Driving and Cell Phones/PDA's

[terryg]

Umm, chasfm11 beat you to it about 4 hours and 3 postings ago ...

I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

For the win!!

[atticus]

Is the rule banning cell phones in school zones designed to prevent accidents involving distracted drivers?

[OldCurlyWolf]

I do not take the operation of a motor vehicle lightly. It is a very large object, moving with great inertia, requiring attention, preparation, and forethought, not something to be done absent mindedly while chatting/texting.

Not that it really matters but inertia means the mass is at rest. What you really meant is MOMENTUM. Or possibly Kinetic Energy. E=M * V^2

No, sorry. Inertia applies to objects both at rest and moving at a constant speed. Inertia is the resistance to change in velocity. That velocity may be 0 (which would mean it is at rest) or not 0 (which would mean it is in motion).

From wikipedia:

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest.

I stand corrected on my use of Inertia, however I was correct in the fact that what lonewolf was describing was NOT inertia.

[terryg]

I do not take the operation of a motor vehicle lightly. It is a very large object, moving with great inertia, requiring attention, preparation, and forethought, not something to be done absent mindedly while chatting/texting.

Not that it really matters but inertia means the mass is at rest. What you really meant is MOMENTUM. Or possibly Kinetic Energy. E=M * V^2

No, sorry. Inertia applies to objects both at rest and moving at a constant speed. Inertia is the resistance to change in velocity. That velocity may be 0 (which would mean it is at rest) or not 0 (which would mean it is in motion).

From wikipedia:

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest.

I stand corrected on my use of Inertia, however I was correct in the fact that what lonewolf was describing was NOT inertia.

Correct. As you stated, 'momentum' is the critical term here. Momentum is directly tied to both mass and speed - so a heavier vehicle traveling at the same velocity as a smaller vehicle has greater momentum and similarly, the same vehicle traveling faster will have greater momentum than when traveling slower.

[Katygunnut]

Society managed for how many thousands of years without cell phones?

Now some people can't breathe without it.

I was in Washington state visiting relatives last month, and they have a new law that makes it illegal to talk on the phone while driving. It was very refreshing to just focus on driving and maybe visiting with the people in your car. If the phone rings, you can see who it is and call them back. My daily commute is less than 30 minutes, and I am not so important that I can't wait 30 minutes to talk with someone.

Then again, one of my pet peeves is people who will answer their phone even if they are in the middle of a conversation with someone. I consider this to be rude to the person that you are with since you are basically telling them "hold on, I have someone more important that I need to talk to". If this happens, I will usually get up and leave (since I have someplace more important to be). Obviously there are exceptions if someone is expecting a critical call and they mention this ahead of time, etc.

[dicion]

Is the rule banning cell phones in school zones designed to prevent accidents involving distracted drivers?

Yes, specifically, it's a cell phone ban that got passed because they waved the 'Save The Children' flag on it...

Sorry, but getting the public to pass any law based on "If it saves one Child's life, it's worth it" is junk. Just my opinion.

Some politicians love to wave the 'save the children' flag, because it gets otherwise rationally thinking Americans to suddenly turn stupid and vote for their retarded measures.
When used in combination with the 'Racism' flag, it's super-effective against the mindless public.

[Douva]

It was very refreshing to just focus on driving and maybe visiting with the people in your car.

And what evidence do you have that talking to the people in your car is any less distracting or dangerous than talking on a hands-free phone?

[chasfm11]

Is the rule banning cell phones in school zones designed to prevent accidents involving distracted drivers?

Yes, specifically, it's a cell phone ban that got passed because they waved the 'Save The Children' flag on it...

Sorry, but getting the public to pass any law based on "If it saves one Child's life, it's worth it" is junk. Just my opinion.

Some politicians love to wave the 'save the children' flag, because it gets otherwise rationally thinking Americans to suddenly turn stupid and vote for their retarded measures.
When used in combination with the 'Racism' flag, it's super-effective against the mindless public.

I agree with you that the school cell phone law was stupid. Equally stupid, however, are the parents who are so intent on talking on the phone that they nearly run over someone else's kid while they are waiting in line to drop off their own kid. I've personally seen this with my own eyes several times. Here's Mom in a big SUV, trying to hold the phone in one hand and turn the car off the street into the school circle when suddenly the car ahead stops short and Mom, rather than run into the car in front of her, turns it into the crowd of kids walking on the sidewalk beside her.

I'd much rather have seen those cases prosecuted as attempted vehicular manslaughter than to see her slapped with a $200 cell phone fine. I've seen it discussed in several threads on this forum that the car can be used as a weapon under the right conditions. When that happens under the wrong conditions, it should be treated as an assualt with a weapon. It is not an "accident".

[Katygunnut]

It was very refreshing to just focus on driving and maybe visiting with the people in your car.

And what evidence do you have that talking to the people in your car is any less distracting or dangerous than talking on a hands-free phone?

That wasn't really my point. I was responding to the statement that we rely too much on cell phone's today, and they are more of a PITA than they are worth.

However, since you brought it up, I would point to a couple things that have been brought up already in this thread. Someone in the car can see the driving situation and know when the driver needs to focus (and they need to stop talking). That same person can also read the drivers body language, so the driver does not need to focus nearly as much on conveying their thoughts through words alone.

From personal experience, I have had many cases where someone wanted to keep talking to me as I was going around a curve, in a rain storm, with a semi starting to creep over into my lane, etc. Taking even a second to say "hold on" is one second that can much better be spent on situational awareness in that case. I have done both, and personally feel that a conversation with someone who is physically there with you is easier, and requires lesss focus, than having a conversation on the phone. This is one reason why I find it is much more efficient to get people in the same room if a problem needs to be solved or something needs to be clarified at work, for example.

[Douva]

I would point to a couple things that have been brought up already in this thread. Someone in the car can see the driving situation and know when the driver needs to focus (and they need to stop talking). That same person can also read the drivers body language, so the driver does not need to focus nearly as much on conveying their thoughts through words alone.

From personal experience, I have had many cases where someone wanted to keep talking to me as I was going around a curve, in a rain storm, with a semi starting to creep over into my lane, etc. Taking even a second to say "hold on" is one second that can much better be spent on situational awareness in that case. I have done both, and personally feel that a conversation with someone who is physically there with you is easier, and requires lesss focus, than having a conversation on the phone. This is one reason why I find it is much more efficient to get people in the same room if a problem needs to be solved or something needs to be clarified at work, for example.

Assuming that a passenger, unlike someone on the other end of a phone conversation, automatically or instinctively knows when a driver needs to focus seems like a weak excuse for an outright ban on cell phone use in cars. There have been more than a few occasions when I've had to tell my passengers to shut up. And one could just as easily argue that a driver talking to passengers is more likely to take his or her eyes of the road than is a driver talking on a cell phone (I don't need to see the phone's reaction or give the phone a knowing glance).

All of the studies I've seen suggest that the conversation itself is the real distraction. People have been carrying on conversations in cars for as long as there have been cars. This recent phobia about cell phones in cars is no different than recent mass hysteria about child abductions and other such causes-of-the-month, most of which pose no more threat than they did fifty years ago.

Those proposing these cell phone bans typically fall into one of two categories: those who think we can legislate ourselves into a danger-free utopia and those who wish society could return to a simpler time before we had all of these technological nuisances like the Internet and cell phones and the polio vaccine. Both groups fail to realize just how reliant our society has become on such perilous technological vices as cell phones and navigation devices. The majority of the population isn't interested in returning to the days before we could call from the car and say, "Hey, I'm stuck in traffic, so go ahead and start the meeting without me," or, "Is it exit 308 or exit 309?"

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single study showing that talking on a cell phone is any more distracting than talking to a passenger. Blaming somebody's cell phone has simply replaced blaming somebody's gender or ethnicity as the official road rage battle cry. Thirty years ago, a man might have looked at the driver who almost sideswiped him and responded, "Oh, it figures--it's a woman driver." Now the man looks at the woman who almost sideswiped him and responds, "Oh, it figures--she's on her cell phone." Both are simply knee-jerk responses--a way of boiling down the complexities of any given situation into something tangible on which we can place blame.

Society loves a villain, somebody or something to blame. And people love riding on bandwagons. So any time society can nominate a villain and start loading up the "blame that" bandwagon, the public gets pretty excited. After all, if banning something will "save just one life," shouldn't we do it? If your answer is "yes," you can make out your check to "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

[terryg]

I would point to a couple things that have been brought up already in this thread. Someone in the car can see the driving situation and know when the driver needs to focus (and they need to stop talking). That same person can also read the drivers body language, so the driver does not need to focus nearly as much on conveying their thoughts through words alone.

From personal experience, I have had many cases where someone wanted to keep talking to me as I was going around a curve, in a rain storm, with a semi starting to creep over into my lane, etc. Taking even a second to say "hold on" is one second that can much better be spent on situational awareness in that case. I have done both, and personally feel that a conversation with someone who is physically there with you is easier, and requires lesss focus, than having a conversation on the phone. This is one reason why I find it is much more efficient to get people in the same room if a problem needs to be solved or something needs to be clarified at work, for example.

Assuming that a passenger, unlike someone on the other end of a phone conversation, automatically or instinctively knows when a driver needs to focus seems like a weak excuse for an outright ban on cell phone use in cars. There have been more than a few occasions when I've had to tell my passengers to shut up. And one could just as easily argue that a driver talking to passengers is more likely to take his or her eyes of the road than is a driver talking on a cell phone (I don't need to see the phone's reaction or give the phone a knowing glance).

All of the studies I've seen suggest that the conversation itself is the real distraction. People have been carrying on conversations in cars for as long as there have been cars. This recent phobia about cell phones in cars is no different than recent mass hysteria about child abductions and other such causes-of-the-month, most of which pose no more threat than they did fifty years ago.

Those proposing these cell phone bans typically fall into one of two categories: those who think we can legislate ourselves into a danger-free utopia and those who wish society could return to a simpler time before we had all of these technological nuisances like the Internet and cell phones and the polio vaccine. Both groups fail to realize just how reliant our society has become on such perilous technological vices as cell phones and navigation devices. The majority of the population isn't interested in returning to the days before we could call from the car and say, "Hey, I'm stuck in traffic, so go ahead and start the meeting without me," or, "Is it exit 308 or exit 309?"

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single study showing that talking on a cell phone is any more distracting than talking to a passenger. Blaming somebody's cell phone has simply replaced blaming somebody's gender or ethnicity as the official road rage battle cry. Thirty years ago, a man might have looked at the driver who almost sideswiped him and responded, "Oh, it figures--it's a woman driver." Now the man looks at the woman who almost sideswiped him and responds, "Oh, it figures--she's on her cell phone." Both are simply knee-jerk responses--a way of boiling down the complexities of any given situation into something tangible on which we can place blame.

Society loves a villain, somebody or something to blame. And people love riding on bandwagons. So any time society can nominate a villain and start loading up the "blame that" bandwagon, the public gets pretty excited. After all, if banning something will "save just one life," shouldn't we do it? If your answer is "yes," you can make out your check to "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

Good summation, counselor!

[chasfm11]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single study showing that talking on a cell phone is any more distracting than talking to a passenger. Blaming somebody's cell phone has simply replaced blaming somebody's gender or ethnicity as the official road rage battle cry. Thirty years ago, a man might have looked at the driver who almost sideswiped him and responded, "Oh, it figures--it's a woman driver." Now the man looks at the woman who almost sideswiped him and responds, "Oh, it figures--she's on her cell phone." Both are simply knee-jerk responses--a way of boiling down the complexities of any given situation into something tangible on which we can place blame.

Keeping in mind that I'm one who does not advocate laws to address the problem, there is no denying that, for some, it IS a problem.
Two thoughts:
1. I ride my bike on a designated bike path 3 times a week for cardio. Want to know the biggest danger to me while I do that? It is people walking and talking on cell phones. The path is wide enough for people to past me safely in the opposite direction or for me to pass them (when I'm approaching form behind.) I cannot and will not. When I see someone on a cell phone, I ride my bike at least 5 yards off the concrete path to pass them. It appears that many cannot concentrate on even walking a straight line, or following the contour of the path, staying on their own side of it. I cannot imagine those same people behind the wheel of a car with the cellphone in their hand.
2. My unscientific study while driving in my Town is that about 1/3 of the drivers on our major streets are talking on cell phones. I can detect about 1/3 of those almost immediately because the path and speed of their cars gives them away. Since those streets have 3 lanes, I purposefully plan my use of lanes so that I avoid, as much as possible, being in front or beside them. It is nothing for one of them to suddenly swerve half way into another lane. As was pointed out in another post, many have their left arm up with their elbow in such a position that all of their visibility is blocked to their left.

I think that we, as a society, should attach a stigma to those who abuse use of cell phones. I know that there are some who can drive and talk but for the ones who cannot, they need to understand their impact on the drivers around them. The same is true for those who insist on using their cell phones in crowded checkout lines. I've noticed more and more businesses putting up signs admonishing customers to hang up their cell phones when interacting with the business' employees. Social pressure, not laws, is the way to handle this situation. Ignoring the problem is not option because it IS a problem, at least for some. I fully agree that putting on make up and even conversations with others in their car is a problem for some, too. Distracted driving is distracted driving, regardless of the cause.

[Purplehood]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single study showing that talking on a cell phone is any more distracting than talking to a passenger. Blaming somebody's cell phone has simply replaced blaming somebody's gender or ethnicity as the official road rage battle cry. Thirty years ago, a man might have looked at the driver who almost sideswiped him and responded, "Oh, it figures--it's a woman driver." Now the man looks at the woman who almost sideswiped him and responds, "Oh, it figures--she's on her cell phone." Both are simply knee-jerk responses--a way of boiling down the complexities of any given situation into something tangible on which we can place blame.

Keeping in mind that I'm one who does not advocate laws to address the problem, there is no denying that, for some, it IS a problem.
Two thoughts:
1. I ride my bike on a designated bike path 3 times a week for cardio. Want to know the biggest danger to me while I do that? It is people walking and talking on cell phones. The path is wide enough for people to past me safely in the opposite direction or for me to pass them (when I'm approaching form behind.) I cannot and will not. When I see someone on a cell phone, I ride my bike at least 5 yards off the concrete path to pass them. It appears that many cannot concentrate on even walking a straight line, or following the contour of the path, staying on their own side of it. I cannot imagine those same people behind the wheel of a car with the cellphone in their hand.
2. My unscientific study while driving in my Town is that about 1/3 of the drivers on our major streets are talking on cell phones. I can detect about 1/3 of those almost immediately because the path and speed of their cars gives them away. Since those streets have 3 lanes, I purposefully plan my use of lanes so that I avoid, as much as possible, being in front or beside them. It is nothing for one of them to suddenly swerve half way into another lane. As was pointed out in another post, many have their left arm up with their elbow in such a position that all of their visibility is blocked to their left.

I think that we, as a society, should attach a stigma to those who abuse use of cell phones. I know that there are some who can drive and talk but for the ones who cannot, they need to understand their impact on the drivers around them. The same is true for those who insist on using their cell phones in crowded checkout lines. I've noticed more and more businesses putting up signs admonishing customers to hang up their cell phones when interacting with the business' employees. Social pressure, not laws, is the way to handle this situation. Ignoring the problem is not option because it IS a problem, at least for some. I fully agree that putting on make up and even conversations with others in their car is a problem for some, too. Distracted driving is distracted driving, regardless of the cause.

From that last paragraph I would venture to say that you are NOT a Libertarian.

[chasfm11]

From that last paragraph I would venture to say that you are NOT a Libertarian.

On the contrary, I'm probably closer to being a Libertarian politically than anything else. I just believe that there is some power in society for doing what is right and holding to a set of principals.

So let's go in the other direction:
- laws aren't the answer and don't work
- ignoring the problem is the wrong direction

Now what?

[Abraham]

Basically, it appears there are two camps: One says cell phones aren't a problem in any way, shape or form and if you object you're wrong.

The other camp says: While operating vehicles, those on cell phones quite often present a severe threat, their engrossment in paying attention to their call far exceeding other common distractions while others engaged in cell phone use are often enough simply an obnoxious public nuisance.

That said, cell phones have great utility, but are as abused in their use as booze...

Some folks use them with great discretion, while others binge with no regard for the rest of humanity.