The next area of arrests: Cell Phones while driving...

[insein]

Well im sure it won't stop with this "Research study." They'll keep pounding it down our throats till they pass law after law restricting cell phone use to the point that if a policemen pulls you over while talking on your phone, you can lose your license for a year and goto jail. But of course if we save 1 life its worth it even though it'll be ruining thousands of other people's lives.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/14934246.htm

For drivers, danger on the phone. A study calls phone use risky as driving drunk.
By Tom Avril
Inquirer Staff Writer

Drivers who talk on cell phones may be just as dangerous as those who drink.

That's the sobering conclusion of a study published yesterday by University of Utah researchers who monitored 40 men and women on a driving simulator.

Drivers using hands-free phones were no better than those with the handheld variety, confirming previous studies. That suggests New Jersey's ban on cell-phone driving, which allows hands-free use, is only partly effective.

The findings, published in the journal Human Factors, take a swipe at a popular pastime that is taken for granted by millions of multitasking drivers.

At any given moment during the day, 10 percent of drivers are talking on their wireless devices, according to a 2005 estimate by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Bad idea, said psychologist Frank A. Drews, one of the Utah study's authors.

"It's kind of almost unpredictable how they are driving," Drews said.

When using cell phones, drivers had slower reaction times and more accidents, and they drove inconsistently, sometimes approaching other cars and then falling back, he said.

Cellular industry officials acknowledge that phones can be distracting but said they can be used sensibly. It's unfair to single out phones, said John Walls, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a Washington-based trade group.

"I think there are just a multitude of distractions that are out there," Walls said. "And by focusing on just one, you're creating a false sense of security among people."

In another recent study, by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, some other distractions - such as applying makeup and reading - were found to be much more risky.

In the Utah study, both cell-phone use and alcohol caused participants to "drive" more erratically over the simulated 24-mile course, but in different ways.

Cell-phone users were involved in more "accidents," and they took about 70 milliseconds longer to react when the car on the video screen in front of them hit the brakes - a delay during which a car moving at 55 m.p.h. would travel more than five feet on the road.

When the drivers were drunk - with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08, the legal threshold for intoxication - they followed other cars more closely and they braked 23 percent more forcefully, a potential problem for motorists behind them. They also had twice as many close calls - defined as stopping less than four seconds away from a collision - as they did when sober.

The participants were given a mixture of vodka and orange juice. Their level of drunkenness - equivalent to four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach for a 170-pound man - was verified with a monitor.

By one key measure, cell-phone users were even worse than drunken drivers.

When talking on the phone, the drivers had three accidents, but when they were drunk, they had none. The drivers also had no accidents when they were sober and not using phones.

Researchers said they were surprised that the drunken drivers were accident-free. They urged people not to misconstrue the results as suggesting that drunken driving was safe. The authors speculated that the lack of accidents may have been due to the fact that the study was conducted in the morning, when participants were well rested.

Because the drunken drivers followed too closely and had more close calls, they would be expected to have accidents in the long run, Drews said.

Drunken drivers in the Utah study were barely illegal, while in real life, they may be much more impaired, said Anne McCartt, vice president for research at the nonprofit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Crash rates start to rise with blood-alcohol levels below 0.08, and they climb steadily after that, she said.

The Utah researchers presented preliminary findings three years ago and are publishing them now after further analysis and peer review.

Besides New Jersey, the only states to ban driving while talking on a handheld cell phone are Connecticut and New York. Washington and some other communities have also banned it, including Conshohocken and West Conshohocken. A statewide ban passed the Pennsylvania Senate this week, sponsored by Sen. Joe Conti (R., Bucks), but a House bill has not been approved.

In New Jersey, police issued at least 7,000 tickets to drivers who were talking on cell phones during the first six months of 2005, the most recent time period for which data are available.

The real number of offenses is likely much higher, in part because charges are often negotiated away in municipal court, said Roberto Rodriguez, director of the state Division of Highway Traffic Safety.

Told about the new study, Rodriguez said he wasn't surprised that researchers found no difference between drivers who used handheld phones and those who used the hands-free variety legal in New Jersey.

"You are not cognizant of what is going on around you" during a phone conversation, he said. "That is the danger."

New Jersey Sen. Martha Bark (R., Burlington), a sponsor of the cell-phone law, said the exemption for the hands-free variety was a compromise to get an unpopular measure passed.

Bark said that she got her own hands-free car phone only at her children's urging and that she uses it sparingly.

"I do not talk on my phone," Bark said. "I call my office and say, 'I'm going to be five minutes late. Goodbye.' "

Drews, the Utah researcher, said he never phones while driving. His reason is more than just safety.

"I enjoy my quiet time," he said.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I agree that driving while using a cell phone is hazardous - it distracts your attention more than any other device in the car. And that's true just as much for hands-free types as for regular types. IMHO a simple ticket is sufficient, like the one you'd get for speeding. No arrest necessary.

Do you have a reason to think various local government would push it to more than that?

 

[insein]

I agree that driving while using a cell phone is hazardous - it distracts your attention more than any other device in the car. And that's true just as much for hands-free types as for regular types. IMHO a simple ticket is sufficient, like the one you'd get for speeding. No arrest necessary.

Do you have a reason to think various local government would push it to more than that?

the way they have attacked Drunken driving. Little by little drunken driving has become considered as bad as murder. IT comes with losing your license for a year and up to a year in jail for just being caught drunk driving, not actually injuring someone. That wouldnt be so bad but the legal limit for being drunk has gone down every year to the point where drinking couch syrup could make you legally DUI if pulled over.

When i see a headline that states "Cell-Phones as dangerous as drunk driving" thats the parallel i see them making in order to keep people in line. They even attack the hands free devices in there. Its a dangerous proposition because if a township or state thinks they can make money off of it, then they will do it and millions of drivers will be further hassled by government trying to make a buck by telling you what to do.

 

[Mr. P]

Well im sure it won't stop with this "Research study." They'll keep pounding it down our throats till they pass law after law restricting cell phone use to the point that if a policemen pulls you over while talking on your phone, you can lose your license for a year and goto jail. But of course if we save 1 life its worth it even though it'll be ruining thousands of other people's lives.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/14934246.htm

About time.

 

[insein]

About time.

Exactly what i mean. Once we Save the World from the horrors of cell phones its on the the next boogeyman the government can make a profit from.

 

[Hobbit]

Exactly what i mean. Once we Save the World from the horrors of cell phones its on the the next boogeyman the government can make a profit from.

Probably caffeine, the opiate of the working man.

 

[Gunny]

About time.

You know what's worse than a woman on a cellphone doing 50 in the left lane?

A MAN on a cellphone doing 50 in the left lane and barely keeping his vehicle out of the retaining wall. Women are used to doing crap while they drive. This is uncharted territory for the guys.

Anyhow, just about every time someone is in the passing lane impeding traffic (a supposed fineable offense), that person is yapping on the phone. It's a distraction for the driver, period.

 

[jillian]

the way they have attacked Drunken driving. Little by little drunken driving has become considered as bad as murder. IT comes with losing your license for a year and up to a year in jail for just being caught drunk driving, not actually injuring someone. That wouldnt be so bad but the legal limit for being drunk has gone down every year to the point where drinking couch syrup could make you legally DUI if pulled over.

When i see a headline that states "Cell-Phones as dangerous as drunk driving" thats the parallel i see them making in order to keep people in line. They even attack the hands free devices in there. Its a dangerous proposition because if a township or state thinks they can make money off of it, then they will do it and millions of drivers will be further hassled by government trying to make a buck by telling you what to do.

Do you really have an objection to people not drinking and driving? Personally, I think if you drink, you shouldn't get behind the wheel. Now, I don't mean a guy having a beer or two, but I know if I've had more than one drink, I really am not as capable on the road. Why should someone who's been pounding down drinks and is dangerous enough to get behind the wheel not get arrested. Personally, I think we're far too lenient with drunks.

As for cell phones. As someone who is guilty as anyone of using her phone while driving...and I mean ALL the time, we all THINK we can drive using them. If you ask me, I can talk, drink coffee and put a new CD in the slot...all while driving. My husband might disagree that I am quite that good at multitasking.

And have you ever watched anyone ELSE while they're talking and driving?makes you start thinking about the possibilities of mounting a weapon on the front of your vehicle.

Truthfully, is it really a huge deal to use a hands free?

 

[Gunny]

Do you really have an objection to people not drinking and driving? Personally, I think if you drink, you shouldn't get behind the wheel. Now, I don't mean a guy having a beer or two, but I know if I've had more than one drink, I really am not as capable on the road. Why should someone who's been pounding down drinks and is dangerous enough to get behind the wheel not get arrested. Personally, I think we're far too lenient with drunks.

As for cell phones. As someone who is guilty as anyone of using her phone while driving...and I mean ALL the time, we all THINK we can drive using them. If you ask me, I can talk, drink coffee and put a new CD in the slot...all while driving. My husband might disagree that I am quite that good at multitasking.

And have you ever watched anyone ELSE while they're talking and driving?makes you start thinking about the possibilities of mounting a weapon on the front of your vehicle.

Truthfully, is it really a huge deal to use a hands free?

Guess you missed his point about drinking and driving.

 

[jillian]

Guess you missed his point about drinking and driving.

Nope.

But I see you missed mine. Heh! Nothing unusual.

 

[Gunny]

Nope.

But I see you missed mine. Heh! Nothing unusual.

DO get over yourself. Nothing to miss. You took the opportunity to misconstrue what was said about drinking and driving to go on a personal tirade against drunks.

You think drunks aren't punished serverly enough. Got it. I disagree.

You think you can barrel down the road at 70 mph in two tons of steel and be in complete control while having your attention from driving diverted. Got it. I disagree.

 

[Diuretic]

Hands free doesn't make a jot of difference. I'm not educated enough to explain everything in scientific terms but I know that when you're driving and talking and trying to communicate intricate concepts to someone else per phone or radio it's bloody impossible. I've pulled over in a police car and talked to someone on the radio when it gets more complex than "roger". It's just too bloody dangerous. Once your mind starts dealing with complex concepts you just don't see stuff in front of you.

 

[insein]

Do you really have an objection to people not drinking and driving? Personally, I think if you drink, you shouldn't get behind the wheel. Now, I don't mean a guy having a beer or two, but I know if I've had more than one drink, I really am not as capable on the road. Why should someone who's been pounding down drinks and is dangerous enough to get behind the wheel not get arrested. Personally, I think we're far too lenient with drunks.

As for cell phones. As someone who is guilty as anyone of using her phone while driving...and I mean ALL the time, we all THINK we can drive using them. If you ask me, I can talk, drink coffee and put a new CD in the slot...all while driving. My husband might disagree that I am quite that good at multitasking.

And have you ever watched anyone ELSE while they're talking and driving?makes you start thinking about the possibilities of mounting a weapon on the front of your vehicle.

Truthfully, is it really a huge deal to use a hands free?

Here's the point. You shouldnt drink and drive if you are shitfaced drunk. However, the legal limits in most states are now to the point that if you took cough syrup and went to drive, you run the risk of a DUI, losing your license for a year and doing some jail time. The harshest of DUI violations should be reserved for those that are indeed impaired, not leaglly drunk. Ive seen a few friends that were pulled over after watching a football game where they only had 1 or 2 beers and ended up losing their license for a year. They werent drunk, but the state said they were. So now they lose their license which in most cases means they lose their job, they then lose their home. It also causes strife amongst family members because they are looked upon as criminals of some kind. The "DUI" or "DWI" labels haunt people for the rest of their lives. So make it for people who are actually impaired and shouldnt be driving.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

how will the cops know you are not just singing along to the radio, not talking on a hands-free set that isn't visible? how is this any different than changing stations on the radio? or talking to someone next to you? How about kids who are yelling or fighting in the backseat? Aren't THEY a distraction??

i am so hoping this doesn't even come to discussion here in MN. What about those that are on the road all day for their jobs like my husband? He relies on his work cell phone, mostly the nextel 2-way feature, for his job and tasks during the day, whether it be a dispatch call telling him about a pick-up or drop-off he needs to make, or a call from a contractor. If he pulled off to the side of the road every time he got a call either through the phone or the 2-way, he would never get his job done. If they installed CB's, how is his boss supposed to call to have him come back to the shop to pick up an emergency road closure for Xcel energy when Tim is out dropping off a load, and isn't in the truck to hear it for another 30-45 minutes?

I mostly use my 2-way and rarely use my cell phone, because everyone we know now has nextel. It's just like using a walkie talkie or a CB... will they outlaw that too??

 

[insein]

how will the cops know you are not just singing along to the radio, not talking on a hands-free set that isn't visible? how is this any different than changing stations on the radio? or talking to someone next to you? How about kids who are yelling or fighting in the backseat? Aren't THEY a distraction??

i am so hoping this doesn't even come to discussion here in MN. What about those that are on the road all day for their jobs like my husband? He relies on his work cell phone, mostly the nextel 2-way feature, for his job and tasks during the day, whether it be a dispatch call telling him about a pick-up or drop-off he needs to make, or a call from a contractor. If he pulled off to the side of the road every time he got a call either through the phone or the 2-way, he would never get his job done. If they installed CB's, how is his boss supposed to call to have him come back to the shop to pick up an emergency road closure for Xcel energy when Tim is out dropping off a load, and isn't in the truck to hear it for another 30-45 minutes?

I mostly use my 2-way and rarely use my cell phone, because everyone we know now has nextel. It's just like using a walkie talkie or a CB... will they outlaw that too??

Basically if they want to make driving safer, make the test harder to pass. Make it a REAL driving test and not a stroll through a parking lot. People would have to learn how to drive correctly instead of hopping in a car and learning on the fly.

Other than that, Driving is one of the most dangerous activities a human being can undertake in their lives. Your taking a 150lb (average) bag of flesh and blood and strapping it inside a 3 ton hunk of metal that can move at speeds in upwards of 80mph. Then add that you are throwing about 100 million more of these beasts into the same area everyday, all day. Stopping these "distractions" isnt making it any safer. All its doing is making the government richer and the jails fuller.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Here's the point. You shouldnt drink and drive if you are shitfaced drunk. However, the legal limits in most states are now to the point that if you took cough syrup and went to drive, you run the risk of a DUI, losing your license for a year and doing some jail time. The harshest of DUI violations should be reserved for those that are indeed impaired, not leaglly drunk. Ive seen a few friends that were pulled over after watching a football game where they only had 1 or 2 beers and ended up losing their license for a year. They werent drunk, but the state said they were. So now they lose their license which in most cases means they lose their job, they then lose their home. It also causes strife amongst family members because they are looked upon as criminals of some kind. The "DUI" or "DWI" labels haunt people for the rest of their lives. So make it for people who are actually impaired and shouldnt be driving.

I agree that in some cases DUI laws are a bit too strict, but the problem is this:

You have a 110 pound woman who downs two beers, and a 220 pound man who downs two beers. Obviously, the man will be less intoxicated than the woman, but the woman could be beyond gone depending on genetic factors as well as others. How do we qualify who is drunk and who is not? So the state came up with rather arbitrary laws that place certain blood alcohol contents as legally intoxicated. (Intereseting side note: There have been peer reviewed papers debating the accuracy of breathalyzer tests as they do not take into account the partial vapor pressure of alcohol fluctuating with temperature, in other words you may appear more drunk than you actually are).

Even in cases where people are below the legal limit, they can still be intoxicated moreso than someone who is over the limit. It all depends on your body's chemistry and thats the major problem with enforcing drinking and driving laws, is that there is no standard by which to measure how intoxicated someone is.

BTW, your friends didnt get DUI for one or two beers.

 

[Redhots]

It'll never pass.

People are too attached to their cell phones and everyone has one now.

 

[insein]

BTW, your friends didnt get DUI for one or two beers.

All depends on the cop i guess. My one friend is about 5' 8" 145lbs. He was over the limit, so the cop hauled him away.