Reminder to Californians that drive.

Any topic is game... you can discuss it here! Just keep it clean, OK?

Moderators: malletphreak, Hostrauser

tSz42

Post by tSz42 » Sat May 10, 2008 5:13 pm

Ryan H. Turner wrote: Why is a conversation on the phone ANY different than talk to a passenger?
Because having someone else in the car is another set of eyes looking at the road for you. That person on the cell phone is just an annoyance who is taking your concentration away from the road.

Also, that person on the cell phone is taking one hand away from being on the steering wheel.

Cell phones are almost a common thing to have, which is why there's a law, or going to be, that effects driving and talking on them.

If taking off your pants (or pulling them on) while driving was a common thing here in America, then I'm sure there would be a specific law against that

User avatar
Chapagne
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: So. CA

Baa!

Post by Chapagne » Sat May 10, 2008 7:36 pm

Ryan H. Turner wrote:First, they say "studies show" that cell phone usage causes accidents. It does? REALLY?? CITE THE STUDIES!! Never have I seen a study cited.
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99696.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113320.htm
Ryan H. Turner wrote:If I can't have a conversation on the phone, why then is it ok to have a conversation with a passenger?
From my own experience, it's a different kind of talking when someone is in the car. They can see the road conditions and know when the conversation should pause because you need to concentrate. I know that when I am using the phone in the car, I check my mirrors less and tend to stare straight ahead.
"The conductor of an orchestra doesn't make a sound. He depends for his power on his ability to make other people powerful." - Benjamin Zander

User avatar
fieldshowqueen
Drum Major
Drum Major
Posts: 2490
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:24 am
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by fieldshowqueen » Sat May 10, 2008 8:48 pm

I am exactly the opposite ... I can't hear very well so if I have a passenger in the car I am looking more at them to read lips than at the road. I tend to look up MORE when I'm on a cell call.
Image

User avatar
Hostrauser
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 7951
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Sat May 10, 2008 8:52 pm

Ryan H. Turner wrote:For me what's most infuriating about the government "nannies" that want to "protect" me FROM me by FORCING me to wear seat belts and helmets and knee pads and face protectors and God-knows what else they can stick their big fat noses into MY business about...is this...

So...congratulations...we've allowed the government to go ahead and shove more needless "nanny-isms" into our lives. Speed limits I'm good with. Stop signs...most of them I get. But please...leave me alone and let me talk on my flippin' phone without the need to have the worthless Bluetooth "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW...HOW ABOUT NOW??" system in my possession.
I think the goal here is to protect OTHER people FROM you. Pretty much the same with DUI checkpoints, you know? I mean, if you get liquored up and drive off a cliff and kill yourself... hey, Darwin Award. But if you plow into six other cars and kill four people including your passenger... well, I think you get my point.

As for the seat belts/helmets/etc... you're right, I don't think people should be FORCED to use those safety devices. I also don't think insurance companies should be FORCED to pay for the rehabilitation of people who couldn't be bothered with basic precautionary measures for their own safety. As soon as insurance policies are allowed to contain "escape" clauses that free the insurance companies of liability in such cases, I'll be all for repealing helmet and seat belt laws.

As for studies...
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration wrote: Q. Does cell phone use while driving cause traffic crashes?
A. Research shows that driving while using a cell phone can pose a serious cognitive distraction and degrade driver performance. The data are insufficient to quantify crashes caused by cell phone use specifically, but NHTSA estimates that driver distraction from all sources contributes to 25 percent of all police-reported traffic crashes.

Q. Is it safe to use hands-free (headset, speakerphone, or other device) cell phones while driving?
A. The available research indicates that whether it is a hands-free or hand-held cell phone, the cognitive distraction is significant enough to degrade a driver’s performance. This can cause a driver to miss key visual and audio cues needed to avoid a crash.

Q. Is NHTSA conducting further research to better quantify the safety impact of using cell phones while driving?
A. NHTSA is conducting research projects on driver cell phone use and will continue to monitor the research of others on this subject. As we learn more about the impact of cell phone use on driver performance and crash risk, and as wireless technologies evolve and expand, NHTSA will make its findings public.

Q. Is talking on a cell phone any worse than having a conversation with someone in the car?
A. Any activity a driver engages while driving has the potential to distract the driver from the primary task of driving. Some research findings comparing cell phone use to passenger conversations while driving, show each to be equally risky, while others show cell phone use to be more risky. A significant difference between the two is the fact that a passenger can monitor the driving situation along with the driver and pause for, or alert the driver to, potential hazards, whereas a person on the other end of the phone line is unaware of the roadway situation.

Q. What do the studies say about the relative risk of cell phone use when compared to other tasks like eating or drinking?
A. The current research does not provide a definitive answer as to which behavior is riskier. In a controlled study, comparing eating and operating a voice-activated cell phone to continuously operating a CD player, it was found that the CD player operation was more distracting than the other activities. In a test track study conducted by NHTSA, the results showed that manual dialing was about as distracting as grooming/eating, but less distracting than reading or changing CDs. It is also important to keep in mind that some activities are carried out more frequently and for longer periods of time and may result in greater risk.

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3598
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Sun May 11, 2008 7:26 am

I'm not comfortable with insurance companies being allowed "escape clauses" while people are FORCED to HAVE insurance. Insurance as a legal requirment causes extremely ridiculous insurance rates. Let's do the math, I pay $180 a month for insurance on my 2003 Nissan Sentra, I've been driving that car for 3 years, so that is about $6,480 paid to insurance on that car, before the sentra I had a 98 Ford Escort that I paid $90 a month for insurance, that comes out to about $2,160. So, in the 5 years I've been driving I have paid an approx. total of $8,640. I have 0 accidents, and 1 traffic ticket (red light violation). I have made 0 claims to my insurance....soooo....they pocket $8,640 of my money, because the laws required me to be insured. I don't ever see that money again, I don't ever get paid back. A few more years accident free and Mercury might as well buy me a brand-new car. And the laws also cause crazy rates among insurance companies, rather than competitive rates. If insurance wasn't required by law, insurance companies would offer lower rates to lure in new customers. Besides, stupid people are going to drive without insurance whether it's required or not. I know there's a lot more issues regarding insurance policies than I have addressed, but let's just say I'm not happy with the current system, even if I don't have all the answers for implementing a new system.
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

User avatar
Chapagne
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: So. CA

Post by Chapagne » Mon May 12, 2008 11:54 am

The Aceman wrote:they pocket $8,640 of my money, because the laws required me to be insured. I don't ever see that money again, I don't ever get paid back.
Well, it's called "insurance" not an investment. If you don't think you'll ever need it, get the minimum required by the state and ask for the largest deductible they offer. Of course, one accident with a major injury, and you'll get back that $8K plus more in one day.

The minimum liability insurance required in California for private passenger is:

$15,000 for injury or death of one person
$30,000 for injury or death of more than one person
$5,000 for damage to property
"The conductor of an orchestra doesn't make a sound. He depends for his power on his ability to make other people powerful." - Benjamin Zander

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3598
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Mon May 12, 2008 12:26 pm

Chapagne wrote:
The Aceman wrote:they pocket $8,640 of my money, because the laws required me to be insured. I don't ever see that money again, I don't ever get paid back.
Well, it's called "insurance" not an investment. If you don't think you'll ever need it, get the minimum required by the state and ask for the largest deductible they offer. Of course, one accident with a major injury, and you'll get back that $8K plus more in one day.

The minimum liability insurance required in California for private passenger is:

$15,000 for injury or death of one person
$30,000 for injury or death of more than one person
$5,000 for damage to property
If I owned my car, instead of the bank, I would have liability only. Alas, it will be many moons before my car is paid off.
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

Post Reply