Total Cell Phone Ban While Driving?

[Tracebassplayer]

No. By staying flat it seems to hint that cell phone distractions merely replaced other distractions (fiddling with a CD player, talking to a passenger, trying to settle down screaming kids in the back, billboards, etc...).

So if Cell phone usage has "merely replaced the other distractions" as you say.. Then removing the cell phone distraction, again, as those collisions that were caused by cell phone distraction would not exist - would have the same affect - lowering the number of collisions.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

No, they didn't replace those distractions. You've still got all those distractions. Only difference is now you have added cell phones to the list.

No, you don't understand my point.

Consistently there has been roughly the same amount of car accidents per year, and despite cell phones being added into the mix those numbers have remained the same. What that hints at, to me, is that no matter what there are consistently a number of drivers on the road who are predisposed to be easily distracted while driving. These distractions can be any of the things I listed before, or some others I may have left out. Regardless of it being a cell phone or a screaming child, a distraction is a distraction for them, and those particular drivers are much more likely to get in a wreck because of anything that diverts their attention.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

So if Cell phone usage has "merely replaced the other distractions" as you say.. Then removing the cell phone distraction, again, as those collisions that were caused by cell phone distraction would not exist - would have the same affect - lowering the number of collisions.

Read my last post. Apparently my first post wasn't clear enough to get my point across. Reading it back, it wasn't, so check the new one.

 

[Tracebassplayer]

No, they didn't replace those distractions. You've still got all those distractions. Only difference is now you have added cell phones to the list.

Exactly.
If you remove the cell phone caused collisions, the stats would be lower even with the ones caused by "fiddling with the cd player, shaving, putting on make up, etc....

And it's always been illegal to "drive while distracted".
I get it, you get it, most of us "get it"...
Some people just need it spelled out for them...
"Texting while driving is illegal".
"Talking NON-hands free while driving is illegal".
"Putting on your makeup while driving is illegal.

You have to spell it out for the "Dee De Dees" and this is why the Government has to make specific laws/bans. Some people just are not smart enough to "get it".

 

[MatticusMania]

See the links in No.5 please.

5 Scientific Reasons You're a Bad Employee | Cracked.com

Blocked at work. Though, Im not sure an article from cracked.com is a credible source.

 

[Tracebassplayer]

No, I get it.
If there were 4000 (just a figure) accidents in 1995. There were 4000 accidents in 2006. Flat graph no increase in stats.
If you take away the 1236 cell phone related accidents in 2006, there would have only been 2754 accidents all together.
Not hard to figure that out.

 

[MatticusMania]

Exactly.
If you remove the cell phone caused collisions, the stats would be lower even with the ones caused by "fiddling with the cd player, shaving, putting on make up, etc..

But no one can say with any certainty how many of those accidents were caused by cell phone related incidents.

No, I get it.
If there were 4000 (just a figure) accidents in 1995. There were 4000 accidents in 2006. Flat graph no increase in stats.
If you take away the 1236 cell phone related accidents in 2006, there would have only been 2754 accidents all together.
Not hard to figure that out.

But that doesnt take into account the possibility of more drivers being added to the road as populations increase.

 

[aborgman]

Think that could be because of seat belt laws, tougher DUI prevention, etc...?

I'm sure it is because of a number of things.

Just for a note on those that believe cell phone driving is comparable to drinking and driving - there is a very obvious change in accident trends that follows MADD and their push for significant increases in drunk driving laws. The no such significant change in any of the data sets surrounding cell phone use.

 

[Tracebassplayer]

But that doesnt take into account the possibility of more drivers being added to the road as populations increase.

Ok, so add the booming population of new drivers and the collision ratio goes down. 4000/2Mil drivers
Remove the cellphone related collisions and the ratio STILL goes down. 2754/2mil drivers

 

[Febs]

But that doesnt take into account the possibility of more drivers being added to the road as populations increase.

That's why FARS data includes statistics like fatalities per million vehicle miles traveled.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Exactly.
If you remove the cell phone caused collisions, the stats would be lower even with the ones caused by "fiddling with the cd player, shaving, putting on make up, etc....

And it's always been illegal to "drive while distracted".
I get it, you get it, most of us "get it"...
Some people just need it spelled out for them...
"Texting while driving is illegal".
"Talking NON-hands free while driving is illegal".
"Putting on your makeup while driving is illegal.

You have to spell it out for the "Dee De Dees" and this is why the Government has to make specific laws/bans. Some people just are not smart enough to "get it".

*sigh*

No. The numbers were the same as they are now BEFORE cell phones became common place in the hands of drivers, and despite this additional distraction the numbers have stayed the same. Removing them will not lower the numbers because they were the same before cell phones even came about.

To spell it out for you - a distraction, is a distraction, is a distraction. This witch hunt against cell phones will not fix the problem because the problem is, as myself and a few others have stated repeatedly, idiotic drivers.

Let's use your example of 4,000 auto accidents in 1995 and then again in 2006. You claim that 1,000 or so accidents were cell phone related in 2006 and that if they were banned that number would of been 3,000 instead. I'm saying that's not the case.

Those same drivers in 2006 were likely to have gotten into an accident anyways because those drivers are predisposed to be distracted much more easily than other drivers. The distraction didn't have to be a cell phone. It could of been anything else and it still would of happened. Maybe a different day, maybe a different place, but it still would of happened.

Now why do I believe that? Because even back in 1987 you still had 4,000 auto accidents. To me, it seems clear that it's the people driving that are responsible for the accidents, and not the distractions themselves. Some people can operate a vehicle and talk on the phone and be fine, and for some people doing the same thing is an accident (literally) waiting to happen. You can try removing distractions, but if it's not one it'll be another.

 

[Tracebassplayer]

But no one can say with any certainty how many of those accidents were caused by cell phone related incidents.

Well, true. There probably never will be a true number...

People lie and say "Oh, No, Officer. I wasn't texting on my phone when I ran my car over that little girl."

 

[Febs]

Now why do I believe that? Because even back in 1987 you still had 4,000 auto accidents.

Do you believe that things like anti-lock brakes and electronic stability control systems have prevented any accidents? If so, all other things being equal, shouldn't we be seeing a reduction in auto accidents over time?

 

[Tracebassplayer]

*sigh*

No. The numbers were the same as they are now BEFORE cell phones became common place in the hands of drivers, and despite this additional distraction the numbers have stayed the same. Removing them will not lower the numbers because they were the same before cell phones even came about.

To spell it out for you - a distraction, is a distraction, is a distraction. This witch hunt against cell phones will not fix the problem because the problem is, as myself and a few others have stated repeatedly, idiotic drivers.

Let's use your example of 4,000 auto accidents in 1995 and then again in 2006. You claim that 1,000 or so accidents were cell phone related in 2006 and that if they were banned that number would of been 3,000 instead. I'm saying that's not the case. Can you prove that thesis?

Those same drivers in 2006 were likely to have gotten into an accident anyways because those drivers are predisposed to be distracted much more easily than other drivers. The distraction didn't have to be a cell phone. It could of been anything else and it still would of happened. Maybe a different day, maybe a different place, but it still would of happened. That's conjecture, which you can not prove.

Now why do I believe that? Because even back in 1987 you still had 4,000 auto accidents. To me, it seems clear that it's the people driving that are responsible for the accidents I agree with that statement, and not the distractions themselves. Some people can operate a vehicle and talk on the phone and be fine, and for some people doing the same thing is an accident (literally) waiting to happenI agree with that statement. You can try removing distractions, but if it's not one it'll be another.Those are the "Dee de Dees"

Nah, They would still be at home talking on the landline phone instead of driving around talking on the phone.

 

[aborgman]

But that doesnt take into account the possibility of more drivers being added to the road as populations increase.

In fact, we KNOW lane miles driven have increased.

In 1995 (when I got my first cell phone) the US was driving about 2.4 trillion miles.

In 2011 that number was about 3 trillion miles.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[bass12]

Common misconceptions:

- "I have GREAT taste in music"
- "I'm a KING in the bedroom - yeah!!!"
- "my timing is ROCK solid!"
- "I'm SPECIAL - I don't get distracted by talking on the phone while driving."
-It's the government, they're trying to take away MY FREEDOM!"
- "ME. ME. ME. ME. ME. Did I mention that it's all about ME?"

 

[aborgman]

Do you believe that things like anti-lock brakes and electronic stability control systems have prevented any accidents? If so, all other things being equal, shouldn't we be seeing a reduction in auto accidents over time?

We are seeing a reduction in auto accidents over time.

Certain changes in law have had very noticeable changes in rate (drunk driving enforcement).

Other changes in law have had basically no measurable change in rate... and most technology really falls under that.

 

[MatticusMania]

Other changes in law have had basically no measurable change in rate... and most technology really falls under that.

Right, because as discussed earlier, cell phone banning in vehicles is mostly unenforceable. An officer has to actually see you on the phone to know that youre breaking the law, and even then dont always pull the person over. I'll be honest and say that Ive passed by a few cops at various times while talking on my cell. I know I was seen on at least one occasion, as I made eye contact with the officer, and was not pulled over. I imagine it would be much more difficult to see someone using a hand free device.

 

[Stumbo]

A lot of the arguments here ("yeah, I can drive with my hands full / eat a sandwich while driving without being impaired") sound a lot like the "yeah, alcohol doesn't affect me as much as it does other people" arguments made by drink drivers.

No one who drink/drives text/drives or sandwich/drives thinks they can't handle it. Only when crap happens do people realise they aren't as capable of multitasking or holding their alcohol as they thought.

^^^This.

Safely multi-tasking while driving is a myth. People don't have multiple processors.

If you're doing something else besides paying full attention to your driving, you, somebody you know or somebody you hit with your car will be injured or die someday.

My wife was almost killed by someone talking on her cellphone. Another foot or so and the car would have T-boned my wife's car at about 50mph.

 

[jady]

There sure are a lot of people here who do not know how research and data works......

There are also a lot of people who does not understand how our government works either. God help us at election time

You ask the government to ban things you disagree with. This gives something called legal precedent.

Legal precedent - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By giving one court authority to ban something you are giving a court the right to ban something else you may not agree with. By the same logic put forth in this very thread if this ban goes through the courts could ban passengers, kids, radios, and even pretty girls walking down the street " for our own safety" due to legal precedent set forth. You pro-ban folks are slitting your own throats and don't even know it.

It brings to mind this very relevant quote from a Pastor in Nazi Germany who fully welcomed the Nazi party into power. He did not like homosexuals or Jews so he remained passive and even sort of supported the persicution. Then they locked him up for his Christian beliefs and fighting the "Nazification" of German Protestant Churches.

When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I am not a Jew. When they came for the Socialists, I did nothing, for I am not a Socialist. When they came for the labor leaders, the homosexuals, the gypsies, I did nothing, for I am none of these, and when they came for me, I was alone, there was no one to stand up for me. -- Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran pastor from Nazi Germany