# Driving While on Cell Phone Worse Than Driving While Drunk



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sounds to me like it is time to hang up this habit, and it really is an unneeded habit with most people:

“THURSDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) -- Maneuvering through traffic while talking on the phone increases the likelihood of an accident five-fold and is actually more dangerous than driving drunk, U.S. researchers report.
That finding held true whether the driver was holding a cell phone or using a hands-free device, the researchers noted.
"As a society, we have agreed on not tolerating the risk associated with drunk driving," said researcher Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah. "This study shows us that somebody who is conversing on a cell phone is exposing him or herself and others to a similar risk -- cell phones actually are a higher risk," he said.”

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/06/29/hscout533489.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is this the next issue to identify dinosaurs? 

Time for more research. One example:

http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/Study_Shows_Cell_Phone_Users_More_Prone_to_Accidents/artid/319


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The devil is in the details. It's very odd that while the campaign for against drunk driving has been effective in reducing alcohol related accidents yet the growth in cell phone use has been astronomical and yet accident rates continue to decline.

I can guarantee you that an untrained pilot would crash. Let's ban them....oh yeah - they do. It's in training and familiarity with equipment.

Young people have higher accident rates - lets ban them.
New drivers have higher accident rates lets ban them
Rental cars have higher accident rates - let's ban them.

Until a "study" can use people trained and familiar with their own vehicle and communications equipment these "controlled studies" are almost meaningless.
So much of driving is reflexive and autonomic and when you put people in unfamiliar vehicles with unfamiliar equipment then you can get all sorts of anomalies that do not show up in the larger accident stats.

The range of drivers out there everyday have a huge bell curve of reaction times and attention capacity.

Cell phones are just one possible distraction amongst hundreds - including poor traffic signs.

Driving drunk is a far different situation than managing distractions whihc can be anything from a screaming kid ( let's ban those too , to loud music, to sunglare ( one of the worst ), to poor cleared windows....the list goes on and on.

Bottom line - cell phone use has soared almost vertically, no similar increase in accidents and I dare say there havebeen thousands of cases where lives have been saved and accidents avoided by alert drivers reporting dangerous road situations........and yes ...clearly drunk drivers.

Money would be better spent hammering away at seat belt use...now THAT's a clear situation.

This is a campaign in search of a problem


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

I can attest to this...in April 2006 I was in Calgary Driving to my Moms place in Tuscany N.W. It was rush hour and I was driving along highway 1 (16th ave) in front of Canada Olympic park. To get a better picture Calgary's infrastructure sucks right now and the traffic along highway one was stop and go much like the 401 across Toronto on a Friday afternoon around 4 pm. I was driving behind a mini van and my phone rang, it was the girlfriend. I looked down to the passenger seat for something and looked up and saw Brake Lights!! I slammed on my brakes but the sqauking tires didn't help and I ran into the back of the mini van. All kate heard was smashing metal, and broken glass. Everyone was okay and the accident was relativley minor, but that was it for me and cell phones while driving.

By the way I am 33 and have been driving since I was 16. I have two speeding tickets in 17 years and this was my second very minor accident (first one was when I was 18).

My Dad used to drive and use his Cell phone at the same time....very scary especially on the highway...he would be veering all over trying to dial a stinkin number! I hated that...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The devil is in the details. It's very odd that while the campaign for against drunk driving has been effective in reducing alcohol related accidents yet the growth in cell phone use has been astronomical and yet accident rates continue to decline.
> ..............................
> I can guarantee you that an untrained pilot would crash. Let's ban them....oh yeah - they do. It's in training and familiarity with equipment.
> 
> ...


That was due to severe penalities and long-term advertising (mostly penalties is my guess). Time to do the same.
..............................
It is a matter of risk and enforceability. The risk is being identified more and more and enforceability is superior to many other problems in the car. Otherwise you're just arguing the standard industry defense without context.
..............................
Australian study. Time to do much more research and also time to stop denying/delaying using the standard tactic: "other bad stuff". "Other bad stuff" is only relevant within a policy context: risk and enforceability, for example.
..............................
That does not mean much. Where would they have been otherwise and how much is related to concentration (the system can adapt to certain amounts of bad driving by other drivers being aware)?
..............................
Quite a stretch. You only need the phone in the car for that and, again, no context. What are the numbers relative to the problem?
..............................
There is growing evidence that the problem is real. I think more research is needed, but the time for the denier tactic is past. Time to cautiously learn and develop reasonable policies.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Bottom line--cell phones do not help reduce the risk of accidents. It's bad enough that people can't stick within the speed limit and stop tailgating during even the worst winter months (my co-worker was rear-ended and involved a 10-car pileup on the Queensway in Ottawa) but they continue to do so whilst using their cell, or Crackberry, or fiddling with the radio.

What does it take before people wake up?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I talk on my cellphone as I drive. Always handsfree, so I'm never juggling the wheel and the phone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Until a "study" can use people trained and familiar with their own vehicle and communications equipment these "controlled studies" are almost meaningless.


That is just plain ill thought out. You can't control a study to suit your particular opinion. The fact of the matter is that the great majority of people are NOT trained, nor will they ever be as you imagine. That leads to the conclusion of the study which is they are a hazard on our roads when using a cell phone.



guytoronto said:


> I talk on my cellphone as I drive. Always handsfree, so I'm never juggling the wheel and the phone.


Did you miss this part:

“That finding held true whether the driver was holding a cell phone or using a hands-free device, the researchers noted.”


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I didn't miss that part.

The major difference between talking on a cell phone and being intoxicated, is that I can stop talking, and focus on my driving when necessary. You can't turn off intoxication.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

This morning, buddy in the car next to me was reading the newspaper as he drove.... had it spread out over the steering wheel and he had one finger diligantly searching for something important up his nose (I kid you not) and something in a Timmy's cup in the other hand.... talking constantly to a headset...

Two cars behind him was a woman driving with her elbows with a coffee (or whatever..) in one hand and a mascarra brush in the other working on her make-up with the visor down to use the vanity (  ) mirror all the while yammering away to (presumably) a hands free cellular (there was no-one else in the car...

More and more I try to work from home....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Sounds to me like it is time to hang up this habit, and it really is an unneeded habit with most people:
> 
> “THURSDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) -- Maneuvering through traffic while talking on the phone increases the likelihood of an accident five-fold and is actually more dangerous than driving drunk, U.S. researchers report.
> That finding held true whether the driver was holding a cell phone or using a hands-free device, the researchers noted.
> ...



macdoc ain't gonna like hearing this...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Last week I was almost hit by a lady talking on her cell phone while trying to negotiate a lane change as we are both getting on the onramp to the 401 and she still has the guts to honk at me as if I was the one that wasn't paying attention to what I supposed to be doing.

Laterz


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Bottom line - cell phone use has soared almost vertically, no similar increase in accidents


This could simply mean other causes are coming under control. It would be interesting to know how the causes of accidents have evolved over the past 10 years. 

Once concern might be that the cause is listed as inattention or distraction while driving, without detailing that a cell phone was involved.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> The major difference between talking on a cell phone and being intoxicated, is that I can stop talking, and focus on my driving when necessary. You can't turn off intoxication.


The problem is that people do talk on their phones and cannot choose to "be aware" when they need to be. It's too late. Thus it is a risk issue and, because it is enforceable, something that needs to be looked at in a serious manner versus, say, sedating children before they go in a car.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F0209XIE/2003000/t001_en.htm

Looking at motor vehicle accident deaths (2866) versus homicide by firearms (138) or homicides in total (447), this is certainly worth looking into more and getting some good studies on attribution of motor vehicle injuries and deaths, as well as pilot-programs to test out methods of enforcement and advertising.

If long-guns were such a huge threat, as a portion of the firearms problem, certaintly this warrants more -- much more -- attention, research and testing.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> ... certaintly this warrants more -- much more -- attention, research and testing.


Quit trying to justify your job...beejacon


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc206.pdf

I guess the question is: How far do we want to take this?

Eating, smoking, adjusting your stereo, listening to your stereo and having passengers in the car all can contribute to accidents, some more than cell phone use.

How much of this stuff do we want to legislate against?

How does a cop confirm you were making a handsfree call instead of talking to yourself or singing?

Should we stop implementing GPS controls in cars immediately?

When someone is dealing with a 2 hour commute everyday should they be denied basic things like water and music for that period of time? These things keep some people from falling asleep while they sit in huge boring traffic jams.

Somedays CBC Radio One is the only thing keeping me sane on long trip home. If we cut out these things are we going to increase road rage?

I'm not saying cellphones aren't a problem but they seem to get almost all of the attention nowdays when there are other accident causing distractions no one reports on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I guess the question is: How far do we want to take this?
> 
> Eating, smoking, adjusting your stereo, listening to your stereo and having passengers in the car all can contribute to accidents, some more than cell phone use.
> 
> ...


How far: To whatever can be statistically evaluated as "very" risky and have rules that can be enforced. Unnecessary can be added as a metric (cost-benefit judgement).

I think "reckless" driving (e.g. rapid acceleration) is chargeable but vague. Part of the value-judgement of the system while things like speeding and drunk driving have developed separate and more objective metrics of punishment and control. Why charge for those? 

Back to the policy context: associated risk and enforceability. Also generally unnecessary, and the system has adapted because most jurisdictions allow for a certain amount of speeding to match the general traffic flow and some alcohol consumption to match societal choice (limit is too high, in my opinion).
........................................
Cell phone records. If you are charged, you can defend yourself, but the police should be able to request durations of cell phone calls in a narrow band of time (no need to know who you were talking to). 
........................................
Is music/radio distraction of the same magnitude? Needs research as well as the cost-benefit considerations you mentioned. That's still not a reason to not pursue other potential problems.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc is a CPA (cell phone accident) -denier. There is a broad consensus that cell phone use by drivers leads to accidents. If we don't stop this early enough, the change in societal attitudes may be irreversible. He is the victim of propaganda spread by telecommunications companies. Perhaps we only have 10 years to deal with this, then it will be roadway carnage writ large!! I can't wait to see Canada getting involved in mega-enforcement of this worldwide problem in the same way that (insert name of supposedly progressive European country here) is doing.:clap: 

Oh yeah...


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm conflicted here, one the one side, as a cyclist an a bike courier in DT Vancouver, I've seen firsthand what a cellphone can do to a driver and that it can 'cause accidents(mind you, no car crash is an accident something is always to blame). I've been victim to a car changing lanes without signalling or checking their mirrors or shoulder checking in the the bike lane so they could get into the parking lane. That hurt. and the lady didn't even bother getting out of her car and off her cellphone, luckily I got her license plate and got some witnesses. 

on the other hand, I know that i can drive perfectly fine in low-to moderate traffic with the radio going or talking to my friend in the car. What's the difference between a friend in the passenger seat and one thats on the other end of the phone?

Perhaps a ban in dense metropolitan areas? I don't know, I'm certainly not qualified to make such a decision.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Is music/radio distraction of the same magnitude? Needs research as well as the cost-benefit considerations you mentioned. That's still not a reason to not pursue other potential problems


There was a study released about a year ago that indicated that adjusting the stereo was responsible for more accidents than cell phone use. The study I linked to says just listening to the radio increases your risk of an accident.

When organizations cherry pick cell phone use they sound like a bunch of frightened digital immigrants rather than actually wanting to address the issue of driver distraction.



> Cell phone records. If you are charged, you can defend yourself, but the police should be able to request durations of cell phone calls in a narrow band of time (no need to know who you were talking to).


I can't support that. Forcing people to go to an already packed traffic court to try to prove that they were rehearsing a speech or talking to themselves and not on the phone would be a pointless waste of everyone's time.

I was talking with my mom last night and the gym she goes to was broken into and the cashbox was stolen. The police showed up, took notes and left without further investigation. If that is how much time they have for a B&E then I can't imagine they are going to waste time tracking down cell phone records for something as minor as a traffic violation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

a friend in the car can act as a 2nd pair of eyes to warn the driver, unless the passenger is blind

and friend on the other end of the line can call 911 after they hear screaming and the sounds of an accident

i am very surprised that hand held phones are no worse than hands free

i drive a standard transmission car and hands free with an ear piece is much better, but i do now pull over for conversations longer than a few minutes or that require more attention, such as tech. support for a client


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I can't support that. Forcing people to go to an already packed traffic court to try to prove that they were rehearsing a speech or talking to themselves and not on the phone would be a pointless waste of everyone's time.


That's assuming the police would be so zealous. Also, it was just off-the-top. What enforcement ideas come to mind for you? 

Censors? Simply having the police record the license plate and time then finding out if there's a correlation with phone records (sort of like photo-radar for speeders) or have the combination of observed "distracted" driving. 

There's many ways and I find that too many focus on trying to delist this special dangerous behaviour (because many people do it) instead of thinking up practical ways to address it. 

Also, should it be subject to charges or demerits, etc.? There's a lot there and mounting evidence that it should not just be ignored.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> That's assuming the police would be so zealous. Also, it was just off-the-top. What enforcement ideas come to mind for you?
> 
> Censors? Simply having the police record the license plate and time then finding out if there's a correlation with phone records (sort of like photo-radar for speeders) or have the combination of observed "distracted" driving.
> 
> ...


Cell phones know where they are and can measure speed. As soon as you are moving faster than say 40 km, it could shut itself down.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Cell phones know where they are and can measure speed. As soon as you are moving faster than say 40 km, it could shut itself down.


Another good reason to go with a feature-free phone......


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Censors? Simply having the police record the license plate and time then finding out if there's a correlation with phone records (sort of like photo-radar for speeders) or have the combination of observed "distracted" driving.


Do you mean installing a piece of hardware that would scan for cell phone calls coming from cars?



> There's many ways and I find that too many focus on trying to delist this special dangerous behaviour (because many people do it) instead of thinking up practical ways to address it.
> 
> Also, should it be subject to charges or demerits, etc.? There's a lot there and mounting evidence that it should not just be ignored.


I don't disagree that driver distractions are a problem and we should find some way to address them. 

Perhaps, instead of having legislation that would have police on the hunt for people using cell phones or adjusting their stereos, we need something where if an accident happens and an independent witness can verify that the driver causing the accident was engaging in distracting behaviour that an additional charge could be laid.

To encourage people to think twice before taking a sip of coffee, adjusting the stereo or making a phone call, we could make it a rather large fine with lots of demerits tagged on.

Maybe this legislation already exists and isn't effective as is.

I honestly don't know how you would handle the handsfree situation, if it is a bad enough accident I imagine they would invest the time to check phone records.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Perhaps, instead of having legislation that would have police on the hunt for people using cell phones or adjusting their stereos, we need something where if an accident happens and an independent witness can verify that the driver causing the accident was engaging in distracting behaviour that an additional charge could be laid.
> 
> To encourage people to think twice before taking a sip of coffee, adjusting the stereo or making a phone call, we could make it a rather large fine with lots of demerits tagged on.


Good idea. Cell phone records, if one is found in the drivers vehicle could also be checked against the time of accident as standard procedure. VD's idea is pretty neat too, although it would discriminate against people that use their cell phones while on rollercoasters.  (more seriously...using a phone while in a taxi/bus)


----------



## agent4321 (Jun 25, 2004)

Here's a thought, what if you were drunk and talking on a cellphone at the same time? Maybe your car would blow up and take out a whole city block. [sarcasm]

My point is I think that study is BS and I think it's funny how out of control these studies get.

I have a cellphone which has a speakerphone and I sometimes have it sitting on my passenger seat...when I get a call, I answer and start talking...what's the difference between that and having that person sitting next to me talking at me? None!

I think if more people just used common sense while driving and using a cell phone then there _might be_ less accidents.

I have to agree with MacDoc.."it's a campaign in search of a problem"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> hat's the difference between that and having that person sitting next to me talking at me? None!


once again, the person in car is an extra set of eyes and can alert the driver to problems

BIG DIFFERENCE !!!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> once again, the person in car is an extra set of eyes and can alert the driver to problems
> 
> BIG DIFFERENCE !!!


There is also the policy context. 

Talking on a cell phone is not a functional requirement (as much as people think they "need" to without pulling over) while having a passenger is part of the basic function of transporting people (except in cases where you just "bring someone along for the ride"), so the test of riskiness would need to reflect that.

Sort of like how some amount of speed is a basic function (to move) and flowing with the traffic is part of the system's function but going 200 km/h is only about personal pursuits while increasing (significantly) the risk to others. That's where rules/charges etc. have a role.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

passenger could also be the one fiddling with the stereo leaving the driver to more important things


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

agent4321 said:


> I have a cellphone which has a speakerphone and I sometimes have it sitting on my passenger seat...when I get a call, I answer and start talking...what's the difference between that and having that person sitting next to me talking at me? None!


They have actually studied this as well. The studies have shown a big difference between talking on a phone and talking to a passenger. People tend not to put a caller on hold for fear of silence. However, if somebody is next to you in the car and you stop talking to deal with traffic, you know they will understand why.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

agent4321 said:


> I have a cellphone which has a speakerphone and I sometimes have it sitting on my passenger seat...when I get a call, I answer and start talking...what's the difference between that and having that person sitting next to me talking at me? None!


Do you need to push a button to answer a passenger? If it's on the passenger seat, how do you answer the call?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

When someone is driving they are taking their lives and the lives of others into their own hands, especially at the speeds you see here in TO. How would you feel about getting surgery from a multi-tasking doctor? 

Sure talking to a passenger can be just as distracting as a cell phone, but as Vandave says they can judge when it is and isn't appropriate to talk.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> once again, the person in car is an extra set of eyes and can alert the driver to problems
> 
> BIG DIFFERENCE !!!


The passenger(s) is not responsible for the person driving the car. Unless you arrange some special agreement with all your passengers, this really isn't a valid argument, and even then, applies to you and your vehicle only. I would be willing to say that less than half of all passengers (front or rear) pay enough attention to be a realistic backup observer for the driver.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

passengers usually have a high sense of self preservation while in your car


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Lars said:


> The passenger(s) is not responsible for the person driving the car. Unless you arrange some special agreement with all your passengers, this really isn't a valid argument, and even then, applies to you and your vehicle only. I would be willing to say that less than half of all passengers (front or rear) pay enough attention to be a realistic backup observer for the driver.


Perhaps you haven't had enough experience yet Lars, but a passenger is the driver's best friend. I have been driving since I was 12 years old, some 50 years plus now and have logged over 1.5 million miles (That's 2.4 million kms) on various vehicles. A passenger can be your best friend. When wheeling my 47 foot long motor home, tow car combo weighing 11 tons across North America, my wife as co-pilot, and me as hers, are crucial to our safety and not getting lost in strange cities. An extra set of eyes and ears makes a driver aware of the little things he might miss while preoccupied with defensive driving techniques.

MACSPECTRUM'S observation is quite right and makes total sense. It just takes time and experience to teach you that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

when driving to a long or unfamiliar destination and I have a passenger I ask them to be co-pilot and in charge of navigation

it's amazing how much less the mind wanders when talking to a person, in person, as opposed to phone, when driving


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Linky



> Finning, which distributes Caterpillar heavy equipment in Western Canada, announced that as of Jan. 1 it joined the Coalition for Cell Phone-Free Driving and banned its employees from using wireless devices when driving on company time.


Interesting to see the corporate support.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Linky
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting to see the corporate support.


Thanks for posting that FeXL, I had thought of it this morning and then forgot.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

There was someone on the local CBC the other day talking about driver distraction and they confirmed that there is no evidence handsfree cell phones are less distracting than holding one to the ear. They may be somewhat safer because the driver has an extra hand on the wheel, but that driver may be using that free hand to drink coffee or take notes.

Many things contribute to driver distraction but it has been shown that cell phone use is the worst. It is especially bad if the phone conversation has any emotional intensity to it or if it involves using the brain for intense abstract thinking. Many people have intense and involved conversations on the phone while driving, many conduct business which may require some intense abstract thinking. The more abstract and intense the conversation is the more it distracts the driver from the vital task at hand. People can not use their full faculties to pay attention to the road, if those faculties are involved in challenging thinking. 

A passenger may get involved with the driver in an intense conversation, but will usually be paying attention to the road and will shut up if some extra focus is required from the driver. I have felt myself sometimes getting distracted when talking to passengers in the car and I really notice the difference in terms of missing turns or streets. 

Driving in city traffic is complex enough. It has been shown that a driver in the city actually has more operations to do and things to take notice of per second than does the pilot of a passenger jet. 

I support banning the use of cell phones while driving. I'm tired of having my life endangered by all these distracted multi-taskers, when I'm walking, cycling or driving. I also support banning handsfree cell phone use and charging those who get into an accident while using the phone and driving. The police should have the power to get at cell phone records to establish this. 

One near miss from a bozo, phone to ear, completely failing to notice the stopped traffic and his red light and blowing through an intersection at high speed, missing killing me by a few feet was enough to bring me to this opinion. Subsequent near misses while on my bike and trying to walk across the street on other occasions have confirmed it for me. Why British Columbia hasn't acted yet, I don't know, most people appear to be in favour of it.


----------



## jmac (Feb 16, 2003)

...and driver distractions are sure to become more pervasive as the technology evolves:

"Widescreen iPod
Revolutionary Phone
Breakthrough Internet Device
High Technology"

.... give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

I agree with the likes of Sinc. We need to step back and realize that the world just doesn't NEED to revolve that quickly. Yes, go for the iPhone! but when you're in control of a 3000 lb piece of steel traveling at 20km/hr (!!!fast times in TO rush hour!!), put down the damned phone and focus,

When you get there, pop the earbuds in, cranks up the tunes, and reply to your vmail...you can always say that you were otherwise spending "quality" time with the loved one...that'll work.


----------



## Bruno_NB (Sep 11, 2006)

Nothing I'd like better for these phones to be banned while driving. I was cut off this morning on my way to work by such a driver.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Unless I have a passenger with me to answer my cell, it just rings while I drive. When I get to where I am going, I check call display and return the call.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it will take an unfortunate, high profile auto accident, say a rich or famous or powerful person to bring cell phone use and driving into line


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Possibly... but the unfortunate fates of others often go unheeded with the "it can't happen to me" crowd. Plus people have notoriously short attention spans.

It probably won't stop until laws are passed... laws with teeth. Otherwise, too many drivers will continue to consider themselves brilliant multitaskers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny that cops. emergency personnel, pilots, military, tow truck drivers etc all are trained to work with the equipment they have - and far more complex than any cell phone, and they use cell phones as well.

Bottom line - where is the accident spike that would bear out the DANGER DANGER rant??

You cannot legislate common sense or equipment training.

As for hands free - most phones answer and hang up without touching anything and I've never had a problem asking a caller to wait for a minute when I have to concentrate on say finding an address - something far more distracting.

I KNOW long distance drivers chat to stay awake - time goes by quickly. Just as I was chatting with my daughter after picking her up - the trip from Whitby took no time at all and I was in no danger of falling asleep as I might have with no one to chat with - phone or in person.

Another yowling for abolition which never works - constant reminders about paying attention, seat belt use, don't drive while sleepy or drunk ( the real killers ) and graduated licences for young or new drivers.

It takes time and experience to develop judgement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I said, 99% will never receive that training and therefore are a hazard on the roads.

One other thing, you forgot to mention that pilots, cops etc. have co-pilots, partners etc. and it is THEY who operate that equipment. Give me a break.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

sinc, not all cops have partners yet operate equipment
i would be in favour of some sort of requisite training for purchasers of cellphones that have a driver's licence and introduce a new class of driver's licence that allows the driver to use a cell phone while driving

i would also NOT allow new drivers to use a cell while driving until they reach a certain skill level, like a graduated licence

macdoc, i think the lack of spike you are claiming is mostly due to other drivers being defensive and avoiding the accident that may have been caused by drives using cell phones

i do also find that regardless of cell phone, drivers are using turn signals and shoulder checks far less than just a few years ago

people seem to turn at will and cell phone users seem to be more guilty of this than most

i would also be in favour of a police blitz to stop drivers who are reading newspapers, doing their makeup, etc. while driving

i might even go as far as not allowing people to eat while driving
i don't know how to handle drinking of fluids
water would be ok, but hot coffee can be a pain but i don't know how to legislate that

i am also in favour of removing trucks from major arteries inside metropolitan areas during core rush hours (7-9, 3:30 - 6)

i would also make continuing driver testing and training requisite such as "skid schools" and "winter driving", "highway driving" every 5 years

here in shangri-la the winter drivers are far better (eg they slow down during snow storms) and are far better prepared (most have real winter tires and rims)

we need to create better drivers and continue to monitor their progress
i think the extra bureaucracy would more than be outweighed by the lower accident rate 

also, i think that the MTO or premier's office should announce "snow days" much more often and ask non-essential traffic to stay home

i heard a report that the last "freezing rain" storm in the GTA caused 600 accidents
the cost of traffic jams and cost to insurance must have been huge vs. having peopl stay at home

certainly something to look at

traffic is getting worse and so are drivers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Highway patrols might not have a partner, but city cops in cars always do. One runs the computer and radio while the other drives. Commercial pilots always have co-pilots.

And you are right about the lack of signal light use and shoulder checks. Odd that every time I check the driver of a car not using signals, 9 times out of ten he or she is on the phone. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

on a last note, i would ban all cell phone usage in a car unless an earpiece is used
if cop sees u with a cell phone up to your ear, it's an immediate fine

and you are right sinc, i also do notice a high correlation between lack of signal/shoulder check and cell phone usage

i do use the cell to talk to someone while on my long drive home during late hours (light traffic) to pass the time, but never if i get caught driving to or from toronto during busy traffic times and busy traffic isn't always related to time of day

i limit these conversations to strictly personal and of a non important type (eg non client) and use an ear piece and i keep my primary focus on the road, not the conversation

don't know if this makes me a hypocrite

an accident can cause big traffic during normal off peak hours


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Bottom line - where is the accident spike that would bear out the DANGER DANGER rant??


That's because those of us focused on driving and not distracted avoid these _obliviots_ using their phones. Give credit where credit is due. lol 

There isn't a day I don't save some bozo's life because he/she's not paying attention while on the phone...and I'm not kidding. 

I drive a tractor trailer around the GTA and it really is getting ridiculous. There's even plenty of idiot truck drivers too, trying to shift gears, steer and write while yapping on the cell phone. I like to pull up beside them and let loose my air horn....and then of course we argue on the CB while driving.:lmao:


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> Highway patrols might not have a partner, but city cops in cars always do. One runs the computer and radio while the other drives.


This is not true, at least here in Ottawa. I see police cars through the city daily with only 1 officer in the vehicle. If fact, I don't think I've ever seen a situation where an officer pulled someone over for speeding/violation and had a partner waiting in the car.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just because it doesn't happen in Ottawa does not make it "untrue". It simply makes it not a policy in Ottawa. Edmonton city police travel in pairs and have for years. Even beat cops patrol in pairs here. RCMP highway patrols operate as single officers.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

It should be noted that the police in Ottawa have had a number of "accidents" involving driving into pedestrians (an elderly couple were hit by a cruiser as they strolled along the sidewalk at night) as well as each other (two collided at an intersection responding to the same bar fight) over the last year or so. There was a period over several months where it seemed like a cruiser was crashing into one thing or another.

As far as partners go--in Hull, they usually have officers paired up.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

kps said:


> That's because those of us focused on driving and not distracted avoid these _obliviots_ using their phones. Give credit where credit is due. lol


Yep. Happens to me all the time, downtown or on the highway, makes no diff... a car up ahead or to the side or coming up behind me is driving erratically. Sometimes the driver is having a fight (or at least a very emotional exchange of some sort) with a passenger; saw this very thing on Eastern Avenue three days ago - guy and his girlfriend appeared to be shouting at eachother and flailing their arms - both 'of 'em! But that said, more often than not it's a cellu-lout quite unaware of his/her own car's dangerous drifting. What do you do? Like me, you probably take steps to get as far away from that car as you can - preferably by shooting past it and getting a few more cars between yourself and the offending obliviot.

And of course, generally they're too engrossed in their drive-gabbing to notice your own defensive actions.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I once almost hit a pedestrian while using a mobile radio years ago when I worked as a delivery driver. The dispatcher required that we respond immediately, no matter where we were. If he called you and you didn't respond you were starting to get in trouble, they didn't really care what driving situation you were in.

In downtown Vancouver, I was engrossed in trying to report my progress to the dispatcher and relay what had happened with a particular delivery, when a pedestrian shot out across the crosswalk, like a deer, against the "don't walk" signal as I was trying to negotiate a right turn. I was surprised and slammed on the brakes, and the surprised pedestrian did a little jump and a spin as he pushed off my front bumper. Fortunately he didn't get knocked down. He ran off while giving me the pre-emptive finger.

I take some of the blame because if I hadn't been on the radio, I would have been paying enough attention to have seen this guy racing across the sidewalk and running for the crosswalk. I could not drive defensively because my concentration was elsewhere.

As I reacted to the braking and surprise, I let out a long stream of descriptive and crude cursing directed at the pedestrian. Unfortunately, because of my surprise I had stopped talking to the dispatcher but still had my thumb clamped on the mic button as I grabbed at the steering wheel. Then a few seconds later I realized that I was broadcasting to 30 or so drivers and the dispatch office and said "Sh!t" as I dropped the mic.

They all got a big kick out of that, of course. 



Max said:


> ... more often than not it's a *cellu-lout* ...


:lmao: Excellent term! I hope you don't mind if I borrow it. New traffic curse: "Ferschlugginer cellulout!"


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey, be my guest.

Just remembered what had happened to a colleague at work early last year. A woman behind him was talking on her cell _and_ doing her makeup in the rear-view when she smacked into him, waiting at a red. Dinged his Audi real good. He's lucky it wasn't worse. She picked up the tab, of course, but my friend, who's obsessive about his car, wasn't too impressed.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------

