really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. The research has called into question legislative efforts by various states to ban motorists from using handheld but not hands-free cell phones.

 

The same researchers also gained publicity for another study, which was presented at a scientific meeting in 2003, showing that motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08."

 

=========

 

Andy's link that led me to another study by the British Transport Research Laboratory that motivated the UK ban and penalties.

 

Excerpt from the British study:

 

"This study demonstrates beyond doubt that using a mobile phone when driving significantlyimpairs the driver’s attention to potentially hazardous situations, more so than having a bloodalcohol level at the UK legal limit (80mg/100ml)"

[Ken H.]

I assume you're in favor of banning all other distractions that have been known to cause accidents, then? No more car radios, no talking to other people in the car, no looking at the scenery, etc?

Every controlled study of people using in-vehicle cameras or in simulators has consistently shown that people are just not able to operate the vehicle as well when talking on a cell phone. Hands or hands-free. Humans are just not able to simultaneously devote the attention required to the two-way conversation and operation of the vehicle needed.

 

Cell phones have to be treated differently than other distractions because they are different in their method and ability to impair the users ability to operate the vehicle in a safe manner.

 

Besides, calling up other examples of a negative an age-old ploy to derail attention away from the subject at hand. The old, if you can't fix all of it, don't try to fix any of it, routine.

[steve.foote]

Steve, I see your privatization of the roads and the highway patrol leading to an exciting future as a taxi-driver. Good luck with that!

 

Hey, whatever it takes for safety's sake.

[steve.foote]

Well, safer from...

 

 

 

...you.

 

Maybe not if the rest of us could do nothing more with the roads than watch you make use of them. I'd expect just a little resentment.

 

In spite of the obvious potential for danger, I'm willing to give it a shot.

[drzep]

In Connecticut the police will pull you over an give you a ticket if they see you on a cell while driving. However, the fine will be waived if you provide, within 30 days I think, a sales receipt for a hands-free set along with the original ticket.

 

Missing the boat in my opinion.

[awagnon]

When the main perceived consequences of causing an accident due to distraction or negligence are a few points on a driver's license and a bump in car insurance premiums, we've lost our way. The behavior has effectively become tolerated. Apparently the consequences need to be considerably more severe before people will pay attention. I'd like to see more energy spent on that.

 

Last year a young man was texting on his cell phone when he crossed the centerline and killed two people on their way to work in northern Utah. The police became suspicious when he was still texting as they arrested him. The police have just gotten the phone company records confirming the texting at the time of the accident and the DA has filed negligent homicide charges against him. Won't help the two people he killed.

 

Around the same time, a kid was distracted on his cell phone and blew through an intersection taking out a whole family including young kids. One parent survived.

 

Like others have said, you can't depend on people to judge when they are impaired or not. And talking on a cell phone significantly impairs, as studies have shown, most people. They should be banned in a car or the GPS function of the cell phone should turn off the phone if it's moving. If a passenger needs to use the phone, pull over. It worked all the time with pay phones and nobody got hurt. There are very few telephone conversations important enough to endanger other peoples' lives.

[Gregori]

I assume you're in favor of banning all other distractions that have been known to cause accidents, then? No more car radios, no talking to other people in the car, no looking at the scenery, etc?

Okay - I'll vote for that as well. But first let's get the cell-phone yakkers off the road.

 

When I'm driving, I pretty much don't ever listen to the radio. Perhaps for a few minutes, if I'm listening for a traffic report, but then it's off.

Perhaps as much as 25% of the time on the road, I listen to the iPod (I start it running a playlist before I go, and it's known content, so requires no attention to listen to it.)

If I'm driving in a 'spirited' fashion, even the iPod is off.

 

As far as in the car - I'm not very chatty while driving either. My wife has learned that it's fine and normal to go a hundred miles or more in silence. If my son is making a fuss in the back seat, I stop the car someplace safe as soon as reasonably possible to deal with it. (Or my wife deals with it while I drive, when we're all together.)

 

FWIW - I don't even look at the scenery much! If it isn't something that's affecting the travelled part of the road, I mostly tune it out. In true Russell fashion, I think rubberneckers need to be soundly kicked in the groin. (Actually, I usually advocate hanging them at the roadside, next to whatever it is they're gawking at, but that's another conversation...)

 

Does any of this make me a perfect driver? Heck no. But it allows me to be far more tuned to the road (and traffic) than if I did otherwise.

[russell_bynum]

Every controlled study of people using in-vehicle cameras or in simulators has consistently shown that people are just not able to operate the vehicle as well when talking on a cell phone. Hands or hands-free. Humans are just not able to simultaneously devote the attention required to the two-way conversation and operation of the vehicle needed.

 

Horsesh*t. People have been having 2-way conversations in cars ever since the first driver put a passenger in their car.

 

Those tests do not tell the whole story. Put me in tricky traffic situations and make me talk on the phone and have and intense conversation, and I'll probably have a crash.

 

That's not the real world. In the real world, I can decide when to talk on the phone and what to talk about.

 

Cell phones have to be treated differently than other distractions because they are different in their method and ability to impair the users ability to operate the vehicle in a safe manner.

 

Why is a cell phone different than any other 2-way conversation?

 

 

Besides, calling up other examples of a negative an age-old ploy to derail attention away from the subject at hand. The old, if you can't fix all of it, don't try to fix any of it, routine.

Nope. It's the "These things aren't a problem and neither is that thing" argument."

 

Cell phones aren't the problem any more than kids in the car, CD players, or GPS Nav Systems are.

[Bullett]

Just fanning the flames:

 

Report of U of U Study

 

Cell Phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver

 

Maybe Hands Free is Safer?

 

Cell Phone Users Clog Traffic

 

Nuff said.

[russell_bynum]

Just fanning the flames:

 

Report of U of U Study

 

Cell Phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver

 

Maybe Hands Free is Safer?

 

Cell Phone Users Clog Traffic

 

Nuff said.

 

Why is a cell phone worse than any other 2-way conversation?

 

Nuff asked.

[MotorinLA]

To answer the subject question, the AAA is against an outright ban on cellphone use while driving but does recommend that drivers try to minimize cellphone use while driving and/or limit to essential calls only, and make an extra effort to remain vigilant while on the phone. In other words, be personally responsible.

 

BWAAA-HA-HA-HA

 

If people would be personally responsible while driving, my job would be superfluous. Fortunately for me (as far as job security goes) personal responsibility is a foreign concept to a large number of drivers on U.S. roadways...

[NoHeat]

Report of U of U Study

 

Cell Phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver

 

Maybe Hands Free is Safer?

 

Cell Phone Users Clog Traffic

 

Bullett, until you posted, it looked like only the Irish guy and the English guy could answer my question about safety, while the Americans could only argue. Congratulations for saving the reputation of the stateside folks.

[russell_bynum]

Report of U of U Study

 

Cell Phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver

 

Maybe Hands Free is Safer?

 

Cell Phone Users Clog Traffic

 

Bullett, until you posted, it looked like only the Irish guy and the English guy could answer my question about safety, while the Americans could only argue. Congratulations for saving the reputation of the stateside folks.

 

There's no question that people using cell phones while driving are a problem. I commute 120 miles every day, so believe me...I see it.

 

I'm just saying...cell phones aren't the problem. You can outlaw them, collect them all, and crush every one of them into a million pieces and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. People would just switch to playing with their SatNav systems or whatever.

 

I sometimes use the phone while commuting (hands-free), and I frequently check my emails (Blackberry). I've been doing this for a very long time and have never had a close call because of it. The key is picking when to be distracted and when not to be distracted, and remembering that your primary job is driving the car. There have been many times when I've had to ask the person on the other end to repeat what they said because I just blocked them out while I was dealing with the road. Likewise, I've just trailed off and stopped talking mid-sentence because I was in a situation that required more of my attention.

 

Cell Phones aren't the problem. Banning them would just be more idiotic "feel good" legislation.

[steveknapp]

I know this is an observation, not a scientific study...

 

But in NY they've already banned cell phone use while driving.

 

While driving in upstate NY I noticed quite a few "near misses" with distracted drivers. Odd as I don't notice them in Chicago.

 

What it appeared to be, looking at the people driving, is they were distracted by both talking on the phone and trying to HIDE IT.

[steveknapp]

To answer the subject question, the AAA is against an outright ban on cellphone use while driving but does recommend that drivers try to minimize cellphone use while driving and/or limit to essential calls only, and make an extra effort to remain vigilant while on the phone. In other words, be personally responsible.

 

BWAAA-HA-HA-HA

 

If people would be personally responsible while driving, my job would be superfluous. Fortunately for me (as far as job security goes) personal responsibility is a foreign concept to a large number of drivers on U.S. roadways...

 

Quick question....

 

If you see a person drive "poorly", say they pull out without looking, or are tailgating, are there laws on the books NOW that allow you to cite the person for those offenses?

 

My biggest issue with the cell phone specific laws is they target one source of distracted driving. I'd rather we go after the outcome of all the sources.

[Dave McReynolds]

The key is picking when to be distracted and when not to be distracted, and remembering that your primary job is driving the car.

 

My biggest issue with the cell phone specific laws is they target one source of distracted driving. I'd rather we go after the outcome of all the sources.

 

I think what we come back to is that drivers who talk on cell phones cause a disproportionate number of accidents. Sure, those drivers should pick when to be distracted and when not to be distracted, and remember that their primary job is driving the car. I think even those who have caused accidents by being distracted by cell phones would agree with that, maybe even moreso than those who haven't. I wonder how many repeat accidents have been caused by cell-phone use? But they do get distracted anyway, and probably the reason is: They aren't aware of being distracted!

 

Another analogy would be pilots who don't lower their landing gear. I would assume all pilots intend to lower their landing gear. They aren't drunk, by and large, and they aren't having personal conversations on cell phones. I assume they all realize that failure to lower their landing gear is a career limiting mistake. All they're supposed to be doing is focusing on landing the plane. But a fair number of them don't lower their landing gear. Enough so some military airfields have resorted to stationing an airman at the end of the field with a flare gun to warn them, at times. Why do they do this? Evidently, they get distracted and aren't aware of it. I think it must be an inherent part of the human condition to get distracted and not be aware of it.

 

So it probably isn't an adequate solution to say: "Don't get distracted."

 

Looking for distracted drivers is not an adequate solution either, since the first indication you're likely to get in many cases is the crunching sound when a distracted driver plows into the rear of the car in front of him, after following at a safe distance, but being distracted at the moment the driver in front puts on the brakes.

[russell_bynum]

So it probably isn't an adequate solution to say: "Don't get distracted."

 

Why not?

 

I'm smart enough to know that I shouldn't be fiddling with the radio in the middle of a lane change in stop and go traffic. How is a cell phone any different?

 

 

Looking for distracted drivers is not an adequate solution either, since the first indication you're likely to get in many cases is the crunching sound when a distracted driver plows into the rear of the car in front of him, after following at a safe distance, but being distracted at the moment the driver in front puts on the brakes.

 

IMO, the real reason is it would be much harder to enforce. "got a cell phone by your ear? Get a ticket" is a lot easier to enforce than "Well, I though you were driving a bit distracted back there..."

[leikam]

Why is a cell phone worse than any other 2-way conversation?

 

I don't recall where I saw it, but I did hear about a fairly recent study that looked at cell-phone use v.s. passenger-driver converations (it was probably on NPR last year). They found that drivers were less distracted by the "live" conversation than the call. The researchers attributed this to the fact that the passenger can see the same driving conditions as the driver and tends to pace the conversation more appropriately than a caller who has no road context.

 

I don't know how robust these findings are, but clearly they would apply to hands-on and hands-free phones equally.