Had it with cell phones

[dr1819]

This whole scenario is about a driver who would willfuly violate existing laws, place herself and a restaurant full of people at risk by disregarding their safety - all because that cell phone was much too important to put down. What's wrong with this picture?

The fact that there's absolutely no proof whatsoever her actions were due to the fact she was talking on a cell phone. I've seen many vehicles parked in fire lanes and handicap spots where the users were not on cell phones. Association does not imply causality. This is a cardinal rule in statistics.

Ahem... They have (built displays up top). Since I'm not being paid to advertise brands, I'll not name any. But I have seen cars where the driver's console is essentially a LCD screen where everything - speedometer, gas gauge, oil pressure. etc. is displayed right in front of the driver. About the only thing missing was a HUD like a modern fighter aircraft. Since most cars now use on-board computers, there's no reason why they can't also have the video display instead of the 50 year old gauges.

I've seen that, too. And HUDs. But most manufacturers are still putting the GPS center console, about halfway from top to bottom. The only reason is because it's cheaper.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2003/01/21/153043.html

However, as "custom" displays become common, there's no reason that it should cost more. In fact, it should cost less, particularly when you pair it with a good menuing system, inputs from outside temperature and altitude, a sound system display input, key driving information (velocity/rpm), vehicle systems diagnostics, etc.

Some functions, such as the last, should be inhibited (except for basic warning lights) unless one is stopped. Similarly, programming a route into the GPS should also be inhibited unless you're stopped.

I know what I've said about cell phones, but programming routes involves the same area of the brain as is required for driving, and it's an area which cannot multitask nearly as well as can the auditory and speech areas, which are not used for driving (this is why people have no problems listening to the radio and signing while driving).

[Guy N. Heels]

...In fact, it should cost less, particularly when you pair it with a good menuing system, inputs from outside temperature and altitude, a sound system display input, key driving information (velocity/rpm), vehicle systems diagnostics, etc.

Some functions, such as the last, should be inhibited (except for basic warning lights) unless one is stopped. Similarly, programming a route into the GPS should also be inhibited unless you're stopped...quote]

In like manner, the computer should also be programmed to recognize the signal from a cell phone and automatically steer the car to the side of the road and shut-down until the cell phone signal goes away.

[Wolfgang]

I like cellphones. They're really neat and useful, but people use them way too much. Some guy pulled out in front of me in a parking lot, probably because he was talking on his cellphone. I witnessed last month a woman cruising in the passing lane because she couldn't put down her cellphone long enough to pass me. I can't even load the dishwasher [efficiently] and talk on the phone at the same time, and driving requires a lot more concentration u.u I also hate when I'm having a conversation with someone and their phone rings. They then stop talking to me, and spend the next 5-10 minutes on the phone and forget what they were talking to me about.

[dr1819]

Terrific. So now, every time you pass someone who's standing on the corner using their cell phone, the car pulls over, right where they're talking, and stops. And won't start again until they get off their cell phone.

That'll be a boon for traffic jams!

[Shafted]

I actually don't have a problem with people talking on their cellphones while driving, just the ones who don't know how to use their cellphone properly while driving. If they have to use their hands in any way to operate the phone they are not doing it correctly. I know that when I got my first flipphone it came with everthing you need for handsfree operation. (headset and voice dialing) All free of charge from my service provider. There is just no excuse for holding a cellphone up next to your head while driving. BTW: If you value your eyesight or your brain for that matter, you'd keep that little microwave generator away from your head as much as you can.

[Guy N. Heels]

BTW: If you value your eyesight or your brain for that matter, you'd keep that little microwave generator away from your head as much as you can.

Thank you ever so much. At least we now know what's wrong with the cell phone users. Those signals have addled their brains!

[dr1819]

And yet we're the ones who can do several things at once, with supposedly addled brains. Hmmm...

[Danielinheels]

It's probably got relatively little to do with cell phone usage than it does with general multi-tasking skills. Like I said, some people don't know how to properly drive OR talk on a phone. Putting the two together is akin to brushing your teeth with a minty-flavored toothpaste then drinking some cheap orange juice immediately thereafter -- NOT GOOD! Just today I witnessed a woman make a right turn onto a two-lane divided street; somehow she managed to drive left of center for 3/4 of the block! Phone on her ear. Pretty much explained it all. Then she turned into the exit only section of the bank parking lot, again not paying attention. Luckily, in both cases no cars were approaching her, or else I'd have been a witness to an accident and there's no way in hell I'd have taken her side.

[Guy N. Heels]

It's probably got relatively little to do with cell phone usage than it does with general multi-tasking skills... Just today I witnessed a woman make a right turn onto a two-lane divided street; somehow she managed to drive left of center for 3/4 of the block! Phone on her ear. Pretty much explained it all. Then she turned into the exit only section of the bank parking lot, again not paying attention. Luckily, in both cases no cars were approaching her, or else I'd have been a witness to an accident and there's no way in hell I'd have taken her side.

Here I was thinking that I was the only one seeing such behavior. I rest my case!

[dr1819]

THE FACTS ARE IN!

Here I was thinking that I was the only one seeing such behavior. I rest my case!

I agree with Daniel's assessment, that "it's probably got relatively little to do with cell phone usage than it does with general multi-tasking skills."

Some people can multitask, others cannot. Don't punish those of us who can multitask just because some people cannot.

But let's not banter! Rather, let's get the facts: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

Key points in the statistical analysis:

1. More than 212 Million people in the US use cell phones, and most use them while they drive.

2. Cell phone use has increase 4,930% since 1990. That's almost fifty times more people using cell phones today than in 1990.

3. During the last 16 years, accident rates due to inattentiveness, which includes cell phone use as well as other distractors (operating the radio, talking, drowsiness), have actually dropped, not increased.

4. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the NHTSA and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, clearly demonstrated three things:

a. Cell phones are the most common distractor.

b. Cell phones are among the least likely distractors to lead to an accident.

c. Key quote from the study linked above: "These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers." The truth doesn't get much plainer than this, folks.

5. The VTTI was founded by Scott Geller, a psychologist, who successfully motivated the entire United States to begin wearing their seat belts. His program has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, increasing seat belt use from less than 30% in 1980 to more than 86% today. So, he and his organization have a proven, long-term track record of separating fact from fiction, and knowing how to do what's right.

6. Several studies have challanged the idea that hands-free phones would lower accident rates. In fact, they show using hands-free phones increases the rates, usually because the driver has to bend over to push the buttons, instead of being able to hold the phone up so that he/she can see both the phone and the road. The studies concluded that talking on a cell phone is distracting and can diminish reaction times.

7. Other studies have shown that talking to others in the vehicle is more distracting than talking on a cell phone.

8. Despite these statistics, governments, businesses, and the legal system in particular, is spreading a believable fear campaign designed to discourage either hand-held cell phone use, or all cell phone use.

Conclusions:

1. Before you ban cell phone use, ban the following, far more hazardous activites:

a. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

b. Talking to others in the car.

c. Reading a map (other than an occasional glance).

d. Operating the radio.

e. Operating a GPS (unless it's a HUD model; basic functions required for visibility are ok - but no programming).

f. Getting something out of the glovebox or back seat.

g. Eating (like that'll pass - McDonald's, Burger King, and the other drive-through fast food places will lobby that one right out of the park).

2. People are easily swayed by things that frighten them (the idea of being in an accident) and are subject to influence from authority figures (governments out to "protect the people." From themselves. Yuck.

3. All laws banning any activity in the car should be waived for anyone who's able to demonstrate they've driven more than half a million miles doing all the activities anyway without having caused a single accident.

Bottom line: I'm sick and tired of "do-gooders" who tell me how to run my life (what shoes/clothes I can and cannot wear, whether or not I'm "allowed" to use a cell phone while driving), when I've had nearly three decades of experience running my own life with a very high degree of success without the unwanted and grossly invasive intervention.

It's called boundaries, folks. If you want to dictate whether or not someone should or should not do something, please find a mirror and dictate away, as that's who you're responsible for. You are not responsible for me. My insurance is ridiculously low because I've proven (for a quarter of a century) that I'm a careful, attentive, safe, and effective driver.

Please take care of your own business and do everyone the favor of allowing them to take care of their business. That's called respect, and we've very little of it left these days.

PS: Some additional links to reality from reputable sources:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,56733-0.html, which makes a key point: "Merely talking on a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean the phone contributed to an accident."

Duh!

An example of the emotional appeal (communications term). Yes, it's a tear-jerker, but it's totally devoid of objective facts. http://www.morganlee.org/ It does, however, mention the same study I referenced at the top, but as a sign of defeat, rather than victory. Nevertheless, it validates the fact that the report is genuine, and widely read.

Here's a lie on their website: "Cell phone users are four to five HUNDRED percent more likely to get into traffic accidents than those who do not use them (NEJM, 2/13/97)" The truth is that you're less than 30% more likely to have a traffic accident while using a cell phone - but that's only during the time you're actually using it. If you use it 5% of the time while driving, your cell phone use raises your potential for getting into an accident a mere 1.5%.

That's about as close to negligeable as you can get.

Here's another factoid: Results of a recent survey indicate 87 percent of adults believe that using a cell phone while driving impairs a person's ability to drive.

Ok. And I agree. Where I disagree is to what extent does it impair a person's ability to drive? Is it impaired just 2%? Given my driving record (>500,000 accident-free miles over 25 years), I would argue that at 98%, I'm still a much better driver than your average motorist.

Why should I get ticketed while I'm still safer than the average motorist? That's absolutely absurd. It's beyond that - it's idiotic, fueled by fear, scare tactic, ad hominum arguments, emotional appeals, appeals to authority, and gross misuse of the factual data.

Don't ban cell phones! Simply be honest with yourself, and make the right choice for YOU.

Let others make their own decisions.

Thank you.

PS: The following logical fallacies have been used by posters in this thread advocating either hands-free cell phone use banning all cell phone use:

affirming the consequence (If A then B. Since B, therefore A).

appeal to authority (the government says...)

appeal to consequences (if you use cell phones while driving you're at greater risk, therefore we should ban cell phone use while driving)

appeal to force (if you use cell phones while driving, you'll receive a ticket)

appeal to novelty (recent studies have shown (intimating that just because they're recent they're somehow better than older studies)

appeal to pity (the poor child died - all because he was using a cell phone when he hit her)

appeal to popularity (most state legislatures are...)

appeal to tradition (our legislatures have always had the public's best interests at heart...)

bandwagon fallacy (an increasing number of governments are passing laws that ban cell phone use)

cum hoc (assumes that when two things occur together they must be related - "He was using a cell phone when he hit her, so of course the cause of the accident was him using the cell phone")

Well, I'm about halfway through the list, and about 80% of all logical fallacies have been represented thus far. See my signature for the complete list.

[Shafted]

6. Several studies have challanged the idea that hands-free phones would lower accident rates. In fact, they show using hands-free phones increases the rates, usually because the driver has to bend over to push the buttons, instead of being able to hold the phone up so that he/she can see both the phone and the road. The studies concluded that talking on a cell phone is distracting and can diminish reaction times.

Now that's a crappy hands free phone if you have to push a button. My phone truly is hands free with voice control.

[dr1819]

Now that's a crappy hands free phone if you have to push a button. My phone truly is hands free with voice control.

I'm happy for you. Sadly, even though my phone is only a month and a half old, it doesn't have voice control. That wasn't available unless I paid well over $200.

[Shafted]

Ouch, I see your point. Who knows maybe some government regulation(eek) will make it a mandatory feature on all cellphones.

[dr1819]

Ouch, I see your point. Who knows maybe some government regulation(eek) will make it a mandatory feature on all cellphones.

I wouldn't mind them mandating that cell-phone makers include this feature at cost, which is probably no more than $5 for the additional software/hardware, rather than the $50 premium it is today.

I've had voice recognition software on my computer since 1996. But I type better and faster, so I rarely use it.