Banning cell phones may not be the solution.
Perhaps banning inapt drivers would be more beneficial. Some drivers are just plain ignorant to the rules of the road and cause havoc wherever they go and they do so without the use of a cell phone. They simply can not drive.
There are far too many drivers who have no business behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, again, because they just can’t freakin’ drive. There are individuals who’ve never had a driver’s education course or any structured training yet they managed to obtain an operator’s license; there are individuals who can’t manage to walk two feet without tripping over air; there are those who can’t maneuver a bicycle down a straight path; there are licensed drivers who can not read or speak English yet they too managed to pass a written test administrated in English and become licensed to drive a motor vehicle in Michigan. Road menaces are all around us and surprisingly a great deal of them aren’t banishing a notorious cell phone.
Perhaps educating and training drivers on a regular routine basis would be a more logical method for reducing accidents involving motor vehicles.
Admittedly there are some hazards to cell phone usage during the operation of a motor vehicle, although not on the same level so is changing the station on the radio; if you allow it to distract and impair your judgment.
I must admit I am a little torn regarding the banning of cell phone usage while driving, and can easily argue both sides. I realize and respect the fact that the issue of driver distractions caused by cellular phones becomes increasingly important as cell phone use becomes more prevalent in daily life. According to studies conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), some form of driver distraction is a contributing factor in 20 to 30 percent of all crashes. The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association estimates that there are currently 134.5 million cellular phones in operation in the United States, and a recent NHTSA survey found that nearly 75 percent of drivers reported using their phone while driving. A NHTSA observational study released in 2001 estimated that 500,000 drivers of passenger vehicles (cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and pickups) are talking on hand-held cell phones during any given daytime moment throughout the week. However,
There are countless studies citing reasons for banning cell phone usage including, a University of Utah study that shows conversing on cell phones while driving disrupts the driver’s attention to the visual environment, leading to what the authors call “inattention blindness”, or the inability to recognize objects encountered in the driver’s visual field. The authors also stated that cell phone conversations create much higher levels of driver distractions than listening to the radio or audio books. Clearly they’ve not studied the numerous drivers who engage in road dancing while listening to latest joint kicking through their stereo system. I periodically give a live concert whenever I hear a cut with a serious beat – how can you not bob your head when track 14 (Ring the Alarm) of B’ Day Album or track 6 (Dirt off your Shoulder) of The Black Album blares through the speakers.
But despite all the cons against, there are some pros as cell phones have become a valuable tool in conducting business as more employees are using them to perform their jobs. Among other things, they help boost productivity by keeping employees connected to the office and to clients. Not to mention the invaluable use during road side emergencies. Let us not forget there are very few if any, public phones available in Michigan or other states for that matter, and there are none on the local freeways. In spite of the available automotive options, not all drivers can afford or desire to equip their vehicles with On Star. However, cell phones also raise a number of issues involving safety, security, and privacy.
I personally do not have any difficulty conducting a short conversation on my cell phone while I am driving; my motor skills are in great operational order. And I know there are several other drivers out there who are capable of the same. Besides, there are hands-free devices readily available for every cell phone on the market. The problem I’ve noticed regarding the use of a cell phone while driving has to do with the texting option. No one should be texting while operating a motor vehicle, it’s a serious and potentially deadly hazard, and therefore I am in agreement that particular function should be banned, not talking. Geez! How uncoordinated must you be not to be able to steer a vehicle and speak at the same time. I realize there are a number of individuals who can’t manage to do so, but the majority of those individuals should not be driving under any circumstances.
51 countries From Australia to Zimbabwe ban cell phone use while driving. Five US states and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting drivers from using hand-held mobile phones except in emergencies. Those states are California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington. I am in agreement that texting should definitely be banned and perhaps hand-held cell usage but not hands-free usage.
In Belgium, cell phones can be used without a hands-free unit when the car is stationary, but not while in traffic, such as at traffic lights. How simple is that.
In Ireland, there’s a fine of $380 US and/or up to 3 months imprisonment on a third offence. But hands-free kits are allowed. And here we have yet, another simple and plausible solution.
Wisconsin would become the third state to make text messaging illegal for drivers under a bill to be introduced in the state Senate.
The proposal is part of a growing national effort to cut down on distractions while driving, including cell phones, Blackberries and other devices that allow users to not only talk but send e-mails and surf the Web. The way I see it, anyone engaged in this type of activity while driving is out of their mind or have a death wish.
Michigan does not have a state wide cell-phone law, however Michigan does allow localities to determine their own cell-phone driving laws. The Detroit Hands-Free law was passed in 2005 and went into effect in 2006.
Detroit’s hands-free legislation makes it a civil infraction to use a hand held mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle. This law is enforced only as a secondary offense. Since this new hands-free bill is a secondary offense, the police cannot ticket the driver unless there is a primary driving offense such as speeding or running a red light. This has led many people to question the effectiveness of a law that doesn’t specifically target the driver who is clearly talking on a cellular phone without a hands-free device. Nevertheless, the new hands free law remains a secondary infraction.
The fine for violation of the law is not to exceed $100. Just like every other state that has hands free laws in effect, there are exceptions for emergency situations or if you are an on-duty public safety employee.
There is a lot of merit in what they’re seeking to accomplish with the pending Wisconsin bill. But let’s not forget there are a number of older drivers involved in texting and other distractions, so teenagers should not be singled out here.
One of the biggest hazards I’ve seen on the road second to the most dangerous of all offenders – the drunk drivers, is drivers who keep their pets in their laps and allow them to protrude from the driver’s side window while the vehicle is in operation. Not only does it put the animal at risk of falling out of a moving vehicle, it is a serious driver distraction. Odd as it may seem to other motorists whose life is being jeopardized by this risky action, this driving action is not illegal! Nor will a police officer arrest you if you can’t bear to part with your precious four-legged canine or feline during your driving escapades. However, I believe in most states if your pet causes you to drive in an unsafe manner you could be cited under the state’s Negligent Driving law for endangering people or property.
The way I see it, a loose pet is a greater hazard than speaking on a cell phone and there should be a ban on driving with pets running rapid in the vehicle, but even more dangerous is for the driver to have a pet on their lap while operating a motor vehicle. I can not count the number of times I’ve seen a driver wrestling to gain control over a moving pet seated on their lap. Not only is the drivers’ sight impaired but they lose the ability to control the vehicle because their hands are full trying to restrain the animal; and as for reflects, they’re nil and none.
Pets should be restrained in a vehicle in order to prevent them from moving around and distracting the driver; to protect the driver or passengers from being hit by them if they are in a crash; and to prevent the pet(s) from escaping through a door or window
I read some where that a woman in Alberta (Red Deer) Canada was outraged and is attempting to appeal the courts’ decision which fined her $402 for driving with her dog on your lap, but perhaps a hefty fine is what it takes to get through to some people because despite her reasoning, It doesn’t matter if the pet is much better behaved that way; it is clearly unsafe.
I have nothing against pets or the love some owners have for their pets, but seriously, it’s better for all concerned to leave your pet at home or in a carrier, or some sort of pet restraint in the back seat.
Perhaps it’s not the use of cell phones that is the issue perhaps the main reason lies with the number of inapt drivers on our road ways; one method to reduce accidents may be to reduce the number of inexperience drivers by increasing the road skills requirements; and some states such as Indiana are taking steps toward addressing the issue.
Indiana is proposing a graduated driver’s license, or GDL, that would, among other things, raise the age for teens to get their learner’s permits and licenses. The measure also would prohibit drivers under 18 from using cell phones. A GDL is a three-stage system designed to introduce teen drivers to more complex driving situations gradually as they gain more experience. In Indiana, teen drivers can first obtain a learner’s permit, then a probationary license and finally a regular license. The premise of the bill is to reduce crashes.
In Michigan if you are 18 years or older in order to obtain a driver’s license you only need to practice for 30 days with a license driver and take a Driving Skills Test given by third-party testing organization. Hence a number of inexperienced drivers are licensed and let loose on the road.
I don’t know the best method for correcting or reducing the number of unsuitable drivers but they could start by implementing mandatory driver’s education classes for all first time drivers regardless of age and the 30 days of practice should be a part of the course. Although I would prefer not to, but perhaps licensed drivers should be required to pass a road test at the time of each license renewal to ensure they are operating under the state guidelines.
Human Factors experts tell us that there are basically four kinds of driving distractions. The first is visual. Looking away from the roadway would be an example of this. The second is biomechanical. This would include manipulating a control – such as dialing a phone or adjusting a radio, and can often be associated with a visual distraction. The third is auditory – such as being startled by a ringing phone or a car back firing, and the fourth is cognitive. Being “lost in thought” or being in focused conversation with someone causes us to withdraw from situational awareness.
Researchers are also claiming to have evidence that shifting from hand held to hands-free phone use while driving does not result in eliminating all cell phone distractions. Frankly, it is next to impossible to eliminate all driving distractions, so why single out cell phones? Perhaps it’s easier to regulate than drinking and driving.
Regardless, it addresses the visual and mechanical distractions, but does not address auditory and cognitive issues. Which raises the question, “How is conversing on a phone different than talking with a passenger in the vehicle?” Well according to some studies there are two important differences. The first is that a passenger in a vehicle is aware of the driving situation and can even serve as an additional look-out for hazards. If there is a needed pause in conversation, the reasons are evident. The second is that phone use seems to carry a certain obligation of immediacy. When the phone rings, we feel compelled to answer it – whether it is convenient, safe or appropriate to do so. We become focused on the phone call, and lose the situational awareness so necessary for safe driving.
What are they implying with this study, that if the caller periodically reminds the driver to look out for hazards – that may change the outcome? Or perhaps that the driver doesn’t have sense enough to provide a needed pause when it becomes evident?
It’s safe to say that anyone who becomes blindly engrossed during any activity with no regard to safety has a limited attention span and should not operate any type of machinery. Yes, I agree that drivers should focus their attention to the task at hand, but to suggest that most drivers are too inattentive to talk and drive at the same time is somewhat insulting.
Perhaps a more logical explanation that there are some behaviors such as drinking or phoning while driving that are so commonplace, and yet so potentially dangerous that they require special laws. Laws are effective in two ways: they establish appropriate punishment for willful behavior, and they create guidelines for law abiding citizens. Under current careless driving laws, a cell phone using driver who kills someone in a crash will receive a $50 fine in most states. That hardly seems appropriate. There should be consequences befitting the offense, involving cell phone and driving distractions.
There is no way to eliminate all driving distractions but if they wish to ban some of the causes let’s not stop at cell phone use. There are a number of distractions or unsafe actions that drivers should restrain from doing; including reading newspapers, books, etc.; putting on make-up, especially eye make-up; shaving; eating; searching for items on the seat or floor; watching television or movies and more. Common sense should factor into one’s actions. And of course, any action that impedes a driver’s performance should be met with consequences during the initial offense not and only after a life has been taken.
In my opinion, another way to reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents is by putting in a massive transit system in MI (and other states). No, the lame-as* downtown People Mover does not count.
Finally, the way I see it, if anyone has the need to use a cell phone while in their car, the following simple safety tips may help:
- Use a hands-free phone.
- Never compose text messages while driving.
- Always dial while the car isn’t moving.
- Never use the phone in heavy traffic or bad weather.
- Use speed dialing as much as possible.
- Never look up phone numbers while driving.
- Never have stressful conversations while driving.
- Keep your eyes on the road while on the phone.
And if by chance a driver has an urgent need to convey some extensive information that just positively can not wait; they should pull their happy behind over to the side of the road and bring the vehicle to a full stop before engaging in a lengthy conversation.
Basically, drivers need to slow down adhere to the rules of the road and be mindful of their surroundings and road conditions.
STOP TXTING WHL DRVG IT CUD B ILGL
Slightly off the subject but still a valid footnote…
There is nothing more distracting or more menacing than a drunk behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Speaking of which, the system some how failed to impose the proper punishment on six-time drunken driving offender, Danni Baker of West Bloomfield; otherwise his ignorant behind would not have plowed into the back of 71 year old Marie Baron’s vehicle killing her shortly after being booted out of jail for being drunk at one of his routine week-end detentions. (Due to the amount of material on this subject I will need to cover it in a separate article – look for it soon).
