| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Cellphones are Dangerous | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 9 2007, 02:52 PM (184 Views) | |
| George K | Jan 9 2007, 02:52 PM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
In another thread, I started with the title "First Cellphones, now Smokes," I cited an article that in Bangor Maine it's illegal to smoke with a child in the car. Quirt has pointed out that doing so is harmful to the child, and cited much evidence that second-hand smoke is a hazard. Presumably this law relies on some of the work indicating that second-hand smoke is dangerous. A surgeon I work with recently received a fine for using his cell-phone while driving. It is a fineable offense in Chicago, and his midadventure cost him $125. I assume the legislation that was enacted was based on studies that showed that cellphones are a major distractibility issue and that their use causes an "impaired driver." If I recall correctly, there was a study in The New England Journal of Medicine that determined that the distractibility factor is the same as a blood alcohol level of 0.12. What this study also showed was that hands-free devices on cellphones did NOT decrease the distractibilty of the driver, and there was no difference in accidents, etc whether the unit was hand-held or hands-free. So, according to this study, shouldn't legislation ban ALL cellphone use? Here's the abstract of the study: Volume 336:453-458 February 13, 1997 Number 7 =-=-=-= ABSTRACT Background: Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case–crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision. Methods: We studied 699 drivers who had cellular telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle collisions resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each person's cellular-telephone calls on the day of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records. Results: A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls were made during the 14-month study period. The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal characteristics such as age and driving experience; calls close to the time of the collision were particularly hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the collision; P<0.001); and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant). Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of an event. Conclusions: The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jan 9 2007, 02:55 PM Post #2 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'd be curious to find out what the stats are on the distractability of talking to another passenger in the car. A cell phone may distract you, but if a hands free is at the same level of distraction as talking to someone in the passenger seat, then it may not be a line worth crossing. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 9 2007, 03:01 PM Post #3 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
My fuzzy recollection, Dol, is that there is a big difference between talking to someone in person and talking to someone on the phone. The visual cues you get from someone in the passenger seat make it less distracting. It doesn't make sense, but that's my understanding ... you have to concentrate more when the conversation is only over a phone, and you don't have any visual cues. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jan 9 2007, 03:21 PM Post #4 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
They need to develop affordable TRULY hands-free cellular tech for cars. I will be buying one no matter what the cost when my daughter starts driving, as I know there is no way she will not be using her phone. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jan 9 2007, 04:39 PM Post #5 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
There is if you yanked it from her before she left the house.
|
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jan 9 2007, 04:48 PM Post #6 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I doubt he'd want her out on the road without a cellphone for emergencies though. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jan 9 2007, 04:51 PM Post #7 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
What did people do a decade ago when mobile phones didn't exist? Ah well, I wasn't being serious anyway. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Jan 9 2007, 04:52 PM Post #8 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I hate using my phone while driving. I always wait until I'm stopped, or driving through town at 30mph. I also don't like it when I see people on their phones, and they are not paying attention. I also just hate bad and/or obnoxious drivers. I get to look forward to dealing with some tomorrow for 4 1/2 hours.
|
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jan 9 2007, 04:55 PM Post #9 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I didn't figure you were, Aqua. Although, to answer the question about what people did before cell phones. When I lived in Toronto, cell phones were just becoming the neccesary item they seem to be today. Not everyone had one quite yet, but the first pay-as-you-go phones were becoming available, and contracts were getting to be pretty inexpensive. From the time I moved to Toronto (before cell phones were something everyone had) to the time I left (when everyone had one), I noticed something. Less pay phones on the streets. In fact, I once needed to use a payphone when I was in the Bay street business district and walked around for an awfully long time before I found one. I ended up having to wander over to the mall where they still had them. They had gotten rid of the street-side payphones because most people who frequented that area of the city had cell phones. Not to mention that people were a bit more likely to pull over and help someone who was stranded on the side of the road than they are now. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 9 2007, 04:55 PM Post #10 |
|
Finally
|
I had a mobile phone in my car installed in 1991. Before that, there were these funky devices called "Telephone Booths." You would actually walk into this thing, and there was this huge telephone-looking device in there. You'd have to put coins into it to use the phone, and if you ran out of dimes, they'd cut you off! A lady who called herself an "operator" would ask you to put more money (!) into the thing if you wanted to continue talking. And, to beat all, long distance was really, really expensive! |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jan 9 2007, 05:04 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
They need to integrate cell phones and car electronics more (given all the blue tooth and wifi around these days shouldn't be too hard) That way if the phone is in the car and the car is moving the phone could be blocked from making calls and if someone calls yiou the phone could just ring twice and the name of caller appear on the dash board. If you wanted to call the back you'd have to stop the car and ring them. Infact it could trigger an automatic answer phone message that told the caller you were in the car. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jan 9 2007, 07:34 PM Post #12 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
See, that's the thing. Cell phones are not a necessity in and of themselves, but they've become one because of societal influence. People (and businesses) assume you have a cell phone so it's hard to get by without one. In Japan, credit cards aren't being used as much as they used to; you can buy things using your phone. They're trying to get the same trend started here in the U.S. with some things by making the deals very cheap, to get you It's scary how far removed we are from the world we live in. We own cars, computers, and cell phones out of “necessity” but we have no idea how they work or what we would do without them. One of my second cousins (she was 17 at the time) was once asked by her father to fill up the tank on their van; her dad gave her 20 dollars. She said she couldn't do it because she didn't know how to pay for gas in cash. That's insane. I still affirm that cell phones are NOT a necessity. They're a convenience but nobody really “needs” one. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Jan 9 2007, 07:45 PM Post #13 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
One can actually own a cell phone, have it with them, and not use it when driving. It's really not complicated, and I would never encourage a teenager to use one, in any shape or form, when driving. That's ridiculous. There is nothing so important that she or he, could not pull over and stop the car before dealing with. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 9 2007, 08:40 PM Post #14 |
|
George to answer your question, I would fully support legislation banning cell phones while driving. While I use mine, I wouldn't die if it was illegal and if it was an emergy, I could always pull to a side street or on the shoulder if critical. I'm a libertarian at heart, but this is a perfect case where the govt has the right to step in and protect the public. Perhaps a compromise is if you get in a car crash while using your cell phone, you either pay a HUGE fine or even get jail time. Or perhaps the most reasonable of solutions is for insrance companies put in clauses about insurance not paying if its your fault and you were using a cell phone while the collision occured. |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jan 9 2007, 09:49 PM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hardly. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| CTPianotech | Jan 9 2007, 10:06 PM Post #16 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I think cell phone use and driving is much like adjusting your radio and driving. Some people have the mental capacity to do it, others space out into some far away universe and become a menace to the roadways. Here is CT, cell phone use is now illegal without a hands free device. The primary change in peoples cell phone habits that I've observed is that people contort themselves into the most hilarious positions to make it seem as though they're not talking on a cell phone. In fact, trying to hide their cell phone use, seems to be yet another distraction.. |
![]() |
|
| ny1911 | Jan 10 2007, 05:59 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
It seems like anytime I see a "near-miss", it involves someone talking on the phone. And often, they seem oblivious to what has happened. I'm sure CT is right about how distracted some people are compared to others, but the same goes for BAC effect on impairment. You still need a uniform standard. |
|
So live your life and live it well. There's not much left of me to tell. I just got back up each time I fell. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jan 10 2007, 06:07 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Ditto. People drove like complete assheads already, before the advent of cellphones. Now it's just worse. When driving, DRIVE. Don't eat, use the phone, shave, read the newspaper, fumble with the map, type on your laptop, and any other of the 50 different things I've seen people do, when they should have their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road. Period. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











6:39 AM Jul 11