It’s just not the same. Talking to someone on the phone versus chatting in the flesh. You have to pay more attention to a disembodied voice than one sitting right next to you.
But, let’s play along anyway. If you’re honestly trying to say that a hands-free cell phone is less dangerous than a cigarette while driving, I’d remind you that you still have to answer a hands-free cell call, which takes about as much time as lighting a cigarette (what, maybe 3 seconds?) and hang up, which I’d consider akin to stubbing the butt in the ash tray. The time inbetween? Well, one thing is, in essence, a passive act while the other requires a division of attention between the road and a conversation, which is far more active. Regardless of what type of phone you’re using, it’s always going to be more distracting than a cigarette. Trying to paint cigarettes as the big bad guy here is just silly. We know they’re evil & cancerous & all that, but please: this is about attention & talking takes more of that than smoking.
It may be distracting to light/extinguish cigarettes while driving, but perhaps this is made up for by the heightened concentration nicotine gives the driver.
I wondered the same thing jjimm did, so: do you have a cite for this? Or more generally, have there been any studies showing that hands-free cell phones are more dangerous than having a conversation with a passenger?
jjimm: Plenty of studies out there for this, most of which seem to support my hypothesis, but, in the interest of full disclosure, not every study does. I’d link them all, but there are simply too many. I googled “hands free cell phone safety study” and hit the jackpot. Like I said, I’d say two thirds seem to claim that hands-free cells are as dangerous as any other mobile and that those are usually more hazardous than in-car distractions.
Doesn’t the smoke get in your eyes and temporarily blind you sometimes? That can’t be good when your driving.
For the smart-@sses, everything that distracts you from driving SHOULD be banned… even the rediculous stuff. And hey, it’s better than being a dumb-@ss… right?
I don’t smoke, and I don’t own a cell phone, so I would shed no tears if either were banned for drivers. However, I can’t believe that smoking poises nearly as much accident potential as using a cell phone.
I’ve seen tons of morons weaving in and out of traffic, crossing into the breakdown lane or over the line into the on-coming lane, pulling out in front of people without looking and not stopping for lights/stop signs, and you know, lots of those idiots were using phones, and almost were none smoking. You can’t ban driving like a moron, but taking the privilege of talking on the phone while doing so would probably help a lot.
I had to take a drivers’ ed course a few weeks back to avoid paying a speeding ticket. The instructor’s point was that ANYTHING that distracts you from paying full attention to driving is dangerous, and anything that diverts your eyes from the road is dangerous. Reaching over to change a channel on a radio, putting a new CD in the player, putting the coffee cup in the holder, lighting a cigarette, picking up a cell phone, and so on. It takes only a fraction of a second of inattention to cause (or not be able to prevent) an accident.
Smoke has never "temporarily blind"ed me while driving. The window open, plus traveling at high speeds, forces smoke out the window. And if you consider refuting your original hypothesis through evidence both anecdotal & researched to be smart-ass, well then, guilty as charged.
…which is all true. But, say, you lit up a smoke at a stop light? Not distracting. Nothing like a prolonged mobile conversation. Plus, expecting people to keep their hands and ten & two and not change the radio station or have a sip of water or coffee while driving is a little unrealistic, even if moderately unsafe.