Posted on 02/25/2007 8:36:32 AM PST by jazusamo
Sunday, February 25, 2007
I yield to no man in my devotion to multitasking or my aversion to government poking its nanny-state snout into my business, OK? So if I could do something to keep the butt-inski state out of my life, I'd be right there -- especially if I could accomplish another task or two at the same time. But this conservative favors the proposed ban now before the Legislature on using cell phones while driving.
I have come to understand the wisdom in Petrula Betsis' definition of multitasking: "screwing up a lot of things all at once."
Silly me, I don't want some driver screwing up my life or the lives of my family and friends -- or strangers -- because he's yakking on the cell phone.
Yes, I know, this is something of an intrusion on personal liberty. "Something of" because driving is a privilege, not a right. It's inevitably a public act. After all, every driver is responsible for almost two tons of rolling steel moving along our public roads. The state intrudes plenty on drivers already, and should. Some of the same people who cry "nanny state" over the proposed cell-phone ban have no problem with the seat-belt mandates. Somehow it's enlightened government policy to have laws protecting drivers or passengers who may not want to buckle up, laws protecting people from themselves. But it's the height of government intrusion to ban an act that can endanger other motorists and pedestrians, not to mention the driving-while-cell-phoning drivers and their passengers? Please.
Most drivers know on some level that cell-phoning drivers are a menace on our roads. They'll either acknowledge their own problems driving while cell-phoning or, more likely, hold forth on other drivers' problems.
Not until last spring did I realize how serious the problem was. I started riding a scooter. (Stop laughing.) Scooter riders must always assume other motorists don't see you. And many don't see you because they're blabbing on cells while coming at you at high speed. As an exposed scooter rider, you notice this more and it's mildly unnerving.
But isn't cell-phoning just one of many drive-time distractions that aren't outlawed? What's next for busybody legislators -- outlaw talking to passengers or listening, say, to "books on tape" in the car? Legitimate questions.
Happily, there are research-based answers. Studies by University of Utah researcher Frank Drews make clear that these activities are dramatically different than talking on a cell phone while driving.
A 2001 study he did found that listening to a book on tape had no impact on driving. In a new study now under review for publication, Drews looked at three groups. One group had drivers without cell-phones or passengers. A second had drivers talking to passenger-friends. A third group had drivers on cell phones talking to friends. All drivers were tested on a driving simulator. They were to exit the highway at a roadside rest area.
Ninety percent of those without cell phones or passengers exited successfully. Drivers talking to passenger-friends had an 88 percent success rate. And the drivers talking to friends on their cells? Less than 50 percent successfully left the highway, with some driving for miles and researchers having to step in and stop the test. "This tells you something very different is happening," says Drews.
When a driver talks on a cell phone, the person on the other end of the conversation -- and studies show the problem is the conversation and not the device (hand-held or hands-free) -- has no clue what the driver's facing on the road. When driver and passenger are talking in a car, however, the passenger is engaged in conversing and driving because that he has eyes to see and skin in the game.
"It's clear that if you have a driver and passenger," Drews says, "you have a situation where you have four eyes and have the attention of two driving."
I'm not optimistic this Legislature will pass SB293. Too much cell-phone industry clout. Too much misinformation and misapplied libertarianism. And too many cell-phone addicted multitaskers trooping to Salem along Interstate 5. But the day will come as the accidents pile up.
Until then, next time you call someone on their cell, first ask if they're driving and tell them you'll call back if they are. That is, if you care about them, their passengers, other motorists or nearby pedestrians. Or we vulnerable citizens of Scooter Nation.
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com.
Welcome to Free Republic.
If you are able to dial/drive and talk on the phone and drive, go for it. If you have difficulty with it, don't. YOU get to decide, ideally, not the government.
Also, in Indiana, we have a law against cell-phone use while driving, AND highway signs urging people to call 9-11 to report impaired driving. Okaaaay...
IMO, anyone who's convicted of causing an accident while on a cell phone should face some serious penalties or consquences.
Gee, any mother of a newborn can nurse a baby, talk on the phone, and unload the dishwasher all at the saem time without giving it a second thought.
The conversation is the distraction since phone conversing occupies so much more of the brain centers needed to anticipate. Conversing with a person in the car allows breaks in distraction because of eye movement, whereas phone conversations do not lend themselves to breaks in the distraction since the mind has dedicated itself to the full spectrum of senses in order to create the effect of having the other 'with you'.
That mas be the most disturbing item in the whole article - meaning ten percent of drivers are morons even without using cell phones. ;)
I'll give up my cell phone while I drive if we can also ban children from cars. The most dangerous drivers I've seen are parents lecturing or yelling at their misbehaving children in the back seat. I mean, safety first and all.
Since most politicians use cell phones while driving, don't expect to see much change in the law.
All I can hope for is that they all get brain tumors or get into more accidents. Free up the gene pool.
At 65 MPH?
Nice catch and you're right. :-)
The problem is not that the phone ties up one's hands, it's that it occupies the driver's attention. Hands-free phones are no safer than handheld.
This is where I find the cell phone very useful. Whenever I have to supply a phone number to some stranger (such as filling out a bank loan application), I always give my office phone number. That way, I can only be "bothered" during working hours when I am in the office. However, there are times when I want to be reached outside the workplace and for this, the cell phone is perfect. I can give them the cell phone number and only receive the call at my convenience so that my home phone is not ringing off the hook. A good recent example of this was when I was buying a new car and the dealership was to notify me when my car was ready to be picked up. The last thing I want is for a car dealership to get hold of my home phone so I gave them my cell. As a result, I get my cell phone changed regularly so that I am always able to eventually shake off persistent telemarketers and others with whom I would rather not deal.
A truly smart person. There is nothing worse than seeing people who don't have a pot to pee in are a window to throw it out of talking on a cell phone while they are driving their junker down the road on its maypops.
I am not sure the law should ban cell phones while driving, I'd rather see a law which upped the fine/liability of someone who had an accident while talking on one.
People might be a little more realistic about their multitasking abilities if they knew there would be a substantial penalty for screwing up...and a quick check of the phone/phone call records would show.
Not disturbing at all....I would have guessed MUCH higher.
A similar study (done in Sweden I think), showed that's it the actual act of having a conversation over the phone that distracts the driver. Not necessarily the manual operation of the phone (although that certainly adds to the problem). And yes, it differs from talking to a passenger in the same car. Somehow a phone conversation takes the driver's mind "somewhere else", as it were.
As for cell phone bans, I'm all for 'em, although I know for some this is somehow some huge intrusion by the State. I can think of far bigger intrusions supported wholeheartedly by the masses. One nice thing is that accident investigators can query the cell phone account to see if a driver involved in an accident was yakking at the time, which is good for assigning blame.
How does a redneck double the value of his pickup truck?
Install a car phone.
"Nanny State" laws that are designed to protect me from myself I have a problem with. "Nanny State" laws that protect me from being accidentally Darwined by someone else I don't have a problem with.
So I don't have a problem with laws banning cell phone use while driving. Not enough people understand to drive the car first.
We can call it "DWH", or "Driving While Human".
As soon as that is banned, we'll all be safer.
That's really what most people and politicians want anyway. A mobile population is dangerous to the state.
It has nothing to do with the brains cerebellum or motor system.
It is impossible for the brain to do both of these things at the same time, no matter what the sending and receiving environment. Except for a few physical tasks, which the body does with your nervouse system, telephone conversation ties up all of the cogent language and imaging systems of your brain.
I defy anyone to tell me anything they remember about their recent driving (like the last ten seconds or so) after just having listened and spoken on their cell.
Anyone who says they can do this accurately is having a fantasy and is in major denial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.