State representative chats with reporter about cell phone safety bill while driving home
A brilliant legislator last night was talking to a reporter about getting a cell-phone driving law out of committee, while driving home:
"It's a common-sense measure," said Wagner, in a phone interview he described as hands-free while driving home from the State House in his Honda Accord. "I think it will save lives; I think that it will improve public safety on the roads of Massachusetts; I think it's a measure which is long overdue."
According to a University of Utah study, during that conversation Wagner had the reaction time of someone with a Blood Alcohol Content of .08, the state's limit - and was more likely to be involved in a crash. This was at night, probably in inclement weather, too. Then we see the chairman of the committee demonstrating complete ignorance:
Representative William M. Straus, House chairman of the transportation committee, said that may be the case, but dialing itself still poses a particular danger that pulls drivers' eyes and attention from the road, their hands from the wheel. "I happen to believe that having both hands available to drive -- even though a conversation can be distracting -- is still an improvement to public safety," he said.
There's nothing like placing one's "beliefs" over a decade and a half of research; the claim that hands-free devices represent a significant safety improvement was disproved starting in 1997 when NHTSA found research showing it's the conversation, stupid:
While the hands-free approach may at first seem like an obvious solution to cellular telephone related safety problems, it presumes that crashes caused by cellular telephone use result primarily from dialing, from having only one hand on the wheel, or from reaching for, holding or dropping a phone. Although these factors certainly contribute to the crash picture, the data from North Carolina as well as the NASS case studies suggest that conversation itself is the most prevalent single behavior associated with cellular telephone related crashes in the United States.
In 2009, a 2003 study comes to light with the following conclusion:
[...]there are negligible differences in safety relevant behavior and performance between using hand-held and hands-free communications devices while driving from the standpoint of cognitive distraction. Specifically, the experiment data reveal observable degradations in driver behavior and performance and changes in risk-taking and decision-making behaviors when using both hand-held and hands-free mobile phones, and the nature of these degradations and changes are symptomatic of the potential safety-related problems.
In January of 2010, NHSTA published a policy statement and FAQ, stating clearly:
[...]cell phone use while driving, whether it is a hands-free or hand-held device, degrades a driver's performance. The driver is more likely to miss key visual and audio cues needed to avoid a crash. Hand-held devices may be slightly worse, but hands-free devices are not risk-free.
Finally, in December, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends a complete ban on personal electronic devices while driving, saying "No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life."
Our senators and representatives have no excuse for ignorance on this issue given that the federal government has a simple and easy-to-navigate website on the dangers of distracted driving for over a year now.
If you're going to have representatives bandy about phrases like "If that's an inconvenience for people, tough [...] The inconvenience of the death and destruction on the road far outweighs any very minor inconvenience", then find some backbone, ignore the cell phone industry lobbyists, write effective legislation that will actually save lives, and enjoy the backing of 15 years of research to castigate anyone who refuses to support you.
Comments
As someone who works from a vehicle
where does it end? Will I no longer be able to use my Blackberry with the Nextel? How do I communicate with clients and my office? Will I now have to pull over on 93 to use my Nextel? That wouldn't be too dangerous would it?
there is no right to work in your vehicle while driving
where does it end?
TWEET, slippery slope logical fallacy, twenty yard penalty. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
How do I communicate with clients and my office?
"No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life."
Will I now have to pull over on 93 to use my Nextel? That wouldn't be too dangerous would it?
TWEEET, Straw Man logical fallacy, free kick penalty. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Nobody has suggested pulling over in the breakdown lane of a busy interstate except you.
It's interesting that safety suddenly becomes a concern when it's *your* safety, though. You happily put everyone else around you at risk every day, but when the only solution you see to coping with phone-while-driving ban involves perceived self-risk, you're suddenly indignant.
*golf clap*, bravo, bravo!
You're not entitled to continue something just because you've been getting away with doing it while legislation, research, and public opinion have been catching up to the fact that it's dangerous. Count yourself lucky that you've been able to do it as long as you have, and that you haven't killed anyone, and figure out how to do the right thing.
Uhh...there is if you're a chauffeur
I've been a professional driver for over 31 years. I've taken defensive driving courses taught by ex Secret Service agents and I've even done the Richard Petty Nascar experience. And yet since the dawn of the cell phone, I've had more close calls on the road with cell phone users than the majority of UHub users combined.
Your ridiculous assertion that I am only concerned with my own safety is clearly belied by the fact that like a bus driver or airline pilot, I am responsible for the lives of as few as one and as many as 15 passengers at a time. A responsibility I take very seriously.
So when I ask you how you expect me to do my job with a ban on all handheld devices, your answer is to try to take my argument apart with sound effects,football metaphors, false and stupid assumptions about my mindset, and finally you declaring what I'm entitled to.
TWEET, go fuck yourself.
Not sure if serious.
notsureifserious.jpg
I honestly can't tell if you're taking the piss here, dvdoff. "More close calls on the road with cell phone users than the majority of UHub users combined," and you don't think that maybe it'd be a good idea if people weren't allowed to talk on their phone while drifting into the next lane?
If you're not screwing with us, then I'd say: you'll probably have to do what you did for the first ~18 years of your chauffeur career, which is coordinate things without a cell phone.
I'm puzzled by people who are more than 30 years old who are struck dumb by the prospect of not being surgically attached to their cell phones at all times. It's been less than 15 years that cell phones have been a consumer-grade thing; it's been less than five years that texting and mobile internet access were a given. People somehow managed to live their lives without ubiquitous phone/data services for many a year. Now we have pretty iron-clad evidence that talking on the phone while driving is bad for you and everyone around you; maybe we should reconsider the norms of our day-to-day lives. If the legislation passes, we'll definitely have to. It'll take some getting used to, but so did drunk-driving bans.
Well, how did you do your job
Well, how did you do your job before the advent of cell phones?
When I started,
there were stationary two way radios in the cars. We then went to those old bag phones (which had speaker phone then) and then to hand held Nextels.
Also, I am not saying that there should not be restrictions on hand held cell phone use at all, but banning the use of all cell phones is ridiculous and penalizes people like me. I have used speakers and ear pieces since they came out and I've been able to function by doing what I've always done; checking my surroundings at all times and relying on my communication device as a tool, and not a distraction.
it's not an assumption
Your ridiculous assertion that I am only concerned with my own safety
It's not an assumption. Your position, very clearly, is that you should be able to use your phone while driving, because it would be a competitive disadvantage (despite the fact that the rule would apply to competitors).
Or perhaps it is that it would make your business impossible or very difficult, which is like setting up a bomb disposal business which requires driving past a school zone, and then whining that you can't do your business if the town bans you from doing so when 10 years later, the townspeople realize what you've been up to.
Further, while you object to the possibility of doing unsafe things like pulling off the road (which nobody asked you to do - this is why they invented rest stops), you have no problem every day repeatedly driving while talking on a hands-free cellular phone that gives you the reaction time of someone with a BAC of .08. What, pray tell, is the legal limit for someone with a CDL? Answer: .04.
So while talking on the phone, you're effectively twice over the limit, placing those around you, yourself, and your passengers at risk. Even if you have gotten 20 minutes of instruction on how to drive 8 laps around a closed oval track, or how to do J-turns.
By the way, those crocodile tears for the safety of your charges? Does your company use 15 passenger vans, per chance?
Let's not get into discussions about how commercial drivers are so reckless with safety that they must keep logbooks to prove they're not exceeding set hours, are getting enough sleep, etc...and that they have to have their vehicles inspected by special police enforcement teams because they cut corners on safety because it's expensive or inconvenient.
The same corners you want to cut, because it's inconvenient.
Hey, I have a great idea. I bet it's a competitive disadvantage to not be able to drink a couple of beers with your customers. Let's allow limo drivers to drink and drive. Hey, it'll be OK, they've done the Richard Petty Driving Experience.
Pull out all
the links and ridiculous BAC numbers(?) and stupid comparisons to bomb disposal units (?) out of your ass all day long. I'll put my real world experience and driving record against your charts, graphs and numbers any day of the week. I'm not a truck driver, so I don't have to keep logs. I do drive 15 passenger vans, I have a CDL and again I have an unblemished record in those vehicles. I'm not the one who has to crawl all over the web to try and back ridiculous assertions.
I don't talk on a hand held phone while I drive and I will continue to talk hands free and now that there is Siri, using my phone has become much easier. And even more insulting is your final paragraph, clearly written to try and provoke some angry response from me when I find it the pinnacle of childishness and patently unfunny.
Again I close with go fuck yourself.
Police officers have been
Police officers have been talking while driving NON-hands-free for decades and decades and decades. Why do we let them do that? I think it's because we consider them professionals who have had training.
Why not allow people, who have a professional need to talk wirelessly while driving, to get training to do so? Or do you believe that there is NO amount of training that will make that safe? In which case, do you think that all police are driving around DANGEROUSLY? And if so, why aren't you complaining about that? Or do you think that calling in a traffic stop is more important than being a safe driver?
Please, let us all know how you feel about this.
dvdoff-Wean yourself
It means you stop risking your life and those of everyone around you every time the CrackBerry buzzes. You *ignore* it until you can pull over safely. Like at a rest stop.
When I'm
in my personal vehicle, I'm too busy using it to listen to SomaFM to talk on it.
Oh yeah
I totally forgot you were a professional driver (I've enjoyed your stories in the past).
From your experience, how does the distraction of a phone compare with the dispatcher radio thingy in cabs?
Cellphones vs. two way radios in vehicles
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/MobileAmateurRadioPolicyStatement.pdf
Although this statement is focused on amateur radio, the basic principles outlined apply to other mobile two-way radio systems as well.
Cab drivers have it much worse
My trips are done by reservation, cab drivers have to focus on driving their vehicle and listening to the two way to see if there is a job available in the area they are driving in. The they have to try and beat 10 other drivers banging in on the radio at the same time while still navigating a city street.
Also they have to constantly be scanning the street for fares. So I feel they have it worse, statistically speaking.
where does it end?
It ends with banning driving, or at least banning driving with kids or passangers in the car.
From a 2002 study of driving while distracted, .1% of drivers attribute a crash they were involved in with cell phone use. 19% of those crashes were because of distractions from passangers or children.
Actually, thinking would also have to be banned, as this same study shows that 5% of those who were involved in crashes blamed "personal thoughts or thinking" as a reason for their crash.
We could also ban animals and wildlife (3% said they were looking at wildlife outside the car)
Source: National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving
5.Report Date April, 2003, Attitudes and Behavior:2002 The Gallup Organization, submitted to the NSTHA
I'm half kidding, and this is an old study before cellphone use was a major issue, but DVDoff has a valid point when he asks "where does it end?".
Look, I agree with what you
Look, I agree with what you are saying, but there are two big flaws in your argument.
First, this is from 2002, which is WORLDS away from the cellphone ubiquity we have today.
Second, this is self-reported data, which as we ALL know (and you ESPECIALLY know this) is completely flawed.
Again, though, you're right. Lots of distractions while driving.
I take driving very seriously and never talk on the phone while I do it. But I don't want to impose my values on others, because... well.. I hate it when people do that to me.
What I don't get
Is why if talking on a cell phone while driving is so unsafe, why is law enforcement exempt from the ban? And if it's because they are trained to do it safely, shouldn't that mean others can be trained to safely talk while driving?
Here's an excerpt from when U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was on Talk of the Nation pushing the cell phone ban:
Either talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous and should be banned completely or if you can be trained to operate a vehicle while using a cell phone (as apparently law enforcement can) this training should be available to the public and you should be allowed to qualify for that privilege just like any other special license class.
Yay!
+500
Cops do not have "special" abilities. Pete Nice, please weigh in.
No problem Ron.
Forget about talking on cellphones while driving, cops are allowed to type on laptops while driving and are exempt from the MA texting law. Although police officers are not allowed to text while driving, they are allowed to use computers.
And no, cops are not trained to drive while talking on the phone, but basic emergency vehicle operator course (EVOC) training is done for every academy recruit and some inservices for other departments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlx-HvBkLJk
In general emergency vehicles are exempt from many driving regulations because they need to respond as fast as possible to locations to help people.
For cops, being tired is by far the most dangerous thing you can do while driving. Disregard to pursuit policies is also dangerous, and looking for suspects, addresses, people, etc can also be very dangerous for cops.
The actual process of talking on a cell phone is probably very low in dangerous driving habits for cops.
How I would legislate cellphone use restrictions
Forget the "slap on the wrist" fines and difficult to issue citations approach.
Instead, make any phone use while driving a standard of fault should a driver be in a crash while using the phone.
Coupled with this, permit the auto insurance companies to limit or deny any claim from a driver who is found to meet this standard of fault.
eh
That means people driving shitty cars or who make a lot of money will happily take the risk. Insurance is already a major enabler of most of the carnage on our roads, because people know that if they do something dangerous, they're covered.
Until the US becomes more like Europe and the rest of the world where fault in a collision can carry severe civil and criminal punishments...this won't work.
For god sakes, "the sun was in my eyes" or "I was changing the radio" seems to be a legitimate defense for a fatal collision these days.
For god sakes, "the sun was
Citations, or your "cycler bias" is showing. Not that that is a surprise to any regular readers here.
Why cell-phones in particular?
Last time I checked, people have been having conversations in cars for as long as there have been cars with passenger seats.
If you ban cell-phone talking while driving because conversation is distracting, then you have to ban all conversation in cars while driving.
Also, you have to ban kids in cars, as someone else pointed out.
Do you have a rational explanation for why cell-phone conversations are more dangerous than non-cell-phone conversations?
Was just going to leave the
Was just going to leave the same post Matthew. They don't. So the only solution is to ban all conversation in the car. And what about those distracting radios? How many children must die because of reckless louts singing along to Bohemian Rhapsody while driving? Haven't we all seen the opening credits to "That 70s Show"? How much more empirical data is needed?? Isn't it worth ONE life?! Oh, the humanity! For the love of God!
I don't really expect anyone
I don't really expect anyone to ban conversation in cars. I just want to be consistent. If cell-phone conversations are dangerous, then I want to know why passenger conversations, talk radio, audio books, children, and other distractions aren't considered equally? And if cell-phones are more dangerous, I want to know why.
In this country we tend to get highly irrational about these matters. We take things to extremes. People panic constantly about the non-existent threat of "terrorism", while nobody seems to care that nearly 40,000 people die each year to car accidents. But I don't want to people to start panicking irrationally about cars the way they do about terrorism. Is it impossible to get a middle ground?
Funny, I can't recall the last time somebody
on the Interstate nearly drifted into my lane, or failed to proceed in a timely manner when a light turned green at an intersection, because they are engaged in a conversation with a passenger.
However, I see people on cellphones do these sorts of things most of the time when I'm on the road.
Anecdotes are fun
Let's see. I was chatting with my gf one time while she was waiting at a light and I noticed the light was about to change to green, so I turned my head forward. But instead of having the intended effect of alerting her, she just got more involved with the conversation.
Besides that, I can assure you from my experience that, with or without cell-phones, people tend to fall asleep or get distracted while waiting for red lights.
Drifting out of lanes tends to happen when people get tired. Perhaps when cell-phones are involved too. I've not kept track. You can add it to the list of things that should be investigated though. The paper you cited only measured whether or not someone missed their exit on the highway.
This should answer your question
http://www.distraction.gov/download/research-pdf/Passenger-Cellphone-Conversations.pdf
Interesting, but I would have to reject it
The biggest flaw is that the paper does not describe the cell-phone apparatus being used. I can only guess that it is a hand-held device.
The second biggest flaw is, as they say, it was conducted using a driving simulator. Personally, my experience with such simulators is that I find them to be disorienting and unsatisfying, though perhaps the one they used is better. When I drive, I receive a great deal of feedback from the inertial forces of the car, and my peripheral vision of the surrounding environment. None of that appears to be the case here. What they have conducted an experiment on here is the ability of people to play a (probably unfamiliar) driving simulation game while talking.
The paper is absurdly short. Generally, most conferences in my field permit 10-12 page papers, and we tend to find that this is still not enough room for us. They could have easily filled up a few more pages with complete and thorough descriptions of the conversational methodology, the cell-phone apparatus, the simulation software and hardware, the traffic simulation algorithms, and the reasons why their population sample was (or was not) representative.
They focused on the ability of passengers to point out traffic conditions (given a passenger able to do so, e.g., not kids). They should have also considered "talk radio" (or audiobook) as another potential distraction, but one that - like cell phones - cannot contribute to monitoring outside conditions. I would be interested to see the difference in asking drivers to memorize details about the "talk radio" program and taking a quiz afterwards, or not.
Their data seemed to show that having a conversation with a passenger was potentially more dangerous than driving alone, but I would prefer a larger sample size for this case. However, this effect wasn't even mentioned at all in the conclusion.
Instead they brush it aside without a real explanation. 21:3 vs 46:2 is intriguing enough to me that I think it warrants a real investigation.
If I were reviewing this paper, I would ask them to address these issues and resubmit. The hypothesis is interesting, but this is sloppy writing.
Holy moly
I seriously cannot believe that, here in 2012, people like you -- obviously intelligent, based on your writing -- still bring up this old canard that cellphone conversations are no different than in-person conversations.
I will explain it for all. Due to the neurological and biological restrictions and evolution of the human brain, when you are talking to someone, your brain tries to put yourself in their location. You imagine yourself having a face-to-face conversation with that person.
When the person IS face-to-face with you (or passenger-to-driver), you don't have to do make that dimensional leap in your head. But when it's a disembodied voice on the phone, you DO. And that puts your head in two places at once, and you WILL lose focus when you do that.
We're not omnipotent robots, everyone. The way our brains have evolved has drastic effects on our abilities. "Mind over matter" is horseshit, y'all. No matter what your parents told you... all that "you can do anything you put your mind to!!!"... it's simply not true.
I haven't experienced this effect
I don't try to put myself in their location, and I'm good at focusing on what I'm doing. But maybe I haven't driven while talking on a cell-phone enough. I don't drive often, and I don't talk on cell-phones much either. I'm willing to accept that it could be a problem. That's why I'm looking for experimental evidence. Now, the raw data in this paper was potentially interesting, but the write-up was poor and missing many key points, which I identified. When I said "reject" I meant from the point of view of a peer reviewer for a scientific conference publication. This paper claims to have been in conference proceedings. But its sloppiness makes me wonder about the level of scrutiny it received.
There goes
ANY hope of a Cash Cab Boston. >:(
Why? Ben Bailey doesn't talk on a cell while driving.
The proposed bill doesn't limit cell phone use by passengers.
(btw, the reason we'll never see Cash Cab in Boston is the city is too small to support the kind of trip times necessary or the massive taxi fleet that insures CC anonimity, and the inhabitants are too smart. I'd guess in less than a week a bunch of MIT or Harvard types would have set up spotters and custom-trained contestant groups).