OJ:

Thought you once told me the driving age should be 25. Gulp. Can't I at least have some moving sidewalks?

"Excessive speed, using a cellphone while driving, inattention and her failure to buckle up all likely contributed to the fatal accident, Allen said."

You think? Culling the herd - Darwinism in action.

People on cell phones while driving are a huge danger, and perhaps a motion sensor that makes cell phones inoperative at a certain speed might be in order.

I use my cellphone constantly while driving. I am no danger to anyone on the road. My cellphone has voice activated dialing (as almost all cellphones do) and I only use my cellphone in the car with the hands free speakerphone.

How many lives have been saved because people on the road have been able to dial 911 at accident cites?

When I got my license, my Dad decreed that since statistics show that most new drivers have an accident within their first 1000 miles I would drive my first 1000 miles with him in the car. No long trips, only trips under 10 miles around town. So, I carried a little notebook with me and recorded the mileage each time. I would drive to school with him each morning, then he would take the car and I would take the bus home after school. Needless to say, at the time I was extremely opposed to this policy, but I was in a position of "Like it or don't drive until you're 18 and not my problem." I did it and it took the better part of a year to do. During that time, my Dad kept me out of a number of accidents simply by noticing things that I didn't see. I think it's a great idea and I fully intend to inflict it on my kid at some point. In the 15 years that I've been driving, I've had no accidents and one speeding ticket in 1992.

Gov:

Well, now you've gone and jinxed yourself good on the speeding ticket brag. Watch your six.

OJ: I will agree, if they lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the voting age to 25.

Gov: Ohio, and a bunch of other states, now has a system where the first 50 hours of driving must be with a parent. If you go 20 mph, that is your 1000 mi.

I made my kids fill out a notebook just like yours. The fact that its a law removes the adolecent stigma involved. They all have to do it.

My cell phone isn't nearly as distracting as having my kids or wife or friends talking to me whil I'm driving. Maybe we should ban having more than one person in a car. Than means no buses either. I don't know how bus drivers do it. Then let's raise the driving age to 35. In fact, let's just ban anything that might be inconvenient.

Life is dangerous. Get used to it.

Perhaps banning cell phones for younger drivers is okay, but I don't like it.

I'm fully convinced that the GDP of the United States is substantially higher because people (like me) are able to work (on their cellphones) while driving. If a few more people die, so be it, it's worth the cost.

I'm sure y'all'd be horrified to know that I surf the net on my treo and read brothers judd blog while driving (though only when stuck in traffic going less than 10 mph).

I am in favor of banning all cell phone by drivers. If you want to work in the car, get someone else to drive. If you are a salesman and need to take an urgent call, pull over. Strangely, pulling over to use the phone can also be used for 911 calls. Bizarre, but true, I swear.

I once read that statistically, cell phone use is as bad as drinking for accidents. I can't remember the source. If I can find it, I'll post it here. But since we're now limited to anecdotal evidence, every time I see a car that is a threat on the roadway, I mutter "This jerk is probably on his cell phone," and 9 times out of 10 it's true.

Cell phones are no more dangerous per se than any other distraction. Eating, drinking, kids in the back seat are more dangerous in my opinion.

Cell phones as bad as drunk driving? Yeah, like in 1990 there were 47 million disabled Americans or homosexuals are 10 per cent of the population or there are 100,000 dead civilans in Iraq.

The most important public safety issue that needs to be stressed with regards to cars is WEAR A SEATBELT! Just put out an ad showing the stats of the % of people who die in car accidents each year who don't wear a seatbelt, and the % of people involved in the same accidents who do not die who were wearing seatbelts...It's hard to believe there is anything more stupid than not buckling up.

Banning cell phones while driving is a silly idea, as argued above. It's also an example of a pet peeve of mine: the sweeping ban because of the stupid actions of a few. Let's have some nuance, folks, instead of letting a few spoil things for everyone. A good compromise would be a large fine for any accident caused by someone driving while on the phone.

I just spent some time googling on cell phones and accidents. I saw reports of several studies that show cell phone use impaired drivers worse than drunk driving. One was a 1997 report. The second I found from the Marginal Revolutions blog, which I think was where I first read about this.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/08/politically_inc.html

"When controlling for driving conditions and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers."

In addition to those two published studies, I saw this AP report:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=463588

"In fact, motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding 0.08, Strayer and colleague Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology, found during research conducted in 2003."

Of course, others dispute this, but the consensus seems to be that even if cell phone use is not worse than drinking, it is one of the top three causes, up there with drinking or using prescription medication (you know, the kind that saws "do not drive or operate heavy machinery.")

There are two other things important to know. One is that every study I've seen so far makes the point that it does not matter if you use handless phones. It is not holding the cell phone that is causing the problem, but that you are concentrating on the conversation. The AP report above also stated:

"And it doesn't matter whether the phone is hand-held or handsfree, he said. Any activity requiring a driver to "actively be part of a conversation" likely will impair driving abilities, Strayer said."

Also, every study I have seen shows that cell phone use is much more distracting than other distractions. This link is about an upcoming report:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/15/technology/personaltech/cellphones_crashes/

"The majority of those occurrences [using wireless devices], including all crashes, happened while drivers were on the phone talking and listening, rather than dialing a phone number.

"The next-biggest distraction...came from "passenger-related" issues, including talking to a fellow passenger and placating children in rear seats."

This is from a limited study, but is in line with the other reports I looked at.

So to wrap up:

1) Cell phone is one of the leading causes of accidents, somewhere in the top three along with drinking and prescription drugs.

2) It does not matter whether you use handless or handhold cell phones.

3) Cell phone use is a much more siginificant distractor statistically than other distractions such as children, changing the radio, etc.

There are no doubt various quibbles one can make for each individual reports, but the consensus of all of them, based on statistics - not anecdotes or feelings - are these three points.

I know that this is touching a lot of raw nerves, but all the refutations here are based on opinions and feelings. If you ask a drunk if he's OK to drive, he'll probably say yes too.

People on cell phones are simply not able to accurately assess how its impairing their ability to drive, but these statistics are telling us the reality. These are the facts, not opinions.

This is not one report whose research may be skewed. This is based on multiple reports from different sources over many years.

The best study I've ever seen said that cell phones are about as distracting as the radio.

It is, of course, a common social science error to say that because a population with a low incidence of some bad thing share some secondary trait, then you can move the general population to a similarly low incidence if you mandate the secondary trait. That careful drivers tend not to use cell phones does not mean that forbidding the use of cell phones will make everyone into a careful driver.

Speaking purely for myself, my vote will always be for cheap gas with which I can speed down the highway at 80, passing on the right with the tunes cranked and my cell phone in my hand. There is, after all, a reason I vote Republican.

Anyone likely to wreck while using a cell phone is likely to wreck for any number of reasons. Such people are obviously lacking in some basic area -- attentiveness, reflexes, motor (haha) skills, etc.

Simultaneously using a cell phone and driving is not inherently dangerous for the vast majority of us. There's nothing difficult or distracting about it whatsoever.

Anyway, the "there oughta be a law" mentality is best saved for those of the leftist persuasion. Not everything has to be "fixed" by government mandate.

I'll vote for banning all cellphone use by the driver in a moving vehicle, hands free or not.

I have personally seen too many people whose driving was obviously impaired by their use of a cellphone at the same time.

One girl couldn't even stay in her lane.

Lots of people drive extra slow when using a cell phone.

I'm very anti-big-government but for this I think the problem is too great and can be solved no other way.

as a compromise, allow the use of cell phones in the car, but make it a prisonable offence if you cause an accident while using the phone.

ok -- when your car goes over a 300 foot embankment and gets squashed, your failure to wear a seat belt had NOTHING to do with your death.

How is it that pilots are able to use radio communications while flying aircraft? Yes, using a cell phone destracts a driver; so does scratching your dupa. So what?

Personally, I find that using a cell phone impairs my ability to drive the way that being tired or sleepy might, so if I must do it, I make a conscious effort to counteract the impairment. This is all part of driving, and we all do it every day.

There is a huge difference between pilots flying and people in cars driving. One, few pedestrians are walking in the air. Two, few sudden stops while flying. Three, much much much less traffic in the airspace (at least outside of airports.( Four, if we are talking about commercial aircraft: co-pilots. Fifth, air traffic controllers whose entire job is to tell you where to go.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the rationales people are using to excuse cell phone use while driving.

The studies I have seen (and note I have provided a few links at least so others can verify my claims, something the cell phone-drunks have not - all we have from them are personal opinions and mysterious unnamed studies) point to a consistent impairment while using cell phones. Many even provide specific details on how much impairment there is. The ABCnews link for examples states:

"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study.

* "In fact, motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunken drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding 0.08, Strayer and colleague Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology, found during research conducted in 2003."

* "The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. The numbers, which come down to milliseconds, might not seem like much, but it could be the difference to stopping in time to avoid hitting a child in the street, Strayer said."

Claiming you are somehow immune from these effects is no different than the drunks who claim they are likewise unaffected. The drunk driver likewise does not notice his own impairment just as many posters hear who claim they don't notice any impairment.

Yes, there are other distractions besides cell phones, but check the studies - they are not as bad. Yes, certain people are better drivers than others and can handle their liquor better than others, and can talk on the phone and still drive better than others can, but the negative effects of cell phones is statistically significant and cannot be ignored simply because you find it inconvenient to not use your cell phone.

There are many things that may impair driving. For most, we as a society have decided to accept the risk because the impairment is within reason. But there are other causes of impairment we have decided are unacceptable, and the prime method of doing this is by looking at the statistics. This is why drunk driving carries penalties.

Matt:

Should be, but I'm no utopian.

Papaya:

The compromise is that they can pull over and use it safely.

Bob:

People who eat and drink in the car should be banned too.

This suspiciously sounds like the scary stats on inline skating that showed a drastic increase in the number of people hurt by skating each year. What they didn't point out is that more people were hurt because more people were trying it.

I don't know how any cell phone conversation could be any more distracting than 3 under 6 years old children all simultaneously screaming their bloody heads off. Add a 70lb yellow lab into the mix for a real good time.

As far as the story goes, there were so many factors leading to the girl's death (inexperienced driver, speeding, cell phone, no seat belt) that to pin it on one seems silly.

let's not pretend that cell phone usage hasn't been proven to cause deadly accidents. these aren't theoretical risks, they are real.

Chris -- Google "cellular distraction radio" and you'll get all sorts of results that say that cellular phones are about as distracting as radios -- simple conversations somewhat less, complex conversations somewhat more.

cjm -- No study has shown that cell phones cause accidents. The correlation is negative: the huge increase in cell phone use has occurred while the rate of highway deaths per hundred million miles driven has decreased. Basically, all highway deaths are explained by some combination of alcohol, no seatbelts and excessive speed.

davidc: highway deaths may be going down due to air bags, and more vigilance with regard to drunk drivers. there have been many documented accidents, including fatalities, that were attributed to cell phone usage. studies say what the people paying for them want them to say. substitute "pot" for "cell phone" and see if your views change :)

c: "I just know it's true" is not actually an argument, and "That there's no evidence just shows that it's rigged" isn't either. But government doesn't need evidence to act and that's why there's voting so be my guest and start lobbying for just another small limit on our freedom to act. No doubt it's for the children...

i see, well snarky is as snarky does, to paraphrase forrest g.

As if almost on que, Mythbusters on Discovery Channel did an experiment on this the same night of this post. Their conclusion: it is true that cell phone use is as bad as being drunk (not technically drunk because they were just under .08 BAC so they could still legally drive).

They went to a professional driving range and were graded by a professional driving instructor. They did three runs through it testing all manner of driving.

The first was done clear to establish a baseline - all passed.

For the second they talked on a cell phone. The caller had three different conversations: 1) simply repeat a sentence he gave them. 2) An easy request (name 5 things in the car with you), and 3) a mental test (he gave them a puzzle that made them think). All failed the test.

In the third they drank until their BAC was just under .08. Their results were about the same level of fails as when they used cell phones.

But let's face it - none of the defenders of cell phone use will accept any evidence that they may be wrong. Therefore, this is my last comment on the subject.

CJM: "attributed" is the key word. Someone just says that a cell phone caused an accident without evidence. Look at the accident described in the article. Her foot got stuck and she was driving 3 times the speed limit, those seem larger factors than the cell phone.

Chris: I'm sorry but I don't think these "studies" are worth the paper they are written on. David is right, the statistics do not confirm out the studies.

Chris Durnell wrote: "But let's face it - none of the defenders of cell phone use will accept any evidence that they may be wrong."

Not true. Read my earlier comment: "If a few more people die, so be it, it's worth the cost."

Life is full of risk - don't like it? Stay off the road.

cjm: It's a fair cop, g'vner. I was snarky without any cause and I apologize unreservedly.

Let's try this again: I would prefer to see evidence of an actual gain in the general welfare before people are forbidden from doing things they freely choose to do. Even if there is such a gain, I might not think that it is worth even a miniscule diminution in liberty. What separates me from the libertarians, though, is that I am a democrat and, if the government can be convinced to go along, I'll accept the law as valid even if I think it unwise.

Rather, get the riskiest off the road--the young, the old, the distracted.

You just want to clear away the underbrush before you get down to getting rid of the roads entirely. "They came for the cell phone users, but I wasn't a cell phone user..."

David:

Amen, brother. Everything goes into the bonfire eventually...

davidc: i appreciate the retraction :) my view is pretty much the same as yours, regarding not minimizing our liberties. sometimes i just like to talk over all sides of an issue until it looks like an old cob. and yes, get the old people and teens off the roads under any circumstances.