Notwithstanding also are the numbers touting reduced driving overall because of the gas prices.

Gee, was there anything else going on in that time period that might have affected the driving habits of people, thus impacting the overall accident rate? You know, like skyrocketing gas prices?

You say 72% of car crashes were caused by cell phones being held on the hand instead of implanted in the ear? Shenanigans.

// Now, stupidity, that I could believe, but cell phones? Mmmmm-hmmmmm.

///...and shame on youse for lying to us yet again.

Damn you and your shorter more succinct sentences Less02 !

This About That: Shenanigans

This.

My own department does research in this area. Carrying on conversations on a cell phone or with other passengers, playing with the radio, mooning other drivers, etc all contribute to diverting attention from the road. All this little law gives is a false sense of security. Feh.

/Correlations are a biatch

Is it true that texting and emailing while driving are still legal under this same bill?

From observing motorists in California, I thought the law had expired. We pass a new law, enforce it for a month, then forget about it. A simpler way to deal with the problem is for Courts to assume the driver talking on a handheld cell phone is responsible for any accident they are involved in unless they can PROVE they were not at fault.

the number of fatal collisions has dropped 72 percent

Google says the fatal accident rate in Santa Barbara is less than 10 per year. A 72% drop of a single digit integral value is from 7 to 2. That's not enough data.

the total number of collisions in the county is down 11 percent.

That is more interesting -- it's probably closely related to the traffic change.

LessO2: Notwithstanding also are the numbers touting reduced driving overall because of the gas prices.

I think you just got yourself added to the terrorist watch list....

Studies have shown drivers on a cell phone are more dangerous than drunks

/You'd drive better with that phone up your ass.

Came for this



Satisfied myself.

\what

I *HOPE* this is true. I hope it is.

/doubts it
//hopes
///got pulled over once for talking on my cell
////will continue to "break the law" if I desire.

correlation ≠ causation

and to what degree has cell phone usage while driving actually decreased?

/scofflaw
//what triad203 said

No.

There have been some days where literally about half the drivers I've seen on the road were yapping away on cell phones. However, I did not notice any sort of "worse than drunken" driving. Everything was pretty much just like how it was before cell phones were ubiquitous. Asshat drivers and incompetent drivers come from both the cell-phone-using and non-cell-phone-using persuasions.

The three times I've had cars totaled it was by drivers who were not chatting on their phones.

jwadeo: This About That: Shenanigans

This.

My own department does research in this area. Carrying on conversations on a cell phone or with other passengers, playing with the radio, mooning other drivers, etc all contribute to diverting attention from the road. All this little law gives is a false sense of security. Feh.

/Correlations are a biatch

What department do you work for?

The Bureau of Bullshiat Statistics strikes again!

bearsfolks: A simpler way to deal with the problem is for Courts to assume the driver talking on a handheld cell phone is responsible for any accident they are involved in unless they can PROVE they were not at fault.

Uhh we can't really do that in this country. Remember that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?

/Details are a biatch.
//It's just a damn piece of paper!

The Miniplen has announced an increase in the chocolate ration!

The hands-free headsets have really helped. Now I can have a burger in one hand and use the other to flail the noisy children in the back.

All this little law gives is a false sense of security. Feh.

/Correlations are a biatch

Couldn't agree more with you about this. it isn't the cellphones themselves, it is the extra cognitions generated as a result. I wouldn't call it a correlation--because no correlations are reported--but it certainly statistical manipulation.

As someone who is a pedestrian every day in a city and a driver about 4x a month, I do think cell phones are a major distraction and should not be used while driving. Of the people who almost hit me at intersections or don't seem to notice me, I'd say about a third have a phone up to their ear. Of the total drivers I see, not even close to a third are talking on phones.

That said, I really doubt the headline statistic.

louiedog: As someone who is a pedestrian every day in a city and a driver about 4x a month, I do think cell phones are a major distraction and should not be used while driving.

Shouldn't be used when WALKING either.

/lookin' at you, Blue-tooth zombies and Crackberry stoners walking slow in a busy throughfare...

Many studies have shown that talking on a cell phone while driving is the functional equivalent of driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.2. Hands-free headsets do help a little, but they don't solve the problem. The reason for this is simple. When you use a cell phone it isn't the same as talking to the person next to you, since several other areas of the brain are involved. When you are also attempting to perform mentally engaging activity such as driving a car, the brain is receiving conflicting sensory signals and is trying to process them with the same areas used while driving. The result is decreased awareness attention to detail, lowered spacial perception, lowered reaction time and lowered judgment. It is easy to see why cell phones are responsible for so many accidents. At least someone who's been drinking may be attempting to be overly cautious as they drive home. Look around at cell phone users the next time you drive in traffic. Every one of them are completely oblivious to what's happening around them. I always pull off the road when I need to take or place a call - always hands free when I'm driving. The use of cell phones while driving should be banned nationwide.

The cell phone law has changed nothing. I see people with phones firmly planted to their ears all the time. I am a scofflaw too, I refuse to wear those ridiculous looking Bluetooth headsets. I put the phone on speaker and let it rest in my lap while I drive with both hands on the wheel. While that is techinically legal, I think driving with the phone to my ear would be safer. It's not my fault that some people are incapable of driving and talking on the phone.

/Clean driving record
//Fark the CHP and the state of CA for giving cops another reason to pull people over in the name of $afety

While I do generally support a cell phone while driving ban, this is bullshiat. (correlation/causation, too small a sample, driving changes and so on).

BUT. Anecdotal evidence I have collected myself tells me that driving with a cell phone clamped to your head is dangerous. For many years, I rode a motorcycle as my sole form of transportation. About 50% of the time that someone did something stupid in traffic which almost killed me the driver had a phone in their hands. (20% old, 20% asian, 10% just stupid). In my opinion (unscientific) having a cell phone just takes away that little bit attention you may need in a emergency and only having one hand to control your car doesn't help either. Cell phone talkers also tended to drive erratically and move slower then the flow of traffic. (that last one is enough to ban it.)

While I do believe that some people are skilled enough and can drive with cell phones safely, the large majority of people can't. And the problem is that if you let one person do it then you have to let everyone. If there were no possibility of injuring or killing another person then I'd be all for letting people do whatever they want while driving. But the possibility of mass mayhem with the deaths of many innocent victims is to great to allow it.

Living in CA, cell phone use while driving has barely decreased since they enacted that law.

Ah yes, exaggerating statistics to rationalize an infringing law/policy. I remember Ohio Police were required to report any fatality as being "no seat belt worn" to pump up the statistics that it worked and laws that fined people for no wearing one were justified.

It is important to note that if this law is the same as similar laws in other states, it is still considered legal and even safe for the police to drive and talk on their cell phones or use their laptops. Furthermore, it is not hypocritical either.

ZAZ: Google says the fatal accident rate in Santa Barbara is less than 10 per year. A 72% drop of a single digit integral value is from 7 to 2. That's not enough data.


The Safety Nazis have been using stats like this for years, they're not about to stop now.

Mongo cut wood: Ah yes, exaggerating statistics to rationalize an infringing law/policy. I remember Ohio Police were required to report any fatality as being "no seat belt worn" to pump up the statistics that it worked and laws that fined people for no wearing one were justified.

All I heard in my head with the 72% rate was Homer saying "You don't think much of me, do you boy? You got greedy."

I mean, if they said 10% I figure a lot of people might swallow it.

Down by 72%? All the people who cause fatal crashes with cell phones died in accidents already.

The Rapture will really mess up those statistics.

Meh. It just made it harder to tell which cars had the idiots in them.

While I don't believe the statistics, I do believe that talking on a cell phone while driving is very dangerous and should be illegal.

The Insurance Information Institute
Link (new window)

A sampling, for those to lazy to click the link:




"# Motorists who use cellphones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves, according to a study of drivers in Perth, Australia, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The results, published in July 2005, suggest that banning hand-held phone use will not necessarily improve safety if drivers simply switch to hand-free phones. The study found that injury crash risk didn't vary with type of phone.

# Many studies have shown that using hand-held cellphones while driving can constitute a hazardous distraction. However, the theory that hands-free sets are safer has been challenged by the findings of several studies. A study from researchers at the University of Utah, published in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, concludes that talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, even if the phone is a hands-free model. An earlier study by researchers at the university found that motorists who talked on hands-free cellphones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. "

bearsfolks: From observing motorists in California, I thought the law had expired. We pass a new law, enforce it for a month, then forget about it.

The problem is, the penalty is weak, meanwhile, the speeding fines went up a while back.

Get caught talking on a cell phone: $50 fine, no points on your license.

Get caught going 80 in a 65 (IE, keeping up with the flow of California traffic), ~$350 fine and a point on your license, unless you pony up another ~$60 or so to go to traffic school.

Opportunistic statistics, let me show them to you..

Oldiron_79: Studies have shown drivers on a cell phone are more dangerous than drunks

/You'd drive better with that phone up your ass.

Drunks usually are only drunk during night. Stupid people are stupid all day.

If you are both then you are farked.

There are a lot more pirates today than there were ten years ago, and it's snowing in New Orleans.

Causation? You can call it what you will, but scripture teaches us otherwise.

So we can make a grand conclusion based on the drop in fatalities over one year in one county? And the conclusion should be that all those fatalities were a direct result of, oh, let's say... hands-free cell phone laws. Not only that, but it means the law is working state-wide. Based on one year's stats in one county.

/Flawed logic. Let me show it to you.
//People are stupid, stupid sheep.

lordargent: The problem is, the penalty is weak, meanwhile, the speeding fines went up a while back.

Get caught talking on a cell phone: $50 fine, no points on your license.

Get caught going 80 in a 65 (IE, keeping up with the flow of California traffic), ~$350 fine and a point on your license, unless you pony up another ~$60 or so to go to traffic school.

If it's true that studies show it's as dangerous as drunk driving (and I wouldn't be surprised if that were so), then I would support jail time for talking on a cell phone while driving.

Funny, even when I'm using hands-free I'll miss turns on the road that I never miss when I'm not talking to anyone. It's the act of talking on the phone, not how it's done.

Thanks to the CHP, my only speeding ticket was for doing 75 in a 70.

Offensive joke of the day...

Q: What do you call two black motorcycle cops?
A: Chocolate CHiPS.

belhade: Funny, even when I'm using hands-free I'll miss turns on the road that I never miss when I'm not talking to anyone. It's the act of talking on the phone, not how it's done.

It should be studied and probably already has been, but I agree based on my own observations. I'm not convinced that hands free phones are going to be much better. It's the distraction and having your mind in two places that is the main problem, even if it's at least better not to have a hand holding a phone.

This reminds me of when the AFA was claiming their Ford boycott was responsible for the 27% sales drop a few years ago. Absent from the claim was the fact that GM's sales were off even more...without a boycott.

Mnemia: belhade: Funny, even when I'm using hands-free I'll miss turns on the road that I never miss when I'm not talking to anyone. It's the act of talking on the phone, not how it's done.

It should be studied and probably already has been, but I agree based on my own observations. I'm not convinced that hands free phones are going to be much better. It's the distraction and having your mind in two places that is the main problem, even if it's at least better not to have a hand holding a phone.

Agreed! I find myself even MORE distracted when on in-car bluetooth. Miles slip by before I notice that I haven't been really paying attention.

mauidan: This reminds me of when the AFA was claiming their Ford boycott was responsible for the 27% sales drop a few years ago. Absent from the claim was the fact that GM's sales were off even more...without a boycott.

Both these are classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Doesn't mean that the ban didn't have anything to do with the drop in accidents, but we need a lot more information to be able to conclude that. I've noticed that cops use these fallacies a lot. Does that means cops are accomplished propagandists, or just stupid?

I don't know if there are any less accidents now after the ban, but i do know now that whenever I see someone doing something REALLY farking stupid, they're holding a cell phone to their ear, so I'm completely for it. I had A woman the other day change into my lane right in front of me then, SLAM on her brakes going from 45 to about 15. go about 100 feet, then change lanes again without signaling, then comes to a dead stop in the middle of the road before cutting through ANOTHER lane of traffic to get onto a highway on-ramp. Did i mention she did this in the pouring rain.

Yeah. She had a cell phone glued to her ear.

I swear to god, one of these days I WILL put a tire seeking missile launcher on my car for these rolling fatal accidents waiting to happen.

/We should deal with violators of this law the same way we do radar detector violators. Have them put the phone underneath their wheel and drive over the thing.

mauidan: Agreed! I find myself even MORE distracted when on in-car bluetooth. Miles slip by before I notice that I haven't been really paying attention.

What I find really odd is that I don't believe I'm nearly as distracted when I'm listening to talk radio or a person who is in the car with me. It's only the phone (which is why I don't talk on the phone when I'm driving much at all). I wonder what the explanation is for why these other things aren't nearly as distracting as a phone conversation.

Mnemia: If it's true that studies show it's as dangerous as drunk driving (and I wouldn't be surprised if that were so), then I would support jail time for talking on a cell phone while driving.

Just finished lunch, so had time to look it up.

Q: What is the fine if I'm convicted?

A: The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. With the addition of penalty assessments, the fine can be more than triple the base fine amount.

Q: Will I receive a point on my driver license if I'm convicted for a violation of the wireless telephone law?

A: No. The violation is a reportable offense; however, DMV will not assign a violation point.