# Easy cure for cell phone traffic accidents. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 2, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493 "2016-11-02T23:57:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/41 "2016-11-03T20:26:31Z")
> [@DtypeJag](#): > > There has been a rise in traffic deaths after several decades of decline of something like 5-10% since the rise of the cell phone. Further detracting from the OP’s assertion is the fact that cell phone use is a factor in only 1.5% of fatal crashes and injury crashes, [according](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812132) to NHTSA. (pdf; see pp.2-3). In absolute terms, that’s about 400 fatal crashes per year. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/42 "2016-11-03T21:32:18Z")
I’d suggest that forms a lower bound on the true state of play. As of today there is not a uniform federal standard for reporting use of distracting devices as part of traffic accident reporting. ---
**Author:** ![mmmiiikkkeee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mmmiiikkkeee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmiiikkkeee)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/43 "2016-11-03T21:49:01Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > [Not true in Oregon](http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2016/06/does_oregons_hands-free_law_co.html), at least. It is in [Alberta](http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/distracteddriving.htm). I don’t think it says so specifically in the link (you have to go right to the traffic safety act it’s self) but our law even prohibits _holding_ an electronic device; presumably whether it’s working or not. My wife got a ticket just for holding her phone for the purpose of feeling the vibration while waiting for an important text coming in. We both thought she could beat it and she went to court… where the prosecutor pointed out that little factoid in the act. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/44 "2016-11-03T21:54:29Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’ve no real objection to dumb people removing themselves from the planet. It’s a tragedy, but an avoidable one. That’s not by any means the only outcome from this category of stupidity though. > > [Lorry driver who killed four while using phone jailed for 10 years | UK news | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/31/lorry-driver-distracted-phone-jailed-10-years-crash-deaths-tomasz-kroker) As tragic as this incident was, it may also be the answer. The driver tried to claim he wasn’t distracted but a dash cam caught his actions just before and during the crash. If we had such devices mandatory in vehicles to function as “black box” devices to record a driver’s behavior, and only legally accessible in crash investigations, that would help us gather data about the contribution of devices in accidents, help prosecute people guilty of this behavior, and may ultimately act as a deterrent if the driver knows that their behavior will be known if a crash occurs. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/45 "2016-11-03T21:57:48Z")
> [@Lok](#): > > Except that for a large portion of the driving population, large fines already exist. Commercial Motor Vehicle drivers face a fine of up to $2750, and their employers fines up to $11,000. Multiple violations can result in loss of the driver’s CDL, IOW, their ability to work their chosen profession. [FMCSA Mobile Phone restrictions](https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/driver-safety/distracted-driving/mobile-phone-restrictions-fact-sheet)… That link takes you to a page that defines mobile phones but doesn’t define Commercial Motor Vehicle. I presume it refers to buses, trucks, and the like, but does it also apply to cabs? Because I have not been in a taxi for many years without having the driver get on his cell phone for something. In regard to the legislation you refer to, are taxis considered commercial motor vehicles? ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/46 "2016-11-04T02:12:41Z")
Distracted walking is real. A woman in Montreal fell into a freshly poured concrete sidewalk because she was texting. [Plateau: une femme tombe dans un trottoir de «béton mouvant» | La Presse](http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/montreal/201611/02/01-5037232-plateau-une-femme-tombe-dans-un-trottoir-de-beton-mouvant.php) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/47 "2016-11-04T03:00:55Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > For decades Americans were perfectly happy to drink and drive. And to kill lots of people doing so. > > Eventually MADD reached critical mass and the public’s attitude changed. And drunk driving went down. Way down. > > It wasn’t increased enforcement. It wasn’t reduced BAC limits. Although both things helped. > > What made the difference was a decision by the majority of reasonable people to not drink hardly at all before driving. Sure there are still alcoholics and hard core drinkers that drive wasted today. But 10s of millions of “social drinkers” stopped being “social drunk drivers”. > > **If we want to stop distracted driving we need to go hard over on prohibiting built-in computer screens in cars and bump penalties for texting / talking and driving.** And most importantly, once that groundwork is laid, is to get something like MADD going again to change attitudes. Absent that it’ll be like the War on Drugs: an abject failure in the face of an unstoppable tide of noncompliance. Bolding mine. As usual, good, astute observations that I agree with. Except for the bolded part. Prohibiting built-in multifunction screens in cars is neither useful nor realistic. A federal regulation was just passed here that will make back-up cameras mandatory in all new cars, and you can bet that the necessary display screens will be multifunction touch screens, making such built-in screens ubiquitous in all new cars. How is it more dangerous to operate radio controls on such a screen than to operate an actual radio? How is it more dangerous to operate the GPS on such a screen than a window-mounted GPS – and if these were all outlawed, you’d probably have more accidents from morons trying to read maps on their lap or getting lost and making dangerous turns than from anyone looking at a GPS. What I’m saying is that bad drivers will always be bad drivers and good drivers know how to drive safely, and – much as I support laws against genuine distracted driving – at some level there’s only so much you can do to legally mandate against all possible distractions. There’s still going to be the idiot getting into an accident because he’s distracted by a heated argument with the wife – doesn’t matter if it’s on the phone or if she’s sitting right beside him – or because he turns around to yell at the kids in the back seat, or maybe just because he reaches over to change the radio station. You can’t legislate against everything. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > A reminder that hands-free cellphone use may be no better than holding the phone when it comes to distracted driving. > > [https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/16/hands-free-cellphones-make-driving-more-dangerous-not-less/PBKizEbUwZm880QS1PtClN/story.html](https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/16/hands-free-cellphones-make-driving-more-dangerous-not-less/PBKizEbUwZm880QS1PtClN/story.html) I agree. I think the two are about equivalent (the article suggests that handsfree may actually be more dangerous just because it provides the illusion of safety). I have long argued that the distraction of a conversation that demands your attention – a business problem, a sudden personal crisis, an argument – is immeasurably more distracting than the physical act of holding a cell phone to your ear. The unresolved question is how far the law should go and whether it’s justified to ban cell phone use by a driver altogether. What really irks me is that it was never considered a problem until texting (and cell phone email and Internet) became ubiquitous, and now you have morons completely immersed heads-down in their cell phones while driving. It’s hardly a surprise when they end up driving into the back of a garbage truck. But somehow, somewhere in the legislative mindset, “texting while driving” became inextricably linked to “using a cell phone while driving”. A good illustration of this stupidity was a recent newspaper story about a woman who was stopped at a red light and, noticing that her cell phone (which was off) had fallen to the floor, she picked it up and tossed it on the seat beside her. A cop happened to notice this nefarious breach of public safety, and wrote up a ticket charging her with the full force of the new draconian law against distracted driving, which had been prompted by the dangers of texting while driving! The funniest thing about the alleged dangers of merely _ **talking** _ on a handheld cell phone while driving is that here, where there it draws serious legal penalties, it’s perfectly legal for all first responders to do it at any time – police, ambulance, fire. I constantly see cops chatting away on handheld phones while driving (no doubt being reminded by the wife to pick up the dry cleaning), but the funnier thing is how our august legislators think it’s also perfectly safe for them to do it while speeding to emergencies; yes, the driver of a 25-ton fire truck running through a red light can chat on his handheld cell phone, but the ordinary driver gets a $1000 fine and three demerit points. I have loved ones driving the streets and highways of this province and country and I want them to be safe, so I support laws against distracted driving. I just don’t support ridiculous laws. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/48 "2016-11-04T03:02:31Z")
> [@Barbarian](#): > > Distracted walking is real. A woman in Montreal fell into a freshly poured concrete sidewalk because she was texting. [Plateau: une femme tombe dans un trottoir de «béton mouvant» | La Presse](http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/montreal/201611/02/01-5037232-plateau-une-femme-tombe-dans-un-trottoir-de-beton-mouvant.php) That’s not only funny, but somehow the epitome of justice! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/49 "2016-11-04T03:10:00Z")
Y’know, I can understand drunk driving. Yes, it’s stupid, but in addition to impairing your coordination and reaction time, alcohol also impairs your judgement, so I can see how a drunk might not _realize_ that his coordination and reaction time are impaired. And I can also understand talking on the phone while driving. Talking with someone in the passenger seat is, so far as anyone can tell, safe, and it’s counterintuitive (even if true) that the same wouldn’t be true for talking on the phone. But I simply cannot fathom what kind of person would text while driving. The stupidity of that should be blindingly self-evident… and yet people do it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/50 "2016-11-04T05:45:13Z")
> [@CC](#): > > That link takes you to a page that defines mobile phones but doesn’t define Commercial Motor Vehicle. I presume it refers to buses, trucks, and the like, but does it also apply to cabs? Because I have not been in a taxi for many years without having the driver get on his cell phone for something. In regard to the legislation you refer to, are taxis considered commercial motor vehicles? Apparently, taxi drivers are required to have at least a Class C CDL, with an F endorsement. So they should be under the same rules as every other commercial driver. The current rules have only been in use for the last couple years, so before that only the state laws would apply. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/51 "2016-11-04T13:22:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But I simply cannot fathom what kind of person would text while driving. The stupidity of that should be blindingly self-evident… and yet people do it anyway. The smoker knows he is killing himself with every cigarette but does it anyway. It’s not mere stupidity, it’s the power of addiction. People are glued to their smart phones, and driving is only of the myriad activities where people feel they can multitask while texting or doing-whatever on their phones. It is a strange addiction. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/52 "2016-11-04T16:50:31Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > The smoker knows he is killing himself with every cigarette but does it anyway. It’s not mere stupidity, it’s the power of addiction. People are glued to their smart phones, and driving is only of the myriad activities where people feel they can multitask while texting or doing-whatever on their phones. It is a strange addiction. While I am hesitant to extend the use of “addiction” yet again, I think it is indeed at play here. People seem to be addicted to texting, facebook, forum posting (;)) and other use of their cell phones. Years ago, when you saw a car in front of you meandering back and forth, varying speed up and down, and/or not responding to traffic signals, you assumed they were inebriated. Not anymore. Now I assume they are on their cell phone, and given a chance to see at a light or passing them, it is very often true. Even though they _know_ it is dangerous and foolish. As for disabling phones over 10MPH, it bears repeating that passengers - not drivers - should be able to navigate or look up restaurants or text. That seems to preclude a technological solution. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/53 "2016-11-04T17:03:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But I simply cannot fathom what kind of person would text while driving. The stupidity of that should be blindingly self-evident… and yet people do it anyway. One reason why I hate texting\_ they cant stop themselves. I was in a car with the four of us, some years ago, in a complicated area, and we were following one of the passengers GPS Nav. His phone was one of those where you could do only one thing at a time, so he’d get a text, close Nav, open the text, reply to the text, re-open nav, get “re-calibrating” and usually aslo "Turn around and go back…“This happened a half dozen times, to the point we were all yelling **"DAVE, DONT ANSWER IT!** ” but he admitted “I cant help myself”. :mad: And it was only flirting with his GF. Cost us about half a hour in lost driving time. I have seen it in meetings, in conversations- a phone call can go to voice mail, a email can wait- but somehow a Text\* must \*be opened and answered _right now!_:mad:😕 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/54 "2016-11-04T17:15:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And I can also understand talking on the phone while driving. Talking with someone in the passenger seat is, so far as anyone can tell, safe, and it’s counterintuitive (even if true) that the same wouldn’t be true for talking on the phone. There is a difference, and I have seen studies that say talking on a phone is more distracting than talking with a passenger. The reason is that the passenger is right there in the car and instinctively reacts to difficult driving situations and reduces the level of conversation, without even knowing that they are doing that. They see the driving situation (eg - a complicated lane merge at an interchange, a sudden surge in traffic) and they quiet down, to let the driver drive. The person on the other end of the phone has no idea what the driver is facing and just keeps talking, even if the driver is facing a tricky spot, and distracts the driver. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/55 "2016-11-04T21:14:31Z")
Penalties in CA are already ~$500 but almost never enforced. The cops won’t even check phone records in an accident unless someone dies. Meanwhile I see plenty of people openly holding their phones up to their ears, which is illegal, or even driving while looking down at their phone and not looking up _at all_. Also, the CA Supreme Court has ruled that it’s okay to check the navigation on your phone while driving, which, fine, but it can pretty distracting unless done carefully. I believe there is some research to show that the smartphone experience is uniquely compelling in ways that are comparable to addiction. What about requiring cell phones, if used in moving cars, to plug into a special jack available only in the passenger seat and rear seats? Cords would not be long enough to reach the driver. Yes, someone would make “cheater” cords, but it would make it sufficiently hard that it would deter most. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/56 "2016-11-04T21:37:45Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > What about requiring cell phones, if used in moving cars, to plug into a special jack available only in the passenger seat and rear seats? Cords would not be long enough to reach the driver. Yes, someone would make “cheater” cords, but it would make it sufficiently hard that it would deter most. And someone would have to jack around 🙂 with installing these things at every passenger seat on every bus and passenger railcar? ---
**Author:** ![robardin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@robardin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robardin)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/57 "2016-11-04T21:50:43Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > … cell phone use is a factor in only 1.5% of fatal crashes and injury crashes, [according](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812132) to NHTSA. (pdf; see pp.2-3). In absolute terms, that’s about 400 fatal crashes per year. That’s an interesting publication. It does show that “distracted driving” is inovlved in 18% of injury crashes and 16% of all police-reported crashes, of which “cell phone use” is only a subset - “only” 14% of the distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes. In other words, 86% of the time, a driver distracted to the point of resulting in a fatal crash was doing one of the other “distracted” activities: eating, fiddling with the radio or AC or GPS, talking to passengers (probably turning and looking at them - which I’ve seen drivers do!), and so on. > [@cormac262](#): > > Unfortunately the car companies seem to be “adapting” to protect these people to keep them around longer: all the automatic braking, automatic lane changing detection features that seem to be popping up in more and more vehicles. > > It seems these “safety” features are actually “enabling” not paying attention, and thereby enabling talking/texting on cell phones while driving. I can certainly see the appeal and selling aspects of these features. But I also see a big danger in “protecting people against their own lack of responsibility” while driving a vehicle. I think this hits the nail on the head. Disengaged driving is the problem. And “automatic safety features” sounds great, until it seems like a certain class of drivers are not using them as backstop failsafes but (even if unconsciously) relying on them as relieving them of the burden of paying attention to other vehicles, road conditions, and pedestrians. My oldest child is about to start driving, and I’m planning on doing something retro: giving her a manual transmission car to use. Where it takes two hands and two feet to keep the car from lurching or stalling, instead of being able to coast using periperhal vision and one hand and one foot. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/58 "2016-11-04T23:00:12Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > Penalties in CA are already ~$500 but almost never enforced. Not sure if “CA” means California or Canada. But a cop in California stopped me once because he thought I was using my phone (I wasn’t). If I had been, I don’t know if he would have ticketed me or just warned me. I know at least one other person who was also stopped for phone use. –Mark ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/59 "2016-11-05T00:59:35Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > And someone would have to jack around 🙂 with installing these things at every passenger seat on every bus and passenger railcar? No, I was thinking of passenger cars. And not retrofitting, of course, for installation in new cars. Bus drivers can bee seen breaking the law by passengers. For trains, a cell phone disrupter (is that a thing?) in the cab would work. There was a fatal train crash in LA a couple years ago caused by a driver texting. Shouldn’t need a phone at all in the cab. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493/60 "2016-11-05T01:01:05Z")
> [@markn\_1](#): > > Not sure if “CA” means California or Canada. But a cop in California stopped me once because he thought I was using my phone (I wasn’t). If I had been, I don’t know if he would have ticketed me or just warned me. I know at least one other person who was also stopped for phone use. > > –Mark California. I also know someone who was ticketed for looking at her phone–at a red light! This is low hanging fruit enforcement though. I wish they would do phone crackdowns the way they do speed crackdowns on the freeways. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/easy-cure-for-cell-phone-traffic-accidents/770493.md?page=4)