Vehicular cell phone use ban ineffective?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

LINK

Study Casts Doubt On Cell Phone And Car Accidents Link

Banning drivers from using hand-held cell phones while on the road might not be as effective at preventing accidents as previously thought.

A new study released today by the Highway Loss Data Institute, a research arm of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety , found that states with laws which ban hand-held cell phone use while driving have not seen a reduction in crashes.

The study analyzed collision claims in the months immediately before and after hand-held bans were enacted in four jurisdictions - California, Connecticut, New York, and the District of Columbia.

That data was compared to that of nearby jurisdictions without such bans and found that hand-held bans had no effect in crash trends, in comparing before versus after such bans were enacted.

"This new study reinforces a long-held AAA concern that hand-held cell phone bans have little or no impact," stated Ragina C. Averella, Public and Government Affairs Manager for AAA Mid-Atlantic.

"This is in large part because such bans cause drivers to rely on still-risky, hands-free cell phones and research shows that hands-free phones offer no real safety advantages over hand-held phones.

In fact, a recent study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety showed that talking on a cell phone while driving-regardless of whether it's hand-held or hands-free, quadruples one's chances of being involved in a crash.

"If bans on hand-held cell phone use are merely pushing drivers to adopt the use of hands-free products, then it's really no surprise that we are seeing little to no change in road safety," said the spokeswoman.

This research is particularly important to Maryland drivers, as legislators are currently considering a variety of distracted driving bills in this year's General Assembly Session.

I wonder if there are any other studies on cell phone bans that have concluded the opposite. It might also be that such laws are difficult to enforce. I know a few people who have not changed their driving and cell phone use habits. And none of them have been ticketed for that.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I suspect they're wholly ineffective because they're A) fiendishly difficult to enforce, and B) don't go far enough. You'd have to have cameras everywhere filming vehicles, noting their license plates, and quite possibly coupled with RF sensors to determine whether a given vehicle was producing cellphone emissions. Which would, naturally, have certain segments of society screaming "ZOMG Big Brother!!!111"

And there is also the problem that the act of talking to someone on a telephone, even if both hands are on the wheel, dramatically increases your chances of an accident. You would have to completely ban phone conversations in moving vehichles. Which is even harder to enforce unless you give cops the authority to pull over anyone looking even remotely impaired (which more than a few areas already do.) At which point, how does one prove that they were using their cellphone at the time without a warrant to seize the phone and one's service provider's records?

[Korvan]

I wonder if the cell towers could detect a Doppler shift in incoming signals and then automatically disconnect those signals from devices moving above a certain speed. It would also affect car passengers and cell users on transit, but to reduce accidents, that's not too huge an inconvenience.

[Serafina]

I wonder if the cell towers could detect a Doppler shift in incoming signals and then automatically disconnect those signals from devices moving above a certain speed. It would also affect car passengers and cell users on transit, but to reduce accidents, that's not too huge an inconvenience.

Yeah, because people never use their phone in, oh, say, a train - or simply while being in a car and NOT driving themself

[Korvan]

I wonder if the cell towers could detect a Doppler shift in incoming signals and then automatically disconnect those signals from devices moving above a certain speed. It would also affect car passengers and cell users on transit, but to reduce accidents, that's not too huge an inconvenience.

Yeah, because people never use their phone in, oh, say, a train - or simply while being in a car and NOT driving themself

Maybe you missed where I briefly addressed the point of car passengers and transit users? I take it you think the inconvenience of not being able to use a cell device as a passenger outweighs the reduction in accidents that preventing cell use from moving vehicles would cause?

[Serafina]

I wonder if the cell towers could detect a Doppler shift in incoming signals and then automatically disconnect those signals from devices moving above a certain speed. It would also affect car passengers and cell users on transit, but to reduce accidents, that's not too huge an inconvenience.

Yeah, because people never use their phone in, oh, say, a train - or simply while being in a car and NOT driving themself

Maybe you missed where I briefly addressed the point of car passengers and transit users? I take it you think the inconvenience of not being able to use a cell device as a passenger outweighs the reduction in accidents that preventing cell use from moving vehicles would cause?

Whoops. i actually missed that one, sorry for that.

Still, it is a pretty stupid idea.
This is actually one of the cases where harsher punsihment actually works. It worked with seatbelts, i do not see a reason why it should not work with mobile phones.

Such a measure would impede a lot of legitimate uses of mobile phones for next to no reason.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

One problem is that the fine is usually relatively small and that it's often a secondary offense which you can only be ticked for if the officer catches you doing something else. An obvious improvement would be to make the fine for first-time offense of using a cellphone while driving (hand held or hand free, both would be banned), a nice even 1,000.00 USD. Second offense would be one thousand dollars and a one month suspension of your license, third offence, one thousand dollars and a one year suspension, fourth offense they strip your license (I don't like increasing fines as that would just be unfairly harsh on poor people) for seven years, and then of course to make it a primary offense that you can be pulled over for. That would have a fair number of people thinking twice, I'd wager.

[Serafina]

One problem is that the fine is usually relatively small and that it's often a secondary offense which you can only be ticked for if the officer catches you doing something else. An obvious improvement would be to make the fine for first-time offense of using a cellphone while driving (hand held or hand free, both would be banned), a nice even 1,000.00 USD. Second offense would be one thousand dollars and a one month suspension of your license, third offence, one thousand dollars and a one year suspension, fourth offense they strip your license (I don't like increasing fines as that would just be unfairly harsh on poor people) for seven years, and then of course to make it a primary offense that you can be pulled over for. That would have a fair number of people thinking twice, I'd wager.

We have that in Germany - partially.
The fine is really small (40€ - pittyfull), but we have a point-based system: various driving "crimes" give a differnt number of points - if you have too many points, you will loose your licence.
Works relatively well, tough the points and the fine really should be increased.

[Korvan]

Whoops. i actually missed that one, sorry for that.

Still, it is a pretty stupid idea.
This is actually one of the cases where harsher punsihment actually works. It worked with seatbelts, i do not see a reason why it should not work with mobile phones.

Such a measure would impede a lot of legitimate uses of mobile phones for next to no reason.

No problem. I do agree that my solution is one that shouldn't be used if other solutions can be found to be workable. Still the thought of no loud cell phone conversations next to me on the bus is a very nice one.

The use of cell devices on transport for the most part really just is a convenience and luxury. Legitimate, critical users such as emergency personal could be on a white list that would not be disconnected. Also, calls to 911 would never be disconnected as well. I'm trying to think of other calls that simply could not be put off until the user is stationary, but I'm not coming up any that. It would be an expense, but buses and trains could be fitted with repeaters that would allow their passengers to make calls, tho clever drivers who could match speeds with the bus could use them as well.

But as I said above, holding off on drastic solutions until ones that don't punish everyone can be tried is probably the most prudent course to take.

[Serafine666]

One problem is that the fine is usually relatively small and that it's often a secondary offense which you can only be ticked for if the officer catches you doing something else. An obvious improvement would be to make the fine for first-time offense of using a cellphone while driving (hand held or hand free, both would be banned), a nice even 1,000.00 USD. Second offense would be one thousand dollars and a one month suspension of your license, third offence, one thousand dollars and a one year suspension, fourth offense they strip your license (I don't like increasing fines as that would just be unfairly harsh on poor people) for seven years, and then of course to make it a primary offense that you can be pulled over for. That would have a fair number of people thinking twice, I'd wager.

That may be true, your grace, but why is it sensible to punish people for the act of talking on a cell phone while driving unless the officer observes signs of impairment? If I'm jabbering on my cell but are traveling the speed limit, staying within the lines, stopping at an appropriate distance, and showing no other signs that the cell phone is causing a danger to myself or others, why does the talking deserve punishment? It seems to me that a broad-based impairment law would be more just and sensible: engaging in any action which observably (in the case of an officer nearby) or demonstrably (in case of a crash or what not) impairs your ability to drive in a safe manner should have a $1000 USD fine for first offense with subsequent offenses imposing increasingly severe punishment. This would cover reading while driving, talking/texting while driving, drinking coffee, playing with the radio... essentially, doing anything that impairs others and thus makes you a danger to those around you.

[Dark Hellion]

Why should I not be able to drive drunk when I observe the speed limit, brake accordingly and follow all the relevant traffic laws? Do you think about these things before you post?

[Phantasee]

The Alberta government is proceeding with a Distracted Driver law similar to what you're talking about, Serafine. In my opinion, it's better than the sort of limited bans that only take into account cell phones or navigation systems.

Amusingly, I was at the party's AGM when they discussed distracted driving, and while there were two resolutions proposed (with fairly stiff penalties, including demerits), they were filibustered by cranky old men who claimed it was all the fault of women chit chatting on their phones while putting on make-up, so why should they have to pay the price?

I guess the idea part got out of that is to cover all distractions.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That may be true, your grace, but why is it sensible to punish people for the act of talking on a cell phone while driving unless the officer observes signs of impairment? If I'm jabbering on my cell but are traveling the speed limit, staying within the lines, stopping at an appropriate distance, and showing no other signs that the cell phone is causing a danger to myself or others, why does the talking deserve punishment? It seems to me that a broad-based impairment law would be more just and sensible: engaging in any action which observably (in the case of an officer nearby) or demonstrably (in case of a crash or what not) impairs your ability to drive in a safe manner should have a $1000 USD fine for first offense with subsequent offenses imposing increasingly severe punishment. This would cover reading while driving, talking/texting while driving, drinking coffee, playing with the radio... essentially, doing anything that impairs others and thus makes you a danger to those around you.

Scientific studies have shown that using a cellphone results in your reaction time being fourteen times longer in distance traversed than it would be if you were drunk to the legal limit. Average unimpaired reaction time from an emergency braking incident at 70mph is 0.54 seconds. Eating adds 3.5 feet at 70 mph to the point from whence you begin to react. Being at 0.08 % BAC (the current legal limit) is 4 feet. Reading e-mail on your phone is an additional 36 feet traversed before response, and talking on the cellphone? 70 additional feet, or another 1.47 seconds added onto unimpaired reaction time. With respect, that is serious enough to demand direct, specific, targeted action.

[Phantasee]

The other thing about cell phone use while driving: the driver pays more attention to the road ahead, because they realize what they're doing is distracting (subconsciously?). The issue is, staring at the road isn't conducive to having awareness of what's going on around you. So they stare harder at a point in front of the car, and don't check their mirrors, to the left or right of their path, or even the dashboard to check their speed. But they feel like they're focusing on the road, which IMO is even more dangerous, because it's over-confidence.

I recommend reading Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt. It's a popular psychology/sociology book, but he does bring to light some important research being done on the topic.

[The Jester]

I wonder if the cell towers could detect a Doppler shift in incoming signals and then automatically disconnect those signals from devices moving above a certain speed.

They can't. However, the network can count the number of handovers made over a time period though and a highly mobile user will generate more handovers.

[Aaron]

The Alberta government is proceeding with a Distracted Driver law similar to what you're talking about, Serafine. In my opinion, it's better than the sort of limited bans that only take into account cell phones or navigation systems.

Amusingly, I was at the party's AGM when they discussed distracted driving, and while there were two resolutions proposed (with fairly stiff penalties, including demerits), they were filibustered by cranky old men who claimed it was all the fault of women chit chatting on their phones while putting on make-up, so why should they have to pay the price?

I guess the idea part got out of that is to cover all distractions.

That would make more sense then what they did here in Ontario. They banned the use of any hand held device while your vehicle is in motion, but they allow the use of headsets and speakers. So I can just walk into Bell World, buy a bluetooth speaker, plug it into my cigarette socket or clip it to my rear-view mirror and I'm good!

The fine is also a paltry 150$. So far I'm still seeing a shitload of folks chatting and texting on the road.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Scientific studies have shown that using a cellphone results in your reaction time being fourteen times longer in distance traversed than it would be if you were drunk to the legal limit. Average unimpaired reaction time from an emergency braking incident at 70mph is 0.54 seconds. Eating adds 3.5 feet at 70 mph to the point from whence you begin to react. Being at 0.08 % BAC (the current legal limit) is 4 feet. Reading e-mail on your phone is an additional 36 feet traversed before response, and talking on the cellphone? 70 additional feet, or another 1.47 seconds added onto unimpaired reaction time. With respect, that is serious enough to demand direct, specific, targeted action.

Is it using a mobile, or just talking to somebody, though? If using a normal mobile vs a hands free set showed a great difference in accidents, then there'd be a clear indication that it's the phone, but since there doesn't appear to be, I have no idea whether the problem is specific to phones. If hands free sets impair you just as much, how is that significantly different from talking to somebody in the car with you? Banning mobiles in cars is a good idea, whichever way you look at it, but if it's simply talking to somebody while driving, as opposed to specifically using a phone of any sort, then the problem seems pretty unsolvable, unless you also ban passengers.

[aerius]

Is it using a mobile, or just talking to somebody, though? If using a normal mobile vs a hands free set showed a great difference in accidents, then there'd be a clear indication that it's the phone, but since there doesn't appear to be, I have no idea whether the problem is specific to phones. If hands free sets impair you just as much, how is that significantly different from talking to somebody in the car with you?

Because your passengers know when to shut the hell up, and they can be told to shut the hell up for as long as needed at any time. If your passengers have half a brain they won't be talking when you're trying to merge onto a busy highway, and they won't be running their mouths when you're fighting heavy city traffic.

[Bakustra]

Is it using a mobile, or just talking to somebody, though? If using a normal mobile vs a hands free set showed a great difference in accidents, then there'd be a clear indication that it's the phone, but since there doesn't appear to be, I have no idea whether the problem is specific to phones. If hands free sets impair you just as much, how is that significantly different from talking to somebody in the car with you?

Because your passengers know when to shut the hell up, and they can be told to shut the hell up for as long as needed at any time. If your passengers have half a brain they won't be talking when you're trying to merge onto a busy highway, and they won't be running their mouths when you're fighting heavy city traffic.

There have been studies that show that having passengers physically in the car will actually improve driving performance, because they're an extra set of eyes and ears. The same studies show that mobiles, whether hands-free or normal, significantly decrease driving performance.

[defanatic]

Actually, for the purposes of conversation, a passenger has about the same negative impairment as a hands-free phone call (barring the accepting the call). I'll see if I can hunt down the study once I get back from work.

[Bakustra]

Actually, for the purposes of conversation, a passenger has about the same negative impairment as a hands-free phone call (barring the accepting the call). I'll see if I can hunt down the study once I get back from work.

Really? Here's the study I cited, from a study conducted by the University of Utah in 2001. It indicated that there is no real difference between hands-free and ordinary cell phones in terms of distraction. It also showed that listening to the radio or an audiobook did not impair driving performance. This study references a paper on passenger conversations that claims such conversations are less impairing than cell-phone conversations, meanwhile, but I haven't been able to find the paper, beyond a $12US pay article from the APA. I'll see if I can't find the copy of the December 2008 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied where the paper first appeared in the university library.
EDIT: No, the university does not have any issues of the journal.

[Alyeska]

And why do they work on banning cell phones but never touch CB radios and the like? How have truckers and cab drivers not killed everyone after all these years?

[Teebs]

And why do they work on banning cell phones but never touch CB radios and the like? How have truckers and cab drivers not killed everyone after all these years?

They're probably much more experienced drivers than average. In the case of truck drivers I'd have thought they're mostly driving on relatively easy roads too i.e. intercity everything moving at a fairly constant speed.

[tim31]

Well well. Tasmania gets in on this thread

Illegally using a mobile phone while driving will result in increased fines for Tasmanian motorists from today (1 February, 2010).
The Minister for Infrastructure, Graeme Sturges, said today that the increased monetary penalty, from $110 to $300, would be in addition to an increased demerit point penalty, from 2 to 3 demerit points that came into effect in November 2009.

“A driver is not permitted to use a mobile phone held in any way by the driver, but is only allowed to use a phone in a fixed cradle or by remote means such as via bluetooth technology,” he said.

“Almost tripling the fine is intended to send a strong message to the community about the hazards of using a mobile phone while driving, especially given that inattention is a major contributory factor in road crashes.

“A recent study by the Royal Melbourne Hospital found that motorists who used hand-held mobile phones increased their risk of a collision four-fold.”

Mr Sturges said such research showed the importance of the State Government getting tough on people illegally using mobile phones while driving.

“Inattention still accounts for far too many serious casualty and fatal crashes in Tasmania.

“It is an inescapable fact that people illegally using mobile phones while driving are not paying full attention to the crucial task of driving safely, and therefore are at much more risk of putting their own safety, and that of every other road user on the line.

“The Bartlett Labor Government is strongly committed to road safety, and tough penalties for offences like illegally using mobile phones will help send the message that unsafe driving will not be tolerated on our roads,” Mr Sturges said.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

And why do they work on banning cell phones but never touch CB radios and the like? How have truckers and cab drivers not killed everyone after all these years?

Because truckers and cab drivers aren't spending inordinate amounts of time on the radio. You can only broadcast in short bursts, since you can't hear what anyone is saying while you are broadcasting; and since a CB channel is like an old telephone party line, the only way anyone can ever make any sense of what's going on is if they take turns.

Also, the typical subject of conversation? Road and traffic conditions (excepting the odd truck-stop lady of questionable virtue.) Some drivers will shoot the breeze to stay awake on long hauls, but it's nothing like talking on a cellphone.