Advocacy Group Pushes for Complete Ban on Cell Phones in Cars
The movement to ban all cell phones — even those that are hands-free — from passenger vehicles just gained a formidable new ally. The National Safety Council, a nonprofit group that has successfully lobbied for seat belt and drunken driving laws in the past, joined the chorus today to ban cell phone use in cars.
Talking on a hand-held phone is already illegal in six states and numerous cities and counties, but hands-free systems like Bluetooth allow drivers to keep their in-car conversations going. The problem is that a mounting body of research shows that hands-free devices are no different than hand-held devices. The problem is not the driver taking one hand off the wheel, but rather his or her brain forming mental images that have nothing to do with the road.
How dangerous is driving and talking? According to research, it’s as dangerous as driving while legally drunk. Accident statistics, real-world studies and simulated experiments all say that a driver is four times as likely to get in an accident while on the phone — the same as a driver who’s drank more than the legal limit.
The problem is not the conversation (talking to a passenger can actually make you more alert). It’s that your brain tries to supplement the conversation with mental images, which leaves the eyes unfocused on the road and staring straight ahead.
Here’s the problem with the movement: Even if state or local governments wanted to ban all cell phone use, how could they enforce it? Furthermore, now that we’re used to chatting while driving, how do safety advocates plan to convince Americans of the merits of what would surely be a highly unpopular measure? Let us know in the comments if you’d support a complete cell phone ban in cars.
A Problem of the Brain, Not the Hands: Group Urges Phone Ban for Drivers (New York Times)
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
Fiddling with your radio is also extremely dangerous, yet I hear no calls to ban that. Or pets in the car. Or navigation units. Or eating. Or drinking. Or talking with passengers. Or adjusting the sunroof. Or reaching for items in the glove box. Or putting on makeup. Or being tired. Or wearing restrictive clothing. Et cetera.
If we ban this because it's dangerous, why not ban all of the above which are also dangerous? Question to all you drivers- how much of your liberty would you like to give up?
OnStar?
Well Jackson, I would gladly give up my "cell phone liberty" if it's going to reduce driver distractions and therefore make the roads safer. No doubt all of the other distractions you listed COULD POSSIBLY cause accidents, however it appears that those driving and using cell phones has been proven to cause accidents. On the other hand, if we continue to use cell phones AND texting while driving, what's the next new technology item to come up to add even more distractions? Makes me wonder.
kj,
Setting the GPS would be one of the answers.
Jackson,
You are assuming that driving is a right when in fact it is really a priviledge and should be treated as such. So don't even compare giving up the "right" to talk on your phone while driving like you are giving up the right to free speech.
Thanks for the info it's nice to know I am not any more dangerous out on the road after having a few beers at the bar than the 1000s of people talking on the phone while driving in Los Angeles.
I'm wondering how they're going to outlaw things like Sync and Toyota's new system, are they going to force consumers to disable cell phone features?
I'm thinking there's going to be some less-than-happy reception to this if it passes.
May be we all should be like Chinese, the property of the government?
I would go and give this lobby people couple baseball bets in their backs. If they have nothing to do send them to Alaska. I heard, Grey whales are dying. Let them save those creatures
I just want to say that I am talking on the phone in the car all the time. And do it in NY and NJ, and MA and I don't care.
Does this mean that eventually we will be required to remain silent in the vehicle. Conversation between passengers could force the driver to form mental images that have nothing to do with focusing on the road.
What do they do to these drivers in the studies? One that I saw was completely bogus because they weren't carrying a simple conversation with the driver, they were making them perform memory tests, solve mathematical equations, and solve logical problems. In addition, these people were put through an obstacle course while problem solving. That's hardly an accurate portrayal of a driver having a conversation on their cell phone while on the road.
OK.
There's no smoking in bars...EVEN if it wanted to be a smoking bar.
In fact, news stories this week are yelling about THIRD hand smoke causing illness.
Even in carpet and clothes.
So get ready to be a smoker and having your clothes banned in public places.
I don't smoke.
I can't get peanuts on the airplane.
I do miss my nuts!
Now, because there are dumb people who can't multi-task...then NOBODY can multi-task.
Rather than really punish those that fail today, we all get banned from doing things.
Its the dumbing down of civilization.
The lowest common failures or weaklings now rule the day.
Next...NO food in cars.
No coffee.
No radios with buttons
No arguments...there will be noise monitors.
Mother-in-laws, outlawed!
Well, um...OK.
LOOK...People, there are Risks in life!
If it snows, SLOW DOWN!.
We shouldn't have to place more salt than there is snow to make it safe for stupid, unskilled drivers!
And if you can't talk and chew gum, then you fall down.
Stop these idiots!
Not me.
welcome to cuba!
What everyone fails to realize that almost all of the distractions they are listing like programming GPS, adjusting the radio, eating, drinking, etc, do not care if you suddenly ignore them to focus on the road. But the person on the other end of a phone doesn't know what the driver is doing and will distract them by saying, "Are you listening?"
When I am riding with someone, they can see my body language and can see what is going on around me when I suddenly ignore them. I can say, "Hold on, let me just blah-blah-blah here." They can see when it is okay to talk again. Even little kids can pick up on body language or understand when mom or dad says "Let me park, Honey" or "Wait until we are out of the car, please" or "Let Mommy drive." A person on a cell phone doesn't know this and will constantly pull a driver back into the conversation when he or she should be driving.
Now, if things like SYNC works with devices other than phones, then that is fine. The best thing OnStar can do is create some software that recognizes when the driver is driving erratically while they are having a conversation. Have it give an audible tone that the driver and the other person can hear (I would not go as far as have it disconnect the call). Hopefully, the person on the other end will ask what is the noise and then say "Maybe we should continue this conversation at another time."
As some other folks have eluded to, the big difference between changing the radio/mp3 player and talking on the cell phone is how likely a person is to be engrossed when talking on the phone. Changing the station on the radio takes 2 seconds, talking on the cell phone can be the entire commute so I suspect, statistically speaking, you are more than likely to have a wreck when on the phone.
I am glad there are people like Jason and Steve who actually have brains.
The biggest single cause of traffic fatalities is alcohol. I can tell you that fiddling with the GPS or eating have never been, and will never be, a significant contributor to major accidents -- by a wide margin. If more convincing data come out supporting the notion that talking on a cell phone creates as much a hazard as drinking and driving, then we absolutely should have regulations in place. I could care less if some idiot drank and drove and killed him/herself; but other innocent people often get hurt.
People like ppellico or Jackson obviously would NOT be singing their tune if someone yakking on a cell created an accident and killed their loved ones. Sure there are dangerous things/risks in life; the difference is, how likely are your stupid actions going to hurt others?
Finally, for those who are disgruntled with the US government and its regulations, feel free to leave. I know in China, for example, some of the very wealthy really can pretty much do whatever they want, such as bribe their way out of a lot of crimes. I am proud that I live in a society in which there are efforts to make America a safer, better place to live for everyone.
Oh, and ppellico, no peanuts on airplanes probably came from the fear of idiots suing them. Your complaint would only apply to this post if car manufacturers placed a a sensor in their cars that automatically would not allow you to start if you had a cell phone on you.
Tony, please tell me where you drive and yak so that I can avoid those roads.
Driving is a right. That has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court.
Do you have a right to jump rope or hopscotch?
Look up the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.
George, please tell me what case it was that said driving is a right? If it is why isn't there a national DMV?
The US constitution outlines the limited powers that are granted to the government by the people, not the other way around. The government does not give you rights or privileges.
Parroting the concept that you should be thankful to have the privilege to drive shows how effectively the statists have manipulated the public.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
----
Anyway, I refuse to believe that speaking on a hands-free phone is any different than having the same conversation with a passenger in the car. Freedom isn't free. It comes with risks. If you want to live in a 100% safe environment, live in a padded rubber cell.
Uhm Silver, when the Constitution was written there were not cars. So whether you have the right to drive a car, that would have to be decided by the SC - using the Constitution as the background. Do you understand how the law actually works or are you just a crazy militia man who thinks the government has no power? You would be better off arguing for the first amendment which allows for the pursuit of happiness. And no matter what you don't get a right just by saying there is one, it has to proven that there was one in the first place.
By the way, taking things to extremes does not prove anything. You can say that talking on a phone is the same as talking to the person next to you but there is still going to be more interaction with the phone.
I'm so glad this is back on the radar. It's just not safe or smart. Like Click and Clack say, "Drive Now, Talk Later".
Late blog, oh well. To all those extremists out there that think cell phone use is just as bad as eating, changing the radio, etc...Do you know what the Social Contract is? Let me define in case I have lost you with the meaning of extremist. Social Contract is are basic deal with the government that stated if we give up some of our freedoms, the government would provide us with safety. Now argue if you must, where do you come off with rights? We have rights, I understand, but what has happened to society where they must analyze the Constitution in such a way that they believe they are above the government? Cell phone use while driving is dangerous. Period. The University of Utah has done some amazing studies where drivers that believed they were experienced cell phone gabbing drivers were put through same tactical driving as those with little or no experience driving with a cell phone. The result... same driving errors! It is cognitive uses of your brain that cause you to pay less attention to the road. It has been proven. Look up the facts before you preach. I know I do. Go to the University of Utah's psychology website and you will find facts!