Cell Phones
 

This week's Breakfast wth Bob focuses on cellular phones and their contribution to car crashes. This was written a few months ago and McGreevey has long since signed the bill into law. (There is no way he's being re-elected) This is one of my more blatant commentaries so it does have some amount of opinion in it. Reactions? Thoughts?


Cell phone ban hazardous to your health

New Jersey drivers who use cell phones may have to depend on the radio to keep them company in the near future. Gov. James E. McGreevey hopes to sign a ban on the use of cell phones in cars this month, and in the meantime is asking the state Department of Transportation what the ban should look like, state officials say. What is more disturbing is that, apparently, the people of New Jersey want one.

In a recent poll taken by Quinnipiac University, 85% of registered NJ voters supported a law requiring hands-free use of cell phones while driving, and 65% of voters say they own a cell phone and support the hands-free measure 82-16%.

Obviously these people have not read the facts. A study taken in December by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that costs saved by the ban would equal $2 billion, compared with $25 billion in benefits lost, meaning a cell phone ban would cost society $23 billion. The study also found that cell phone users have 13 chances in 1 million of dying in a car accident, as opposed to 18 chances in 1 million of being killed by a drunk driver, or 49 chances in 1 million of being killed while not wearing a seatbelt.

At a hearing in Trenton between the AAA and the Assembly Transportation Committee on January 14, AAA spokeswoman Pam Fischer told the committee that hands-free technology will not improve road safety. “It’s the conversation that’s causing the problem. It’s the fact that the person has taken their mind off the road and off the job of driving and has dedicated it to something else.”

Further supporting the view that a ban is not necessary is a University of North Carolina study, which showed that cell phone use was one of the least common causes of serious accidents. It found that 1.5% of the drivers were distracted by their cell phone, 29% by something outside the car, 11% by adjusting the radio or CD player, and another 11% by a conversation with someone in the car.

The study examined 32,300 vehicles involved in crashes from 1995 to 1999. “This is just feel-good legislation,” said Steve Carrelas, state chapter coordinator for the National Motorist Association. He added, “I don’t know who’s going to feel good except the politicians.”

Carrellas said that, out of all possible distractions, cell phones are being targeted unfairly. “Politicians will say, ‘Well, I can’t stop someone from fiddling with the radio, changing the CD or looking at their child in the back seat,’ but, somehow they feel they can legislate cell phone use.”

People have to start worrying about speeding instead of cell phones. These studies found that some drivers were using cell phones before their crash, however, it seems they forgot to mention how fast they were going while they were being distracted. Doing 90 mph and ordering a pizza are never a good combination.

The facts against the ban alone should be enough to sway anyone’s opinion. Anyone who cares about the right to privacy in his own car should speak out against this ban. It is a ridiculous idea and will do more damage than good.

Meh, I dunno. I would never use a cell while driving; I know that I, at least, would get too distracted and probably crash into a parked car or a brick wall or something. Buuuut that's me.

Although, in my area, cells are already banned when driving. Seatbelts are law. You can't eat while driving. Have no idea was effect it has overall when compared to the past, but I'm used to it.

I'm neutral on this one.

I couldn't ever use a cell phone while driving; I'm so terrible with it already, having failed my drivers test thrice, that I'd almost certaintly end up crashing and with my imprint comically smashed into a brick wall. I think its a good idea for cells to be banned, but you need to take into account that already shitty drivers are the worst perpatrators.

On Monday my brother was driving me to my laser hair removal appointment (Jesus Christ does that shit hurt!) and the whole time he was going about 20 km/h, swerving about in his lane like he was drunk (He might have been quite hung-over.) as he drove with one hand and smoked with the other. He didn't bother signalling half the time, and once he left the signal going for a good 2 minutes before getting it. So, when he started gabbing into his cell phone, he had already proven himself incompetent to such a degree that his blather wasn't going to make much of a difference.

Seeing as 90% of the people in my country have cell phones, the government requires that hands-free systems be used rather than banning them outright. I support this, because some people can do two things at one time while others can't. No sense screwing the ones who can for the ones who can't. And if you can only do one thing at one time, make it keeping your eyes on the road.

My dad sells Cell Phones for Verizon Wireless, and still, I think having a ban on handheld cell phone use is a good thing. (Hands-free should continue to go unregulated, at least as long as Cell-Phone users use them). Some people are bad enough drivers when they're paying attention, and Cell Phones plus that sort of person can equal death.

Keep in mind, a provision like this against Cell Phones is much like the seatbelt laws. The cops aren't going to be looking around to see if you're wearing a belt or not, but if you get pulled over, then you're likely in for a ticket.

Then again, maybe you're not. I mean, if you turn off your Cell Phone & throw it in the back, then what's the Cop going to do? Or just make sure a passenger is holding it, instead of the driver.

Frankly, while some will be pulled in for it, its more of a threat on paper than anything that will be actively enforced.

Sky Warrior Bob

I say that if people want to use their cell phones in the car a law won't stop them, so what's the point? (And lets ignore how this law is further proof that the government is getting constantly more invasive in our private lives) I propose another (better) solution. Make cell phone jammers readily available to the public. These devices already exist, so technology is not the issue. With my solution people who want to feel safe from cell-distracted drivers are able to build a little bubble around themselves, while those who want to talk and drive can still do so. (if only at intervals)

I'm a bit puzzled here. How does the ban cost in benefits?

As far as the ban, when I drove I had a mobile in hand a lot(I was a pizza guy), but now as I don't drive I don't have to worry. I figure if people are too ignorant to talk and drive they shouldn't drive in the first place. Then again a LOT of people shouldn't be allowed to drive.

The only people that would be at risk while driving and talking are the ones that don't pay attention and talk TOO much. They fall into my criteria for stupid people. In which case they deserve to die. That's my professional opinion.

Did anyone read the study?

1.5% of drivers.... there's 6 billion people in the world... let's be generous and say 3 billion drive. That's 45,000,000 people out of 3,000,000,000. That's not all that many people that are distracted by it... especially when you consider things that no one even bothers thinking about regulating (not that they can) distract 870,000,000 drivers (that's things outside of the car). The ban is utterly pointless. Besides... the only way it could be enforced is if they made having cell phones in the car illegal period, otherwise, as SWB said, people would just shut it off and toss it in the back, or in their pocket when they got pulled over. I ask you, what's the point of having a cell phone if you can't take it anywhere? And, this ban is going to cost money for people to ATTEMPT to enforce... so basically, it's a waste.

3 billion is a ridiculously high number, considering that a) you need a (cell phone + car) unit, and you need a person to drive it. a huge percentage of the world's population doesn't have cellphones, and when i say huge, i mean most of india, china and africa. that takes out around a good 3 billion people right there. now, looking in south america, you can chop another half billion there. in the rest of the world, you can be hyper generous and say that 75% of the population has the cell+car unit (generous in that all public transit users, children under 18 and people without cells are apperantly 25%). that 1.5% of that nice generous figure, and we get... 28,125,000. a pretty big chunk, but not the huge number posted above. take that down to a single state, and it becomes rather easy to implement.

research has shown an increase between 200 and 700% in the probability of a cell phone driver getting into an accident, and a 400-1600% increase in the probability of those accidents being severe (lost limbs, fatalities, etc). that pretty much means that if you're going to lose a few dollars to keep people from putting themselves and others at risk in a big way, then cry yourself to sleep at night over your lost penny friends.