This article claims that cell phone drivers are worse than drunks, and 74+ year old drivers are worse than cell phone drivers. Now, DISREGARDING the study, and assuming it’s true, what could/should we do about this?
Drunk drivers in this country have been demonized to the point that it’s not uncommon to hear them called “monsters” and “intentional, deliberate murderers” (especially around here), but what if it turned out that Mary Sue Soccer-mom on her cell phone and grandpa Joe in his Town Car both posed a greater threat?
Should old people and cell phone talkers be sent to jail/fined/suspended/charged with murder, or should we lighten the penalties for drunk driving?
Is it hypocritical that there are such harsh penalties for drunk driving and no penalties at all for two things that are more dangerous?
Seems a bit premature to talk about corrective actions when the dangers haven’t been firmly established yet, ainnit?
We know alcohol affects driving ability (and a lot of other motor and mental skills). The case against driving with cell phones (even hands-free systems, if I recall the article correctly) has yet to be made with the same level of fidelity.
(Besides, this could be the start of a weird slippery slope. If hands-free talking on a phone is a driving risk, will we need laws to prevent drivers from having conversations with their fellow passengers as well? “Sorry, ma’am, but I have to give you a ticket for chatting while driving…”)
Okay, I’ll debate. First, however, I insist on taking issue with the study.
When I first drove with my cell phone I did, indeed, think, “Hmm, I’m more distracted with this than if I were drunk!” But I got used to it.
After all, I used to be a cab driver. All cab drivers are juggling microphones, listening to the radio for bells to jump, filling in their trip sheets, consulting their street guides, etc., all while driving crazily through the streets of whatever city, and yet they don’t have a disproportionate number of wrecks. For a fleet. (At any rate, the police do much, much worse–as a fleet. Probably something to do with the sirens.)
So this IS something you can learn.
However, if the study is in fact correct, then on the second offense the offender should have its license suspended. If it’s a 74+ offender, it should have its license pulled the first time. Great whopping fines all around, as in DUI/DWI. Driving school. Etc.
Sigh, I knew some would say this, even though I put “what if” in the title, put “disregarding [the study]” in bold letters and caps, and said to assume it was true. This is a hypothetical debate. This is the debate we could (or could not) have in X years when the study is proven true (or false.)
As for what to do about it, I don’t know. Lowering the penalties for drunk driving seems like a bad idea, and banning cell phone use in cars has problems with enforcement - how do you know whether someone’s talking to a passenger, or on a hands free cell phone? And as rjung points out, even if talking to passengers turns out to be equally dangerous, do we really want to ban conversation in cars just to prevent a few accidents?
But here’s a thought for elderly drivers. In many states, young drivers can only receive restricted licenses, which prohibit them from driving at night, or with passengers around the same age. The justification is that young drivers are statistically more dangerous than average drivers. Well, if elderly drivers are also dangerous–and in fact, the same statistics show they’re as dangerous as young drivers–why not restrict their driving too?
I think driving regulations, overall, need to be much more rigorous. I researched this for a class, and I determined that I think the best single solution is to increase the amount of time prospective drivers spend behind the wheel under supervision before being allowed to drive alone. I, for one, think I could have had a better driving record if I had had more supervised driving time required.
But that’s a tangent all on it’s own. On something slightly tongue-in-cheek, but related to the OP, I think that if we’re not going to outlaw cell phone use by drivers in motion, we should implement a license system, wherein one must pass a stringent test in order to obtain the permit for operating a cell phone while driving.
I say this every time one of these “what shall we do about dangerous elderly/drunk/cell-phone-yakking drivers?!?” debates comes up, and I’ll say it again: we need more and better alternatives to driving.
Yes, the US is a sparsely-populated and car-dependent country, we’ll always rely heavily on individual vehicles, yadda yadda, I know all that and I’m not arguing that we should get rid of them. But face it, you cannot have a society where almost everybody needs to drive to get almost everywhere, without having a goodly proportion of people incapacitated by alcohol, age-related disorders, and/or simple distraction frequently climbing behind the wheel.
People don’t want to be stranded at home or somewhere else just because they’re not fit to drive, either temporarily or long-term. As a result, they will deceive themselves about their unfitness to drive. If you really want to get the dangerous drivers off the roads, you have to find other ways for them to get where they need to go. Setting things up so that people are completely dependent on driving their own cars, and then just telling them they can’t because they’re too old, or too tipsy, or too distracted by an emergency phone call, is stupidly unrealistic.
I’m thinking of all those poor, unhappy 74-year-old drunk drivers who like to talk on their cellphoes, whilst driving backwards at night with no lights on, doing 85 mph in a 40 zone on the wrong side of the road.
First of all, I believe it to some extent. I don’t know if all cell phone drivers drive like drunks, but all the people driving like drunks during commute hours are cellphone users. It reminds me of driving during Homecoming in Champaign, Illinois - very dangerous.
Besides banning them, very hard to do, with smarter cars maybe there can be a system that senses erratic driving and turns off the cellphone. If someone can’t drive properly, they’re going to be embarassed.
Oh, and cell phone use is nothing like talking to someone in a car. Drive erratically with someone there, or if a hazard comes up, the person will shut up. Not so with someone at the other end of a phoneline.
Well, driving your own car is the strongest and most immediate evidence of the personal freedom we enjoy in this country. When one gets behind the wheel, one is free to drive anywhere in the country at any time they want. It’d be tough to root that out.
But you don’t always drink or talk on a cellphone, whereas you are always your current age. For drinking, cabs should be more than sufficient for handling the problem. For cellphones? That’s a tougher one. Perhaps car manufacturers could implement scrambling systems to block cell transmissions unless the car is off or in park.
Traffic officials will tell you that conversations with passengers is indeed a risky practice, as is eating, drinking (non-alcoholic beverages), smoking, fiddling with the radio, and basically anything that is not 100% focusing on driving.
Some problems arise with the 100% focus on driving, though. Some people have a harder time focusing on a single task than others. And some roadways were designed a bit too much on the boring side. Long, flat, straight stretches of road are anathema to maintaining focus.
Yes, it would be hypocritical. IMO, as far as cell phones go, the penalties should be similar, if not the same. I’ll not touch the age issue, as it’s much fuzzier.
I do not own a cell phone, so I can’t talk on one while driving. The only two people I know who have cell phones that I also happen to know their phone habits both pull over if they’re going to use the phone in the car. Which is appropriate, IMO.
Look - it’s a conscious decision that people make. If it’s proven to be dangerous, people should be made aware of that and be held culpable for liability (the reasonable person standard). I’m not sure how enforcement would work, but that’s a different issue.
From my own personal experience, when I am driving while talking on a phone, I stay in one lane and I make sure I have a safe following distance because I have noticed my own inability to multi-task. In addition, I am completely capable (and often do) just stop talking when I need to react to a situation. Point being I can quickly return to being a “normal” driver.
But when I have driven after a few drinks (which I rarely do, but I have in the past), I have noticed I am much less focused the whole trip. I don’t have the ability to quickly become a “normal” driver no matter how hard I try.
I don’t think the technology for that exists today. Movie theaters and other places that block cell phones at all times do it by filling the walls with material that blocks radio signals. That could work in a car, but it’d block phone calls at all times, and it could still be worked around by using an outside antenna.
CDMA, which I believe is still the most widely used cell phone technology in the United States, is based on military technology and is resistant to jamming - it’d be very inefficient to have a jammer built into the car that can disrupt cell signals, and it’d be impossible to do so without disrupting nearby phones outside the car.
Most of automobile laws have to do with safety and protection of others. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
We require licensing before someone is allowed to drive, and we put heavy penalties on people who are caught driving without a license, for example. We do not allow the blind to drive – anyone shouting that this is unfair treatment of the disabled? We do not allow the ill-sighted to drive unless they are wearing corrective lenses.
We require that cars have certain safety features, like brakes and seatbelts on the inside, like fenders and turn signals and brake lights on the outside.
We do not let people under a certain age drive. I think it makes sense that people over a certain age have to prove their driving ability. Personal anecdote: My father, at age 74, went to the drivers license area – he wanted a photo ID, but he didn’t want a license. He said that he didn’t see well enough or react fast enough to drive. The clerk said, “Oh, don’t worry about that, you can get your license renewed anyway.”
Testing should be much more rigorous. Driving while under the influence of a proved reaction-inhibitor – like alcohol, drugs (legal and illegal), and cell-phones – should be prohibited.
BTW, my doctor said to me recently, “You know that you shouldn’t be operating heavy machinery when you take these pills. A car is a piece of heavy machinery.”
We’re not talking about a “right” to drive, it’s a licensed privilege, and we save lives and property if we actually enforce the laws and common sense.
[nitpick?] There was a thread about this recently, and I believe the consensus was that you have a right to receive a driver’s license if you meet the requirements. If driving isn’t a right, then neither is voting - they both have age limits and other requirements you must meet, they can both be taken away if you break certain laws, and you need to register before you can vote, just as you need to be licensed before you can drive.
Of course, that doesn’t contradict anything else in your post. All rights can be restricted for various reasons. [/nitpick?]
Yes, talking on a cell phone while driving should be a felony and people over a certain age should have to pass a basic driving test when they renew their license every year.
I do not want to hear from anyone who thinks that he or she is some special exception who can drive and talk on a cell at the same time. Drunks say the same thing.
I have been nearly rear ended by drivers talking on cellphones IN PARKING LOTS! A woman (excitedly jabbering on her cell phone) once missed running into me, because she was so involved with her (obviously critical ) conversation.
What’s even MORE bizarre-I see people on the highway, talking into their cell phones, while drinking coffee…talk about stupid.
Yes. cell phone use while driving is stupid, and should be illegal. If you need to talk to someone, pull off the raod and stop. You have NO right to endanger the lives of others.
Should “eating and drinking in the car” and “adjusting the radio, cassette, or CD player” also be a felony, since they cause more accidents than cell phone driving?
