If you think “watching traffic” and “driving” are things that distract you from driving, you’re not a very good driver.
Part of this debate seems to revolve around the erroneous notion of “multi-tasking.” The fact of the matter is that the human brain does not actually multi-task; it simulates multi-tasking by sequencing and processing discreet elements extemely quickly. From an NSC white paperon the distracted brain*:
The upshot is that while talking on a cell phone and driving, each of those tasks must be performed by your brain separately and sequentially, with each task taking a back seat while your brain processes the other. This means that while you’re brain is engaged on the phone conversation, it is *not *engaged on driving. This is irrespective of whether you are holding the phone in your hand or are speaking into a hands-free device.
But it gets worse. In an effort to more efficiently simulate multi-tasking, your brain filters focus and attention and does so in a manner that a person isn’t even aware of, which means vital information, such as a traffic light turning red, simply might be ignored by your brain for the sake of expediency. This means slower response time – or no response at all – which directly translates into dramatically higher risk of mishap.
None of this is based on speculation, supposition, or best guesses, as has been proposed by a few people in this thread. It is based on hard evidence from a mountain of scientific testing and study. Those who choose to ignore that evidence are willfully choosing ignorance over fact, which seems to me to be very much opposed to what this message board is all about. I only hope that willful ignorance doesn’t wind up killing an innocent victim.
- Link to the NSC page on Cognitive Distraction – the actual white paper is a pdf linked on that page, appropriately labelled “White paper.”
People who think that they drive just fine while talking on the phone (or doing other, similar tasks) are just like people who believe that they drive just fine when they’ve had a few drinks.
But I can drive just fine while doing other things–in fact, I’m posting this right now from m
In other words, you can actually multitask if you are Zaphod Beeblebrox. Otherwise, no.
Everything that goes on around you is distracting. Everything that you observe is part of driving. It is up to your brain to prioritize.
After an accident in which phone use is suspected as the cause or contributor, an investigation would be conducted. You’d be under suspicion and only fined or brought to trial if the evidence pointed to distracted driving.
Also, there are rarely accidents that are completely without some sort of cause. Yes, a deer jumps out in front of you, but could a collision have been avoided if you weren’t distracted by a conversation? Just a little too distracted to take to heart deer crossing signs, a few seconds slower if the deer is paused at the side of the road before jumping into the road, that sort of thing.
I’m not saying no talk or texting laws will prevent all accidents-- there are too many variables. But those laws will hopefully discourage some distracted driving.
If those laws are in place and suspected violators are investigated and found guilty, then the laws are on the books to hold them accountable for their actions. Added to that, the eternal hope that people will learn from example.
Interesting (to me), one of my newly acquired driving skills is to recognize the particular signs of a distracted driver. I did the same thing when mini-vans first became popular and distracted parents drove erratically because kids in the back seat were acting up, etc.
This is a good thing to learn; but it had a scary learning curve and it was distracting to me, when I had another thing to guard against in my attempts at defensive driving.
All this might have been addressed already…if so, my apologies:
[QUOTE=Daylate]
- I flat out don’t believe, as has been reported often recently, that driving while using a cell phone is a bad as driving drunk. (Not seen in this thread, but has been out there for some time.)
[/QUOTE]
The Mythbusters actually did a show on this one, if you don’t trust the myriad studies done on the subject. Their conclusion was that indeed it was as bad as (worse actually) driving while just over the legal limit. Whether you believe that or not is another matter, but it seems pretty much overwhelming evidence in favor of the fact that, yes, you and everyone else is distracted when on the phone with someone. I’m sure it’s a sliding scale, with more distraction for texting or using the phone in your hand and slightly less for hands free operation, but the fact is that people aren’t well suited to trying to multi-task. I remember another show on the Science Channel that explored this very question. They got some guy (ironically, in Europe) who claimed to be a great multi-tasker and able to drive and talk on the phone with no problem. They then took him out on some icy roads, had him make a call (with a hands free device btw) and then started throwing surprises at him (like dumping a load of rubber balls in front of him). Needless to say he failed miserably at his professed multi-tasking expertise, and he was pretty chastened by the end.
I haven’t heard anyone say that it’s exactly as dangerous to use hands free as hands on. It’s still dangerous to use both, but there are degrees here.
I’m sure you won’t be alone, either. Myself, I’m more a libertarian kind of guy, so I’m cool with people doing stupid stuff and risking their own lives. What I’d do is put a law in that if you are involved in an accident while using a phone that this will make you heavily liable for injuries and damages. Then I’d let people do what they want too. I feel the same about drug and alcohol use as well. It’s not the states job to protect us from ourselves. Just make people responsible (harshly) for the consequences of their actions.
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. You are, of course, free to believe what you like, but your belief here is in the face of a mountain of evidence. It’s akin to denying that inoculations work in curtailing disease.
-XT
Some coworkers of mine were just rear-ended yesterday at lunch by a texting driver. The were sitting at a stoplight and the guy slammed into them going almost 30mph. Totaled both vehicles, but luckily nobody was hurt badly. Still, both of my coworkers were complaining of stiff backs today and had scheduled doctor and chiropractor appointments. So, yeah, it’s anecdotal, but it reinforces my dislike for drivers who text or have phones in their ear.
Every study I’ve ever seen, including the meta study used in the link I posted above, indicates that the relative difference in danger between using a handset or a hands-free device are statistically insignificant or that there might even be a slightly greater risk with hands-free devices (because they breed a false sense of security and complacency in the driver). So there you go – you’ve now heard someone say that hands-free is exactly as dangerous as hands-on. 
A study done by scientists, measuring people’s brainwaves while driving in simulators showing obvious effects of difficult conversation, is “speculation”? What would be evidence then for you?
If parents are driving alone and have children making trouble on the backseat, the parents are already required to stop on the side lane and sort things out, instead of trying to deal with it while driving.
And cops have leeway in Germany as to interpreting the first paragraph of federal traffic law “every participant is required to always act in such a way as to neither hinder nor endanger anybody else”.
So if a cop sees a driver driving erratically because they aren’t paying attention to traffic, then the cop can pull that driver over and ticket them.
Specific laws for broad circumstances are only to make things easier, so drivers don’t start protesting each drunk driving instance with “But I wasn’t impaired much, I can stand my alcohol!”
Well scientists use data. In that case, EEG shows which area of the brain are active, coupled with psychological research done seperatly on how humans react in conversations.
But I’m sure that you’re a special snowflake and should be allowed to totally do whatever you like while driving because you can like totally multitask no matter what scientists say and I’m sure your cops will accept that argument that you’re special and therefore rules don’t apply to you.
A blanket ban would be unreasonable because parents are able to train their children to behave in the car, the same way they train them to behave in the grocery store. This doesn’t require beating, just a simple “If you don’t behave, you don’t get to go”. So if the child throws a tantrum in the grocery store, you remove them outside and leave them home next time; if a child shouts in the car, you get onto the next parking lot and wait till they are quiet again, and next time leave them at home.
My father for example didn’t start the car until everybody was belted in - not because of the seat belt laws (those came along much later) but for our safety. There was simply no discussion about it.
Yes, of course initially that requires a commitment of spare time and energy that not every parent wants to invest. But in the long run it’s the much better method than trying to ignore it, dish out slaps backward or screaming louder than the kids, which are the usual methods.
Of course, parents can help or hinder how well children in a car are feeling. Put two primary children on the backseat without any games and drive 4 hours without any rest, you’re guaranteed a fight. Pack games, snacks and make a rest stop every hour to run around and loose energy, and the drive will go much better.
Dogs don’t have to scream, because dogs usually aren’t talking with the driver. Dogs should be trained to sit quietly and not bark, because dogs jumping around are a distraction. And dogs should only be transported in either a box secured with belts (for small breeds) or behind a sturdy screen (for large ones), to prevent them flying through the car when braking.
There’s quite a disconnect between measuring brainwaves and human action. AFAIK, no one can look at a brainwave and tell what that person is doing or even thinking except in the very broadest terms (“the pleasure center is active”).
Except that the scientists in these studies know exactly what the person is doing, since* they’re watching them drive in a frickin’ simulator* while measuring their brain waves. :rolleyes:
Surely you mean that parents are required to pull over under the erratic driver law, not a specific law banning speaking to unruly youths?
Your last paragraph is what I completely disagree with. In a free society, it is of no importance to make law enforcement “easier.” In fact it should be just the opposite. It should be required by the state to prove that you are engaging in dangerous behavior instead of having a specific ban that will lead to citing some people who are not bothering you at all.
I put open container laws under that category. If I have one beer and then drive home, not even the most hard core MADD activist would contend I was violating the law. But most states have laws making it illegal to stop at a convenience store and have a beer on the way home.
That makes no logical sense except for ease of enforcement. And if I get a ticket for that, I wasn’t endangering anyone, but the state still gets to pick my pocket for “ease of enforcement.” It’s similar to zero tolerance laws in that it allows robots to enforce the law, but snares unwitting people in the process.
Yes, I know, I can wait until I’m home to drink a beer or I can pull over to make a phone call, but why should I have to in a free country when my behavior subjectively isn’t harming anyone?
That story is an excellent reason why one shouldn’t talk on the phone in heavy traffic. Does that also apply on a rural interstate with no other cars around for miles? Do I need the government to impose another nanny state blanket ban to cover everything I might do just because a few people don’t know the proper limits?
Hell, driving kills tens of thousands per year. Are we really so important that we can’t ride bicycles to where we need to go? Or horses?
Um yes. Parents are required to pull over on their own; no, there is no special law against children being unruly.
And cops can pull over parents driving erratically because they’re distracted over their kids.
The specific laws are against drunken driving with a level of above 0.5 o/oo, or for your car not meeting certain safety standpoints.
It’s quite difficult for example to stop people on drugs from driving because the drugs are not specifically listed in the law, and it’s difficult to prove that people are so impaired that they need to punished under DUI law. (And unlike alcohol, cops can’t let drivers blow into a tube to find out if they had a joint or H or cocaine or …, because these tests are complicated.
We don’t have open container laws, and I agree that they are pretty stupid. That’s because the purpose of the DUI law is to ban people from driving drunk. Containers in the car have nothing directly to do with it. The problem is not whether the driver or the passenger is holding an open bottle of whiskey, the problem is whether the driver is drunk. If he isn’t, everything’s ok.
That’s not at all what I meant or referred to. The ease of enforcment is that when I read that every ticket in the US, people must appear at a court to find out if it’s correct.
Here, tickets are automatically correct and valid - but then cops aren’t allowed to guess speed without radar guns or are trained in 14-days or similar aberrations - they all have the same level of training federally, the laws don’t change from town to town, there are no traps where speed drops without reason to catch out-of-towners…
So drivers only contest tickets if they believe they have a valid excuse - and the courts then judge that taking your eyes off the road for a second to look for a CD you dropped, or even to brush out a lit cig. you dropped is against common sense because you should concentrate on driving, so accidents are your fault entirely.
And when the driver is stopped by the cop, they can’t start arguing for half an hour wasting time to get out of a justified conviction for DUI, because everybody knows the law that specifically forbids drunken driving.
Open container laws are a completly different species.
Please don’t come to Florida any time soon. If you do, take a cab.