Yes. Except that you’ve hit on the crux of the OP’s question. If it is proven that cell phone usage in the car is as dangerous as driving drunk, it should be a felony. Similarly, if it were proven that “eating and drinking in the car” is as dangerous as driving drunk, it should be a felony. Either that, or the penalties for driving drunk should be lessened.
Yes.
BTW, how do they know what did or did not cause accidents. How many cell phone yakkers admit it to the cops?
Controlled tests of people driving while talking on cell phones shows a level of impairment comparable to being drunk.
But yes, any sort of inattentive driving should be penalized. You keep your hands on the wheel and absolutely minimalize things like adjusting your defroster or your radio (there’s a difference between turning up the volume on your stereo and reaching over to paw through a stack of cds.
No stuffing of cheeseburgers into the face. No application of make up. No reading the paper and no cell phone babbling should be allowed. The safety of my children is more important than your phone call.
I agree. Only rarely is a cop going to ask whether a cell phone was being used. And even more rarely will the at-fault party volunteer that they were on the cell phone.
It is a flawed study.
In a perfect world all wreckless/erratic driving would be punished more harshly regardless of the cause.
In a perfect world, there would be no accidents.
Slight tangent but I can’t help myself:
I was on the freeway once and the lady next to me was reading a paper-back novel!
Shame on the taxi-drivers and anyone else who reads a map while driving! You can’t look at the road and the map at the same time. Your eyes need to be on the road at all times.
I am sixty-one. I think that driving skills and reflexes should be tested beginning at age sixty. I would normally have said at the age when social security begins, but that is going to go up, I think. And sixty is young enough not to be too offensive.
I don’t eat, smoke or use a cell phone while driving. I might punch a button on the radio. I’ve never driven under the influence, although I did sit in a car once for a very long time with the air-conditioning going full blast on my face. (My first father-in-law opened the original O’Charley’s with Charley Watkins and invented a drink called the Wild Irish Rose. He had to test it on someone. I swear, the rose had wilted before I drove away.)
Please. Get me off the streets when I am done. But get the other nitwits now.
Very good idea. As it is now, it is up to the kids to decide when their parents are too old- what kid would be comfortable making that decision?
As for cell phones- I would be comfortable restricting them to hands-free-only in city limits. It would be best to ban them completely in town, but that is impractical.
My only problem is that cell phones aren’t distractions if you limit your conversations to under a minute (last-minute directions or grocery lists, etc), but the people who want to rehash last night’s argument in excruciating detail ruin it for the rest of us. As usual.
That is a thorny question, indeed. My dad recently died in a wreck that was his fault. (He pulled out into oncoming traffic and was struck broadside. No one else was injured, thankfully.) My dad was 84, but mentally still sharp, and still physically active.
On the other hand, I could tell his driving skills were beginning to decline. My sister and I tried to talk him into not driving, and for the most part, he listened. He had a Girl Friday who would drive him around most of the time. But on occasion, through stubbornness or because he found himself stranded at his house (he lived in a rural area), he would get behind the wheel.
The dilemma for children is: how do you force your parent not to drive? Particularly when that parent is mentally alert and stubbornly independent? My sister and I wrestled with this, but found no solution, other than to strongly encourage our dad to let his helper drive him. (We live 90 miles away, which created logistical problems in monitoring the situation.)
It would be better for all concerned, I think, if the state took this decision out of the individual’s hands (or the children’s hands), by instituting some sort of annual testing for older drivers (along the lines suggested by Zoe).
(However, I know how small towns work, too. I have a feeling that even if such a system were in place local enforcement agents might let old acquaintances slide with a wink and a nod.)
Let me say first that I agree with much of the above that cell phone usage needs to be further regulated. I’ve talked on my cell in the car and there’s no question that it is distracting.
There is a crucial difference between cell phone usage (or eating, or adjusting the radio, etc.) and drunk driving, however, that hasn’t been mentioned, and that is length/control of impairment. If you get behind the wheel drunk, you’re pretty much drunk from that point until you stop driving (one way or the other) and there’s NOTHING you can do about it. If you are talking on your phone, it could last for one minute, 10 minutes, 3 hours or whatever. But you can stop at any point. Adjusting the radio and other things also take short periods of time and can be stopped at any point.
So what I’m arguing is NOT that these activities are any less dangerous than drunk driving, but they are more controllable. When you are drunk, you are impaired, end of story. You can’t turn it off.
So I think there is a difference. And the suggestion that drunk driving penalties should be REDUCED because the penalties for the other stuff are light or non-exisistent is just ludicrous.
Then do you think that the penalties for driving while on a cell phone should be increased to be at least as severe as drunk driving, assuming that the study is correct?
My condolences, spoke. And I agree. I’ve heard similar stories too many times to think that leaving the decision up to family is ethical.
In theory, I don’t have a problem with that, if it can be proved that talking on a cell phone impairs a driver as much as being drunk. Impaired is impaired, as far as I’m concerned. But I’m not sure this particular study proves that for me. Here is the only line about drunk driving from the article:
Is this referring only to reaction times or is there more involved? This article really only talks about slower reaction times. Being drunk hampers a lot more than that (e.g. depth perception). I could be wrong, but I doubt you get too many cell talkers driving on the wrong side of the road and crashing headlong into other traffic, for example, as happens all too often with drunk drivers. I’m happy to be convinced otherwise, as I think people in general take driving way too lightly. And if it can be proven that cell talking impairs as much as being drunk, then I say let’s make some laws.
Laszlo, you are at least the second person in this thread having a problem understanding what hypothetical means. Forget the article. We’re supposed to assume we know for a fact that cell phone drivers are worse (more dangerous) than drunk drivers.
In our hypothetical situation, should the laws be as strict as for drunk drivers? Should society see cell phone drivers as the same “monsters” as they see drunk drivers?
Oh, get off your horse. I’m not having trouble understanding anything. You asked my opinion on penalties “assuming the study is correct.” I related my reservations about said study, then clearly relayed my opinion about penalties. To wit:
and
See? Hypothetical (if it can be proven…), conclusion (yes). Who’s having trouble understanding?
Question 1: See above.
Question 2: The reason society views drunk drivers as monsters is because of the inordinate amount of death and injury they cause through their irresponsible behavior. If cell phone drivers are killing and injuring people as well through their irresponsible behavior, then they should be held equally contemptible.
And now let me apologize for the snarkiness of that post. There was no need for that attitude and I am sorry, xray.
I’m still right, though 
I think rjung said it best when he asked
So, if it is proven that simply having a conversation (whether on the phone or in person) impairs your reaction time as much as being drunk, should laws against conversations in the car be as strict as for drunk drivers?
One other thing not talked about here is that there is drunk and then there is really f*cking drunk. According to this, if you weigh 160 pounds and you:
[ul]
[li] drink 3 beers, your blood alcohol content is 0.07, which is described as “Some impairment”[/li][li] drink 4 beers, your blood alcohol content is 0.09, which is described as “Definite impairment, illegal in almost all states”[/li][li] drink 5 beers, your blood alcohol content is 0.11, which is described as “Obvious Impairment, illegal in ALL states”[/li][/ul]
And if you drink enough more, you get to BAC of 0.3 which is described as “Illegal everywhere; may need medical attention”
Is the law currently equally strict with people who drive with a BAC of 0.08 as those who drive with 0.11 or 0.2?
- If it is, then that’s wrong.
- If not, and if talking on the cell phone while driving impairs you similarly to a BAC of 0.08, then the punishment should be similar to the punishment for driving with BAC of 0.08, and not more.
I realize that this wasn’t directed at me, but wanted to respond anyway.
Yes. The thing is, a having a simple conversation doesn’t impair one’s abilities as much as driving drunk. If it did, I think the nature of driving would be changed. In other words, we’d be driving bumper cars or somesuch.
I believe there is a single cutoff for DUI.
Personally, I think there should be a single “impaired or distracted” law. If you try to list each and every activity a driver must avoid to stay focused on the road, you’re going to end up with a thousand individual laws (no cell phones, no alcohol, no upper/downer prescription drugs, no eating, no applying lipstick, no shaving, no reading, no changing clothes, no changing someone’s diaper, no changing your own diaper, no woodcarving, no burning CDs, no embroidery, no assembling of Snap-Tite models of aircraft carriers, no getting your hair cut, no double-entry bookkeeping, no tattooing, no juggling of geese) and all sorts of loopholes (“but you didn’t say I couldn’t juggle ducks”). A single catchall that makes people liable if they are engaging in any action or in any physical circumstance that interferes with their ability to drive is a better approach, and it lends itself to law enforcement ad campaigns besides.
Further, the penalties should be severe. You get one failure, or a second chance if your first failure doesn’t cause anything above moderate injuries or modest property damage (for which you are of course entirely responsible). Then your driving privileges are revoked, period. You can apply for reinstatement, but you’re on the same probationary period as when you were on permit, i.e. you can’t drive alone; you have to have a licensed driver with you.
I’m all for strong laws, but we have a tendency to overwrite them. A well-constructed common-sense catchall admits no loopholes.
(A cell phone ban is being vehemently debated in the current session of my state legislature. I agree that they’re a problem, but I disagree that legislation targeting them specifically and to the exclusion of related issues is the right approach.)