At the New York Times debate blog,
Senior Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward mixes it up with a
traffic expert, a couple of
psychologists, and the
head of the National Safety Council on driving while dialing,
texting, chatting, or otherwise using a cellular device.
She writes:
We humans are also notably bad at comparing concentrated costs with diffuse benefits. It’s easy to tally up the costs of dialing while driving — there are accident reports and mortality figures. But it’s much harder to add up all the benefits.
Think of every carpool disaster averted, grocery list amended, or stress-relieving traffic update made possible by the use of cellphones in cars. Think of every kid who got through to his mom, every long-distance relationship maintained, every roadtrip rescued. True, these aren’t matters of life and death, but billions of tiny gains in happiness and reductions in stress are too often overlooked in public policy debates.
Oahu's City Council just outlawed cell phones while driving. I
intend to break this law repeatedly.
Stupid bastards.
I had the opportunity to debate this topic in a local weekly
newspaper a couple of months back. My approach was that basically
there's nothing about the pressure from a cell phone to one's ear
that make someone mistake a four lane road with a demolition derby
arena.
That and several of my arguments mirror Katherine's rather eerily
:)
From the article: As a thought exercise, imagine that
someone you loved was killed by someone driving while talking on a
cellphone: Would you feel comfortable with that person being
absolved in the face of the law?
Imagine that someone you loved was killed by someone driving while
driving alone and watching the road. Should we outlaw that behavior
too?
Prove to me that talking on a cellphone poses the same risk as
driving with four drinks in you, then maybe I'd see it differently.
But what I'm seeing is legislating from political pandering, not
from science-based appraisals of risk.
When I was driving truck, I got very proficient at texting while driving. Talking on my celly while driving was disruptive to my partners sleep. I didn't feel it was a distraction at all.
When i'm driving, i make sure i only text at red lights, when the speed limit is low, or when i really want to.
I refuse to text while driving. My spelling on that damn keyboard is bad enough as it is. To distract me from that with something like driving? I don't think so.
Legalize texting while driving: If it saves just one grocery list, it's worth it.
Come now... When the guy next to me cuts me off, what the hell
do I care that his grocery list was updated? Driving on public
roads requires some responsibility. While I don't necessarily think
that we need a law to tell us to use some common sense, I'm pretty
sure diverting your attention from safe driving is not a good
thing.
When someone calls me while I'm driving, I'll find a spot to pull
over before I'll talk to them. I didn't need a law to tell me that
I'd be safer this way. Of course I don't read papers or do my
makeup while driving, but I don't hear too many calls for laws
there.
My point is, quit doing this shit! Your putting yourself and others
at risk! If that's not enough of an incentive, then quit doing it
because it makes government want to become more intrusive.
Of course I don't read papers or do my makeup while driving,
but I don't hear too many calls for laws there.
Well, in WA state, "distracted driving" was already illegal before
teh nanny state passed the cell phone law here. The motives were
just too great: it's a response to poplulist outrage, and it's a
revenue generator.
It's only a secondary offense for now, and I actually hope it
becomes a primary. Every time I pass a cop I will put my hand to my
ear. If I get a ticket I will fight it and win. And they will lose.
Same old story. What a rush.
Talking is fine; texting or reading texts should not be done by a driver in a moving vehicle. Your grocery list can be updated when you stop the fucking car. I've already been nearly run over by someone staring at their phone wile blasting through a stop sign.
Missing from the hysteria over cell phones is that accident
rates have decreased since the introduction of cell phones. If cell
phones were such a risk, we should have seen a spike in accident
rates that paralleled the increase in cell phone use. (Those are
accident rates, not fatalities. Accident rates do not improve
dramatically with improvements in auto safety technology. People
still have wrecks they just don't hurt as many people.)
People blame cell phones for no other reason than they are highly
visible explanations for poor driving.
i see a lot of folks texting while driving (and moving, not just
stopped at a light) these days, which is akin to texting while
firing a gun - it's extreme fuckfacery. which will be great news if
the olympics ever open up to the fuckfacery decathlon. the
americans will field a team that will absolutely swamp everyone;
our pan-ethnic makeup will allow us to field the most skilled
fuckfaces from across the globe.
it will be a glorious day for america.
Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population requires
threat of legal consequences in order to do the common sense thing.
The war on drugs, drunk-driving laws, smoking laws, cell phone laws
are all required because people generally don't give a rats ass
about how their actions affect their fellow man.
A big FU to all the drug addict, drunk-driving, smoking-in-public,
texting-while-driving idiots in the world that make all this
government necessary
How does this compare to driving while old? I'm sick of old people going ten or twenty miles below the speed limit. I'm sick of it! Do you hear me OLD PEOPLE! I'M SICK OF YOUR SHENANIGANS!!! I'M CALLING MY CONGRESSMEN TO GET YOUR LICENSES REVOKED!!! REVOKED!
From the last piece in the article:
"As the late visionary Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman put it
to me a few years back, "There are so many things that can be
forbidden. The stranger thing is that we believe everything that
isn't forbidden is allowed.""
< xeones> Yo, fuck Hans Monderman < /
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
Note that the study found driving while using a cell phone, driving
while using a hands-free headset, and driving with a BAC of .08 to
be about equal in impairment.
Ahem:
"Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones
drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes,
displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their
attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent
slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to
crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were
talking on cell phones. None were drunk."
"The war on drugs, drunk-driving laws, smoking laws,
cell phone laws are all required because people generally
don't give a rats ass about how their actions affect their fellow
man."
FAIL
A big FU to all the drug addict, drunk-driving, smoking-in-public, texting-while-driving idiots in the world that make all this government necessary
Drug addicts is neither my business nor yours. Certainly how
someone chooses to live his life is not the government's unless
they are harming others.
Drunk drivers are assholes and legal proscriptions are appropriate,
but over-done. .08 instead of .10 saves minimal lives at great cost
to fully competent drivers.
By smoking in public I'll assume you're including on the premises
of privately owned property like restaurants and movie theaters.
That is obviously not the governments business.
Texting? Should we outlaw eating, correcting children, changing
station on the radio or any of the other myriad distractions that
drivers commonly experience? I don't think so.
Out of your four examples of behaviors that you think should be
illegal, I agree only that drunk driving should be illegal with the
objection that the government has overreacted.
But I don't want to control everyone else's lives, criminalize
behavior I find stupid or even rude.
This is silly; who here has made a phone call while maintaining
control over a moving vehicle? I have. and you can bet the law
wasn't even in the consideration whether to make a call or not. The
considerations are the importance of the call and the relative
safety of having my attention divided.
You can't legislate common sense. Some people will text and drive,
eat and drive, read a book and drive, and even fuck and drive. No
legislation is going to keep distracted drivers from distractions,
ever. Bearing this in mind, drive defensively and employ
distractions within your own skill and risk tolerance.
If you fuck up, well, hope you're insured!
Are there l33tspeak acronyms for the texting while driving
crowd?
Like brb-ks = "be right back - killed someone"
ttyl-dtcswfb = "talk to you later - drove through crowd of
schoolchildren waiting for bus"
Think of every carpool disaster averted, grocery list amended, or stress-relieving traffic update made possible by the use of cellphones in cars. Think of every kid who got through to his mom, every long-distance relationship maintained, every roadtrip rescued. True, these aren't matters of life and death, but billions of tiny gains in happiness and reductions in stress are too often overlooked in public policy debates.
KMW writes for the Onion now?
Let me guess, the other participants in the study were unable to
question her logic due to wetting themselves guffawing?
If you text while driving, you are a fucking retard. If you make
phone calls while driving you are just a regular retard. But all of
this can be covered by already existing general distracted driving
laws.
As someone who does not have, want or need a cell phone, I have no
sympathy for people who seem to think that it is necessary to be on
the phone while driving. It is distracting enough talking to
someone in the car with you, but at least they can tell you that
you are about to run a red light or hit something.
Ya know... I'm gonna throw this out there:
I've been driving while talking on the phone for 10 years.
Guess how many accidents I've had in 10 years?
(PS... the answer's ZERO)
Put a more mathematical way (yet still anecdotal of course), lets
say a good estimate for that 10 year period is 60% of days that
I've driven and used the phone.
That's... 0/2190 accidents.
This is clearly a high-risk activity for me.
Zeb,
What about music? Loud music? Is there a certain level of loudness
that is permissible? Or should radios, cd players, iPods, etc, be
banned as well? Is a certain media player preferred?
I don't think texting while driving needs to be illegal, but if some one runs over me while they are texting I don't think it should be illegal for me to arrange to have them gang-raped by werewolves.
The war on drugs, drunk-driving laws, smoking laws, cell
phone laws are all required because people generally don't give a
rats ass about how their actions affect their fellow
man.
Then prosecute them for what crosses into other people's lives.
Don't punish everyone because of a couple of turdnuggets who can't
keep their own shit straight.
SugarFree,
Werewolf summoning, gang raping, necromancer that you are shouldn't
need me to point out there is no law against werewolfs, gang raping
people. Glad to be of help.
What about music? Loud music? Is there a certain level of
loudness that is permissible? Or should radios, cd players, iPods,
etc, be banned as well? Is a certain media player
preferred?
The tendency of the music to induce pantomimed instrument
performances needs to be taken into account, along with the
introduction of a new test to determine the licence holder's
susceptibility to such behaviour.
Why is it okay to drive recklessly when you're not texting and
not okay to drive recklessly when you are?
Oh, it's illegal to drive recklessly any time?
What was your point again?
Texting isn't so much a distraction in attention as it is
something that has your eyes on something other than the road for
non-negligible amounts of time (unless you text without looking).
Talking is more comparable with other normal distractions. I almost
had an accident the other day just glancing at my phone for about 1
second when traffic in front of me unexpectedly stopped.
Still, if they felt the need to legally restrict it, they could
just use a 3-strikes mechanism, and let you regain strikes over
time. It would differentiate between people who had to take some
fairly important call, and people who spend most of their driving
time with a phone on their ear.
dbcooper,
Anything beyond a quick profiency test(DL test) is just a needless
hassle. Insurance companies will quickly price how retarded your
driving is without the need for a "distraction" test paid for by
taxpayers.
I've never been in a wreck. I drive like an old man . . . until I
get on anything resembling an open road. My insurance is through
the roof due to my speeding.
Yeah, how come it's not illegal to jab screwdrivers into your
eye sockets while driving? That's more distracting than talking on
your cell phone.
Then again, the law against celling while driving does give me a
handy excuse to miss calls from my mom, so it's tough for me to
decide on this issue.
perilisk,
How do you explain people who trip over things right in front of
them? Same thing with respect to driving. Accidents by their very
nature are preventable yet they happen anyway.
Car and Driver recently conducted an experiment on the effect of
texting while driving, and used BAC of 0.08 as a control.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q2/texting_while_driving_how_dangerous_is_it_-feature
Naga,
I think a lot of the legal issues revolve around whether a werewolf
is considered an "implement of rape" that I "wield." It's a murky
area of the law; the only legal precedent to go by is the French
case Loup-Garuo v. Toulouse-Lautrec and it seems only
pertinent to werewolf on midget rape cases.
Ya know... I'm gonna throw this out there:
I've been driving while talking on the phone for 10 years.
Guess how many accidents I've had in 10 years?
(PS... the answer's ZERO)
I have friends that can say the same thing about drinking and
driving. Data is not the plural of anecdote.
I'm not going to lie, I have the same statistic re: cell phone
talking and accidents, but I'm not delusional enough to say that
I'm not distracted or that my reaction time is anywhere near as
good.
I simply distrust all drivers and assume everyone is high,
drunk, texting, yelling at their kids, putting on make-up, talking
on their fucking bluetooth which makes me think they are talking to
themselves, rubber-necking (I swear to FSM I hate these people the
most), or checking out the scenery which is sometimes just a hot
chick in the car next to them (guilty). Therefore, I just drive and
try not to think about my impending doom from the people around me.
Save from eliminating driving we will never be able to eliminate
distractions while driving.
The best way to avoid these assholes is to be an aggressive driver.
Defensive drivers always seem to get in wrecks because they keep
braking at every little thing in front of them. Aggressive drivers
avoid them by getting where they need to go quickly and getting off
the road entirely.
Drunk drivers are assholes and legal proscriptions are
appropriate, but over-done. .08 instead of .10 saves minimal lives
at great cost to fully competent drivers.
.08 is such bullshit. I'm likely a better driver at .08 than 95% of
age 70+ drivers. If I am not allowed to drive at .08, they
shouldn't be allowed to drive at age 70+.
Mo - I think it's specifically because I'm not
delusional enough to think my reaction time isn't impaired while
I'm driving somewhat distracted that I haven't been in any
accidents.
I deliberately correct for my cellphone usage by signaling every
turn/lane change, making sure I look around and by leaving a few
more feet in front of me than I might otherwise.
All in all when I'm on the phone I'm probably a much more
careful driver simply because I'm deliberately focused on
correcting for whatever distraction the phone might cause.
Oh... PS. I've lived in Los Angeles for the past 2 years, so I think my good statistics should be doubled or tripled by product of the much higher opportunities I've had to get in accidents here.
I deliberately correct for my cellphone usage by signaling
every turn/lane change, making sure I look around and by leaving a
few more feet in front of me than I might otherwise.
Maybe you should drive that way all the time, Sean.
Nobody has mentioned anything about "sexting" while driving. I tried it once, but the girl's head kept hitting the phone.
My point is, quit doing this shit! Your putting yourself and
others at risk!
You're putting yourself and others at risk every time you drive.
The question is whether talking on a cell phone imposes such
outrageous risks to others that is should be banned, compared to
the normal risks imposed by driving.
P.S. The answer is "some -- most -- individuals are capable of
compensating for the additional risk of using cell phones by
slowing down (same deal for driving with .08 BAC). Neither should
be illegal.
My point Dean is that when I use the cellphone I do *more* than
necessary to correct for it.
Incidentally, since I use the phone at least once virtually every
time I drive anywhere, I really am over correcting all the
time.
"Drug addicts is neither my business nor yours. Certainly how
someone chooses to live his life is not the government's unless
they are harming others."
Yes, because we all know drug addicts, but for their drug
addiction, are pillars of society who only do drugs in the privacy
of their own homes after working responsibly for 40 hours a week to
earn money to purchase them. Then, once high, they never go out and
harm anyone, and they never drive while intoxicated. They also all
have their own health insurance and liability insurance to cover
any unintended "incidents" that happen during their drug use.
Oh, and I forgot to mention what responsible parents they end up
being...
"By smoking in public I'll assume you're including on the premises
of privately owned property like restaurants and movie theaters.
That is obviously not the governments business."
I agree, but the reason the smoking nazis got into power in the
first place was the fact that so many people smoked in restaurants
without considering that non-smokers might be present and not want
to inhale their smelly soot. Again, lack of common sense.
As for texting, the reason it's different than eating, changing
radio, etc. is that it requires the drivers attention for
significant chunks of time. You can take a bite of a hamburger
while keeping your eyes on the road.
"Again, lack of common sense."
For who? The smokers or the non-smokers? There's no right
to go eat out at this or that restaurant!
You go if it suits you and if it doesn't you can go somewhere
else... What you don't get to do is tell owners of private property
what legal activities are permissible. That's just totalitarian
bullshit.
Anyway, the smoking nazis came out of academia, not out of any kind
of grassroots hatred of smoking - most restaurants had already
adopted ventilated & walled off smoking sections before the
bans anyway, which frankly is a thousand times better a solution
since everybody wins that way.
Lastly - what happens when you take a bite of that hamburger and it
drips ketchup on your new suit? You still looking at the
road?
Quit being a nanny.
For who? The smokers or the non-smokers? There's no right to
go eat out at this or that restaurant!
Not that I necessarily agree with this, but the smoke
free restaurants and bars are supposedly or the benefit of the
workers, not the customers. So, it's a worker's rights, safe
workplace, whatever issue. The problem I've always had with that
is, they usually don't allow exemptions for places that wish to
install an enhanced fresh air ventilation system.
"Yes, because we all know drug addicts, but for their drug
addiction, are pillars of society who only do drugs in the privacy
of their own homes after working responsibly for 40 hours a week to
earn money to purchase them. Then, once high, they never go out and
harm anyone, and they never drive while intoxicated. They also all
have their own health insurance and liability insurance to cover
any unintended "incidents" that happen during their drug use.
Oh, and I forgot to mention what responsible parents they end up
being..."
Wow! It's like they fucking know me!
Tricky - I think the same applies to a lesser extent in work environments though. My general advice is, if you don't want to work in a smokey workplace, then don't work in a bar. It's one thing to stop people from having work places where they're deliberately taking risks with your life, but the actual risks of second hand smoke are pretty minimal and can often be almost entirely circumvented by ventilation. Problem solved. No nanny state needed.
Yes, because we all know drug addicts, but for their drug
addiction, are pillars of society . . .
Actually, they pretty much are.
Irony is tough, NAL. Keep working on it, though.
There are lots of libertarian approaches that appeal to me, but
I've never understood why there seems to be such support for
driving while talking on cell phones. Is it disagreeing that it's a
danger, or agreeing it is a danger but the state should not
interfere?
I live in a large city, I and many people I know have anecdotes
(i.e. personal experience) of almost being hit by cars while
crossing the street (i.e. as pedestrians) and looking at the
driver, guess what, they were on a cellphone and (presumably) not
paying attention. A system of driving requires rules to function
reasonably safely.
I totally agree that "flavour of the month" lawmaking is a problem.
I don't see a law enacted to deal with a genuine specific problem
that occurs regularly, falls into that category.
fuckfacery
LOL. A new word. A good word. That one goes in my personal
dictionary.
I don't want a law prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving
ONLY if there is no law limiting the amount of
damages I can collect when I get hit.
My sister in law once spun their use of cell phones while driving
as "communicating". Let me tell you, if a marriage is so on the
rocks that you have to put kids' lives at stake to keep up your
"communication", then you need to get counseling...and fast...and
preferably from parents who had to figure out how to "communicate"
without such things. I call horseshit.
# NAL | July 20, 2009, 12:55pm | #
# A big FU to all the drug addict, drunk
# driving, smoking-in-public, texting-while
# driving idiots in the world that make all
# this government necessary
Not necessary, really. Merely salable.
"...but if some one runs over me while they are texting I don't
think it should be illegal for me to arrange to have them
gang-raped by werewolves."
That's good, but I'd settle for them being convicted of attempted
murder or capital murder if they actually kill someone.
"Think of every carpool disaster averted, grocery list amended,
or stress-relieving traffic update made possible by the use of
cellphones in cars. Think of every kid who got through to his mom,
every long-distance relationship maintained, every roadtrip
rescued."
The above sentence is perhaps the stupidest defense I have ever
read of texting and using a cell phone while driving.
More and more studies are coming out demonstrating that talking on
a cell phone while driving is dangerous. And everyone and their
brother can provide anecdotal evidence about the asshole driving in
two lanes while going 45 on the highway because he was on his cell
phone. Texting while driving is so stupid and so dangerous, one
need not even present an argument for its banning. But hey, if I
can amend a grocery list or comfort a jilted girlfriend while I am
driving in downtown traffic or on the highway, fuck the dangers,
right? Seriously, the defenses of cell-phoning while driving are
becoming increasingly desperate and stupid and are reminiscent of
the assholes who claim they drive better when they are drunk.
"All in all when I'm on the phone I'm probably a much more
careful driver simply because I'm deliberately focused on
correcting for whatever distraction the phone might cause."
And disrupting the normal flow of traffic because you are driving
very sloooowly, and probably in the left hand lane too, ya
bastard.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245