Why Are Cell Phones a Target?

[EWYLTJ]

Now in CA, cell phone usage is illegal while driving. The problem is, this law is simply a legislative act of political correctness and has nothing to do with public safety.

I have not seen any studies that suggest cell phone usage increases the chance of an accident any more than playing with the radio, putting on lipstick, eating a hamburger, etc. To the contrary, I have seen studies that say a person is far more likely to be in an accident because of a pet in the car than a cell phone. Yet cell phones are now specifically illegal. Why?

What is even stupider is that the CA law allows for speaker phone usage. So, according to the law, I can put my phone on speaker mode, hold it a foot from my ear and be legal. But, if I take it off of speaker and put it to my ear, that is illegal!!! What kind of sense does that make??? Stupider still is that dialing the cell phone isn't illegal... and that's the part everyone agrees is the most distracting.

I absolutely hate Politically Correct legislation.

[gigirle]

Same thing in Ohio....holding it to your ear is what makes it illegal I guess. What should be illegal is the texting while driving. I agree with the stupidity of it.

[jk]

Carl hasn't been around for awhile but he often brings up studies that support the California laws.

I consider myself a quite good driver but I can tell you from experience, that thing stuck to your ear does remove you from paying attention to your driving. I had a near accident and the sole cause was me having that thing up to my ear. I don;t know why but for some reason not holding it to your ear is not as consuming as holding it to your ear.

Personally, each of the actions required to use a phone do cause a lack of paying attention to your driving but I believe this law is actually a compromise. It allows one to use a phone but it does remove the most distracting part of using a phone.
It could be worse; they could have simply removed all allowed use of a phone while you are moving.

Now, if they could get those women to stop applying makeup while driving, I'll start to feel pretty safe.

just kidding. there are plenty of other distractions but you have to start somewhere.

[cyjeff]

Mythbusters did an experiment on this a little while ago.

They compared someone having 5 shots to someone answering math problems on a cell phone.

The person on the cell phone was the worst driver in several measures.

Now, I don't see where using a hands free device makes this better or worse, but at least you then have two hands on the wheel.

My kids actually laugh at me... because anytime someone does something profoundly stupid in traffic, they always hear Daddy say, "Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't know you were ON THE PHONE!!!"... because it is a recurring theme.

[EWYLTJ]

Mythbusters did an experiment on this a little while ago.

They compared someone having 5 shots to someone answering math problems on a cell phone.

The person on the cell phone was the worst driver in several measures.

Now, I don't see where using a hands free device makes this better or worse, but at least you then have two hands on the wheel.

My kids actually laugh at me... because anytime someone does something profoundly stupid in traffic, they always hear Daddy say, "Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't know you were ON THE PHONE!!!"... because it is a recurring theme.

1. Mythbusters are there for entertainment purposes only. There approach is not scientific in any of the experiments I have seen.

2. Taking a cell phone away from people does not cure stupidity. It will be there regardless of the phone. However, the phone makes a nice scapegoat.

[cyjeff]

1. Mythbusters are there for entertainment purposes only. There approach is not scientific in any of the experiments I have seen.

2. Taking a cell phone away from people does not cure stupidity. It will be there regardless of the phone. However, the phone makes a nice scapegoat.

Sorry, I didn't know that we were only quoting statistics as gathered by major universities and/or law enforcement agencies.

[EWYLTJ]

Carl hasn't been around for awhile but he often brings up studies that support the California laws.

I consider myself a quite good driver but I can tell you from experience, that thing stuck to your ear does remove you from paying attention to your driving. I had a near accident and the sole cause was me having that thing up to my ear. I don;t know why but for some reason not holding it to your ear is not as consuming as holding it to your ear.

I'm sorry, but that is not a very scientific perspective. That is pretty emotionally based. The question is... does using a cell phone REALLY significantly increase chances of accidents more so than other common distractions (i.e. ipods, maps, food, etc.) If not, why are we making cell phone laws and not laws for other distractions?

[jk]

I'm sorry, but that is not a very scientific perspective. That is pretty emotionally based. The question is... does using a cell phone REALLY significantly increase chances of accidents more so than other common distractions (i.e. ipods, maps, food, etc.) If not, why are we making cell phone laws and not laws for other distractions?

It is a realistic assessment of a good driver that is quite intelligent that has a greater than average level of common sense applying personal experience to your complaint. I know you do not know me but I know me and that experience does exemplify their justifications.

Other anecdotal evidence I could provide justifies, to me, that cellphones glued to an ear do distract a driver enough to need to be addressed.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with emotions. None, nada, zip, zero.

If anything, it would lack objectivity but it is in no way based upon emotions.

and to answer your additional question; I already answered it:

there are plenty of other distractions but you have to start somewhere.

when each of those additional complaints are listed as a contributing factor in an accident, they too will recieve the scrutiny deserved and if found to be a major factor, will also be limited by specific legislative action.

as it is, cellphones are simply the most commonly used appliance that does in fact cause a distraction for the driver.

btw: there are already laws in most states that do restrict the activities allowed while driving such as eating and applying makeup. It is just that the legislators have not found a great enough incidence to write specific legislation to address them. Cellphone use has apparently breached that level.

So, are you going to tell me you have never experienced a driver setting at a 4 way stop with a cellphone stuck to their ear ignoring the traffic? or setting at a light while it changes from red, to green, and then to red again, all the time oblivious to what is happening. How about a person changing lanes and causing a near collision because of the cellphpne distraction?

If not, then apparently you have your cellphone stuck to your ear as well. I see such situations several times a day, everyday I am on the road.

[EWYLTJ]

It is a realistic assessment of a good driver that is quite intelligent that has a greater than average level of common sense applying personal experience to your complaint. I know you do not know me but I know me and that experience does exemplify their justifications.

What???

Other anecdotal evidence I could provide justifies, to me, that cellphones glued to an ear do distract a driver enough to need to be addressed.

Well, that sounds like a very Hillbilly way of legislating... anectodotally. I can imagine: "My cousin Cletus had a pig that get all rambunctious if you fed it hot peppers... so, let's make it illegal to feed pigs hot peppers!"

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with emotions. None, nada, zip, zero.

If anything, it would lack objectivity but it is in no way based upon emotions.

OK.... I'll concede your point. Your opinions are not so much emotional, but they do lack objectivity.

So, are you going to tell me you have never experienced a driver setting at a 4 way stop with a cellphone stuck to their ear ignoring the traffic? or setting at a light while it changes from red, to green, and then to red again, all the time oblivious to what is happening. How about a person changing lanes and causing a near collision because of the cellphpne distraction?

No.... the acts you describe are not directly contributed to cell phone usage as they have occurred for many years before cell phones. What you are describing are acts of stupidity. And, no matter how much we try, we will NEVER legislate away stupidity. All we do is inconvenience the reasonable drivers just a gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens.

If not, then apparently you have your cellphone stuck to your ear as well. I see such situations several times a day, everyday I am on the road.

You may also notice that the people that you see in the act of being stupid are driving a similar color car... say red. Does that mean that red cars cause stupidity? NO! It only means that you are making note of an issue that really has little to no cause and effect relationship with the stupid act.


So... can anyone produce any data that shows that accident rates have significantly decreased since enactment of anti-cell phone laws?

[cyjeff]

The problem with your query is that it usually demands that the persons in an accident admit what they were doing at the time of impact.

Since cell phone usage, at least by folk tale if nothing else, is known to be a distraction, it is never admitted.

Ask yourself the same question. Have you ever been on the phone and suddenly you were at another location without a conscious memory of driving there?