Turns Out Not Everyone Drives Worse While Talking On A Phone (But You Probably Do)
from the so-how-do-you-deal-with-that? dept
For years, we've questioned the wisdom of straight-up "driving-while-yakking" legislation for a variety of reasons. It always seemed to strike at a symptom, and not the real problem, which is just outright bad driving. While some have falsely interpreted this to mean that we support free reign in letting people drive and talk on a phone, what we argued is more nuanced. The problem is when driving and talking makes things more dangerous. But the same could be true of driving and doing anything else -- and unless we're going to outlaw driving distractions one at a time, it's sort of missing the point. Instead, the focus should be on better driving education on the dangers of being distracted. But, at the same time, there should be a realization that it's not always a terrible thing for a driver to talk on a mobile phone.In fact, Slashdot points us to a recent study that found a small number (a very small number) of people do not seem to drive worse while talking on their phones (and, in some cases, they even seem to drive better). These so-called "supertaskers" are apparently amazingly good at multitasking. Of course, this probably doesn't apply to you and you (yes, you) probably do drive worse while talking on a mobile phone -- which is why you shouldn't do it. But shouldn't we focus on stopping bad driving in general, rather than a blanket ban on driving while yakking?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cellphones, distracted, driving
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fair do's
Also when I talk to my passengers I make sure I'm looking at them - its not like I should be looking at the road as my passengers won't understand what I say unless I'm staring at them, I'm so super bright don't U think?. Enough - give me a min to reach into the back seat for my shaver.
Does this sound like anyone you have seen on the roads recently LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What do you mean by this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep your government hands off my health care and off my driving!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What scientists call the Dr. Johnny Fever Effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcement is the legislative impetus
I bet the courts would rule that being pulled over for "cell-phoning while driving" is automatically considered "proven guilty" if you happen to have a cell phone with you, even if you, in fact, were not using it (you'd probably have to get the cell phone records to prove you were not on _that_ phone at the time... keep extra phones handy!)
Consider it revenue enhancement and not traffic safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enforcement is the legislative impetus
Being pulled over for driving while on a cell phone does not automatically end up with a "guilty". I did, in fact, bring my cell phone bill into court to prove otherwise and won. Beyond that, it is the word of the police officer against yours - and you are probably a less reliable witness to the court in the case of a traffic ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Enforcement is the legislative impetus
I live in Massachusetts. Yes, I suspect that *anywhere* one can be pulled over for driving poorly, but one is unlikely to be found (presumed) guilty unless there is something that would have made it obvious to the officer (the officer stating you were on a cell phone; to which your recourse is having to prove otherwise by bringing your bill). He said/she said without evidence usually goes to whichever one is the officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Enforcement is the legislative impetus
That's the usual case in court. If a cop testifies that he witnessed that you commit a crime, that pretty much cinches the case. Cops don't have to prove that they aren't lying, you have to prove that they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enforcement is the legislative impetus
Some studies have found that hands-free is just as distracting as using a handset. The distraction is related to the conversation, not the phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On most topics we agree, however
second trip;
We drove another 80 miles yesterday, 4 different towns, I observed no exemplary yacking drivers, but quite a few dangerous ones.
You scoff when someone else brings up statistics or studies to prove a pointless point that you disagree with, but stoop to the same. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
I have been driving for 45 years, and have never seen anything like the driving since the advent of the cell phone. People have eaten Whoppers, changed babies, corrected kids in the back seat during most of the time I have bee driving, and they weren't in full control of their vehicles. But they were spread thin, the average driver had his mind on the task at hand. Since about 1995 and getting worse by the day, 1 in 3 it seems is multi-tasking and in most cases, poorly.
I agree that some can do it well, not enough to support your statistics, but some can and perhaps will be unfairly punished when cell talking if finally banned for motor vehicle operators. In all fairness, some folks can drive pretty well at 2.0 alcohol level, they got banned along with those who can't at .08
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On most topics we agree, however
So, how do your examples have any relevancy whatsoever to Mike's point that we should be addressing the underlying problem of bad driving rather than the specific symptom of driving while talking on a cell phone? You imply that you disagree with Mike, but while you quibble about the accuracy of the study's stats in the remainder of your post, don't ever actually say anything that contradicts his main point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On most topics we agree, however
My main point is;
most other distracted driving has been going on for a long time, with little wide spread consequence. Since the widespread use of cell phones, it is epidemic.
My secondary point;
In all fairness, some folks can drive pretty well at 2.0 alcohol level, they got banned along with those who can't at .08, and that has made the roads somewhat safer. Sorry for the inconvenience to the Irish.
I don't believe in laws as a method of controlling behavior, when cell phones in cars are banned, only outlaws will have cell phones in cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On most topics we agree, however
If you believe that I misinterpreted your post, please clarify (because your vague deflection doesn't provide any actual information.)
My main point is;
most other distracted driving has been going on for a long time, with little wide spread consequence. Since the widespread use of cell phones, it is epidemic.
And I ask again, how does this relate at all to your implication that you disagree with Mike? He never said that the problem of distracted drivers wasn't getting worse, so you could give a million examples of bad cell phone drivers and they would still would be irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: On most topics we agree, however
For example: "[in 80 mile, 4 town survey] I observed no exemplary yacking drivers, but quite a few dangerous ones."
Do you understand that an observer would over-represent the bad phone-drivers, as they stand out from the pack? However, you would not observe the exemplary few supertaskers, since they would just blend in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why stop there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why stop there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets get to the real issue here...
Once we finally start to see that point as a people, maybe progress can be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets get to the real issue here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOL! Perhaps if there was a hands-free device for that it wouldn't be so distracting while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOLVED
That device you seek was adopted eons ago. Although I can only imagine that it would still distract from the task of driving. Much like hands-free phone calls, it's not the hand action, but the mental distraction that is dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can legislate outcomes (you hit someone, you go to the pokey) or legislate preventative behaviors (driving "too fast," driving without your headlights on at night, etc).
You could think about jacking up the penalties for hitting someone while being on a cell phone -- that's easy enough to get the cell tower logs for, but that fails for texting. People are pressing buttons while driving, accident occurs, no transmission happens, no log of transmission exists. So after the accident punishment wouldn't work in the case of texting because it cannot be proven to have occurred, unlike talking on the cell phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The key to talking while driving, or doing anything while driving really, is to be able to rapidly reprioritize. For example, just because you are talking to someone on the phone, it doesn't mean that the phone call should take more significance mentally than the task of driving. If you get locked into having to spread your focus multiple directions without the ability to totally ignore the conversation on the phone in favor of immediate action, you can't do both. The rare times I actually take a call while driving, the person on the other end thinks I am ignoring them... guess what, they are right. They have just enough attention from me to get directions how to proceed or to give me information I need, before I hang up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Out here in Vegas we have countless billboards advertising strip clubs and the like. We even have them on the backs of cabs. Now tell me they'll outlaw reading billboards along with mobile phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/technology/02billboard.html?hp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that why patrol car police, ambulance drivers, cabbies, and anyone else who has to maintain contact with a dispatcher aren't pulled over for communicating while driving too?
Kids in the backseat are more of a distraction than lots of other things, but perhaps parents are more careful on the road for that reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's good to know there is somebody else out there like me. I have many times asked my wife to repeat something after I had to merge with traffic, swerve to miss a tire in the road or a horridly distracted driver, switch lanes or even just pulling up to a stop light/sign. Apparently, my ability to be a supertasker is really my ability to reprioritize on the fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supertasker...
The only two accidents I've ever had, in all my 13 years of driving, were when I was still in high school (first 3 years of driving). One was purely caused by my desire to drive fast and hard while ignoring the very wet pavement. The second was when I had three girls in the car and I was not paying attention to the heavy traffic and the fact that the truck in front of me had slammed on their brakes (only going about 10mph before a stop light). Each taught me a valuable lesson and luckily no one suffered from my misconduct; I even reseeded the guy's yard in the first accident and nurtured the sapling that graciously stopped my car.
Now, even while talking on the phone, I am paying close attention to everything that others' and my car are doing. I become greatly annoyed when people are not paying attention to the fact that they are sitting in a deadly weapon and they are for all intents and purposes playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives.
I sometimes wonder if the drivers out there had the same material in driver's ed. Everyone I know has always told me how great of a driver I am and prefer for me to drive; even when it's their car.
I am not saying all this to justify or condemn the various distracted driving laws, however I feel that discretion should be applied in all cases where distracted driving, of any kind, may have been a factor. In my experience, there are no true 'accidents,' there is always someone who, through action or inaction, caused the wreck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
I can drive with my knees while eating and texting at the same time no problem. I can also hold a conversation on the phone or with another person, too.
But, all that said, I am still in favor of the handsfree law in California, because people on the phone (still!) drift over the lane marker and almost hit me all the time because they have one hand on the phone and are leaning. They can't do it at all, and I don't want them to hit me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Driving 'Good Enough' Good Enough?
- supertaskers still have to dial and manipulate the phone. This task is far more demanding than a conversation, requiring eyes, hands, fingers. Some hands-free solutions solve this, but if you're using your eyes and fingers to dial, that's a big distraction.
- while I may be able to drive decently, and legally while on a call, I drive much less defensively. You see, as a veteran motorcycle driver, I have a habit of looking at every car as a predator, and me as a gazelle. Bikers usually do a lot of extra thinking about threats, escape routes, etc. Some good car drivers also do this. This means that not only can the defensive driver drive well, but they can avert an accident that would have been caused by another bad driver. In fact, the general safety of the road relies heavily on most drivers being able to avoid accidents that might have been caused by others. But when I'm on a phone call, this extra "safety buffer" is greatly reduced if not eliminated.
The good phone-driver may be able to keep themselves within the lane and within the law, but no matter what, they have reduced the margins of safety that prevent accidents. In aggregate, you can measure that in dollars, or in lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just proves...
Those are just a couple of examples off the top of my head. But they show that while phoning and driving may not always make people drive worse, drinking and driving may not either.
In the end, many of the same arguments that can be made against drunk driving can also be made against phone driving. So, in all fairness, they should be treated with the same seriousness. That they aren't really demonstrates how hypocritical we are. Shame on us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]