"Cell Phone Drivers worse than drunks and 74+ year olds worse than CPDs" So, what if?

[LouisB]

Zoe said:

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 will be sixty-five next month and I just renewed my license through the mail. It cost me $15.00 and now I am licensed to drive until the age of seventy-one, when I expect to be able to again renew my license without any testing. I think this is absolutely wrong, but what is the alternative? If we institute testing at and beyond a certain age, how do we pay for it? Around here, existing testing sites are filled pretty much every minute they are open. I’ve no idea how much it would cost to expand those sites, but I imagine it would be prohibitive. I do think “something” should be done; the question is what and when?

[Polerius]

@Digital Stimulus

The thing is, a having a simple conversation doesn’t impair one’s abilities as much as driving drunk.

That’s what I assume also, but according to several studies, not just the one in the OP, the impairment from talking on cell phones while driving exists even for hands-free operation. This leads some people to speculate that it is the fact that you are in a conversation that impairs you, and not having to handle the phone while driving.

Of course, maybe it can be shown that having a conversation with a person in the car is less distracting than having a conversation with someone on the phone, but research is needed to prove this point, if true.

[Broomstick]

As a pilot, I was trained to fly an airplane and talk on a radio at the same time.

When I first got a cellphone, I thought “Gee, driving is simpler than flying an airplane, I should be able to drive and talk at the same time”. Uh… no. talking on a cellphone was MUCH more distracting than talking on the airplane radio, even though times when I was talking on the radio - such as landing - involved doing some complicated things that required good focus.

I talked to a bunch of my pilot friends and it seems this is a common phenomena amongst us.

I sat down and I thought about WHY this would be so - in flying, having a radio and talking to other people enhances safety, why would the opposite be true in a car?

Then it hit me - in the airplane, I’m talking about what I’m doing, at that moment. The conversation is all here I am, there I’m going, this is what I see happening right now. It’s not a distraction, it actually helps keep me focused by not allowing my mouth to run on about trivia to the passenger next to me. And aviation radio is required to stick strictly to the business at hand, casual conversation is not only discouraged, it can incur penalties.

Cellphones, on the other hand… you can talk about anything. Including emotionally charged items that only further distract you. The conversations tend to be about anything BUT what you’re doing. And I think that’s really the problem - what it does to your mind. And that’s why hands-free sets don’t make much difference. It’s not so much what your hands are doing, the problem is your mind is elsewhere. That, really, is the problem with ALL driving distractions - it takes your mind off driving, which is far more dangerous than taking one hand off the wheel.

Then there is the tyranny of the phone - I’ve had people yell at me because I didn’t answer their call instantly - nevermind my voice mail message specifically says I will NOT answer the phone while the car is moving. So the phone rings. I wait the few minutes until it is safe to answer. I call the person back. I get screamed at. Too effing bad - my safety is more important than anything you have to say to me. But there is this cultural thing where people feel they have to answer that ring IMMEDIATELY. No, you don’t - trust me, the world will not end if you wait. Likewise, there was one occassion where I was driving and talking (yes, I still do it on side streets or stopped in a traffic jam) and literally dropped the phone to deal with a situation. Person on the other end went ballistic. Gee, I guess I was supposed to engage the time stasis device to allow me to complete the call/explain WTF was going on? No - driving takes precedence, sorry. But while I will drop the phone, literally, without taking the time to explain many other people will not, due to training in politeness and such. I’m all for politeness, but not when it’s a hazard, which is can be in some situations.

As for older drivers… yes, there should be testing of driving skills and reflexes after a certain point. Personally, I’m all for this at ANY age. But if you don’t have alternatives to driving you’ll only wind up with illegal drivers.

[borschevsky]

@Polerius

From here

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?

Does that study take into account the frequencies of those factors in the general driving population? In the article, he says

Compared to using a cell phone, it is … eight times more likely you may cause an accident by toying with your car stereo.

I’d guess that at least part of this is due to the fact that people toy with their stereo more than they talk on cell phones.

[Polerius]

@borschevsky

Does that study take into account the frequencies of those factors in the general driving population? In the article, he says I’d guess that at least part of this is due to the fact that people toy with their stereo more than they talk on cell phones.

In the end, it doesn’t matter, though. The main point of any related legislation or public information campaign is to save lives.

If we can stop people from using their car stereo while driving, we would save, say 800 lives a year, and if we stop people from using their cell phone while driving, we would save, say 100 lives a year.

So, I think it is a more efficient use of resources (in terms of lives saved) to have a campaign that teaches people to be more careful when using their car stereo, than a campaing that focuses on teaching people to be more careful when talking on their cell phone.

This is despite the fact that cell phone use may be (and I haven’t seen proof that it is), on a per-case basis, more deadly than using your car stereo.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Polerius

In the end, it doesn’t matter, though. The main point of any related legislation or public information campaign is to save lives.

If we can stop people from using their car stereo while driving, we would save, say 800 lives a year, and if we stop people from using their cell phone while driving, we would save, say 100 lives a year.

So, I think it is a more efficient use of resources (in terms of lives saved) to have a campaign that teaches people to be more careful when using their car stereo, than a campaing that focuses on teaching people to be more careful when talking on their cell phone.

Not quite, although your point does play into it. Here’s an example taken to absurdity to make the point: Let’s say that 800 people die every year from using their car stereo, while 100 a year die from cell phone usage in their car. But let’s say the total number of people who use their car stereo is 80 million, while the total number of people who use their cell phone in the car is 10,000.

Which is going to be a more effective educational campaign? One that targets 0.0001% of the people doing it or one that targets 1%? I don’t think I need a cite to say that cell phone usage is growing, while car stereo usage remains close to constant. Which, if true, would indicate that the 100 is going to grow while the 800 will not.

I’ll state again that the numbers I gave are absurd, but that’s not the point. The point is that an effective use of resources is not determined only by the total number of people affected.

[Digital_Stimulus]

I just thought that anyone who was participating in this thread might be interested in looking at this review of Traffic Safety, possibly putting it on their reading list.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Inspect this:
http://crap.jinwicked.com/?j=182
<sigh> I get no respect, no respect at all. Nor even a cameo as a “thank you”.