DCSIMG

In-Vehicle Technologies: Experience & Research

Home
Discussion Areas
Experience with Technology
Cell Phones
Navigation Systems
Night Vision
Wireless Internet
Info And Entertainment
Other
Technical Issues
Benefits And Risk
Measuring Distraction
Design Features
Regulations
Safety Campaigns
Features
Index Of Papers
Ask The Expert
Take the Polls
Other Resources
Public Meeting
This page is devoted to discussions regarding specific in-vehicle technologies: cell phones, navigation systems, night vision systems, wireless Internet, and information and entertainment systems, among others. The purpose is to provide an avenue for drivers to share their experiences with, and impressions of these technologies so that benefits of these systems can be realized without causing unsafe driver distraction. Although specific in-vehicle devices are emphasized here, comment and discussion relevant to other non-technological or conventional sources of distraction are also welcome. Be sure to take or view results of our informal polls.

Please tell us about your experience with these technologies…

 

Content Available In Each Topic Area
Paper
  Paper  
comment
  Comment  
Ask the Expert
  Ask the Expert  
Poll
  Poll  

 

Cell Phones
                 
paper   The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

Authors:   Parkes, A. (Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England) & Hooijmeijer, V. (Verkeersadviesburo Diepens en Okkema, Eindhoven, The Netherlands).

PDFView Entire Paper

Abstract

The driving performance of 15 subjects in a simulated road environment has been studied both with and without a hands-free telephone conversation. The performance indicators used were choice reaction time, braking profile, lateral position, speed, and situation awareness. The driving task was relatively easy, and the young drivers studies were able to have a hands-free telephone conversation and perform well with respect to lateral position, the variation in lateral position of the car, and speed maintenance. However, significant differences were found in choice reaction time, especially in the beginning stages of the telephone conversation, and in situation awareness. The subjects reacted significantly slower to an unexpected event in the first two minutes of the telephone conversation and were, for a large part of the telephone conversation, unaware of traffic movements around them.


Paper:   Individual Differences and In-Vehicle Distraction While Driving: A Test Track Study and Psychometric Evaluation

Authors:   Tijerina, L., Parmer, E. B. (Transportation Research Center Inc.), & Goodman, M. J. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

PDFView Entire Paper

Abstract

The influence of individual differences on driver distraction was examined in this study. Sixteen (16) test participants were trained on destination entry procedures with four commercially available route guidance systems, as well as the dialing task on a commercially available wireless cellular telephone and on manually tuning an after-market car radio. The participants then drove an instrumented vehicle at approximately 45 mph on a 7.5 mile oval test track with very light traffic while concurrently engaging in various tasks with these devices. In-vehicle task completion time, average glance duration away from the road ahead, number of glances away from the road ahead, and number of lane exceedences were recorded. The participants were later given an automated battery of temporal visual perception and cognitive tasks. Performance on the test battery was then correlated to performance on the test track measures to determine the extent to which individual driver differences could account for observed performance differences. Analysis of these elementary test scores as predictors show low but consistent patterns of correlation to test-track performance measures.


Poll:   Is it safe to talk on a cell phone while driving?   

Poll:   Which of the following is your biggest safety concern associated with cell phone use while driving?   

Poll:   Under which conditions would you feel it safe to use a cell phone.   

Poll:   Do you use a hands-free or hand-held cell phone while driving?   

Poll:   If you use a “hands free” phone while driving, how often do you use it in your vehicle in its hands free mode?   

Poll:   How often do you receive calls when you drive?   

Comment:   Pedestrian vs. SUV?   7/5/00 9:05:43 AM
As someone who spends more time walking than driving, I have noticed that most vehicles that have come close to hitting me have drivers blathering away on their cell phone. They may just not notice pedestrians in general, or sometimes they seem to be intentionally trying to blow through a stop sign that I might be crossing against, but it is easy to tell that their reaction times are much slower. I hope that the state of Maryland enacts a law making it illegal to drive while using a cell phone, hands-free or not. (I am not even going to imagine that such a law could pass in Congress.) After all, the paper in this section showed increased reaction times for drivers using such hands-free accessories, if I read the abstract correctly. Individuals have the right to risk their own lives if they like; but they don't have the right to decide to risk mine.


Comment:   non-standard vehicles   7/5/00 10:23:17 AM
Sean   Ross
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

I commute to work either by bicycle or motorcycle. Most alert drivers do not respond well to either of these vehicle types because humans tend to only see what they are looking for. Most drivers of cars only look for things of automobile size or larger. Cyclists and motorcyclists take extra effort to be seen by wearing reflective or brightly colored clothing and assuming lane positions that maximize visibility. Distracted drivers make it even more difficult for us. The driver of a car or SUV will barely get their paint scratched if they hit me while I am on my bicycle and might get a dent if they hit my motorcycle. I, on the other hand, will sustain significant injuries or death if I collide with a vehicle. I totally agree with the author of the previous comment. It needs to be completely and totally illegal to do anything but drive when you are behind the wheel of a car including use a cell phone, read a book, shave, eat etc.



Comment:   Pull over or get off of the Phone!!   7/5/00 11:57:36 AM
Amy   Owens
Academia/ Research Firm
Cell phones are a great way of ensuring that emergencies are addressed in a quicker fashion, especially when a person is experiencing automotive problems. However, it is entirely unnecessary to use the phone while you are actually driving. This is a distraction to yourself and those who have to drive around you. I have been stuck behind many people using their phones on the freeway, and it seems to me that these drivers exhibit the same characteristics as a drunk driver. They swerve back and forth, slow down then speed up, or cut me off without even looking how close I am to them. The United States Government should definitely enforce a law that mandates anyone with a cell phone in the vehicle must pull over to the side of the road to use it (and make sure if they are on the freeway, they exit before pulling over).


Comment:   Vacant Drivers   7/5/00 12:12:24 PM
Richard   Finger
Private Citizen

Refering to: non-standard vehicles

As a long time driver and motorcyclist, I have had far too many near-miss experiences which I believe were primarily caused by the vacant state of mind ("distraction") induced in drivers talking on cell phones. These drivers have that far-away expression that conveys that they are NOT concentrating on the complex driving task at hand but on the telephone conversation instead. I am a firm advocate of making cell phone use of any type (hands-free included) illegal if the vehicle is in motion. In my opinion it is the abstracted mental state that cause the risk rather than any physical manipulation of the cell phone itself. I have concluded that on my BMW motorcycle-commute to the Medical Center where I work, there is no scarier sight than an SUV driver talking on their cell phone while they guide that 4000 lb behomoth down a twisting two lane road.



Comment:   To My Kids   7/5/00 12:50:56 PM
Bill   Rees
Private Citizen
William H. Rees 5652 N. Pike Lake Rd. Duluth, MN 55811 (218)729-5852/whrees@aol.com 7/5/2000 To NHTSA Re. Comments on driver distraction. I sent the article “Distracted drivers cause up to half of traffic mishaps, safety group says,” in the June 28 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, to my three teen-age drivers, and with it sent the following comments. I pass the comments along in response to your request for comments about the distracted driver problem. I add that holding manufacturers and vendors responsible for driver distractions is an appallingly bad idea, one with limitless legal implications. Teach safe attitudes by all means, but never sue a manufacturer for stupid use of a product. Sincerely, William H, Rees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rees Drivers, (7/4/00 Driving Distractions) This article brings up a point that simply cannot be over-emphasized; NEVER, EVER, allow distractions to affect your driving. ALWAYS, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, MAINTAIN CONTROL OF YOUR VEHICLE. This means that if a bee lands on your hand, and is merrily stinging the hand, first above all else control your vehicle, for stings will heal and death will not. Needless to say, a bee flying around inside the vehicle is even less cause for concern, for he just wants to get out. It is of course therefore hardly necessary to mention that stupid and rude drivers, and those who give you the finger, never justify distraction. Don’t ever forget this! That said, I have some problems with the article. The 15% in the poll is probably more like 1% (a lot of people lie to pollsters). Everybody does some of the mentioned things. I do them all, but always with vehicle control first in mind. When I need to do something distracting I first pick my place and time. I pour coffee only when the road is wide, straight and clear. I don’t eat things in the car that may drop a mess in my lap. If there is no safe place and time, I pull over and stop the vehicle. If I drop something on the floor, I know It will stay there until I can safely get it. If I drop a lit cigarette in my lap, I knock it to the floor and leave it there until I find a safe place and pull over. In short, one can do all the listed distracting things, but NEVER do them in a distracting way. It’s really a matter of attitude. The accident in which pedestrian Steven King was run down deserves a comment. You are never safe just because you have the right-of-way. King had a perfect right to walk alongside the road but a stupid driver still put him in the hospital. Thoughtless use of crosswalks is perhaps less safe than careful jaywalking. Whenever a vehicle is in a position where it can get you, make sure it doesn’t. All accidents are unexpected. I shudder to read the words, “Manufacturers and vendors have a responsibility...” They tell me that this advocacy group would favor lawsuits against people who produce or sell things that somebody can blame for their distraction. Bad drivers can thus become victims rather than perpetrators, a very bad idea. People become distracted only because they allow themselves to become distracted. Don’t let it happen to you! Love, Dad


Comment:   Distractions   7/5/00 1:27:38 PM
GenyMarie   Varallo
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

Inattentive drivers are dangerous to the general public. There should be law against driving a vehicle while talking on a phone or watching tv or doing anything but looking at the big picture ahead to the sides and behind you at all times. I wish I could go around the country and talk to people who do not ride a motorcycle, to make them more aware of how dangerous they make it for us who ride. They legislate conduct by telling us we have to ware seat belts and children in car seats, helments WHY NOT tell people not to talk on the phone????? What is the difference?? Whatever saves unnessary pain or damage to others. Inconvenience, inconsideration, patience to your fellow man. It is so simple, and it actually saves time, property and lives, not to mention money.



Comment:   Cell Phones vs. Alcohol   7/5/00 2:55:02 PM
John   King
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Interestingly, I recently heard of a study that identified talking on a cell phone as roughly equivalent to having consumed two strong drinks of alcohol. Add to that the fact that most people tend to slow down while talking on the phone and that a Federal study a few years ago found that people who habitually drove 10 mph BELOW the posted speed limit were 20 TIMES MORE LIKELY to cause an accident than people who habitually drove 10 mph ABOVE the posted speed limit (the reason given was that speeders paid more attention to what was happening around them and were more alert). I recently watched in astonishment while a lady drinking her "big gulp" blythly ran a stop light at about 60mph as I blasted my SUV horn (very loudly) the whole time... I saw her coming as the light changed and saw that she wouldn't stop, there was a van beside me that I was afraid wouldn't see her, hence the horn. This lady was so out of it that she never even reacted to the horn as she went by! Unfortunately, we have the catchy phrase "speed kills" so everyone worries about speeders, but it's the oblivious drivers (for whatever reason) that really kill, we need a catchy line for that!



Comment:   look out!! He/she is on the phone!   7/5/00 3:23:19 PM
len   elliott
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I have had at least two near-misses caused by people driving while talking on the phone. In one case, I was making a protected left-hand turn, when a driver in the oncoming, straight-through lane started across the intersection. She must have sensed movement, so decided to join the flow. I see it more and more. Some of these people are amazing the way they can make left-hand turns in heavy traffic while carrying on a phone conversation. Cell phones have their place, but not in the ear of the driver of a moving vehicle.



Comment:   Vacant drivers threaten bicyclists as well as motorcyclists   7/5/00 3:58:12 PM
Anthony   Asebedo
Private Citizen

Refering to: Vacant Drivers

As a bicyclist for the last twenty years, and before the advent of cell phones, I came to rely generally on eye-contact with motorists as one indicator of whether the motorist was aware of my approach and was reacting accordingly. For example, when approaching a vehicle waiting to pull into traffic, a good look at whether the driver was looking at me would reassure me that he or she saw me, and would not pull out. Now, like Mr. Finger (see his 7/5/00 comment "Vacant Drivers") I have been confronted with motorists, in several instances, who appear to be looking right at me approaching on my bicycle, but not seeing me. They can only be described as having a totally vacant look, and have illegally pulled out in front of me, or only at the last moment have refrained from pulling out. Although such experience is not scientific evidence that cells phones pose a danger to the public, it convinces me that use should be restricted to times that the vehicle is parked and off the road.



Comment:   Conversation Depth vs. Frequency vs. Complexity   7/6/00 7:21:55 AM
Rick   Huey
Academia/ Research Firm
Just an observation that "hands-free" helps to attack the complexity issue during phone use by eliminating the manual dialing task. The other two issues are more difficult. I believe that conversation depth does result in "vacant" drivers as some others have coined the term. Technology exists to determine whether the vehicle is moving. Perhaps a limitation on call length or frequency of calls while driving would be prudent. Alternatively, a "safety tax" on the cost of calls over a given length. That is, if a call exceeds a threshhold (while moving), it would incur a premium. This premium would attempt to reduce the likelihood and perhaps fund research or transportation costs associated with related crashes. Frequency of use (while driving) could also be assessed a fee to keep the practice in check to some degree. However, I don't see frequency as being as serious a problem as cmplexity or depth.


Comment:   Agree   7/6/00 8:43:26 AM
David   Hooper
Government

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

My wife was nearly killed last year by an emotional driver arguing with her husband while on a cell phone when driving to work at 7:15AM on a clear blue day. She survived but was hospitalized 62 days, missed 5 months of work, had 5 major operations, and 4 additional minor operations. Her chances of survival were as low as 1 in 1,000. The cell phone user lost control of her car on a two lane car, hit the birm, and crossed into my wife's lane hitting her head on at a blind curve where my wife had no chance to even react. There were no skid marks at the accident site even.



Comment:   I used to talk and drive   7/6/00 9:55:47 AM
Jim   Moore
Private Citizen
When I first got my cell phone, I used it in the car all the time. It was neat to be able to talk to people while driving around. But then I started to notice that I really wasn't doing either task particularly well. Sometimes I'd pull out in front of another car while paying attention to the conversation, and other times, I'd space out on what the person was saying to me while I tried to avoid hitting a pedestrian. I came to realize that it really ISN'T safe to talk on the phone while driving, so I stopped doing it. I have my phone for emergencies (which will be off to the side of road, presumably). And I enjoy the convenience of being able to pull over and make a call without having to fine a pay phone. But after a near miss with an SUV, I've given up talking WHILE driving. I'm not a dummy. I'm a college educated person who holds an executive position. But I had to admit that it's just not possible for the brain to do two things well... and driving safely is so important, that it has to take priority of chatting. And I think anyone who has tried to talk on the phone while driving KNOWS deep in his or her heart, that the driving suffers. So, what are we going to do? I think the only reasonable thing to do is to prohibit driving and phoning. We all know this is the safe and proper thing to do, but do we have the guts to do it?


Comment:   Poor performance due to distractions not limited to cell phones   7/6/00 11:16:00 AM
Jonathan   Bailey
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

Conversing on a cell phone while driving, whether hands-free or not, is a significant distraction from the task at hand, driving the car. The problem is worse with a non-hands free model as it will occupy one hand which might be used, for example, to activate the turn signals. It will also restrict the ability of the driver to turn his/her head or upper body to make a visual check of the flank before making a lane change. Hands free echnology is an improvement but still not a panacea. Any driver having a conversation while driving is driving with divided attention and that slows down reaction time and may result in an accident before the driver is even aware of a conflict. The same is true even when having a conversation with a passenger in the car. I have often seen a driver in a car in front of me having an animated conversation with the front seat passenger. During the conversation, the driver seems to feel the compulsion to maintain eye contact with the passenger. While this is going on you will often see variations in speed, weaving, etc. The first order of business when driving a car should be driving the car. Talking on the phone, to a passenger, applying make-up, reading, eating, etc., should always be avoided when possible.



Comment:   Tending to a child in the vehicle is another distraction problem   7/6/00 1:48:11 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
You've probably seen them too - someonw driving alone with a small child in a car seat - looking over/down/backwards, trying to take care of whatever the problem is. I wish they would pull over and stop rather than try to do this while the vehicle is in motion.


Comment:   VAcant Drivers   7/6/00 1:49:37 PM
Michael   Obradovich
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Vacant Drivers

I was hit by a car while riding my motor cycle, the driver did not bother to look and I was flatened. Cell phones were not invented when this happened.



Comment:   July 6,2000 Fatality in Grand Rapids, MI   7/7/00 7:41:55 AM
Val   Bellora
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Distractions

This is an interesting article published in the local paper. Something to think about. GAINES TOWNSHIP -- The victim of a fatal car wreck was on her way to her boyfriend's house and talking to him on a cellular telephone when investigators said she ran a stop sign early today in Gaines Township. Ashley L. Sumner was driving her Honda Accord south on East Paris Avenue at 12:04 a.m. when she was struck by a Jeep Grand Cherokee that was headed east on 100th Street, according to the Kent County Sheriff's Department. Her boyfriend, who rushed to the scene of the crash and was held up by friends as he wept, told police she saw the wreck coming. "Oh my God. I'm going to be hit," were her last words before the phone went dead, her boyfriend told investigators. Sumner's car, its passenger side crushed, came to rest in a soybean field. The 27-year-old Kentwood woman was pronounced dead at the scene. Investigators from the Kent County Sheriff Department said they are not sure why Sumner missed the clearly marked stop sign at the corner. There were no skid marks to indicate she attempted to stop. Neighbors said it is a relatively safe intersection, considering the traffic on 100th Street that carries commuters from U.S. 131 to Caledonia. "This corner is safe. That one is usually the dangerous one," said a man who lives nearby, pointing to the blinking light at 100th and Patterson Avenue. The driver of the Jeep, 25-year-old John Hamilton Millard III of Alto, was transported to Spectrum Health East, where he was being treated for non life-threatening injuries.



Comment:   Get off of the phone!   7/7/00 9:04:24 AM
Ivey   Lewicki
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Our family went through a tragedy 2 and 1/2 years ago. My cousin was the only survivor of an accident which killed two of her dear friends. They were hit by a police officer who was speeding to an emergency suicide call. In addition to speeding, the officer was talking on her cell phone and did not have her blue police lights on. I believe this accident could have been avoided by not only the officer refaining from using her cell phone but also if she had her blue lights on. These girls were only 21 years of age. My cousin will forever suffer, both mentally and physically because of this and the girls families will forever suffer for the loss of their children. I have a cell phone myself...however, it is for emergency use only! I do not make a habit of casually conversing and others should be mindful of this as well. I agree with the comment above, that driving and talking on a phone can be just as dangerous as drinking and driving. Heather and Angie...you have a special place in our hearts always...we will never forget you and think of you both every single day that goes by! We miss and love you very much!



Comment:   study   7/7/00 11:11:21 AM
Frank   Drews
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Cell Phones vs. Alcohol

Do you remember where you read about this study? We are interested in doing a similar kind of study, and it would be really helpful to us to see what the authors did. Thank you, Frank Drews



Comment:   Study - cellphone use effects compared to alcohol consumption   7/7/00 11:19:40 AM
Dave   Wheatley
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: study

I believe the study that has been referred to here is a much quoted one entitled "Association between Cellular Telephone calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions". Redelmeier, D.A. & Tibshirani, R.J. The New England Journal of Medicine 336, 2, 1997, pp. 453 – 458.



Comment:   DRIVING IS A FULL TIME JOB!!!!   7/7/00 2:01:56 PM
Adriana   Engels
Private Citizen
Driving a vehicle in anypart of the world requires a license that is issued upon the verification of your physical amd mental capability of complying with the Laws and regulations while driving. In the United States, every year, billions of dolloars are invested to prevent traffic accidents, loss of lives and properties. This huge investment is made with the sole objective in increasing safety and personal comfort on the hughways and streets. With the paramount increase in the use of wireless communication devices it is becoming clear to the public, in general, that the distraction induced by a wireless mobile device has a serious impact on the physical capability of a person to perform simultaneously the task of communicating and driving. It has been proven, for instance, that talking on the phone and driving simultaneously increases the standard lateral deviation and also delays the response of the driver by more than 600 milliseconds. This represents, at 30 miles per hour, that the vehicle will cover almost 30 feet before the driver starts a reaction such as breaking. It was also determined that the simultaneous activity of discussing subjects on the phone and driving exerts a high mental load with substantial increase in the heart rate and decreases the peripheral vision. Using a mobile phone while driving is associated with an approximate four-fold increase in accident risk compared with not using the wireless phone on the road. Statistics shows that drivers that use cellular phone while driving have a significant increase in the likelihood of striking a pedestrian in a quiet road. Research shows taht the hands-free technology does not reduce the risk of an accident, and that the content of the discussion and the distraction it provokes carries the main risk component. The advance in the wireless technology and its profound worldwide penentration in all layers of society creates the opportunity for the development of new technologies, such as the noe created by Transient Wireless Technology Inc (TWT). The ever growing concern by the international community and by the public in the United States about the use of cell-phones while driving is directly addressed by the technology the technology developed by TWT, helping both the mobile carriers and their customers in improving safety while driving. The new generation of wireless devices with multi-media communication exacerbates the question of safety and services required for mibile devices. There are several countries that already have established regulations to prevent accidents by drivers using cell phones. In Europe, for instance, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and in South America, Chile and Brazil and others are among those that have understood the necessity of providing safety measures on the cellular system. The management, organization and adequate control of calls terminated in a moving wireless device is addressed by TWT's technology and should be considered by FCC and NHTSA. The mandatory provision of the location services for 911 calls originated by a cell phone provides the necessary infrastructure to improve the safety in our roads, helping customers with services that improve their ability to keeo their communicating devices controlling their call while driving.


Comment:   We all do it!   7/8/00 10:30:32 AM
Jonathan   Panush
Private Citizen
I am a motorcyclist, and most of the time I focus only on my riding responsibilities. But, c'mon riding a bike gives you a whole different perspective on the landscapes around you. And, most days my thoughts might wander slightly to things on my mind or around me. I am also a 130 mile a day car commuter. And I talk on the cell phone - hands free - a lot. Sometimes I eat breakfast, I almost always have a cup of coffee. I talk with my passengers when I with others. I notice billboards, storefronts, traffic signs, construction sites, etc. Am I scaring you, yet? Or do I sound familiar? I readily admit that I am not always 100% focused on the drive. But, I am never 100% focused on the drive. For that amount of time, it might even be unsafe to be that focused. All of our thoughts wander, we all have one thing or another happen in the car or during a journey that will distract us from the 10 & 2 wheel position and road 2 seconds ahead. I am a very consciencious and adept driver and rider. I take the responsibility of driving seriously, and I use my intelligence and common sense to do the best I can and keep my wits about me - regardless of my in car activities. Yes, I am guilty. But, I am also very aware of it. I am also a modern American. Cell phones have become a HUGE consumer boom in the past few years. And now, in car internet?! I don't believe you can truly regulate in car, distracting activity. You can't tell a driver and passenger they can't converse in the car. You can't keep the children quiet becuase of laws. You can't not take your eyes off the road to see a beautiful sunset or sunrise, or even a helicopter fly close overhead. We all do it. It happens. We need education and public information about these things. We need to help the public become more aware and responsible of these issues.


Comment:   Communications Industry   7/8/00 1:26:29 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: look out!! He/she is on the phone!

The growing power of the multi-billion dollar communications industry, and to some extent, its partners in the automotive industry, is part of the problem with the proliferation of distracting wireless technology. I am going to lay some blame with their high-priced lobbies that are so tremendously powerful as to prevent real legal prohibition of distracting uses for these kinds of technologies by drivers in addition to prohibitions of their placement in cars by manufacturers. I have no doubt that is at least the case on the national-level, possibly at the state-level. Local-level response might be more effective where industries have less power to influence policy outcomes. If politicians had the guts to do something that rocks this industry-led boat, we might have some real change. Until then, I think the death and injury toll will just continue to rise.



Comment:   The ads in magazines alone are frightening   7/8/00 4:50:11 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I recently saw a woman in her Maxima on the interstate rolling around 65 or 70, talking on her cell phone, but what caught my attention was her letting go of the steering wheel to 'talk with her hands', and she did so quite frequently. Only seeing a woman reading a harlequin paperback in rush hour traffic in same alarmed me more. Perhaps the problem is not technology, but as is so often the case, women.


comment   All communication devices are dangerous while driving   7/8/00 6:08:13 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
The ability to contact someone in emergency road situations is invalualble; however, the place to do so is stopped on the side of the road! Very few people (myself included) stick to a posted speed limit on interstate highways and every bit of attention should be on the road when traveling at 70 mph. The only situation that might possibly permit use of communication technology while traveling is by a companion in the vehicle or if automated highways become a reality.


comment   I think the study you mentioned is posted on the Index page    7/8/00 8:33:42 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Government

Refering to: Study - cellphone use effects compared to alcohol consumption

See the paper by Redelmeier on the Index page



comment   An "M" Chip?   7/9/00 3:38:49 PM
Rocky   Patek
Private Citizen

Refering to: Conversation Depth vs. Frequency vs. Complexity

We can now purchase televisions equipped with a chip to control what our children watch. How difficult would it be to install a chip in cell phones that could determine the ground speed of the phone and inactivate it at a determined speed? An "M" chip would make moot the discussion of using a phone while driving. I personally do not believe any device that would take a drivers attention away from the road should be prohibited. A driver should be able to hear as well as see what he/she is doing and aftermarket sound equipment should be looked at as a danger also.



comment   Study - Common misinterpretation   7/9/00 3:53:39 PM
Lisa   Ihde
Industry Trade Association/Society

Refering to: Study - cellphone use effects compared to alcohol consumption

I believe you are correct about the study. After publication in 1997, the Redelmeier and Tibshirani study was commonly misinterpreted with a comparison of the use a wireless phone while driving and drunk driving. The researchers were so concerned about this misinterpretation that they wrote a subsequent article, in which they state: “This is not true.” The article can be found in Chance Magazine, volume 10, number 2, 1997.



comment   Correction: An "M" Chip?   7/9/00 4:05:44 PM
Rocky   Patek
Private Citizen

Refering to: An "M" Chip?

It should read that I DO believe devices that take a drivers attention away from the road should be prohibited. Sorry.



comment   Cell Phones   7/9/00 4:18:38 PM
James   Dunlap
Private Citizen

Refering to: Vacant drivers threaten bicyclists as well as motorcyclists

I thought that legislation banning cell phones was a no brainer but as the lobby gets bigger... It has gotten to the point that any time I see a motorist driving eratically I automatically assume that they are on the phone and most of the time I am right. The other night I was almost hit by a young girl backing out of her driveway, while eating something and also talking on the phone. Driving is difficult enough without all those other distractions.



comment   The larger issue of distracted driving   7/9/00 4:47:09 PM
Lisa   Ihde
Industry Trade Association/Society

Refering to: Poor performance due to distractions not limited to cell phones

You make an important point. Distracted driving is an issue that encompasses everything we do while driving that takes our attention away from the road. Our first priority is to safe driving – not to the kids in the back seat, not to eating, not to adjusting the music and not to a phone call. Last week, the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) launched an education campaign to address all of these aspects of distracted driving. Through education, we can reinforce the driver's responsibility to safety. As the industry, we know that we have a responsibility to educate wireless customers on the responsible use of our products and services. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and its members conduct on-going, pro-active education, which includes safety advertising, customer materials, radio and TV public service announcements, etc. Please go to our website at http://www.wow-com.com/consumer/driving/safety.cfm for tips on the responsible use of a wireless phone.



comment   Laws to address hazardous driving   7/9/00 5:10:55 PM
Lisa   Ihde
Industry Trade Association/Society

Refering to: Cell Phones

It may be comforting to know that every state has laws to address reckless or careless driving. No matter what the person is doing that contributes to their erratic driving, under existing law they can be pulled over and ticketed. Distracted driving is thought to contribute to 25 to 50 percent of all traffic accidents. In a June 2000 survey conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide, drivers ranked other passengers as the most common distraction, followed by adjusting controls, then eating or reading, then picking up something that fell, and, lastly, talking on the phone. This indicates that legislation to address only a piece of the issue is not the answer. Laws to address hazardous driving exist. We are now challenged with educating drivers.



comment   Wireless communication saves lives in emergency situations   7/9/00 5:36:51 PM
Lisa   Ihde
Industry Trade Association/Society

Refering to: All communication devices are dangerous while driving

You are correct in that the ability to contact someone in an emergency road situation is invaluable. Everyday, more than 118,000 calls are placed to 911 from wireless phones. These calls summons emergency assistance after automobile accidents, report drunk drivers before they cause a potentially fatal accident, identify the location of carjacked vehicles, catch suspects that flee a crime scene and the list goes on. The simple comfort that help is only a call away is significant, but with this benefit comes a responsibility to safety. A driver’s top priority is to safety.



comment   cell phones are a danger in a moving vehicle   7/9/00 8:16:04 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I drive a tractor trailer approx. 2500 to 3000 miles a week. I have repeatedly watched anal retentive idiots performing unsafe manuvers with their auto's ,while talking on their cell phones, on a daily basis. They swerve and act erratically, as if they were drunk on the road. Any semblance of driver courtesey is gone as soon as they pick up the phone. You cannot pilot a 4000 lb auto down the highway , with all the inherrant dangers out there, and talk on a cell phone at the same time. It is that much worse when a big truck driver does it, they are piloting an 80,000 lb machine.....



comment   Not so fast - emergency overload.   7/9/00 10:00:56 PM
Daniel   Tryon
Private Citizen

Refering to: Wireless communication saves lives in emergency situations

Actually, many 911 centers have difficulty with the overwhelming number of calls that report the same emergency - due largely to the great number of cell phones in use. However, I agree that cell phones can save lives in emergency situations. They could still provide that valuable service if they were locked in the trunk of the car - or programmed only to function when the car was in "park" or stopped.



comment   Driving attitudes are reckless at best.   7/9/00 10:25:08 PM
Daniel   Tryon
Private Citizen

Refering to: Vacant Drivers

I can not remember the name of the comedian that uses the joke... 98 percent of drivers consider themselves to be "above average drivers". I bet that is not too far off. A US citizen does not need to demonstrate much skill or knowledge to become licensed. Then, there is NO ongoing testing as there is with pilots. Why is it that if I enroll in various road safety training I am only rewarded by my insurance company and not by the state that is responsible for issuing licenses? Why also, does my state take little interest as motorists bombard themselves with more and more distractions? If school bus drivers were allowed to eat, dress, talk on the phone, read, and do all of the other dumb things that go on in cars then perhaps people would demand reform. I drive a motorcycle and I have seen many close calls and was receintly struck by a motorist that afterward told the investigating officer, "I stopped my car when I heard something go BANG." Driving requires serious concentration, serious preparation, as well as skill and proper equipment. Far too many motorists lack the serious attitude required. More importantly, as the comedian knows, most people do not objectively evaluate their own abilities and distractions and make corrections. It is time for a higher authority to step up and eliminate the distractions. Requiring us to actually be qualified would also be nice.



Ask the Expert   How does crash risk change as a function of driver experience using car phones? Does risk drop or increase? Does this generalizes to other in-vehicle technologies?   7/10/00 12:54:04 PM
Frances   Bents
To my knowledge, there is no crash investigation field data which has asked cell phone-using drivers involved in crashes about their related level of experience. Given the difficulties in trying to identify cell-phone use among crash involved drivers, it is not likely that reliable information regarding phone use behavior will be forthcoming.

We must then defer to human factors data. There are 3 types of distraction generally cited in the literature: visual, mechanical and cognitive.

It may be valid to assume that as cell phone users become more familiar with their equipment, they may spend less time looking at their device to turn on the power, or dial. They will still have to look at their phone if there are text messages, or other features. Therefore, there may be decreased visual distraction of a second or two for frequent users who can manually detect the power button and speed dial features.

With regard to mechanical distraction, the argument is that using a phone in a hands free mode (i.e., placing the phone in a holder of some sort) decreases driver distraction. The phone must still be dialed in some way, and calls sent out, but drivers would not be holding the phone to their ear. Frequent or casual cell phone users may decrease their mechanical distraction by using a holder, and keeping both hands on the wheel.

What seems to be most relevant to safe cell phone use is the cognitive distraction. I defer to the human factors experts who may have studied our ability to better multi-task as activities are practiced. But I would also caution that such practice would again more likely address the visual and mechanical aspects of cell phone use. Anyone of driving age has made numerous phone calls, using land lines, during their lifetimes. How do we respond to someone who is standing in front of us trying to capture our attention while we are on the phone? Often we wave them away, or interrupt our conversation on the phone to address the other person. Even after years of talking on the land line phone, our ability to concentrate on more than one activity doesn’t seem to improve. The activity that cell phone using drivers are not attending to is the driving task. I believe that this is a critical issue, and that non-essential technologies which do not help us operate our vehicles more safely should not be allowed.



comment   Study based on simulation   7/11/00 12:05:56 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

The study was based on data gathered from a simulation ,and cannot be as conclusive as a real time study.Some drivers can manage more than one task, It's not so much the driving skill as it is the management skill.



commentsimulation valid?   7/11/00 3:16:43 AM
Andrew   Parkes
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Study based on simulation

I fully agree that any simulator study should only be viewed as supporting evidence, and in no way is conclusive. It does however give some further weight to a line of research that is emerging. this particular study was designed in a simulator for the principal reason that detailed investigations of Situation Awareness are very difficult to perform in a real traffic environment........and yes I agree, accident potential in general has less to do with pure driving skill, and much more to do with attitude, motivation, mood and distraction



comment   M chips exist for some navigation systems   7/11/00 8:45:24 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Government

Refering to: An "M" Chip?

Some companies lock out certain navigation system functions while the vehicle is in motion. Some only let the passenger operate functions by requiring the display to be rotated towards the passenger. The technology is thus possible and could be adapted to cell phones if consumers would accept it.



commentA Researchers Tool Bag, How to Measure & Define the Distraction Problem   7/12/00 6:14:40 PM
Eddy   Llaneras (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Study based on simulation

Certainly simulation has its role along with test track, on-road and naturalistic studies. Any given study may have its limitations and inherent weaknesses. Perhaps the larger issue is how exactly do we go about measuring and defining the distraction problem. We've heard many citizens comment that they routinely witness distracted drivers driving erratically. Should we rely solely on crash data to define the problem, or are there other driving performance measures and thresholds that can be used to define unsafe driving and "distractions?" These issues and others are the topic of discussion under the "Measuring Distraction" page.



comment   Ban Them While Driving!   7/13/00 2:20:27 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
On occasion, I use a cell phone in the car. The boss requested it. Problem is, I make as many calls as I receive. It's not right. I know it's unsafe. But the convenience is irresistable. What I need is a state threatening me with a stiff fine to get me to shut it off and put it away. No matter how hard I try, it is impossible to drive well while trying to dial a number, hold a conversation, or, in some cases, rummage through my backpack looking for the damn thing when it rings. My personal experience has been that, oftentimes, I will have traveled 10 or even 20 miles while gabbing and, at the conclusion of the call, have zero recollection of how I got from Point A (phone ringing or me dialing a number) to Point B (hanging up). I'll remember nothing about cross streets I passed, traffic situations I negotiated...nothing. It's all a blank. In my opinion, driving while talking on a cell phone is WORSE than driving after having a few brewskis.


comment   Cell Phones vs: Loud Pipes   7/13/00 4:03:10 PM
Thomas   Tenholder
Private Citizen

Refering to: look out!! He/she is on the phone!

I drive a Harley-Davidson Turing Motorcycle. I have had over 5 close calls with dunces talking on the cell phone in the past few years. Just last week a nice lady in a white compact car came drifting over to the left into my lane. I had nowhere to go as this was the rush hour traffic. Motorcycle horns are notoriously soft. I tried everything but knocking on her window to make her wake up and get back in her lane. I was lucky to be able to slow down and let her nearly run me over. A near miss?! Yes. Thank goodness the driver behind me saw what was happening and slowed as well. Perhaps if I had loud pipes she may have heard me. Until know I always said LOUD PIPES ARE DUMB.I am beginning to rethink that. Maybe if I had loud pipes this nice lady would have heard me. Probably not. It looked as if she was arguing with her husband or kids. I have had a car phone in my cars since thedays when the system was as large as a suitcase and the phone company placed a Princess Phone on the drive shaft hump. Technology has done wonders with cell phones. I no longer have them in my cars. I carry them in my pocket. I use them often when I am stopped. This is because I usually have to write something down or return calls and I do not feel safe doing that on the road.



comment   How many fatal accidents before cell phone use while driving is banned?   7/13/00 9:08:13 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

I'd been standing on the median (in the crosswalk) for a fair amount of time, when the last vehicle making a protected left turn, an SUV, went through the intersection. I noticed in passing that the driver was talking on a cell phone. As the driver passed, I stepped into the road. The SUV suddenly comes to a screeching halt as the driver realized there was someone there! Although I'd been standing on the median for about two minutes, AND approximately 10 vehicles had preceded the SUV into the intersection the driver never noticed the "juno-esque" woman in the pink jumper waiting to cross the street. A tractor-trailer driver ranted out of his window about how the $%# phones should be banned. In the last year, I've seen cell phone using drivers cut off other drivers in heavy traffic, fly through red lights and stop signs without a clue, and make illegal u-turns with one hand forcing oncoming traffic to stop on a dime. Although most tractor trailer drivers don't like cell phones being used on the road there are a handful that seem to forget how much tonnage they're hauling. Along the I-95 corridor it's not unusual to see these drivers weaving along in heavy traffic as they try to control their rigs and carry on a cell phone conversation. We all know someone who's been in or witnessed a cell phone close call or accident. It's past time that the Feds decided what's more important - the cell phone lobby or driver/pedestrian safety.



comment   Single handed parking lot manuevers.   7/13/00 11:45:28 PM
Jason   Sederquist
Private Citizen
I once saw a man back out of a parking stall, turn his car, and drive out of the lot, all while holding a phone to his ear. He was driving a stick! I don't think that having communication devices in a car is necessarily bad or dangerous, as long as the driver has both hands free, and both eyes on the road. Headsets should be required for phones and web surfing (what?) should only be allowed by a passenger. How in the world can someone type and drive at the same time?! Of course, I've seen plenty of bad driving sans cell phone. Maybe we need to work on better public transportation, or subsidize taxis and other livery type transports. Maybe cars should be designed to drive themselves, Yeah, that's it!


comment   Common Sense   7/14/00 1:44:25 AM
Brad   Heffran
Private Citizen
I'm all for technology, but not when it poses a real threat to public safety. The concept of making more and more toys for a person to play with while trying to safely operate a car moving 70 mph is ridiculous, at best. I can't speak for everyone, but I know that if I was responsible for the injury or death of another motorist (or pedestrian) because I was messing around with a stupid cell phone or auto-email, it would make it pretty tough for me to live with myself knowing that I was so stupid and selfish. The point is this: there is nothing wrong with innovating new technology to add some conveniences to people's lives, but it is absolutely wrong for devices to be created that clearly pose danger for the users of these devices and/or the millions of other people out there who could be harmed by their use.


comment   Many sources of distraction   7/14/00 8:29:54 AM
Nancy   Castilow
Academia/ Research Firm
As a responsible cell phone user, I understand the concerns of those who have witnessed drivers who are oblivious to the road while talking. However, cell phones are not the root of the problem--stupidity is.Over the years, I have seen people--putting on makeup, making out, shaving, singing off sheet music, writing notes, turning around to scream at kids, using a laptop, reading the newspaper and the real topper, a guy reading a book while driving 80 miles an hour down I-29 during July 4 traffic! No kidding. So, if the move, as has been discussed in Nebraska, is to make it a ticketable crime to drive and use cell-phones, let's go all the way and ban these other examples of stupidity and distraction as well. That will leave about three of us on the road....


comment   Test situation...   7/14/00 9:18:28 AM
Rick   Spagnuolo
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

My wife and I are both cell phone users. As far as we are concerned, there can be no argument, using a cell phone while driving a car is just plain dangerous. I drive about 50 miles a day in the Metro-Detroit area. It seems as though about every 3rd person is on a cell phone. They all exhibit the same tendencies, swaying back and forth, slow reaction times, sometimes traveling much slower that posted speed limits, and lane changes without first looking. This really seems to me like a "no-brainer", we need to outlaw the use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. If the call is that important (and most of them are not), then pull off into a parking lot and make the call. We are weighing the use of a cell phone against our safety.



comment   Police talk on the while they drive around on duty!   7/14/00 9:30:24 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
While I agree that we need to enforce laws on useing cell phones in the car, the very police themselves must also follow the same rules. I can't tell how many police officers I have seen talking on their cell phones while driveing their police cars around on duty. Almost all the police officers that I know have cell phones with them while on duty. Is this a double standard? Should police be allowed to drive while talking when the common person may be subject to fines. Police should follow the rules to .


commentPolice talk on the phone while they drive around on duty!   7/14/00 9:31:07 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
While I agree that we need to enforce laws on useing cell phones in the car, the very police themselves must also follow the same rules. I can't tell how many police officers I have seen talking on their cell phones while driveing their police cars around on duty. Almost all the police officers that I know have cell phones with them while on duty. Is this a double standard? Should police be allowed to drive while talking when the common person may be subject to fines. Police should follow the rules to .


comment   Cell Phone   7/14/00 9:56:46 AM
Patrick   Nhigula
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I would like to submit my comments on that base upon the title,I would recommend to drivers to wear microphone immediately after the pick up the cell phone.



comment   Distraction and the repurcussions of banning car cell phone use   7/14/00 10:03:26 AM
Scott   Legg
Private Citizen

Refering to: Many sources of distraction

Has anyone thought about the repurcussions of banning all car cell phone use? If you're like me, most of the time you don't use your cell phone in the car unless it's really important -- calling to tell the person who's keeping your kids that you're running late because of an accident and you're stuck in traffic, or calling a spouse so they don't worry when you've been sitting on the interstate for two hours because of traffic and accidents, or calling 911 on a drunk driver, or calling the police because you just passed an accident. Do we really want to ban all these things? It would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water because of some people's reckless use. What everyone forgets is that there are already reckless driving statutes on the books and a police officer has to witness an infraction (unless there's an accident) to ticket for it. If someone is driving recklessly because they are talking on their cell phone, or putting on makeup or reading a newspaper while driving, then maybe you should get on your cell phone and report it to the police like you would a drunk driver. It's not using the cell phone that's the problem. It's people not knowing their limitations and not using common sense while driving.



comment   GET OFF THE ROAD IF ON THE CELL- DEFINITELY   7/14/00 10:43:07 AM
ken   huffman
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

People-man or woman- do NOT know how to drive at all when on these things. Total lack of care, respect, and consideration for all others on the road trying to actually do something besides chat about tonight's party or yesterday's meeting! Just outlaw driving and talking on cells at the same time altogether and maybe these careless idiots can try to learn how to DRIVE again. It's stuff like this that leads to violence on the roadways- I KNOW!!!



comment   GET OFF THE ROAD IF ON THE CELL- DEFINITELY   7/14/00 10:46:58 AM
ken   huffman
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

People-man or woman- do NOT know how to drive at all when on these things. Total lack of care, respect, and consideration for all others on the road trying to actually do something besides chat about tonight's party or yesterday's meeting! Just outlaw driving and talking on cells at the same time altogether and maybe these careless idiots can try to learn how to DRIVE again. It's stuff like this that leads to violence on the roadways- I KNOW!!!



comment   Multi-tasking Driving   7/14/00 12:33:51 PM
Beverly   Maville
Other

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I believe it is dangerous enough to drive while using a cell-phone, but imagine my surprise when, about six months ago I checked my rearview mirror and the driver behind me was not only talking on her cell phone but smoking with the other hand.



comment   Get over yourselves - Take Responsibility!   7/14/00 12:47:35 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: We all do it!

I was listening to the radio today, and I heard that this website was being used to gather information and opinions about the effects of cell phone usage while driving. I expected to see a diverse range of comments, but I found that most people are trying to account for every bad driver as an irresponsible cell phone user. I admit that I have seen a fair amount of distracted cell phone users, but I have no way of knowing if they would be any less annoying to share the road with if they were not using their cell phones. I whole-heartedly agree with the comments within "We All Do It!" As drivers we are faced with many distractions. It remains important to remember that sometimes these distractions can be good as well. For example, on the long drive that I periodically make from Illinois to Wyoming, my mind wanders, but every couple hundred miles I know that my mom is going to call and quiz me about where I am and such. Wouldn't it be more distracting if once the phone started to ring I pulled to the side of the road rather than just answering the dumb thing as I drove? Driving by myself, a five minute phone call to hear another voice seems like a good idea. But, if you still feel so strongly against cell phones, remember that there are already careless driving laws on the books! It is ridiculous to make new laws when appropriate laws already exist. Your efforts might be much better spent trying to educate technology users. Laws do not change behaviors; personal committments to uphold right and wrong are much more powerful, but for those who still act irresponsibly the current laws can be utilized. It is more important to teach people the REASONS why their behavior may be inappropriate to cause a true change.



commentagree   7/14/00 12:48:04 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I agree with your comment to pull over, to regulate this would cost to much and take need police from other important tasks. I think an easy fix would be for auto makers to install devices that disallow drivers from talking while the key is in the start position (via an electronic emission??) this would require pulling over and putting the key in acc. pos. I work for an auto company, it would be easier to design then air bag tech.



comment   States' Rights   7/14/00 12:56:42 PM
Roy   Rocholl
Private Citizen

Refering to: Get over yourselves - Take Responsibility!

If I withheld money from you until you passed a law, you would call it blackmail. I get as aggrevated at discourteous cell phone users as anyone else, but we have laws against running red lights and driving drunk, and it doesn't seem to help. Threatening to withhold highway money is blackmail and unsolicited interference in the states' business. Find another way to handle the problem. By the way, didn't the federal government make the cell phone providers cover the interstae highways first, before filling in service in rural areas?



comment   HOW TRUE THIS IS   7/14/00 1:43:14 PM
J   RUSHING
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

My daughter was hit by a driver using a cell phone and almost killed. The accident was totally avoidable for anyone paying attention to what they were doing. I think the use of cell phones by drivers should be banned with stiff penalties for violators.



commentWhat constitutes need?   7/14/00 1:53:01 PM
Scott   Monroe
Private Citizen
I will not dispute the value of car phones in an emergency situation, but my experience has been that such use is a minor percentage of the whole picture. More commonly, I believe that they are used as status symbols, as toys, or for trivial reasons. All of these detract from a driver's ability to fully concentrate, without providing a genuine matching need. We often think that we "need" gadgets that are simply convenient, and at the same time, most of us seriously overestimate our capabilities as drivers, and we therefore reduce the already tiny margins for error that the speeds at which we drive permit. I work in the trucking industry, which often gets the blame for most of the traffic woes in this country. One of our veteran safe drivers told me a story about merging onto another interstate, and noticing that the car driver in the next lane had a newspaper spread out in his lap, a cup of coffee in one hand, and a cell phone lodged between the opposite ear and shoulder, all the while freely changing lanes at over 60 miles per hour. Our driver posed the question as to who was the real hazard in this scenario. I believe that people who think that they "need" continuous access to a phone in their cars actually need to re-evaluate their priorities before "Type A" behavior lands them in heart hospitals. The fact is, most telephone contact can wait until the car is safely stopped, but we've let ourselves get used to the more dangerous approach, and now don't want to admit that we were wrong all along. But as a civil libertarian at heart, I think that the constitutional issues involved in banning various activities "for our own good" must be given due consideration. I would therefore propose an advertising program that would promote stopping while talking on the car phone, with the warning that if we don't voluntarily take such common sense measures, we may be promoting greater invasion by government, all the while we moan about how it should get off our backs.


comment   You've got to be kidding   7/14/00 2:09:01 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The ads in magazines alone are frightening

Apparently it's easy to blame bad driving on women in this society. How then, would you explain one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the road being attributed to a man. While driving on the toll road, I was following a gentleman in a Ford Mustang. He was smoking a cigarette, talking on the phone, shifting his car, looking through his briefcase and trying to pay his toll at the same time. I followed him down the road for about 10 miles. He was weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off cars, taking his hands off the wheel to gesture to whoever was on the phone and generally oblivious to the fact that he was in control of a high speed killing machine. This problem is absolutely not gender based. It's STUPIDITY based.



comment   Let's focus on practical solutions.   7/14/00 2:44:04 PM
Ralph   Poplawsky
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Get over yourselves - Take Responsibility!

There are indeed reasons to have phones in cars. It is often not possible to pull off the road in a safe place to answer or place a call. Also, it is really unlikely that we will ban phones in cars entirely in this country. Given these facts, we need to identify the key hazards of cell phone use in cars and find practical ways to mitigate them. Handling the phone while driving is a major issue causing poor control of the vehicle and distraction. Ear buds fix that one, but dialing the phone while driving is an even worse distraction (I find it extremely dangerous - when I do it, sorry). An installed hands-free kit gets the phone completely out of our hands, but now the act of dialing is worse than before because the keypad is fixed at a greater distance so dialing requires that the eyes (squinting at my age) and attention of the driver be completely averted from the road. Add a really good voice activated dialing system and now the only thing that is left is the issue of having a distracting conversation while driving. There is really no way to outlaw conversations while driving in multi-passenger vehicles, but public awareness and education programs could help. Technologies and products exist to accomplish all of the above with the phones that we use today and these can be adapted to cars at the factory, the car dealers or your parking lot at work. Unfortunately they cost money. Are we willing to spend some money to reduce the extent of this problem?



comment   response to the ads are frightening   7/14/00 3:03:55 PM
Steve   Davis
Other

Refering to: The ads in magazines alone are frightening

I can see why you submitted your message anonymusly. You are a sexist idiot. This issue goes beyond gender, and I assure you men as well as women read - write - eat - and talk on phones while they drive. I think a lot of the rhetoric being shared in this forum is extremist and emotional. Millions of wireless handset users have conversations while they drive every day without incident. However, drivers need to be held accountable for their actions. If a drivers is not mature / responsible enough to maintain safe control of their vehicle they should be prevented from driving, but I do not feel that driving while talking on the phone is always more dangerous than talking to a passenger, listening to the radio or any of the other distractions drivers encounter.



comment   Talking on the cell phone with both hands on the wheel   7/14/00 5:07:55 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: What constitutes need?

In the hundreds of thousands of miles I have driven on American and Canadian highways, the cell phone has actually made me slow down and become a better driver. This was done with the phone mounted at eye level and a headset. I make a dozen or two appointments each week in my business, while in my car. If I am running late, I don't drive with speed, weave in and out of traffic, run stop lights just to make it to my business appt on time. Now, I call and tell them I am running late, stuck in traffic, etc. Both hands are on the wheel and I can dial the phone without taking my eyes off the road. (Is this any different than adjusting the radio, A/C, mirrors, etc., etc.) Oh, and I have seen many drivers involved in a heated discussion with their passengers or children and talk about distracted! I saw a well dressed attractive woman driving next to me brushing her teeth and combing her hair, and spit mouthwash out the window onto the street! Talk about distracting! We cannot legislate stupid people. We can start enforcing the "Rules of the road" that say if you are driving reckless (For whatever reason), you should be taken off the road. If a law passes that says we cannot use cell phones while on the road, then I will just have to break the law. (Like I will be the only one??)



comment   Terrified   7/14/00 5:43:06 PM
Stanley   Potter
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I am terrified of drivers with cellphones. Almost without exception erratic driving habits I've observed on the highway was because of talking on a cellphone. When I see such a driver I take care to keep out of their way. I understand that in Brazil talking on a cell phone in a car earns a whopping fine - even if the car is standing still.



comment   How about training motorists to DRIVE first, then worry about cellphones.   7/14/00 5:49:49 PM
James   Jones
Commercial Driver
I have been in the transportation industry in one form or another for over 20 years. I have trained,retrained and tested drivers for over 10 years. I can assure you there is a far greater danger from untrained and poorly tested drivers than all the "car-toys" combined. All anyone who doubts this need do is spend a day at any state driver testing facility. Anyone who can answer at least 2/3 of a multiple "guess" test and drive around a parking lot without "killing" more than a 1/2 dozen orange cones is given a license and turned loose on our highways. Most either have no clue as to the laws and "rules of the road" or choose to ignore them. No one can deny that driving is a life and death task that most all of us must do on a daily basis, so if we are truly concerned about safer roads let's concentrate on the root cause, UNTRAINED drivers! Before we pass another useless law that would have little or no effect on making our roads safer, why not try requiring all drivers, new and renewal's, to get REAL training and realistic testing and deny a license to those that can't demonstrate they have acquired the skills needed to operate motor vehicles safely.


comment   not paying attention   7/14/00 7:13:46 PM
lily   wasluskas
Private Citizen

Refering to: DRIVING IS A FULL TIME JOB!!!!

I was involved in a car accident that was caused by a man on his cell phone. I was stopped at a red light and was struck from behind the guy was going about 55 mph when he struck me, he hit me so hard that it totaled my suburban. His comment to the cop was that he was on his cell phone conducting business and was not paying attention to his driving. So because his business was so much more important than his driving I will pay for it for the rest of my life. I wake up in pain every morning it has drastically changed my life, had I been in anything smaller than my suburban they said I would probably be dead. I would love a chance for the goverment to hear my story, something has to be done.Driving is a serious thing and I think technology is going to just keep hurting and killing people



comment   Max features on HUD   7/14/00 8:39:38 PM
Barry   Ness
Other

Refering to: In your opinion, what is the maximum number of recommended information displays a HUD should feature?

3 functions is tops for average auto driver. motorcyclists who also drive auto's seem to be able to handle 5-6. the motorcyclist gets this by experience by driving both vehicles. Long time motorcyclists seem to have a better awareness of traffic conditions for his/her placement in the traffic flow!!



comment   It's easy to blame.   7/14/00 9:36:11 PM
mike   garbo
Private Citizen

Refering to: You've got to be kidding

I myself do not use my cell phone while driving.I either will not answer or pull over if I am expecting a call.I understand your frustration with your experience. But no matter wether you are using 5 distractions or 1 (cell phone)you are distracted. And with the increased speed and traffic problems all eyes must be on the road at all times.You are commended for your comment and I am not patronizing you,but in this civilization we live in people are more likely to bury thier heads in the sand instead of speaking out. prometheous1@msn.com



commentPersonal Responsibility is the Issue   7/14/00 10:35:37 PM
Mike   Bigelow
Private Citizen
The issue of personal responsibility is again being overlooked in the matter of mobile phone use. The more we try to enforce intelligent and responsible behavior, the more we remove freedom from the general population. We also risk removing valuable tools that are providing efficiency and productivity. There will always be distractions on the road. New laws can't prevent this. Legal tools are already in place to combat reckless and dangerous behavior. We should let these tools do the job for which they are intended. Consider this: A parent is distracted by their crying child as he or she hurries to daycare. A person thumbs through their business cards looking for the address of their next appointment. Someone else applies make-up, while another driver has been on a long road trip and is tired. Another driver is stressed because of family difficulty or job problems. These are just a few of the challenges that drivers have to deal with. In all of the cases outlined above the person has the obligation to analyze the circumstances and determine if they can responsibly drive. If not, they must stop the car. If a distracted driver causes damage, the courts are equipped to deal with the damage through civil action. It happens every day. Juries decide how much of the damage was caused by poor judgment and then render penalties based on the degree of damage and the level of poor judgement. This system works. If the driver was acting recklessly or driving to endanger, this can lead to prosecution by the State. This system also works. Every day, tens of millions of phone calls, radio adjustments, cigarette lightings, conversations, map browsings, snack eatings, make-up applications and scores of other tasks are handled safely by people driving cars. The more technology advances the more each person will have to choose how much he or she is capable of handling. The ones that choose poorly and cause damage should be held accountable for their actions. Those who act safely should not be denied the choice to do so.


comment   should be illegal to use while driving   7/15/00 12:39:22 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Having had my very life and limb threatened by irresponsible and inconsiderate cell-phone users, I firmly believe that cell phones should be illegal to use while driving, and that the enforcement of that should be stringent and the penalties very tough. It's about people's lives, not just about people doing what they want to do.


comment   Driver-friendly technology is solution   7/15/00 9:18:40 AM
Chris   Struble
Private Citizen

Refering to: should be illegal to use while driving

Using a cell phone while driving shouldn't be illegal, because it may be necessary in an emergency situation, such as reporting a crime in progress. The solution is for consumers to demand driver-friendly technology. Car cell phones should have hands-free technology such as speakerphone or voice-activated dailing. Navigation systems can also be made voice-activated and voice-responsive (talk to and talk back). Visual maps can be programmed to display only if a person is seated in the passenger seat or if the vehicle is in park. Many of these technologies already exist, it's just that many drivers aren't aware of them or don't demand them in new cars. Turning to government to solve technology issues doesn't work, because technology moves so much faster than government. Just as with the "digital divide", in the time it takes government to do anything, the technology evolves and the problem goes away on its own.



comment   We have DUI laws to punish irresponsible drinkers, what are we doing about irresponsible cell-phone users?    7/15/00 12:11:30 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
If you drive under the influence of alcohol, your driving is IMPAIRED, your reaction time is SLOWER and you are a MENACE to others on the road. Does anyone dispute that? Now check this out: If you drive while talking on a cell phone, your driving is IMPAIRED, your reaction time is SLOWER and you are a MENACE to others on the road. Get it? The point being -- a cell phone user is no different than a drunk driver. His or her reckless behavior puts everyone's life at risk. I am not saying outlaw cell phone use. I am saying this: just as we are allowed to freely consume alcoholic beverages as long as we don't intend to drive, we should be free to use cell phones as long as we don't use them while operating a MOVING vehicle. When you are caught drinking and driving, we have DUI laws in place to punish you and possibly take away your PRIVILEGE to drive. If you cause an accident as a result of being impaired or distracted by cell phone use, you should be fined and lose your PRIVILEGE to use a cell phone in a car because you can't be trusted to use it RESPONSIBLY. I'm sure this seems like crazy logic to many out there, but having recently been run off the road by a lane-weaving, oblivious cell-phone "drunk", I find the analogy perfect.


comment   Distraction Associated With Cell Phones   7/15/00 12:24:19 PM
Harold   Thornton
Commercial Driver
I'm a professional over the road truck driver and on average of 2-3 times a day I have to avoid a crash with someone on the phone. Once in Memphis a car was in a lane that ended and he had to merge into my lane. I was watching him in my mirrors and not once did he pay attention to what was going on around him. If I was not looking out for him, he probably would be another truck/car statistic. As truck drivers we see alot more distractions than that. We see anything from sex acts being performed to reading while they drive down the road. In February one of our trucks struck a car and killed the driver. She pulled up to a stop sign while talking on the cell phone. She stopped. And then pulled on out in front of our truck. She still had the phone up to her ear when the paramedics arrived. I don't believe that call was more important than her life and it cost her her life by being distracted from her driving. I have seen police/state troopers driving down the road using cell phones. Yesterday was a first. I was driving through South Carolina and a trooper was sitting on the side of the road using his cell phone. As many close calls that I have had driving my truck I definitely feel that cell phones should be banned while someone is driving!!! Eventually I'm not going to be able to avoid a cell driver. I've seen where a light has changed but they are to busy on the phone to notice the change. I've seen them weaving down the road as if they were drunk crossing the center line and going over the fog line because they are too busy using their cell phone. I could go on with examples, but the bottom line is that any distraction is too much. Driving should be and is a full time job. There are too many vehicles on the road and there is less room for error.


comment   Banned usem not necessary   7/15/00 3:36:53 PM
Eric   Peterson
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I do not belive that the ban is necessary, however laws requiring the use of hands free kits I would agree to. I use a hands free kit in my pickup, I can awnser the phone,just as easy as changing the radio station or changing the heat controls.



commentBanned use not necessary   7/15/00 3:37:05 PM
Eric   Peterson
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I do not belive that the ban is necessary, however laws requiring the use of hands free kits I would agree to. I use a hands free kit in my pickup, I can awnser the phone,just as easy as changing the radio station or changing the heat controls.



commentCell phone Drivers???????   7/15/00 4:33:44 PM
David   Witt
Private Citizen

Refering to: GET OFF THE ROAD IF ON THE CELL- DEFINITELY

It really amazes me about drivers and cell phones. More than once have I seen drivers on the freeway drift across four lanes of speeding traffic or drift into my lane without paying attention, and when I beep at them to avoid collision they look at me annoyed as if they missed someone on the phone. Santa Monica California WAS going to pass a law with cell phone use while driving but it didn't pass, I suspect because so many actors and politicians live in Santa Monica that their stupid little lives would come to a halt. The only way that law would go into effect would (sadly) be is when someone or a child is run over and killed by a cell phone driver. What laws are there that even allow people to drive while distracted?? It's bad enough that we live in a place where there are so many other distractions on the road like roving ad signs on trucks and bill board signs. Laws don't change until someone is killed. The law with cell phone or internet drivers probably hasn't changed because when there is an accident, the cell phone is usually knocked out of the hand and no driver is going to admit to the police officer that they were on the phone driving at 80 mph and didn't care to notice that they changed lanes or that the other driver ahead of them was driving too slow. I can't believe to read that some people even get faxes or email access. For the time it takes me to read my email online or to look at an incoming fax, I would have driven off the road or killed someone with my 2 ton automobile. They should out law cell phones, and internet devices in cars and make them usless while the car is in motion. I don't have a problem while the car has stopped but why should my life be taken away by a driver who is more concerned by what gossip is happening or some buisness meeting they are late for.



comment   Sadly it will take....   7/15/00 4:47:00 PM
David   Witt
Private Citizen

Refering to: We have DUI laws to punish irresponsible drinkers, what are we doing about irresponsible cell-phone users?

It will take a death or more before the rules change. Do what some small towns do. Outlaw the use of a cell phone while the car is moving. Use the rules of driving in the car pool lane with a single driver. $271 in California. Make the fine $300.00 dollars for cell phone drunk drivers.



comment   Think About What You Believe   7/15/00 8:09:52 PM
Dennis   Renken
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

1. The US Government should make a law... about how to drive? What about the Constitution, that silly document that states such matters are the business of the states, not the federal govt? The same silly document that you would brush aside guarantees our freedom of associate, freedom from unreasonable search, freedom of speech, etc. 2. I can see you don't like people using cell phones. The cell phone is just a technology -- it can be used or misused. The point is that reckless driving is already illegal, and responsibility for how you drive already rests with you the driver. If you outlaw cell phones, you might as well outlaw newspapers and maps (I have seen people perusing these while driving!), radios and CD players (they can distract), conversation (ditto), etc. NO! The driver is already responsible for how s/he drives, make that stick.



comment   You Miss the Whole Point if You Think Cell Phones Should be Banned   7/15/00 8:29:04 PM
Dennis   Renken
Private Citizen
You miss the whole point of the concept of "responsibility" if you think cell phones need to be banned. Inattention to driving is irresponsible, regardless of the reason - cell phones,impairment by alcohol, arguing, dealing with kids in the back seat, changing CDs, sleepiness, emotional problems, whatever. No doubt some people can operate a cell phone and drive just fine. Pilots fly fighter planes while talking, operating weapons systems, navigating the journey, and keeping the thing in the air. A lot more tasks, completed under more pressure, than operating a cell phone in a car. On the other hand, some people can't really change the dial on the car radio without risking crossing the double line. I think I operate a cell phone safely in my car --- but then, I put it down (or turn it off) while dealing with situations where I am starting to get saturated with stimuli. By the way, I have had no accidents (not even little ones) in 30 years of driving, all over the US and in a number of places overseas. What we really want to do it punish bad behavior -- in this case, bad driving that causes accidents -- regardless of the cause of it. The driver should be able to figure out what is distracting, and deal with it. The cell phone doesn't take over the driver's brain an make him/her a bad driver. Punish the behavior that is reckless, not the technology that, by itself, if neither good nor bad.


comment   There should be research into all distractions (such as putting on make-up), not just technological devices.   7/15/00 10:12:56 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
For completeness, studies of distraction should study all types of distractions, and not presume that technological devices are the only distractions in automobiles. Any time the operator diverts some of his or her attention away from driving can be considered a "distraction". Therefore, any studies of cell phone usage on your driving abilities, should be compared and contrasted against other distractions. These studies should and must incude the following activities and their propensity to increase the risk of accidents: - using a C.B. radio while driving a Big-rig truck. - trying to read a map while going 60mph on the highway. - women putting on make-up while they drive their cars. - reaching back to give a toddler in a car seat a bottle, while going 60mph on the highway. - turning around to tell your kids in the back seat to shut up because they're screaming so loud and you cannot concentrate, while going 60mph on the highway. - eating a BigMac while going 60mph on the highway. - trying to put ketchup on your french fries while going 60mph on the highway - spilling a hot cup of cofee on your crotch while going 60 mph on the highway. - looking for the Dobbie-Brother Greatest Hits CD in the glove box while going 60mph on the highway. - and of course, performing some sort of sexual act while driving.


comment   Cell Phones- Feds Should Pass Legislation Requiring Hands-Free Technology for Those who Talk and Drive   7/16/00 11:21:00 AM
Kevin   Madison
Judicial
I reside in Austin, Texas. As a former police officer I was required to have the mental capability to be able to multi-task while driving. This included unlocking my shotgun while in pursut of felons in vehicles, pursue suspect vehicles at high speeds while using my police radio, etc. As a regular citizen driver now I am amazed at how many people do not possess the skills necessary to simply drive t the speed limit prudently and safely while talking on a cell phone. You have seen them-weaving from lane to lane and driving 25 miles per hour in a 40 mph zone. These folks are a threat to other motorists, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. These idiots do not have enough sense of responsibility to limit themselves so we need to limit their actions for them. The Feds should require that States receiving Federal Funds should pass legislaion banning dialing or speaking on cell phones unless the motorist has hands-free capability. Judge Madison


comment   Time to Act!!!   7/16/00 11:56:57 AM
Bob   Seegal
Private Citizen
All the research, and all the anecdotes make an overwhelming case for NHTSA to take immediate and strong action to control the menace of "Driving While Telephoning" (DWT). Of course, the cell phone industry is against regulation. Part of the problem is their marketing of use-it-or-loose-it block time for cell phones. Get with the FCC and outlaw block time. There is no question that DWT isolates drivers from the road situation. It is your responsibility to stand up for careful drivers and stop DWT. The cell phone industry has the state legislators tied up so they won't act. Act now and save me from these numb (vacant) drivers.


comment   BOTH hands on the wheel   7/16/00 2:29:11 PM
Daniel   Lahey
Private Citizen
I find most people to be terribly rude and inconsiderate while driving anyway, and can't believe that it is legal in any state to use a cellular phone while driving without the use of a hands-free device. They're inexpensive, easy to use, and keep both hands free to keep from killing someone. There is still the element of distraction from taking one's mind off of the road, but it seems a reasonable compromise. It's just plain stupid to think that you can drive responsibly with only one hand. Since most people are too ignorant and careless to use their cel phones responsibly, it is necessary to enact legislation and fines for those who don't care about the safety of others. Cel phones don't need to be singled out; simply require that both hands be free to drive.


comment   Commercial Trucks & Phones   7/16/00 6:30:22 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I am pleased to see that NHTSA is seriously looking into the dangers that phones and other high-tech wireless devices pose when put in motor vehicles. Unfortunately, I have directly suffered as a result of another driver fiddling with a phone. In my case, it wasn't a personally owned car, mini-van or even an SUV. It was a 13 1/2 ton commercial truck. This is my story on the dangers of driving and using a phone.

On 6/8/98, I was stopped behind other traffic at a red light in Northern Va, about 5 minutes from my home. All of a sudden, a 13 1/2 ton commercial truck came up from behind and slammed into and over the back of my car, knocking it into the vehicles stopped in front of me , like a domino effect. The truck driver was going at least 40 MPH when he hit my car. He explained to police at the scene that he was using a phone in the truck and , therefore, didn't know that traffic was stopped at a red light up ahead (even though he had just gone through another light). I don't remember the accident, but I was told that I had to be extracted from the car and then taken by helicopter to an area hospital, where I remained for 2 1/2 weeks. I sustained a life threatening head injury with swelling and hemorrhaging of the brain. I also had numerous fractures. The base of my skull was fractured, my left cheek bone shattered and my right shoulder was shattered. Even the bones behind both eardrums were fractured, knocked way out of position - one shattered beyond existence. While in the hospital, after the brain swelling went down 8 days later, I had to undergo surgery to have my left cheekbone reconstructed, and the shattered bones in my right shoulder and upper arm removed and replaced by a total shoulder replacement. When I was released from the hospital in late June, my right eye was directed out to the side, my eyelid only half open, my right arm in a shoulder sling and I was partially deaf in both ears. I had double vision the entire summer of '98. Between 9/98 and 6/00 I underwent 5 ear surgeries. (Fractured bones were anchored with prosthetics, hole in one eardrum grafted, lacerated and scarred ear canal in other ear had to be surgically reopened and tubes inserted in eardrums). To this day, I have to use earplugs just to shower due to tubes, etc. I still undergo physical therapy on my right arm every week (except during the painful, questionable recovery period after each ear operation). Also, as a result of the head injury I still suffer from nerve damage robbing me of tears, adequate saliva and natural moisture in sinus and nasal passages. Apparently, as I've been told, the nerves are not connecting to the tear glands, salivary glands, etc. I have to use thick eyedrops daily, have mucous under eyelids that I have to periodically remove every day, and use saline spray for nasal passage, which is painfully dry, regardless.

I'm 39, yet with a joint replacement, dry mouth, dry eyes, and hearing problems, I feel much older. Some people have told me I'm lucky to have survived such an extreme accident. However, there is nothing lucky about becoming a sitting duck while stopped behind traffic at a light. This was an example of a 100% avoidable accident. I was alone in the car. Had anyone been in the back seat (adult or child) they would have died. It was so extreme, even child safety seats wouldn't have made much difference. I was told that the front of the truck was literally up against the driver seat. (I was in a 4-door Pontiac Grand Am.) I was told that the truck company had installed phones in their trucks shortly before this accident took place. As a result, the truck driver one day, while using one of the phones, became totally oblivious to traffic stopped at a red light ahead of him. Very scary! I have since become a living example of the dangers of driving and using a phone. Now, whenever I'm stopped at a light, and nobody is behind me, I nervously look in the rearview mirror to see what is coming up behind me. I also cringe at the thought of having all these high-tech, wireless devices put in dashboards of vehicles. It seems to be getting more and more ridiculous. Where is it gonna end. It's already too late for me, but this should never happen again. Driving has become the last priority while behind the wheel. Just the opposite of what I was taught in driver's ed when I was in High School. This is a serious issue when the safety of others are involved.

I would like some feedback on how useful, if at all, my story is for the research being done. Thank you for your time and attention.



comment   Hands free systems also need voice recognition to dial phones   7/16/00 8:00:53 PM
Doug   Daniels
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Cell Phones- Feds Should Pass Legislation Requiring Hands-Free Technology for Those who Talk and Drive

Cell phones are a fact of life and the only sensible way to make them safer is to have a hands-free system in a vehicle. The auto OEM's need to see there is a real market for this stuff and to add it in as a feature to a vehicle. New technologies such as Bluetooth will commonize all the different protocols used to communicate between a cell phone so users will be able to use their own phone without have to buy some $1500 option to have a HF system. Also voice recognition should be part of these systems as dialing the phone is very distractive. In the future, all these internet phones will need to have some sort of text to speech capablity in the car so we can listen to our emails and stock quotes without have to look at that tiny screen. It's hard enought just trying to dial the phone, let along read some info on it.



comment   Isn't It Obvious?   7/16/00 8:38:51 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

The first rule a new driver is taught is to keep both hands on the wheel and be alert for instant changes in driving situtions. Cell phone use while driving is a major distraction. Laws to prohibit driving while talking on a cell phone (or using similar type equipment) need to be put on the books in all states immediately. Cell phones have their place but not in the hands of drivers operating vehicles on the open road.



comment   From A Commercial Truck Driver... 7/16/00 2230   7/16/00 10:53:23 PM
David   McFarland
Commercial Driver
While I've only 4 years experience as a Commercial Truck Driver, I can boast almost 20 years of accident free driving. It is something that cannot be taken too seriously in my profession, because at least 10-20 times per day I find myself having to compensate for other drivers' mistakes, whether due to ignorance, apathy, or sheer boldness. I love driving "Big Rigs," but sometimes it can be an extremely harrowing and tedious job. With specific regard to hand held cellular phones, there is NO SAFE TIME (EVER!) to use them while the vehicle is in motion. I relate the following two experiences. Before I got my CDL, I worked as an electrician in the Daytona Beach, FL area. My supervisor (also the Vice President of the company) would entertain an average of 15 calls per day on the phone in our van, all while in motion to the next jobsite, and while trying to take notes (addresses, directions, exact description of problem, etc.). When one call would be completed, he'd call the home office, then follow up on the next potential customer. 'The Boss' would get a bit offended when I'd immediately don my seatbelt after getting into the van (it's habit to me), but I can't even begin to recount how many close calls we had due to his innattentivity. Sadly, I'm certain that I could probably drive more properly with a 'six pack' in me (not that I would EVER advocate trying)! Quite frankly, I was fearful to jump in the van with this man. In another instance, while driving my rig, I witnessed a violent rear end collision directly alongside my truck. Having had my drivers' side window down at the time, it amazes me that I was not injured by flying debris. A young woman was waiting to merge onto a four lane divided highway from a ramp to my right when I passed her (I'll give her credit for the fact that she 'YIELD'ed!). The traffic signal 1/4 mile ahead was red, and, although traffic in my (right) lane was light, traffic in the left lane was backed up almost to my position as I coasted down to a comfortable stop. I attribute this accident partially to aggressive driving tactics, because, obviously, under no circumstance was this young person going to get 'stuck' behind my rig. She pulled out, and flew around me on the left. Her vision blocked by my trailer, and her reaction time retarded by... you guessed it- a CELL PHONE, she creamed into the last vehicle in line (a small pickup -probably the only thing that saved her life) to my left, just as I was passing the truck. I'm certain she was doing at least 45 miles per hour, and the only thing I ever heard was a single, split-second "SCRITCH" of the tires! Not finding anyplace to safely park my rig along the roadway, I proceeded 3 miles to make my delivery, and immediately called the County Sheriff. The dispatcher later informed me that there were no serious injuries, that the pickup was totalled, took a statement from me, and that was the last I ever heard on the matter. The point is, accidents involving cell phones DO HAPPEN! As always, people ASSUME it won't happen to them. Without legislation, sooner or later, it will happen to you. I've many miles on the road, and been a long time fan of the National Public Radio program "Cartalk." While the show is mainly humorous, 'we' fans have been rallying for cell phone legislation for several years. I'd urge any concerned citizens to visit Tommy and Ray Maggliozi's website "Cartalk@cars.com." Most of the letters sent in by us listeners will make you laugh, but many of them (especially regarding this topic) will either anger you, totally break your heart, and/or both. Let us avoid some of these unnecessary heartbreaks. Everybody loves good 'gizmos,' but Human attention span is very limited. PLEASE..., for all of our sakes: "Hang Up and Drive!" Sincerely, David McFarland Conneaut, OH


comment   Eating fries are more dangerous!   7/17/00 12:09:00 AM
Brian   Jones
Commercial Driver
I'm a profesional delivery driver, and without a phone, my job couldn't exist. I'm in the car over 10 hours every day, and the only reasonalble way to contact me is on my cell phone. I drive in city trafic all day, and i always dial my numbers using speed dial, alowing one-button dialing. My hands-free set ensures my eyes never leave the road. True, phones can become dangerous and distracting, but you have to know how to use one SMARTLY! Some people don't, but many of us do. Don't punish all of us for the ignorance of a select few. I've had a few close calls... But i think your McDonalds fries are more dangerous than my phone, and I don't hear of anyone banning eating in our cars, do you? :-)


comment   Raging at Spouses   7/17/00 9:57:05 AM
Don   Smith
Private Citizen
I just want to make one comment. Having worked as a therapist at a community mental health center, I have had occasion to see spouses rage at his other. When I see someone with a phone in their hand in the car, I hope they're not arguing with their spouse at a moment when they have to make a decision affecting myself or my family. I suppose the next-most-frequent scenario that comes to my mind is hoping they're not making an investment decision involving thousands of dollars--for their sake and mine. Don Smith Gainesville, FL


comment   Raging at Spouses   7/17/00 9:57:44 AM
Don   Smith
Private Citizen
I just want to make one comment. Having worked as a therapist at a community mental health center, I have had occasion to see spouses rage at each other. When I see someone with a phone in their hand in the car, I hope they're not arguing with their spouse at a moment when they have to make a decision affecting myself or my family. I suppose the next-most-frequent scenario that comes to my mind is hoping they're not making an investment decision involving thousands of dollars--for their sake and mine. Don Smith Gainesville, FL


comment   IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!!   7/17/00 1:00:16 PM
Michael   Klostermann
Private Citizen

Refering to: Get over yourselves - Take Responsibility!

In an age where people seemed to be focused more and more on self, where the rules and laws are for 'the other guy' and where rationalization, justification and minimization of our behaviors have become paramount to functioning in society, it seems understandable that any reasoning based on the adage 'I am special; you just don't understand' would be accepted. After 3 years of riding a motorcycle in Los Angeles I borrowed a friend's car for use on a date. I was thoroughly amazed at how different my concentration level was after not driving a car for so long. I watched every driveway, every opening for any kind of motion. My eyes were constantly searching, scanning the cars parked along the road for driver's heads or front wheels that were turning. Years later, after driving only cars with manual transmissions, I rented a car with an automatic transmission while on a business trip. I actually felt lazy or out of touch with my driving! Take that one step further to where you have a mother driving a minivan, escorting a few kids to a soccer practice and talking on the phone. For me that paints a dangerous picture. It is possible to do more than one thing at a time, but it's not possible to do all of them well. Add to that the facts that many states no longer even require driver's education and the number of senior citizens who drive is increasing and it sounds to me like we should be concentrating more not less on our driving. The only way I believe we could make cell phones safe for use in a car is by installing them in the car in such a way that they would automatically shut off when the vehicle was placed in motion. As for driving long distances, I've done my share. I've found that occasional stops to stretch and mingle with the locals keeps me more refreshed and makes for a more enjoyable trip. Life is not a destination. I prefer to enjoy the ride!



comment   Close calls   7/17/00 1:10:43 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

In the past year I have come closer to being hit by drivers using cell phones that any or all other causes. It is becoming worse every day and I hope and pray that more and more states will outlaw the use of cell phones while driving. I have one and use it only for emergency situations but ALWAYS pull over and park when I use it. The one time I was in a situation where it was impossible to pull over and park I did use the cell phone. It was truly a distracting and frightening experience, particularly when dialing a number! I will never do this again. I will admit that over the years I have driven after having drinks and when I should not have been driving. But I was never, no mater how much I had had to drink as lacking in control as when using a cell phone. Perhaps one day when I have a car with a hands-off built-in cell phone that can be dialed verbally I might feel different. But unless I can keep both hands on the wheel and eyes on the road I will not use one while driving. Hopefully none of the other using cell phones while driving will not kill me first!



comment   Close calls   7/17/00 1:17:34 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

In the past year I have come closer to being hit by drivers using cell phones that any or all other causes. It is becoming worse every day and I hope and pray that more and more states will outlaw the use of cell phones while driving. I have one and use it only for emergency situations but ALWAYS pull over and park when I use it. The one time I was in a situation where it was impossible to pull over and park I did use the cell phone. It was truly a distracting and frightening experience, particularly when dialing a number! I will never do this again. I will admit that over the years I have driven after having drinks and when I should not have been driving. But I was never, no matter how much I had had to drink as lacking in control as when using a cell phone. Perhaps one day when I have a car with a hands-off built-in cell phone that can be dialed verbally I might feel different. But unless I can keep both hands on the wheel and eyes on the road I will not use one while driving. Hopefully none of the other imconsiderate and stupid people using cell phones while driving will not kill me first!



comment   Distractions other than Cell Phones   7/18/00 5:30:35 AM
Tina   Rogers
Private Citizen

Refering to: Poor performance due to distractions not limited to cell phones

I own a cell phone and sometimes use it in my vehicle. I also used to be a smoker and in my opinion reaching for a smoke and fiddling with a lighter, glancing down to see, if you're really lighting the cigarette or something else, is more dangerous than talking on the phone. I have been in situations, where I hit the curb, gradually moved over into the other lane, didn't see stop lights or a changing light, etc. All in the name of smoking, but nobody is talking about smoking. I don't talk on my phone as soon as I get into my truck and I don't make phone calls as frequently as other people smoke. Is anyone talking about banning cigarettes? NO. Because there are more smokers than callers on the road and it would cause a major upset, to say the least and someone would come up with the all-mighty "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" or that it might be "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". People can smoke, drink, eat, fight, tend to their kids in their vehicles, but cell phones should be banned?! I was a witness in an accident, when a girl behind me fixed her hair and then applied make-up, made a left-hand turn, right into on-coming traffic. She couldn't even keep the same speed, closing in on me, letting off the gas and speeding up again for about 3 miles befor the accident. Who is gonna stop that? People drive tired, drunk and worse now.... with music blasting so loud, that you can hear it a mile away. Who is gonna stop that? It is against the law, but nobody enforces it. Lead-foot races through a residential neighborhood, against the law, but not enforced. All these problems need to be fixed, before another is being created. I know there are people, that use their phones and drive badly, because of that. I have personally witnessed that, but not everybody should be punished. I may use my phone for one to two minutes, maybe twice a week........not exactly a major risk factor, is it?



comment   cell phones versus bicyclist   7/18/00 6:24:57 AM
Walter   Smith
Private Citizen

Refering to: Vacant drivers threaten bicyclists as well as motorcyclists

I too ride my bike dayly to and from work. And there have been several occassions where a driver useing a cell phone has almost hit me. Once by a Cop calling on his cell phone. But i have noticed a total lack of attention over all too. People just dont watch where they are going any more. when i drive my pickup i ALWAYS try to be aware of what is going on around me. when i drive i look around and also use my mirrors before i make lane changes or make turns. i usualy find i have to watch out for others. and cell phones just add to the problem of bad drivers on the road. Walt Smith...Chicopee,Mass



comment   Driving While Talking Shown to be asDangerous as Driving Drunk? Not!   7/18/00 7:49:27 AM
Alan   Dixon
Academia/ Research Firm
Contrary to what has been reported by the media on numerous occasions, there are no figures that indicate that driving while using a mobile telephone is as bad as drunk driving. None. This yet another urban myth, perpetuated by one report quoting an errant source, then another misquoting others, etc. Such reports invariably refer to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine that appeared in February, 1997, "Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions" (Redelmeier and Tibshirani 1997, 336:7). The alleged "study" only correlated vehicle collisions occurring after the driver had made a mobile phone call. That's right... after the call was completed! The researchers studied the subjects' mobile calls during the day of the collision, and during the previous week. What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing. I am well familiar with the standard statistical method being employed in the "study". However, as a matter of convention, researchers universally agree that a mathematical correlation in itself does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Has anyone referring to or misquoting from this article ever actually read it... even just the abstract available from the NEJM Web site? Please... enough of hearsay. The report simply does not show that mobile telephone use while driving has anything to do with the level of risk of driving drunk. Such figures simply don't exist. A cellular phone is incapable of killing someone. It has no utility or functionality as a weapon. If we want to solve a problem of negligent drivers using mobile phones, then we need to deal with the source of the problem: the drivers themselves. Lawmakers and jurists today are too often afraid to take action that may hold individuals accountable. The public would rather blame a situation, a circumstance, or even an inanimate object for any number of societal ills. Negligent drivers need to be taken off the streets and highways. It does not matter what the nature of a driver's distraction may be. If a driver cannot demonstrate competency behind the wheel, then he or she need not qualify for the privilege of driving. It is not fair to penalize the multitude of adequate drivers for the criminal negligence of an extreme few. Nor is it necessary. Any measure that fails to face up to those responsible, at the expense of the innocent, would exhibit an inexcusable lack of courage. For further information, please read my op-ed on this subject, "Driving issue is cosmic", RCR magazine of April 7, 1997 (Dixon 1997, 52). Alan Dixon Contributing Editor - Legislative Affairs Popular Communications


comment   Saving Lives   7/18/00 10:53:43 AM
Bryan   Smith
Government
I have been given the task to manage the creation, distribution and implementation of the Idaho Transportation Incident Management Plan. In developing the plan we have determined that the most commonly used method of Incident Notification is by cell phones. In Idaho we publish a cell number for the state police (*ISP), that number is flooded with calls almost immediately when incidents happen. This immediate notification allows the emergency responders to be dispatched much quicker when seconds can and do mean life or death. Secondary to this issue are other goals to clear the roadway as soon as possible to restore traffic and minimize secondary accidents, road rage, economic impact, traffic control, etc. Before we rush to ban cell phones from cars because of the nuisance factor, lets evaluate the loss of life we will experience without them !!!


comment   Agree that cell phones are not the only distractions that cause poor driving performance but they may be the most serious   7/18/00 11:30:50 AM
Phil   Hasenkamp
Private Citizen

Refering to: Poor performance due to distractions not limited to cell phones

I concur that there are numerous distractions, in addition to using a cell phone, that can result in poor driving performance. However, I believe that the phones may be the most serious distraction because of the length of time that is required to just make or answer a call with a hand held unit. Most cell phones, including my own, have the capacity to be programmed with numerous phone numbers (up to 100) and many interface with personal computer PIM (Personal Information Management) to insure that the puone user has access to "important" numbers. The problem arises when we want to make a call. If we don't remember the appropriate 2 digit code for the call we want to make we can take advantage of the phone's menu system to "look it up" and that takes anywhere from a few seconds to a minute. And if you're driving a car and looking at the phone display for any period of time, you can't be looking at the road. Even if you have memorized all of the phone numbers or two digit codes that you "normally" call while you are in your car, you still have to look at the phone to dial, and in most instances to answer and/or end a call. I have used both hand held and "hands free" units in my vehicles and even the latter units subject the driver to the same dangers because you have to look at the phone display to make and end the call and most "hands free" units are mounted below the dashboard making it impossible to keep your eyes on the road when you are dialing, answering or ending a call. I currently have a cell phone that comes equiped with Voice Recognization capabilities but I still have to look at the phone key pad to select the voice activation button. Even then, in traffic, it is easily confused by traffic noise and then I have to revert to keying in the numbers and/or scrolling the menu. When using "hands free" technologies (in-car speaker & Mic, headsets, etc.) I find that having a phone conversation is no more or less distracting than a conversation with someone in the car. In some instance they are less distracting because I can use the "I'm in the care, let me call you back" excuse. However, there are times when they are considerably more distracting because whoever I'm taking with wants to provide me with important information that I actually have to write down and I do keep paper and pencil handy for that purpose. Now, if a driver is holding a phone in one hand and trying to write down a phone number, address or this week's winning lottery number, what is he and/or she steering the car with? I have been a cell phone user for over 10 years and insist on using hands free technology but have come to the conclusing that, when I need to make or receive a call while I am in the car, I should just pull over to make or answer the call. I can't say that I am 100% perfect on this score but I make a concerted effort not to use the phone while the car is moving. If traffic is to heavy or fast to allow me to pull over, then I just don't answer the call. That's why I have voice mail!



comment   Sensible limitations on cell-phone use while driving   7/18/00 11:33:35 AM
Joshua   Levin
Private Citizen
Drivers should be trained in certain principles and limitations of using cell phones while driving. These include: 1) While driving, use cell phones only for NEEDED communications, including: a) Calls requesting help for oneself; b) Calls to police and other authorities concerning accidents, road conditions, other motorists needing help, etc.; and c) Calls concerning changes in plans, arrival times, etc. For all other discussions, including idle chitchat, PLEASE pull off the road. This is especially important for discussing anything that is emotionally charged, or is otherwise of great importance to you. 2) When placing or answering a cell phone while driving, immediately indicate to the other party that you are driving. The other party should understand that this means that you may interrupt or terminate the call without warning. 3) If you pull over during a call, indicate so to the other party. 4) When calling while driving, concientiously check all the things you do while normally driving, such as your rear-view mirrors, your speedometer, and, of course, the road in front. Try to be "extra alert" to what is around you. Take a little extra time at stop signs. 5) Try not to change lanes, or do any fancy maneuvers, while on the phone. 6) There should be a prescribed way of conveying informtion to the authorities. I try to use this order: a) Inform the recipient that I am on the road, driving; b) Jurisdiction (if known; e.g. county, township, bridge authority); c) Road and direction (e.g. "Southbound I-95"); d) Nearest exit or mile marker; e) The nature of the problem (dead deer, tire changer, accident, collapsed road sign blocking lane, etc.); f) Any other needed data. Also, there should be some guidelines for the authorities (like 911 operators) when receiving a phone call from a cell phone: 1) Take the information that the driver is offering. If needed, relay the information to the proper recipient -- DO NOT TRANSFER the call to another authority. 2) Remember that the driver is also trying to drive, and not to interrupt unecessarily. When the driver is finished talking, ask any needed questions. I know that these suggestions need refinement. I hope that these can provide a basis for some official guidelines.


comment   New laws not needed to curb in-car device use while driving   7/18/00 3:15:36 PM
James   Gebhardt
Private Citizen
Most states and municipalities have laws on the books that define the offense "inattentive driving." These laws can be modified to include "talking on the cellular telephone" or "using in-car electronic device" as offenses if such activity is a causal factor in an accident or incident. Subpoenaed telephone records will indicate if the driver involved in a car accident was using his/her telephone or modem at the time the accident occurred. Any witnesses to an accident or incident can also indicate if they observed any in-car device use at the time the accident occurred. I carry a cell phone on my motorcycle for use in times of emergency or convenience. Obviously, I cannot drive and use this telephone simultaneously. I wish it were so difficult for car drivers. But new laws are not required that impose mass punishment on the general driving public. Cite and punish offenders.


comment   modern conveniences   7/18/00 3:36:53 PM
First, this site, and thus the convention itself, seemed to be biased against cellular phone and new technology. If this convention is truly concerned with driver distractions then lets not stop at what is just in the car or modern technology. What about billboards along the roads and highways, some of these can be very distracting as well as distasteful. Further more about ham radios, CB's and walkie talkies, are they not a distraction. Do you not have to dial in numbers and press buttons to use these. I don't know how many times I have been driving down the interstate and witnessed a truck driver talking on the CB going about 80 miles an hour, what makes this safe and using a cellular phone unsafe? If you are going to blame Cellular phones for an increase in accidents then you must blame all communication devices with in all vehicles. That includes police cars. Do they not have computers, at least 2 if not more radios, CB's, etc in them. I have seen several accidents involving police officers trying to use there communication devices. You can not take away something from the majority with out taking it all from everybody. Yes, there have been accidents caused by modern conveniences in automobiles. Just as there have been accidents caused by out of control pets, eating, drinking, falling asleep, changing the radio station, talking to some one in the car, daydreaming, the list can go on. The problem is not the modern conveniences the problem is those that use them. Better education and advances in technology will make them safer.


comment   Keep both hands on the wheel   7/18/00 4:04:44 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
No device/object should be used that prevents the use of both hands for driving. This is not only cell phones, But Food, Drinks and Smokeing materals.


comment   Re: Pull over or get off the phone!!   7/18/00 4:33:23 PM
Michael   Lax
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Are there stupid cell phone users? Absolutely! Are there uneducated or poorly educated drivers in general? That, I think, is the much bigger question that no one wants to answer. Amy may notice the cell phone user for any number of reasons, while not seeing the person talking with a passenger who may well exhibit the same poor driving. While I agree that drivers need to be educated better, I am offended by her comparison to drunk drivers. My brother was killed by a drunk driver, and there is little mistaking a drunk driver who is passed out at the wheel for someone who is distracted. As for all the other bad driving - I've seen plenty of people do that without talking on a cell phone, so there does not seem to be much of a link. I certainly think the idea of more federal laws that cannot be enforced is absurd. More importantly, why is it lately that the first idea for fixing a problem is more government intrusion into our lives?



comment   The rich once again obviously rule.   7/18/00 5:13:49 PM
Randy   Studdard
Private Citizen
That this is even open for discussion is, on at least one level, offensive. This is a no-brainer. Driving is a privilege, not a right. As the roads become more and more congested, the privilege becomes more precious. We've already declared that it is unacceptable for a person to drive while impaired by an external influence. The only reason we are discussing the rationalizations of allowing people to operate a multi-ton vehicle while similarly (or perhaps MORE) impaired by technology is because it is primarily a wealthy man's disease--and one that hit's home to MANY legislators and other wealthy people who simply CANNOT live without the so-called progress that they managed to do without just a few short years or even months ago. If this were relegated to low income citizens, the legislation would have been passed months ago and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Carry a cell phone in your car. By all means. They become vital in an emergency situation. But to imply that simply because there is technology available that we must embrace it, is ludicrous. Guns are also a part of technological advances. Should every driver also be allowed to carry a gun? Hmmm...at least we would thin out the congestion of self-absorbed, thoughtless impaired drivers who are driving while under the influence of their latest toy.


comment   Cell Phones: Children are victims too!!!!!   7/18/00 5:15:55 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I was watching Oprah Winfrey Today. There was a mother on the show talking about her deceased two year old daughter. A man missed the stop sign because he looked down to dial a number on his cell phone and he hit her car and killed her two year old daughter. This is just exremely sad. That child never got to live her life. I suppose that man doesn't even feel bad. Maybe he does. I don't know. When the use of cell phones causes death, that's where I draw the line. Now if there's an emergency, fine, pull over and use the phone. Otherwise, NO CELL PHONES PERIOD!!!!!


comment   Don't Run Over Me   7/18/00 5:17:28 PM
lajuana   dodd
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell Phones vs. Alcohol

I have been almost run into several times by drivers who are talking on a cell phone. One particularly comes to mind: I was stopped at a red light when a woman came careening in front of me, smoking a cigarette, drinking a big gulp and talking excitedly into her cell phone. She was not aware of anything that was going on around her, neither looking to either side before turning left in front of me into a mall parking lot. I know that DWI's are prosecuted, there are laws against it. There should be laws against unnecessary distractions also. Noone is so important that a phone call can't wait until the car is stopped!



comment   Cellphone Use is Dangerous   7/18/00 5:18:25 PM
Ralph   Wills
Private Citizen
I have had too many close calls with drivers using cellphones. Here in San Diego if you have a road emergency, there are road-side phones that you can use to get help. There is no need for cellphones in cars. The people that use these phones are addicts. They disturb people in movie theaters, resturants, and public events. I see people walking down the streets using them as well. To me it's an addiction as bad as drugs but in one way it's worse...it's legal.


comment   My goodness.    7/18/00 5:34:12 PM
Randy   Studdard
Private Citizen

Refering to: Sensible limitations on cell-phone use while driving

Good Lord. Even if we could enforce these ridiculous, unenforcable suggestions, it still wouldn't be a safe practice, though I especially loved number 4...OR you could just buzz your secretary to take the call for you...while you fax your E T A to your destination with one hand, make a pot of coffee with the other, and steer with your left toes. You just don't get it. Anything that lessens your focus on operating a multi-ton vehicle impairs your driving. I am NOT satisfied as another citizen on the same highway that the degree of impairment is of a satisfactory level. Impairment is impairment. My life is not worth your self-absorbed convenience. Pull over to the 7-11 and make your call, if the people at your destination are so desperate to know your arrival time or if you're in an emotionally charged emergency requiring a call to the police. It's safer for the rest of us and it lessens the congestion on the roads. Under NO circumstances, may you rationalize your distractions at my expense.



comment   cell phone user agrees cell phone use is dangerous   7/18/00 5:53:08 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I am a cell phone user and would like to weigh in on the side of passing laws against the use of phones while driving. I have a hands free phone in one car, and a hand held phone in the other (which also is a manual transmission.) Using the hand-held phone while driving in traffic when I have to steer and shift gears is not only cumbersome but dangerous. I don't use the phone without pulling over to the side of the road in that vehicle. But I've noticed that even in my automatic transmission car with the hands-free phone, that it's the conversation itself that distracts me from the road and decreases my reaction time. While I try to pay attention to the road, it's more difficult to concentrate, especially when I'm driving in heavy traffic as opposed to the open highway. I don't like the idea of more laws any more than most people do, but I'm dismayed at the idea of email and fax machines in the car. If a person can't go the hour it takes to get from home to work without the internet, they've got a serious problem that the innocent pedestrians and other drivers shouldn't have to pay for. I won't get rid of my cell phones in my cars--they've been incredibly helpful to have several times when I've run out of gas or gotten stuck in the snow--but I think there should be regulations on using them while driving in traffic.


comment   Completely agree--Cell phones and Driving Don't Mix!   7/18/00 5:59:31 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: GET OFF THE ROAD IF ON THE CELL- DEFINITELY

I cannot tell you how many times I have almost been hit by someone on a cell phone who does something completely stupid because their mind is not on the road--and I don't even drive all that much. It scares me. They'll stop at a stop sign and forget that they don't have the right of way when there are 3 cars already there, pull out into traffic with cars coming, back out into a road without looking first--you name it, I've seen it. The lives and property of the other people on the road are far more important than their conversations. Pull over to talk or get off the phone!!



comment   Countless Close Calls In Honolulu   7/18/00 6:05:48 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I live on the crowded isle, Oahu, HI. Traffic is heavy at all times and I've been in countless close calls due to other drivers using cell phones. Laws need to be enacted NOW to stop this insanity. Every day I experience a problem caused by someone on a cell phone. Traffic will be moving along smoothly and suddenly in front of you there's a slowdown. All the other lanes are moving along fine, so you search for a chance to change lanes. You spot it and make your move and as you're passing the slowdown you see the problem. The slow driver is on the cellphone! Also, I've had drivers make lane changes and almost hit me while they are on the cell phone. They make the automatic gesture of looking over before they change lanes but it's like what they see (a car next to them) doesn't register and they head right for you. This is crazy and needs to stop now.


comment   Hands-Free Technology   7/18/00 7:00:00 PM
Larry   Brotman
Private Citizen
Yes, It's an added expense...but the Hand-free systems available should be the only acceptable means of communication WHILE DRIVING. Let's face it...Most people are not going to pull over to talk. The visor phone and the headset speed dial type phones will save lives. People are dying out here and if it saves one life, then it's worth it. It might be a member of your family! We need to have the Automakers install these systems and pass the cost to the consumer. Use a cell phone and kill someone while driving...Go to Jail!


comment   Finally, someone with sense!   7/18/00 7:05:04 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Let's focus on practical solutions.

"There are indeed reasons to have phones in cars. It is often not possible to pull off the road in a safe place to answer or place a call. Also, it is really unlikely that we will ban phones in cars entirely in this country. Given these facts, we need to identify the key hazards of cell phone use in cars and find practical ways to mitigate them. Handling the phone while driving is a major issue causing poor control of the vehicle and distraction. Ear buds fix that one, but dialing the phone while driving is an even worse distraction (I find it extremely dangerous - when I do it, sorry). An installed hands-free kit gets the phone completely out of our hands, but now the act of dialing is worse than before because the keypad is fixed at a greater distance so dialing requires that the eyes (squinting at my age) and attention of the driver be completely averted from the road. Add a really good voice activated dialing system and now the only thing that is left is the issue of having a distracting conversation while driving. There is really no way to outlaw conversations while driving in multi-passenger vehicles, but public awareness and education programs could help. Technologies and products exist to accomplish all of the above with the phones that we use today and these can be adapted to cars at the factory, the car dealers or your parking lot at work. Unfortunately they cost money. Are we willing to spend some money to reduce the extent of this problem?" -- by Ralph Poplowsky This man has a point. How can we ban talking in the car? We can't. If we are having a conversation with a friend in the car while headed somewhere, then we will be at least as distracted as driving and talking on a "hands-free" cell phone that has voice-activated dialing. So are we going to ban all talking in the car? Are you going to be happy that a polieman pulls you over and gives you a ticket for talking in your own car? How far do we go? Please, let's try to keep this sensible. Also, some of these "case studies" are nothing more than people who don't like something and want it banned or are trying to give their organization more power, beware!



comment   The United States Government?   7/18/00 7:29:34 PM
Ed   Dems
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I agree that when you are driving, you should be devoting your attention to the task at hand. But think what you are saying when you ask the United States Government to enforce such a law. It is not within the scope of the US government to make or enforce such laws. According to the 9th and 10th amendments, these powers are left to the states.



comment   Hands Free options keep drivers alert   7/18/00 7:33:17 PM
Bill   Delligatti
Industry Trade Association/Society
Visit http://www.cellularconceptsonline.com for a vast array of hands free options for cellular phones. These accessories allow you to keep both hands on the wheel while talking. not to mention quelling your worries of radiation.


comment   Get off of my case!!   7/18/00 7:35:49 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I make no claim to be a Libertarian, but I am so thoroughly sick of majoritarian thinking telling me how I can and cannot live my life. I use a cellular phone on a regular basis while driving, and I do not know how I got along without it. Not only do I use it in city driving as a timesaver ("Honey, could you mail that letter?" "Could I place a takeout order?"), I report accidents and stranded motorists on the highway. And now the busybodies are ganging up to take away my freedom to use my cell phone solely because they perceive that other people are distracted. Good grief--what next?! My CD player? My radio? My passengers (we wouldn't want any distractions, now, would we?)?. Surely there is some middle ground that would allow people who can handle the odd distraction to be state-certified to operate a vehicle using these devices. If not, and a blanket ban is adopted by state legislatures, I will lose every ounce of my faith in the value of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."



comment   Who ever dials a phone while driving?   7/18/00 7:50:07 PM
Matthew   van der Meer
Private Citizen

Refering to: Finally, someone with sense!

Speed dialing. You push two buttons. It takes 2 seconds. Although because of heavy TV remote using, I'm surprised at people who can't dial full numbers without looking at the number pad. The little bump on the 5 button is there for a reason, folks. The only problem I see is the worst case scenario: someone trying to dial a number they wrote down on a napkin or reading from an ad. If people are looking for something to ban, how about billboards? We've had enough freedoms taken away already.



comment   In Total Agreement   7/18/00 8:07:59 PM
Rick   Wallace
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I totally agree that the Federal Government needs to regulate the use of cell phones while driving. Living here in Atlanta it is a constant battle to remain safe from those using cell phones. On the freeways they either drive slower than everyone or drive so fast that they would have no time to react if needed. I have witnessed a few accidents, usually involving the running of red lights, and have seen many close calls, some of which involved myself. I do not have a cell phone and wish not to have one, because the safety of my son and myself are more important than being able to make a call from my car.



comment   Get Off My Case ----- Typical of Cell Phone Users   7/18/00 8:19:58 PM
Rick   Wallace
Private Citizen

Refering to: Get off of my case!!

This seems the typical response of most cell phone users--"Other drivers be damned 'cause here I come with my cell phone. If I drive to fast or too slow, if I happen to cut you off or nearly hit you, that's your problem because I'm on the phone and that is far more important your concern for safety. And besides...what I have to say cannot wait until I get home or until I get to work or until I can pull over to use my phone. You should watch out for ME and not worry about my swerving or erratic, because I don't give a rat's behind about your safety as long as I get to where I'M going." Sad, sad and unfortunately true.....



comment   u are wrong   7/18/00 8:21:54 PM

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

u.s goverment will not be albe to force people to stop talking on cell phones and driving at the same time. As soons as u.s goverment try to pass some sort of law cell phones companies gona file a lawsuit claiming that not only it will bankroupt the company and also that the law is violation the consumer right.Furtheremore i can bet that a private people with money will also file a lawsuit.



comment   Most Drivers Shouldn't be Behind the Wheel Let Alone Using a Phone   7/18/00 8:24:33 PM
Ralph W.   Sullivan
Private Citizen
All one has to do is pay attention to what the other drivers on the road are doing to realize that the majority of those drivers don't have a clue about what they are doing. Adding any distraction (even talkin withthe other people in the car) on top of that is just adding to the problem for the rest of us. I'd be willing to bet they are the cause of more accidents than even the drunks. What should be done? How about ticketing these fools, and then on top of that if they are using a phone or any other device that distracts from what they should be doing we ratchet up the severity of the punshiment. Then treat it like we do with drunk drivers, throw in some jail time and take away their license. These people are a threat to all of us and should not be tolerated. I would much rather be on the road with the guy who is doing 95mph than with these idiots who think that 45mph is OK in a 65mph zone. I'll live longer with the guy who just blew past me than with the guy who thinks it's his responsibility to slow the world down.


comment   Hang up and drive   7/18/00 8:39:21 PM
Has every state in the Union adopted a law prohibiting a driver from operating amateur radio equipment while the vehicle is in motion? Why do you suppose that happened? And why not similar legislation regarding telephones? Because it would be bad for business, that's why. Come on folks, do what's right.


comment   lateral vision cell obstruction & tinted windows   7/18/00 9:19:10 PM
par   reid
Commercial Driver

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

As an 18-wheel boston/NY. delivery driver EMT & fire fighter I have observed many cellphone users covering some or all of there lateral vision with thier cell phones. Additionally tinted windos make it imposible for other drivers to identify the hazard of what side of thier head they are holding the phone to. A possible solution to this problem would be a citizens band type mic/loud speaker attached like a profetional drivers. this has two results 1.it frees up side vision 2. It -__feels___more like you're more aware of youre suroundings on several levals.



comment   ten four, oops I'm dating...   7/18/00 9:23:06 PM
Russell   Hall
Private Citizen

Refering to: Finally, someone with sense!

I heard of a supposed "study" that said 1 in 4 accidents involved the use of cell phones, interesting considering the 44% usage mentioned on this site. I drive 60 miles to and from work daily in a large metro area on highways that go from normal(?) speeds to bumper to bumper and back again. Occasionally I have the need or desire to use a cell while driving and can say with certainty that I do it safely. I don't dial calls unless stopped and only answer calls when I can do so without risking my health or others around me and if needed I drop the phone to deal with situations that require more attention. This is not rocket science! Russell Hall



comment   Cars are for Driving   7/18/00 9:36:49 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Invent a new technology which prohibits the driver from receiving or transmitting on a cell phone while the engine is turned on and/or the vehicle is moving, period. Perhaps place an "interferance net" in the roof or seat over the driver's side which would be motion or ignition activated, transmitting signals directly down from the roof or up from the seat over/under the driver. Stae inspections for safety should validate that it's still working or a "driving recorder" (similar to aircraft) should be installed by manufacturers to record the last 15 minutes of driving time to determine what caused the accident and/or if a cell phone was in use. Driving is a privelage, and everyone's safety is at stake when drivers choose to be distracted.


comment   I would be dead if...   7/18/00 9:38:22 PM
Patty   Smith
Private Citizen
If I had not stopped and looked before driving through a GREEN light, I would be dead now. A driver of a large SUV ran right through a red light and didn't even notice it. HE WAS ON THE PHONE. My peripheral vision saved my life.


comment   How do you think people did your job 10 to 15 years ago???   7/18/00 9:42:38 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Eating fries are more dangerous!

AWWWWW!!!! So having cell phones possibly banned from use while driving will hurt your business, well tough luck buddy. People managed to conduct business many years ago without the use of cell phones, and I'm sure you will too someday. It might be a bit harder since you would have to stop your vehicle to call, or even perhaps get out of your vehicle to call from a landline. I think your fellow drivers would be more grateful, and I think your family too, since the chance of you getting in a accident is more likely to decrease by you not using a cell phone. Especially since YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO HAVING A FEW CLOSE CALLS YOURSELF!!! Your claim that french fries are more dangerous than cell phones is just you blowing hot air, much as cigarette smokers do and did many years ago to try to divert attention away from the main issue.



comment   you're one of the few...   7/18/00 10:00:39 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: ten four, oops I'm dating...

I must admit that you're one of the few Americans that actually understands rocket science. For that I applaud you, but unfortunately, most Americans don't even know what a rocket is, never mind getting it through their thick skulls what is responsible and right to do. IF, like I hope, legislation is passed controling the use of cell phones while driving, I apologize to you for impeding on someone who actually used cell phones responsibly...



comment   I agree...   7/18/00 10:10:41 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Get Off My Case ----- Typical of Cell Phone Users

BUMP... or for you not familiar with message board, that means I'm thinking what the other poster said!!!



comment   AWWW   7/18/00 10:16:01 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Who ever dials a phone while driving?

What freedom's. We (as a nation in whole) never said you could drive while talking on a phone in the first place. That is unless I missed a meeting some time ago. As far as I know, we are now discussing whether or not this is a freedom we as a nation can be afforded to have!!!



comment   Yeah, IT IS BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE   7/18/00 10:28:46 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Get off of my case!!

I quote from you, "If not, and a blanket ban is adopted by state legislatures, I will lose every ounce of my faith in the value of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Well, if you check the poll above, some 74% of the people who have taken the poll think that driving while talking on a cell phone is unsafe. On top of that, some 80% have witnessed or experienced an accident or close call involving a driver who was on a cell phone. This I admit is probably too high, but still if it is lowered even a bit, it is too high. AND 74% think that legislation should be passed banning cell phone usage. The last time I checked this was a democracy, and this being a forum where everyday citizens voices can be heard, I think it's working, albiet not entirely correctly at times. So I think the people have spoken and you have been OUTVOTED... BYE-BYE PHONE, and BYE-BYE Anonymously. Hope you like it wherever you go... I hear the weather in Russia is nice!



comment   Should we also ban standard transmissions? And car radios? And drive-through windows? These all require one hand off the wheel.   7/18/00 10:29:56 PM
Kurt   Schneider
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell Phones- Feds Should Pass Legislation Requiring Hands-Free Technology for Those who Talk and Drive

I also live in Austin, and agree that there are some pretty bad drivers out there, many on cell phones. However, it's not the devices, it's the drivers. I suggest (and always have) that a stricter driving test be administered. Including emergency maneuvers, multitasking, how to handle others in a car, and the risks of non-driving-specific devices/distractions. Personal Example #1: I've been rear-ended by a young lady waving to her friends on the sidewalk. No cell phone, no device, except that she looked somewhere other than the road. Frankly, all the complaints about cell phone usage boil down to the average Joe (or Judy) not realizing (until too late) what effect it has on their performance. When I talk and drive, I'll tell the other party to hang on if things get tricky (passing, heavy traffic, work zones, parking lots, etc), because I know that a fair chunk of my awareness is taken up by the conversation. And yes, I use a headset, simply because it is safer for me. But I don't think they should be mandated. Personal Example #2: I was driving on a snowy night in Colorado, and told a joke about a friend in the back seat. I looked back to gauge their reaction, and looked back up just in time to see a huge bull elk in the center of the road. We barely missed the half-ton critter. No cell phone or other device necessary, I just looked somewhere other than the road.



comment   True, but isn't this just hearings and speeches into the matter   7/18/00 10:36:54 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: The United States Government?

As I see it, the national government wouldn't pass this kind of legislation anyhow. I know that state and other localities are passing and have already passed this kind of legislation. Like in a popular beach area in New Jersey. No names by the way, as I don't want you cell phone using drivers to be calling you representatives while driving now! The problem is that, they are being challenged and overturned. What would most likely come out of this, is whether the government will lend it's support to the state and local levels in keepings such cell phone banning laws from being overturned. The only law involving the highways and biways that the national government can pass is interstate wise, and I don't see them placing federal officers at the state borders watching passing cars for offenders.



comment   You're right... PARTLY. Now Try this experiment!!!   7/18/00 10:48:08 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Finally, someone with sense!

You know what, in general talking on a phone and having a conversation with someone sitting next you is the same thing... conversing. BUT, somehow I think there is something that takes place in the mind when talking on the phone. Try It. Talk to people around you while doing chores, or playing a video game, or watching a movie, or cooking. It doesn't affect you or the conversation, RIGHT??? Now do the same things while talking on the phone... It may be me, and I'm sure to catch hell from the people who don't want cell phones banned, but seriously it's Harder, RIGHT??? I should know. I get yelled at all the time by my girlfriend when I do some of those things, like play on the computer, or watch TV, when I'm talking to her for not paying attention to her. Yet when I drive with her in the car, or watch TV, or play games with her in the room, there isn't a problem. So I firmly believe that talking on the phone has an effect on the brain, whether it being a cell phone or a land-line phone.



comment   Read the post im referring too... Another user admitting to be distracted while driving!!!   7/18/00 11:00:27 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: cell phone user agrees cell phone use is dangerous

Yes another user admitting to be distracted. And if you'll go to my post "You're right... PARTLY. Now Try this experiment!!!" it kind of confirms my belief that talking on a phone requires more thought than just talking to another person near you, like someone sitting next to you in a car. And yes, I would like to tell all of you users of cell phones that NO, the majority of us don't want to ban cell phones in cars. They can be EXTREMELY useful, however we want people to stop using them WHILE driving, that's all!!!



comment   Yes new laws are needed   7/18/00 11:19:31 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: New laws not needed to curb in-car device use while driving

WHY, so we don't have to use phone records to determine if the "said" person was on the phone at the time of the accident, which would probably be highly debated anyhow, considering how would anyone know exactly when the accident takes place... You know what I mean... How many people have their watch set exactly to the correct time? Come on, How MANY??? Let's not wait to sort out the aftermath, let's stop it from happening all together.



comment   Another person partly right...   7/18/00 11:28:59 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: modern conveniences

Yes quite a few people can't drive period, but then again, I feel I can prove that talking on a phone somehow requires more concentration than a normal conversation. To try this easily, play a video game while talking to someone in the room with you. Not too hard now right? Now do this while having a thoughtful conversation on the phone while still playing the game. You either got sidetracked on the phone, or screwed up in the game, Right? If not, then you're one of the few who can do both. I know I can't, as my girlfriend hates it when I'm on the PC and talking to her on the phone at the same time. As for cops, well as much as I hate pigs... err cops, that is part of their job, and I'll bet since you're such up in arms about losing your beloved toy... err phone, that you may have forgotten to mention that maybe those cops were involved in other vehicles not yielding to emergency vehicles. Truckers and their CB's can I guess be lopped into this grouping, but again I feel that the majority wanting a ban to put into place simply want the average Joe who has very little experience driving while multi-tasking from holding and using cell-phones. And about that taking away from the majority... well the majority has spoken. As of right now, 74% think that cell phones should be banned while driving. SORRY!



comment   Missing the ISSUE here... God and your in Goverment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   7/18/00 11:36:10 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Saving Lives

We don't want cell phones banned from cars... just from being used by the driver while he is driving. And yes, I've posted a lot tonight, and I've said in a nutshell throughout that I hope goverment can do something to stop people from doing so, at the expense of people who don't think highly of the goverment. You know what, I do agree with them on that. This nitwit is STUPID... Where did anyone ever say that we wanted them banned from cars??? HUH??? Just stop using them while drving, that's all. Can I make a suggestion for the next forum. A law to remove people from goverment that can't read or understand what the conversation is about... This guy being the first!!!



comment   Driving While Talking Shown to be asDangerous as Driving Drunk? Not! AHHH!!! BUT wait and read on...   7/18/00 11:51:53 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Driving While Talking Shown to be asDangerous as Driving Drunk? Not!

I found 2 reports from the New England Journal of Medicine website concerning this topic, and yes it doesn't compare it too drunken driving, but they state, "mobile telephone task had a negative effect upon the drivers' choice reaction time..." It also said that, "results indicate that the accident risk can increase when a driver is using the mobile telephone in a car..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&uid=8579701&Dopt=r The other report... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&uid=8323660&Dopt=r is very intersesting because the test subjects were tested with verying degrees of distractions, and their responses all were affected by them... read on... if the links don't work. I followed links there from CBSnews.com website on a story about this topic. "cell phones while driving"



comment   Don't worry, we're trying to ban cigarettes too!!!   7/18/00 11:56:42 PM
Don   Cannella
Private Citizen

Refering to: Distractions other than Cell Phones

Just a little humor here, but seriously, this guy states that cigarettes can be just as distracting as cell phones. True, and hopefully you'll quit before the price of a pack of cigarettes becomes $10.00 a pack, or we can ban them, or tobacco companies go out of businness when they are sued out of existence.



comment   Cell Phone Use by Drivers Can Save Lives Too!   7/19/00 4:30:51 AM
Wray   Jose
Private Citizen
Although Ido believe the public should be educated about the dangers of using cell phones while driving and should be encouraged to limit cell phone use in automobiles, I do not support efforts to make the use of cell phones by drivers illegal. More than once I have used a cell phone while driving in order to notify authorities of a hazardous condition on the freeway. These were situations in which it would have been difficult or impossible for me to be able to slow down and stop in order to make the call, and the situation was such that a call needed to be made at once in order to possibly prevent a tragedy. In one instance, for example, a driver was stalled on a narrow shoulder just around a blind curve. Drivers coming around the curve at speed barely had time to react to the stalled car, which was partially blocking the lane. They had to veer suddenly to avoid hitting the stalled car. It was clear that unless the authorities got word of this fast and acted quickly to defuse the situation, a severe collision was likely to occur. I immediately used my cell phone and notified the police of the situation. A terrible tragedy was averted because I was able to use my cell phone while driving. Thus, while the use of cell phones by drivers should be limited to unavoidable situations, and the public should be apprised of that fact, cell phone use by drivers should not be banned outright. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the debate about driver distractions, it should not be overlooked that--depending on the circumstances-- the use of cell phones by drivers may sometimes contribute to highway safety.


comment   Cell phones and driver education!   7/19/00 4:53:37 AM
Michael   Maylone
Private Citizen
I am an American living in Germany and drive over 30,000 miles a year, mostly professionally. Although driving is more agressive and much faster here than in the US, I feel safer on the road here than I do when I am visiting family and friends in the States. Here is why: 1. Driver education in the USA is inadequate to prepare a person to operate what should be considered a lethal weapon. More time should be spent training potential drivers to be able to control a vehicle in all situations, not just how to drive at a steady speed in a straight line. 2. Many drivers in all corners of the USA consider their car an extension of their home. In my opinion a driver has no business driinking coffee or doing makeup or smooching with their passenger while driving. That should be "trained out" during the driver education process. 3. Here in Germany the law now requires a "hands-off" kit if cell phones are to be used while driving. I have such a kit and use it, but if I have to place a call I either stop in a safe place or take advantage of a red light. If the traffic situation is bad when I receive a call I just ignore it and let the voice mailbox take a message. Nearly all new cars sold here are prepared for those kits, making installation easy and fairly inexpensive. 4. Children belong in the back seat, buckled up or in a kiddy seat that is secured.... not hopping around all over the inside of a moving car. I find it unbelievable how many Americans endanger themselves and the lives of their kids by letting them jump all over the inside of a moving vehicle. Even if the driver is not distracted, what happens when the "other guy" runs a red light and hits a car full of kids from the side? Just my opinion and observations, for what it is worth.


comment   Cell Phones: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!    7/19/00 5:11:35 AM

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

For 20 miles in bumper to bumper traffic, a woman talking on a cell phone tailgated me. Several times I tried to indicate that she was following tooooo close for brake reaction. She dialed at least 5 different parties, and had the phone propped between her head & her shoulder, so God only knows what else she was doing. (cooking breakfast?) I was so aggravated, I decided that if she were to hit me, I was going to ram that cell phone down her throat sideways! On the highway, cell phones are necessay if someone is lost, or in danger: otherwise they are a MAJOR distraction. With the speed on the highway we all seem to be cruising at, this is begging for an accident.



comment   50/50   7/19/00 7:38:21 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Everyone wants to pin point the cause. The problem is half of the people can and the other half cannot. I tried to use a cell phone while driving once and I will never do it agian. I have a CB radio and it has never been a distraction. I have seen other people drive and talk on the phone and most cannot do it while others seem to drive better. We have too many laws restricing our freedom as it is but if one more person drives like an idiot becuase they are talking on the phone I will have to join in on outlawing cell phone use while driving. Now if you want to stop road rage inforce the slower driver keep right so I can pass idea.


comment   Too many phones and a lot of other bad behaviour as well   7/19/00 8:53:18 AM

Refering to: Agree that cell phones are not the only distractions that cause poor driving performance but they may be the most serious

Cell phone usage is rampant and is being used in ways that is just irresponsible. And it's not only in cars, but that is where it is more dangerous. But there are many other activities that I witness on a daily basis that are significantly worse that take driver's attention away from the road more than cell phone usage: Putting on make-up, reading a newspaper on the steering wheel, playing with children in the car (often the back seat), eating, etc. I see these activities all the time in heavy traffic conditions that require full attention. I agree that the use of phones needs to be restricted at least to a hands free unit, where the driver has full use of both hands and mobility of head without obstructions. However laws should address irresponsible behaviour that results in impaired driving, which goes beyond the use of cell phones. Phones have become so popular and common that they are the easy target, but let's look at the real issue which is the person at the wheel.



comment   Cell phone conversations versus passenger conversations   7/19/00 9:07:06 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

In order to get a fair analysis, shouldn't this test also be done while talking to passengers. I understand how distracting it can be to talk while holding a phone, but a hands-free conversation is the same as talking to someone in the car with you. I would like to have that compared.



comment   But they say we can...   7/19/00 9:08:07 AM

Refering to: 50/50

The problem is nonsensical advertising that blatantly defies everything people are taught about driver safety. Both at home and outdoors, the message of mobility and being reachable all the time precedes the question of whether this is safe or practical. The concept of being "in-reach" has been given far more credit than the concept of safety. Safety only sells if it's connected with the fear of accident or death. Mobility is chic and sexy. Cell phones could easily have been marketed as a lifeline to use when stranded or in need of some kind of assistance, but instead companies like AT&T market these things saying "Make your mobile phone your only phone." Only now are we seeing asterisk warnings on commercial voiceovers, asking us to use our cell phones safely -- and that's only to prevent law suits. The deep, underlying issue is that regulation of any kind is automaticall equated with restriction of personal freedom. Responsibility is removed. It's beyond that. People are accustomed to using their phones when and where they want because from the very start, that is how their use has been illustrated. The industry knew the risks long before safety ever became a public issue. I know because I'm a part of it.



comment   Cell phones, bad drivers, and the rule of law.   7/19/00 9:15:13 AM
Charles   Indelicato
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell Phones: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

As a long-distance commuter, I see plenty of people who ought not to be driving. I've seen a cigarette in the left hand of a driver and and coffee cup in the right (ya gotta love those knee-drivers!). I've seen people reading a newspaper the size of the Wall Street Journal and I've seen them read novels. I've seen people weave in and out of traffic, thinking a tractor-trailer truck can stop as quickly as their Ford Escort, and I've seen people driving 40 MPH in the passing lane.

I've also seen people use a cell phone irresponsibly, and I've seen them use cell phones in a very responsible manner. In fact, I would suggest the latter is more common than not.

Allow me to suggest the following:
Considering the number of cars on the road, and the number of cell phones sold, I would imagine the number of accidents would be far greater if the majority of these people were irresponsible.

I use my cell phone daily: being on the road so much I need it to stay in touch and sometimes for work related issues. Pulling off the road on a Turnpike, when considering the speed at which the trucks in the right lane travel, and then getting back on the road is a dangerous exercise as well; I'll opt for the lesser evil of driving while chatting, thank you.

I purchased a hands-free kit not because I believed it necessary for saftey, but because I feared crossing into a jurisdiction that had an anti-cell phone law that I was unaware of being in existence. Had the court ruled earlier, I might not have made the purchase, but I have it and I will continue to use it because of it's conveinence.

Bad drivers have existed and always will exist. And so have laws against reckless driving. Passing new laws just for cell phones is only creating feel-good legislation which does no long term good for anyone. Enforce the laws for reckless driving and be done with it.

The Federal Goverment already exceeds its Constituional mandate in far too many areas; the states themselves should decide what is necessary without being coerced or superceeded by the Federal Goverment. Let the states mandate what is necessary for the saftey of their roads, and let those laws be enforced before new ones are created.


C:



comment   Does safety improve with voice activated, hands-free technologies?   7/19/00 9:31:10 AM
John   Grace
Private Citizen
I recently added an earpiece and learned how to voice activate my cell phone and I've noticed this allows me to continue on task driving while making calls and I wonder if any studies have linked these adaptations to auto safety?


comment   Cell Phone Use in Moving Vehicles Must Be Banned   7/19/00 9:34:24 AM
Bob   Parsons
Private Citizen
My commute to work is 2 1/4 hours a day, and I get to see a lot of bad drivers. The worst of these are jabbering into their cell phones with one hand while they tailgate, weave in and out of traffic without signaling, and generally PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE ROAD BECAUSE THEY ARE BUSY TALKING. I have seen people try to hold a cell phone in one hand. With the other hand they try to both steer and shift a manual transmission. Forget about using turn signals! Even with voice activated technology, cell phone use in moving vehicles can not be made safe. People become totally engrossed in their conversations to the point THEY PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE ROAD! I witnessed a driver having an animated conversation with himself cut across three lanes of traffic in rush hour and miss his exit because his mind was on his conversation, and NOT ON DRIVING. Cell phone use in moving vehicles should be banned outright. At the very least, insurance companies should raise their rates for drivers who insist on the unsafe practice of using cell phones in moving vehicles.


comment   Wearable heads-up wireless computer display   7/19/00 9:46:56 AM
John   Grace
Private Citizen
There is a wearable heads up daylight computer display that overlays a see-thru computer 'page' on top of your field of vision made by Microvision that is being used by the Army, Air Force and by surgeons at the Sloan-Kettering Medical Center. This has the potential to revolutionize all of the cell phone, navigation, and internet displays that distract drivers. I think any discussion that does not include emerging technologies and their potential for improving traffic safety is missing some valuable information. This technology has the potential to improve safety and make driving time productive.


comment   2 Pennies from across the Net   7/19/00 9:54:55 AM
Heartless F.   Ahole
Private Citizen
Below are the comments received when a related article was posted to HEARTLESS.NET:

HFA's Comments:
I have a proposal - why don't you butt-out of my business and let me drive my own @#$%$#@ car.
You can't blame it on the toys when everyone knows damn well that it's the drivers who are really at fault. Bad drivers are bad drivers. Cell phones, radio, and electronic maps don't change the fact that they're bad drivers, it just gives people a excuse to complain. Those people who don't have personal technology to make life more convenient still have other distractions, such as screaming kids, radios, or the stress of daily life. If it's not one thing, it's another, so don't waste time trying to increase driver awareness about saftety risks. It doesn't take a genius living in this country to be aware that we have a high automobile fatality rate, and that it's mostly do to negligent drivers.
The quote from the article stated that automobile manufacturers are welcoming the NHTSA’s probe, as long as they don't try to regulate what gets put into cars. Well, think about it, that's exactly what they're trying to do. They just don't want to come right out and admit it, because nobody wants to look like the "bad" guy. And I'll bet if they didn't welcome this probe, the NHTSA would go after the industry like a pack of hungry wolves. It happened to "Big Tobacco"...

Grover's Comments:
Better ban those fast food drive-thru places, too. They're a bigger hazard than any piece of technology that I've ever seen. I can't rememeber how many times I've seen someone weaving around on the road because they're eating a Big Mac, or chowing on fries.

Cory's Comments:
Car manufacturers have always had to massage the NHTSA, otherwise, they'd be run out of business, because government agencies would regulate them to death. If that couldn't be done, then the NHTSA would point fingers at them with public encouragement, indirectly hurting them through sales.
The NHTSA pretends to want to help without intruding, but they will definitely interfere with those who equip cars with technology. This will probably go to a higher panel for investigation, then turn into a national debate. What it all boils down to, however, is that agencies like the NHTSA are trying to chip away at democracy by using regulations that people don't look deep enough into.

SX-Julie's Comments:
Every new item that cars are equipped with takes a period of adjustment before we can completely get comfortable using while driving.
When CD players came out in cars, people had to adjust to finding a CD, putting it in, and working the controls while they moved down the road. The same idea goes for cell phones, maps, and kids. In time, we'll regard cell phone use in the car as second nature, and people will find something else to complain about.
If driving were easy, they'd give licenses to 10 year olds, but it's not, and there are certain dangers that one must look out for. It's called "defensive driving". It does no good to complain about the bad drivers; all you can do is try to defend yourself on the road. We can't just ban things from cars because they're distractive. Some people would probably have their kids confiscated, if that were the case. All we can do it get used to driving with a certain level of distraction, like they taught us in driver's ed.

Jim28's Comments:
Instead of getting used to what technology is readily available now (which is what we're currently forced to do), why not focus attention on creating less distraction from the current technology. Radios are not as distrative as cell phones, because you don't have to hold a radio up to your ear while you use it. On the other hand, technology for speaker phones just plain sucks, so nobody wants to go that route. Why not work on either better speaker technology, or a hands-free phone device that's economically priced? Ideas like this are out there, but I guess it's easier to try educating the public instead of motivating the private.

tom's Comments:
Did anyone else notice that the story related cell phone driving to drinking and driving? What a crock. If cell phones were as "dangerous" as booze, the damn things would be outlawed by now. This is just another example of some reporter trying to blow the whole idea way out of proportion.

Psychotic Bob's Comments:
Instead of spending time bitching about drivers, why not spend some money on public transportation. I personally hate the 40 minute drive to my office. It would be so much easier to simply get on a commuter train, read the paper, eat a muffin, drink some coffee and then walk ten minutes from the station to my office.
Let's see...no wear 'n tear on my car, cheaper than driving a car, I can do anything from eating to working to watching TV while in blissful ignorance of what happens around me....
THAT would be the way to make the roads safer.



comment   Reminiscent of Nazi Germany   7/19/00 10:37:18 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Get off of my case!!

You know, Hitler started off regulating the rights of private citizens, too. It bothers me greatly that our government has this habit of sticking its nose into the rights of us private citizens. And so much of it is in the name of "safety". (So was Hitler when he took away the Germans' right to guns). They'll get me off my cell phone when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers!!!! I pay for the use of it, and as long as I pay the bill, where, when and how I use it is nobody's business but mine and Alltel's. I do not use it irresponsibly in my car, either - I have a hands-free mike and don't dial the handset while moving. Nor do I chatter away on it for hours like some people. It's there for the purpose I got it for - to use in case of emergency and when I have an important call to make that can't wait.



comment   Think outside the metal box, too!   7/19/00 10:49:11 AM
Scott   Worthge
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I agree with the comments as given - I have no argument with cell phones as an effective communications aid for the mobile worker, for those who just want to keep connected wherever they are, and as a security device for many who have cell phones for safety purposes. But I'll bet 98% of the comments on the drive vs. hang up issue are/will be only from the perspective of those in other vehicles. If you really want a taste of the hazards posed by inattentive drivers, then try being a bicycle commuter (as I prefer to be) or pedestrian. At least drivers have a large metal box to protect them to some extent from the folks who can't use a phone and drive properly at the same time. On a bicycle or trying to cross an intersection in San Francisco on foot, the dangers increase exponentially. I don't support a complete ban on cell phone use while driving - that's unrealistic and reactionary. Face it - cell phones are here to stay, and no amount of discussion, sensitivity training, regulation, or other control attempts are going to dissuade people from using these devices. I carry one myself, so I'm no Luddite. But until the technology can be implemented for complete voice-activated, hands free operation - you slip the phone into a cradle and talk to it like you would a passenger to dial, communicate, and hang up - then cell phone use in a car should be limited to staionary vehicles. No calling while moving!



comment   Does anyone else remember the CB radio craze of the 70's?   7/19/00 10:57:55 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell Phone Use in Moving Vehicles Must Be Banned

Does anyone else other than me remember the CB radio craze of the 70's? I had one, just like everyone else I knew. And used it all the time, just like everyone else I knew. You held the mike in your hand while talking (no hands-free stuff back then). All the truckers had them. The airwaves were full of people on the road back then. Funny, I don't remember the government trying to ban use of CB's in vehicles. I never had a wreck or a close call caused by my CB. Our law enforcement officers have had radios and phones in their vehicles for years now. If anyone has the potential for distraction behind the wheel, they do. Go sit in a trooper's car sometime, and try to listen to about 2 or 3 radios all chattering at the same time. Have you bothered to find out the statistics for law enforcement officers having wrecks because of radio or phone distraction while they are driving? This is all dreamed up either by the insurance companies or some lawyer somewhere trying to get rich. And if we, the American people, continue to allow the government to take away our personal freedoms in the name of safety; if we allow our police to play "cell phone police", then we're even dumber than I already think. Our police should be out chasing down drunk drivers, stoned drivers, escaped criminals, etc., not wasting time stopping people using a cell phone. They've got better things to do, and so do we. By the way, my 9 year old daughter is a much worse distraction in the car than my cell phone will ever be. Are you going to outlaw her next?



comment   Basic Respect   7/19/00 11:01:17 AM
tim   henline
Private Citizen

Refering to: The ads in magazines alone are frightening

Low blow to women. Simplistic and disrespectful. This one will cost you your credibility.



comment   Cell Phones   7/19/00 11:01:17 AM
Joseph   Whitfield
Other

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

As a worker in the EMS system I have seen what happens when drivers are using their phone while trying to drive, yes it's the same as being drunk, they weave, change lanes and do all types of dangerous driving. A good friend of ours was "T-Boned" by a driver who ran a stop sign while using her phone, as a result our friend was unable to work any more and had to go on disability, not to mention 3 weeks in the hospital. In our company, the ambulance driver is not allowed to talk on the phone while the ambulance is in motion. Any use of the phone is limited to his/her partner. All states should require that drivers pull to the side of the road to use the phone. The penalty should be somewhere between not using your set belt (in Indiana it's $25.00)or the same as a first offense DUI. After the 2nd offense the phone should be removed from the car.



comment   I agree!!!   7/19/00 11:03:09 AM

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

No phone call is so important that it cannot wait until the driver can pull off the road to a safe place. I believe cell phones should be designed such that they will not operate in a vehicle that is moving or that has the engine running. Perhaps cars should be designed like our lawn mowers such that they have a "dead man" switch on the steering wheel and if the driver removes one of his hands the cars engine dies. Not really because that would cause accidents but you get the idea. Also, to believe that the "hands free" phone will be any better is ridiculous. It takes pure concentration on whats happening around you when you are driving and there is no time to carry on a serious conversation. Do you think the cell phone industry would care one way or the other if they were't making money off of it? Would people mind if their surgeon removed their appendix while he talked on his cell phone? Would people mind if their kids were killed in an accident caused by someone using a cell phone? Why do we let industry that is making money off of us tell us how to run our lives?



comment   yea but   7/19/00 11:03:45 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Does anyone else remember the CB radio craze of the 70's?

THAT (cb'ers) was just a CRAZE. using cell-fones is not. it's not the same deal. sorrrrrry.



comment   Cell phones   7/19/00 11:08:36 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Academia/ Research Firm
Although I have not experienced any close calls or accidents caused by drivers who are using cell phones, I strongly support enactment of laws prohibiting the use of cell phones while the vehicle is in motion. Of course we all know that drivers will continue to use cell phones regardless of any legislation prohibiting their use while the vehicle is in motion, but if the laws were designed to allow the average citizen to file a complaint in addition to police officers, the law would be obeyed. To protect the innocent, the complaint would have to be signed by two witnesses which could be husband and wife. I am sure many would oppose this form of legislation, but less face facts, there are not enough police officers on the payroll to 'catch' all the violators, but there are enough average citizens who are in danger of loss of life to spot the violators.


comment   Cell-Phones designed for safety   7/19/00 11:15:57 AM
Cell phones mounted within a car can be made safe by proper design. Design them to automatically hang up when the car starts moving. When a person wants to talk on the phone he/she can park the car and make a call. After the call is finished he/she can return to driving. For incoming calls the phone will operate normally if the car is stationary. If it is moving the incoming phone number can be stored by some varient of caller ID and the driver alerted to the call by a sound. The phone company is signaled to issue a busy signal to the caller. The driver then parks the car and pushes a call back button to call the stored number back. Again this prevents the hazard of using the phone while driving.


comment   I see it all the time   7/19/00 11:22:39 AM
Joseph   Whitfield
Other

Refering to: Who ever dials a phone while driving?

I would guess that of all the people I see on a phone in the car at least 30% ARE DIALING while driving, not all #5's are bumpy.



comment   Bad Driving period   7/19/00 11:22:41 AM
Michael   Kiefer
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Poor performance due to distractions not limited to cell phones

It is not the phones or anything else it in fact the society in a whole has become inconciderate and impatient to others on the the roadways. The new technologies do not make good driver's bad but make bad driver's worse.First we to look why so many people are aload to do almost anything on the road without being punished before someone get's hurt or killed. Ask your police dept's why they ignore so many laws and allow such driving habit's.



comment   As dangerous as DUI!   7/19/00 11:24:09 AM
David   Wells
Private Citizen
How many time have you seen a vehicle blow through a stop sign or red light because the distracted driver was talking on a cell phone. Personally I have seen it happen far to often. If talking on a cell phone while driving, or any of the other things that people do instead of paying attention, is as dangerous as DUI then perhaps the punishment should be equivalent. The threat of loosing one's license (or having it restricted), a stiff fine, attending and paying for a multi-part drivers education class may be just the thing to put the brakes on this runaway phenomenon. The DUI situation improved only marginally due to education. The things that are credited with dramatically reducing the DUI problem are increased penalties and vigorous police enforcement. Driving after all is a privilege not a right!


comment   Nazi?   7/19/00 11:28:22 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: Reminiscent of Nazi Germany

This seems to be the standard retort from someone who knows they are wrong and can't win the argument. Unless you been through it never compare something to the Nazi's. There is no comparision.



comment   Cell phones with vehicle connection   7/19/00 11:58:31 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Cell-Phones designed for safety

How would technology make the cell phone inoperable if the cell phone is a hand-held, battery-operated unit, not requiring any connections to the electronic components of a vehicle? I see cell phone users talking on their phones when they walk from Union Station in Chicago to work on Wacker Drive. They are in motion and the phone works. I think your idea is great, but can portables be made inoperable when the vehicle is in motion?



comment   Cell Phones are not the demon   7/19/00 11:58:40 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I have seen many people putting on makeup, reading papers, reading books, drinking coffee, eating and turning sideways in the seat to talk to pax, all of these almost had accidents. I have never seen anyone talking on a phone almost have a wreck. I have been using 2-way radios and/or phones for over 40 years and have never even been close to an accident. The people that will have accidents are the ones who don't pay attention when driving anyway for many reasons. But if any laws are passed dealing with the use of the phone THEN lets ticket the people doing anything but driving with both hands on the wheel and if they turn their heads to talk or check on kids in back seat. Wouldn't that be real stupid. The best thing is to ticket the speeders, red light runners and careless drivers that I see on the road every day. Just a few days ago I saw a driver almost hit a Bossier City, La policeman and he didn't stop him. I also see police witness people running red lights and again they do nothing. WE don't need more laws, JUST enforce the ones we have.


comment   Study:Cell Phones and Driving vs. Drinking and Driving   7/19/00 11:59:42 AM
Mike   Daniels
Private Citizen
A study was published a few months ago that showed that people drinking and driving were just as likely to cause an accident as people using a hand-held cell phone and driving. Why don't we have MADD out there lobbying to get rid of cell phones? Why don't we just not waste our time and money putting together HAIUCPAD (Humans against Idiots Using Cell Phones And Driving) The same lives we are trying to save by getting drunks off the roads are the same lives that are now under attack due to people dialing their cell phone, checking voice-mail by pressing buttons, basically not watching the road with TWO hands on the wheel. What driving class did these folks take? It surely wasn't the same one I took. Do we need to implement tougher driving standards to begin with? Maybe an IQ test? Maybe something besides parallel parking? Lets throw people into a real simulator, if they come out of the simulator without running over pedestrians, being able to dodge other drivers on the road, etc, they get their license for another 4 years. Otherwise they get to go work on their motor skills before we let them drive. (Cost for simulators? NILL...There are driving simulators in every $2 pizza shop, so not an issue, plus if we could save 100 fatal accidents from happening, that would pay for all of the simulators) Don't think this wouldn't be an addition to a real road driving test. Does anyone REALLY care? Mike Daniels


comment   Enforcement of all traffic laws would be a good first step   7/19/00 12:04:43 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Cell Phones are not the demon

I agree with this contributor's comments, 100%. I am appalled at how often police officers do not enforce the traffic laws when the violation occurs in front of them. One sheriff deputy told me that because there are not enough of them to go around [he was eating his lunch in the same cafe I was at and had been there for over an hour], the law enforcement people have decided to enforce the law after they have prima facie evidence, i.e. an accident. Then they enforce the law by ticketing the party they think caused the accident. Isn't that a neat approach!!



comment   cellphone use while driving   7/19/00 12:47:28 PM
Raul   Garcia
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

It's my opinion from my experiences in carrying a conversation as a pedestrian, that I, and others overshoot our destinations, or need to stop and see where we are, unless the destination is one that is already burned into my memory such as the cafeteria ..etc. On occasions when there is no conversation someone will say, "hey, I never noticed that before, how long has it been there?" They would have noticed that, and much more had they not been so busy talking. If we miss so much just while walking, how much are we missing while driving, and talking? We can't deny that we are a visually oriented society. There is more to communicating with another person than just verbalizing. Without body language, and visual information one must concentrate more on what is being said, subconsciously we begin to build a virtual representation of the other person, and their surroundings. This is no different than day dreaming, and we usually don't realize that we're day dreaming until someone or something interrupts. As a society, we express a genuine concern for the lives of others, but regrettably we justify our actions by assuming that we are the only expert cellphone-while-driving users, and gum-chewing walkers. There's no doubt in my mind that a cellphone is a must for emergencies in this day and age, but many individuals will test fate just to save a few minutes of drive time. It's enough that we tolerate reading-smoking-eating-drinking-beautifying-radiobooming drivers, and those who try to pick dropped items from the floor board while driving 60 mph, and those who try to discipline their children in the back seat. It's time we drew the line, and begin regulating the use of cellphones while driving.



comment   Right on, Amy!   7/19/00 12:49:16 PM
Linda   Horton
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

My loving family gave me a cell phone for Mother's Day, siting vehicle breakdown, illness, etc. as their reasoning. Okay, I agreed. The first thing I noticed is that they started calling me to pick up milk, etc! I have found that my phone works wonderfully in the "off" mode and I can choose to turn it on if I break down. And if I'm off the road with a flat tire, I won't be impeding the progress and safety of others. I am a FIRM advocate of legislation to limit phone use, even the hands-free variety, while the car is in motion. And I think it needs to be a federal law, not just a state-to-state choice. If you chose to use your cell phone, please let me know when you plan to be on the road so I can plan my route around you! Linda Horton Private Citizen



comment   What are they thinking??   7/19/00 1:06:07 PM
Marc   Walston
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Vacant Drivers

I've about come to the conclusion that there is a lot of psychology at work these days. I think that motorists have come to think of their cars as just an extension of the saftey and comfort of their living rooms at home. I see it all. And it is not just cell phones, though they are the main distracion these days. One recent thing comes to mind, I saw some moron with a legal pad on the steering wheel, writing and taking notes as he drove down the freeway at 75 mph. If there were a back up of trucks and cars due to construction, he could have looked up from his writing and it would have been the end of his life. I dont believe education or anything of the sort will work. I believe that perhaps if all accidents due to distractions were treated as criminal, then people would take notice.



comment   And Ban Radios too!!!   7/19/00 1:37:55 PM
Reyn   Mansson
Private Citizen

Refering to: non-standard vehicles

In the 1920s, when radios were first introduced as new technology to personal transportation there were places that banned that technology as to distracting to the operator of the auto. This is silly, I have had a cell phone since 1987 when they cost $3000 and never worked right. My hand-held is attached to me every waking moment, I make my living on the Internet and so have to be available to email 18 hours a day. If there were a law against use of these technolgies it would be obeyed almost as well as the 55MPH speed limit was. There are already laws in every state on failure to mauntain proper control. Don't add another layer of useless prohibition to make us all disrespect the reasonable laws. I ride a motorcycle, have been a member of the AMA for over 10 years and strongly disagree with their support of these actions to limit our freedom to make our own choices.



comment   Hang It Up   7/19/00 1:42:51 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Individual Differences and In-Vehicle Distraction While Driving: A Test Track Study and Psychometric Evaluation

Harly a day passes that I don't have driving problems associated with cell phones in moving cars. Most people just can't talk on the phone and be attentive to other cars, the general flow of traffic and events taken place around them while using cell phones. I often see people stoped in the middle of the drive-in entrance to a business. Other people drifting in their lanes. Some drivers can't maintain a steady speed and yo-yo faster & slower. I often see people trying to dial and drive and not being good at either. I've seen the driver's window break after she hit it with the phone when she had to make an emergency maneuver. The phone was in her left hand. If she'd been paying attention to the road she could've avoided both situations. There just seems to be something different about communication by phone that distracts one. It isn't like talking to someone sitting next to you in a car. These devices are crippling our youth and so many now feel that they can't live without constantly calling others. As a nation, we are already a very impatient one. We don't have that many crisis and emergency situations to justify having to contact others for routine/mundane talk and endangering so many others. I'm more afraid of drivers using cell phones than DUI's.



comment   Re: Right on, Amy!   7/19/00 1:44:18 PM
Charles   Indelicato
Private Citizen

Refering to: Right on, Amy!

I find it curious your insistance of a federal law against cell phones.  That seems to be the battle cry these days! Federal Law this, Federal Law that.  Every law should be the law of the land!

I recall another law, one that is truly the Law of The Land.  One that says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I spend 5 hours a day driving in both city and on highway. If I can carry on a conversation with a passenger (in the event I have one), then I can carry on one with a phone, particularly a hands-free equipped one.  Our Nation is based on FREEDOM. Today we outlaw cell phones, tomorrow it will be cassette/CD players - can't have people concentrating on BooksOnTape -- or do you want a Federal Law against that, too?

C:


comment   Check out the Poll Responses   7/19/00 2:38:39 PM
Reyn   Mansson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Leave it alone! The people commenting at this website DO NOT USE the technology they want to ban. Look at the survey response, very low numbers for frequently receives call while mobile, high numbers for don’t use. How many of you actually have an email pager, cell phone, and GPS map system? I do! I have 13 years on cell phones, 3 years on maps, 1 year with the pager. Still haven't killed anyone, drive 100 to 200 miles a day 6 days a week. I would just break the laws, so would the people I know. Today's world, e-commerce moves too fast 24/7 to pull over to the side of the road every time someone calls. My business card only has my email address [which is my name at my ISP] and my cell phone Number. Soon as they have a direct cerebral jack for direct to the cortex email I'll get one of those too.



comment   A motorcyclist's perspective.   7/19/00 2:42:34 PM

Refering to: non-standard vehicles

I've been commuting to work on a motorcycle for the last year. In that year, I have come to loathe and fear drivers who are talking on a cellphone. They swerve, they don't maintain a constant speed, and they are not looking where they are going. I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had due to drivers talking on cellphones. I'd estimate that I have one every week. I've gotten to the point where I can identify a driver talking on a cellphone simply be watching how they're driving. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous even under the best of circumstances, and people talking on cellphones or using other electronic devices increase the danger. I do own a cellphone, and in the first couple of weeks of ownership I tried driving my car while talking on it, both with a handsfree unit and without. My conclusions. Using a cellphone without a handsfree unit is dangerous. My driving style began to resemble that of the stereotypical old person in a Buick. Using a handsfree system made it possible to drive well, provided that I was willing to accept gaps in the conversation when I felt it necessary to concentrate on traffic, and as long as the conversation was not a mentally taxing on. (Discussions of a business nature tended to be more distracting.) I do occasionally make cellphone calls under certain conditions. 1. Rush hour traffic where nobody's moving more than 5mph. I feel that this is fairly safe as long as I don't try to change lanes or do anything other than follow the car in front of me. 2. Long straight empty roads. Driving straight is fairly easy, and while it is necessary to watch out for hazards from the side of the road (deer) or objects on the road, this is not mentally taxing to me. In either case, my conversations are very short, usually less than a minute. "Hi. I'm stuck in traffic and will be half an hour late. Bye." That sort of thing. If a law was passed to ban even these short conversations of mine, I would not complain.



comment   A motorcyclist's perspective.   7/19/00 2:42:34 PM

Refering to: non-standard vehicles

I've been commuting to work on a motorcycle for the last year. In that year, I have come to loathe and fear drivers who are talking on a cellphone. They swerve, they don't maintain a constant speed, and they are not looking where they are going. I've lost count of the number of near misses I've had due to drivers talking on cellphones. I'd estimate that I have one every week. I've gotten to the point where I can identify a driver talking on a cellphone simply be watching how they're driving. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous even under the best of circumstances, and people talking on cellphones or using other electronic devices increase the danger. I do own a cellphone, and in the first couple of weeks of ownership I tried driving my car while talking on it, both with a handsfree unit and without. My conclusions. Using a cellphone without a handsfree unit is dangerous. My driving style began to resemble that of the stereotypical old person in a Buick. Using a handsfree system made it possible to drive well, provided that I was willing to accept gaps in the conversation when I felt it necessary to concentrate on traffic, and as long as the conversation was not a mentally taxing on. (Discussions of a business nature tended to be more distracting.) I do occasionally make cellphone calls under certain conditions. 1. Rush hour traffic where nobody's moving more than 5mph. I feel that this is fairly safe as long as I don't try to change lanes or do anything other than follow the car in front of me. 2. Long straight empty roads. Driving straight is fairly easy, and while it is necessary to watch out for hazards from the side of the road (deer) or objects on the road, this is not mentally taxing to me. In either case, my conversations are very short, usually less than a minute. "Hi. I'm stuck in traffic and will be half an hour late. Bye." That sort of thing. If a law was passed to ban even these short conversations of mine, I would not complain.



comment   Taking care of the cellphone problem on your own.   7/19/00 2:50:36 PM

Refering to: agree

http://www.cguard.com/English/latests/index.html This company sells a cellphone jammer with an adjustable range. I'm thinking quite seriously about purchasing one of these and installing it in my vehicle.



comment   Nothing is that important   7/19/00 2:54:17 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

Our society did just fine before cell phones. Now, everywhere you look, someone has a phone glued to their ear. I was run off the road by a person talking on a cell phone. They were obviously having an argument with someone. When I honked my horn, I was given an obscene finger gesture. A driver was killed recently in Oregon by a truck driver. The truck driver said he was talking on the phone and wasn't paying attention. He ran right over the car and the driver was killed. It is time to take the phones out of the cars and leave them at home or in the office.



comment   Cell Phones & Driving do not mix   7/19/00 4:13:40 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I do not drive proffesionally, however, I see more and more folks driving while talking on cell phones. I am sure they feel they are driving well. The facts are that they use their own lane and one half of the lanes on both sides of them, their speed goes from 40 mph to 70 mph in a 50 miles per hour zone. They run red lights, stop signs and never even know they are there. They hafe to be a number 1 in causing road rage. Cell phones are great but driving requires all of your attention. Something must be done to stop this problem before it becomes a major problem.



comment   Please Get a Hands Free Phone or Hands Free Phone Hook Up   7/19/00 6:16:14 PM
Roberta   Thornton
Private Citizen
Stay off the cell phone when driving. I was trying to pass someone on a local 4 lane road and she was driving in the middle of the road, then her side, then the middle. I honked but she still drove irradically. When I finally was brave enough to pass her, you guess it, she was heavily involved in a cell phone converstaion and not paying attention to her driving. The next night I had someone behind me talking on his cell phone. More than once I thought he was going to rear end me and was delighted when he changed lanes and I no longer had to worry. Both my husband and I purchased a speaker that plugs into our cigarrette lighter in the car and then to the phone. When we must use the cell phone, it is now hands-free. This is still a distraction, however, and we only do it briefly. If we need to speak to someone longer, we pull off the road to do it. Driving should have a person's undivided attention at all times! We purchased our phones for emergency use only and when not used for that purpose, it is used as I said above.


comment   Vacant Drivers' Glassy Eyed Stares   7/19/00 8:34:53 PM
Bill   Kraft
Private Citizen

Refering to: Vacant Drivers

I agree with the comment about vacant stares. I, too, believe that it is the lack of concentration on the very complex task of driving that is the prime danger. Forget cell phones! Yesterday a friend rearended a car because she was distracted by spilling her Jello!? Sounds like a dish that requires both hands, doesn't it? Lets get focussed on the task of driving and stop throwing all these distractions in our paths, including those outrageous, blinding daytime ruining lights that cause us to look away from what we should be looking directly at! Bill



comment   RE: Vacant drivers threaten bicyclists as well as motorcyclists   7/20/00 7:35:05 AM
hugh   jass
Other

Refering to: Vacant drivers threaten bicyclists as well as motorcyclists

As a motorcyclist for more than 20 years, I have had my share of run in's with BDCs (brain dead cagers). There is a large percentage of drivers who cannot drive and chew gum at the same time. I would still much prefer to navigate around these morons than deal with the drivers that are openly hostile to motorcyclists and literally try to sqeeze bikers into the guardrail. For some reason, normally sane people have no qualms about attempting murder when behind the wheel of their car. The police seem more interested in hiding in the bushes and trapping 5 mph over the limit speeders, then getting the real menaces off the road.



comment   Careless drivers risk the lives of cyclists and pedestrians   7/20/00 8:21:05 AM
mark   counselman
Private Citizen

Refering to: RE: Vacant drivers threaten bicyclists as well as motorcyclists

I live in Chicago and commute 4 miles to work by bicycle every day year round. I have a car, but traffic is generally so bad that I much prefer to ride my bike. Last spring I was hit by the driver of a small sports car who seemed more focused on her telephone conversation then on watching traffic as she made a left hand turn. I was lucky that time, only minor injuries. Drivers need to realize that they are pushing a 2000 pound machine around our streets, often at great speeds. Drivers need to take responsibility, pay attention or get off the road. If you want to get things done on your way to work, take the train. "Hang up and Drive" -bumpersticker from Alderman Natarus' campaign to curb cell phone use while driving. Mark Counselman Chicago, IL



comment   In response to "check out the polls"   7/20/00 12:41:19 PM
mike   juskelis
Private Citizen

Refering to: Check out the Poll Responses

Yes, many of us checked that we don't use these devices. I think that because we do so doesn't make our input valid. Actually, I think it indicates that we are intelligent enough to realize that operating these devices in our moving vehicles increases the risks to ourselves, our passengers and those around us. Maybe this individual hasn't killed anyone (But then perhaps he has but was just oblivious of the fact being so focused on attending to his E-commerce on the phone or mobile Email or his laptop ... or whatever!) What about all the other users that have caused (knowingly or otherwise) accidents. We have to evaluate the situation generally ... not individually. With regards to the speed of E-commerce. If M chips were placed in ALL electronic equipment and ALL states prohibited the use of mobile electronic devices by a driver while a vehicle is in motion then ALL E-commerce will slow down equally ... not just this particular individual's. With regards to E-commerce being too fast to take the time to pull off of the highway: It probably takes about a minute to get to either shoulder of a busy interstate or multi-lane highway and probably not much more in a residential or commercial area. Perhaps while driving on a country road it might take 3 to 5 minutes to find a safe pull over.With the possible exception of the last case, I don't think you are losing a measurable amount of time to conduct your business. Finally, this writer is another one of those individuals that feel that whatever is convenient or best for him should not be regulated, regardless of its effects on others. All he has to do to see our side is to stay off of his devices and spend the day driving behind other users ... or perhaps have a collision or near miss with one of them.I am a fervent believer that my life and that of my loved ones is more important than anyones E-commerce. I've read several comments here. Some seem to soften the urgency of the situation by trying to direct our focus on eating, grooming, smoking and talking to passengers while driving as serious distractions. While I agree that these are indeed serious, there are two distinct differences between them and the electronic ones that are the primary focus of this forum. It's actually quite simple. The above distractions are not easily removed by legislation nor do I think that science can easily come up with a way to technologically eliminate them. Both modes of increasing our highway safety are easily at our finger tips when we refocus on electronic devices. Make the use of any electronic device by a driver while his vehicle is in motion a moving violation equal in severity to reckless driving (and possibly DUI in severe cases), phase out all current cell phones and replace them with ones having M chips. A quck word about manufacturers: I do think they possess a liability of not just ensurung the customer's comfort but their safety too. Mike in MD



comment   In response to "check out the polls" correction   7/20/00 12:43:35 PM
mike   juskelis
Private Citizen

Refering to: Check out the Poll Responses

Excuse me for the typo. valid should be invalid in my second sentence.



comment   Education not legislation   7/20/00 12:52:23 PM
Tom   Rhoades
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

First, I don't understand what any of this has to do with SUVs (pedestrian vs. SUV. Second Maryland is already one of the most repressive (and taxed) states in the union we really don't need anymore stupid and unenforceable laws. Proper training and education is always a better choice than legislation. One option is that if it is shown that an accident resulted from cell phone or other electronic use (fax ..cheez), it is automatically proof of guilt and thus responsibility.



comment   Distractions   7/20/00 1:02:56 PM
Tom   Rhoades
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell Phones vs: Loud Pipes

As a motorcycling commuter on the Baltimore Washington pkwy..I have seen drivers, eating, shaving, READING, reaching around to smack at a kid in the back seat, arguing with a front seat passenger (actually turned in the seat and facing them), putting on makeup, putting on pantyhose (this was interesting), tying a tie, and talking on the phone while holding a cup of coffee and a donut, and having oral sex and mutual masturbation sessions. Often most of these on any given day!! Actually I think cell phones is probably the most desirable of the distractions I see folks doing in their cars.



comment   or lack of perspective   7/20/00 1:18:58 PM
Tom   Rhoades
Private Citizen

Refering to: A motorcyclist's perspective.

As a commuting motorcyclist for well over 30 years I seldom have experienced any of the things described. Probably because I maintain a reasonable distance, don't cut people off, keep up with the flow of traffic and recognize that I am not in a car and it is up to me to be aware that folks may not see me, to try and position myself to be seen, and be prepared to yield the right of way to a errant driver. I can drive rapidly through traffic without raising the ire of the cage drivers, or experiencing close calls by using powers of observation, exercising courtesy, and never ever depending on the cage driver to see me and always to expect the most irrational act to be made. Most long time commuters learn to adapt and survive. If you are having a lot of close calls better check your attitude and skills.



comment   Cell Phone Drunks   7/20/00 2:19:48 PM
Winston   Williams
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

I have driven professionally for 20 years. It used to be, when I saw a disruption up the road, an hazardous eddy in the traffic, cars veering in avoidance and at the center of the maelstrom some vehicle blithely wandering the pavement at, say, 20 mph below a 65 mph speed limit ... used to be, my first thought was "drunk". And "drop back" and "stay clear". Today, I think "cell phone". (and I'm always right). But the real difference between then and now is that there are a hell of a lot more cell phones now than there ever were drunks back when! Now, I can not so easily "stay clear", because the cell phones are not only up ahead, but next to me and behind me, in vehicles with drivers who, even if capable of proceeding in an orderly fashion at the moment, are entirely incapable of responding quickly and safely to the obstruction ahead. In this way cell phones and laptops and all the rest of the office paraphernalia people (bizarrely) attempt to operate at the same time they operate, say, a 5 ton SUV at 75 miles per hour ... in this way, cell phones are more of a threat to my and to everyone else's safety on the road than the occasional 2:00am drunk ever was.



comment   The One and Only Responsibility   7/20/00 2:37:58 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

The bottom line is: Your one and only responsibility when you get behind the wheel of a car is to DRIVE SAFELY. This cannot be done while talking on the phone, putting on make-up/shaving,read a map or surfing the net. You cannot multi-task and drive safely



comment   Freedom   7/20/00 3:45:13 PM
Carlo   Krun
Private Citizen
I think that if i wanna make a phone call while i am driving then i should have that right. You people who dont want that are taking away my freedoms, you are also the same people that are trying to outlaw other freedoms. From the look of the way things are headed in this country we are gonna be a comunist country very soon if we dont get off our asses adn stop these people from taking our freedom away.


comment   Cell phone distraction   7/20/00 4:31:52 PM
Donald   McBride
Private Citizen
On a recent trip to Naples, Florida, I noticed a car following mine with a driver talking on a cell phone. His right arm was draped across the passenger seat and his left arm was holding the phone to his ear. I can only assume that he was steering (and rather poorly) with his knee! This was on/about 7/12/00. I have long been an opponent of people using cell phones while driving because, in my previous job, I commuted 45 miles each way per day, frequently on my motorcycle. In a one-month period, in Titusville, Fl, I had no fewer than 4 cell phone users try to drift from their lane into the one I was using. Thank goodness for the acceleration and manueverability of the bike!


comment   Pull over or get off the phone   7/20/00 4:40:49 PM
Patricia   Janes
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Agree totally! However, what about the use of cell phone type radios in the comercial rigs such as city transit busses, trucks & vans and 18 wheelers? The potential for death is magnified significantly due to their weight & size. How much training do the commercial drivers have in safe use of their radios? ANd why do they use hand held devices when hands free devices are available? What about public safety? Company libality? I was terminated after 18+ yrs employment due to an accident using a hand held radio device while on the job. I can't find a job that pays the same$. And my retirement is very adversly effected! Which of course, affects my "life style" in retirement, and now in the years until I'm able to retire. I was just doing my job according to my employers specifications!



comment   Pull over or get off the phone   7/20/00 4:59:26 PM
Patricia   Janes
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Cell Phones vs. Alcohol

I need the stastics/information/links for a grievance I am persuing on the use of cell phones while driving on the job. I was terminated as a result of an on the Job & on the radio accident. Any help getting my job reinstated would surely be appreciated!



comment    Judgement vice Device Regulation vice Design   7/20/00 5:04:12 PM
Richard   Wetjen
Private Citizen
You can't legislate compliance nor can you enforce a law or regulation requiring a driver to pay attention. This boils down to a judgement call (a commodity in short supply in many instances) by the driver regarding their ability and the conditions around them. There are certainly drivers who can talk (note talk, not touch) and drive in some circumstances. Others can barely drive period. Since you can't teach judgement, perhaps increased rigor in driver training is in order. Perhaps something like Germany where a far broader range of skills are taught and tested. The device design is the second component of potential distraction. It took years to get controls off the dash and onto the steering column in the U.S. This allowed drivers to operate key controls without removing their hands fromt the steering wheel. Why does it take 40 million cell phones before vehicle design catches up? Many European vehicles have integrated phone systems operated from the steering column stalks and by voice. Every vehicle manufactured or sold in the U.S. should have a truely hands free cellphone option. There needs to be some standard for this as well. Which stalk dials the phone, selects directory lists, how vox microphones connect to the phone, etc. Current hands free appliques are generally unsatisfactory as they require fiddling with the phone for one reason or another. Lastly, I have three wireless devices that ring constantly. Yet, I rarely talk and drive. Why is it that people feel that because the phone rings they have to answer? That's what caller id and voicemail are for. Mine is a time critical business that survives just fine until I can find a safe place to return the call.


comment   distraction - vacant drivers   7/20/00 5:10:10 PM
Patricia   Janes
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Vacant Drivers

Good definition of distraction! Distraction is a driver pre-occupied with the use of a cell phone or other device. I'm looking for info/stastics to use in a grievance re: cell phone use while driving. Your help would be appreciated.



comment   RE: Does anyone else remember the CB radio craze of the 70's   7/20/00 6:05:51 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Does anyone else remember the CB radio craze of the 70's?

This individual is so concerned about 'personal freedom' when it comes to phone use while driving. Well, what about the rights of others (the ones not fiddling with a phone) to get home or wherever safely and in one piece. That should take precedence over the selfishness of those who are addicted to using a phone while driving and then claim it isn't distracting.

I should know! Two years ago I was hit by another driver who was dialing a phone and became totally oblivious to the traffic stopped ahead at a red light. This driver slammed into the back of my car, knocking it into the traffic stopped in front of me, like a domino effect. Had he been drunk (or blindfolded), the resulting accident would have been no worse. Don't fool yourself! This is NOT dreamed up by insurance companies or a lawyer. As a result of that horrific accident, I had a life threateninng head injury, deep facial lacerations and shattered bones. (This driver was going at least 40 MPH into stopped traffic.) At the age of 37, I had to have a total shoulder replacement in my right arm. Two years later I still undergo physical therapy for that. I've had 5 ear surgeries to repair bones in both ears and a hole in one eardrum, etc. I also had to have facial surgery to repair a shattered cheek bone. I didn't dream all this up!!! This has become my reality - a nightmare I can't wake up from.

Obviously, for some thoughtless people, using a wireless phone has become an addiction to the point where they can't wait to get off the road or pull over to call someone. Then it is the innocent victims that pay for it.



comment   Risk may be reduced but not eliminated   7/20/00 6:23:10 PM
Eddy   Llaneras (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Does safety improve with voice activated, hands-free technologies?

Good Question. Check out the opinion posted by Francis Bents on the "Ask the Experts" page. Hands-free may eliminate some dangers, but not all risks associated with talking on a cell phone. As stated by NHTSA's deputy administrator in her July 18th address, "hands-free is not risk-free." Indeed, making the phone easier to use or buying into the belief that hands-free may be safe to use, may lead more drivers to use cell phones while driving thereby increasing overall exposure. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Francis Bentz, crash data are simply lacking.



Ask the Expert   Would not the universal application of speech recognition technology allow the safe dialing of numbers via cell phone while driving?   7/21/00 7:24:35 AM
John   Lee
Short answer: Speech recognition technology could greatly reduce, but not completely eliminate, distractions that may make dialing a telephone while driving unsafe. Universal application of speech recognition technology may even have the counter-intuitive effect of degrading overall driving safety by encouraging more people to place calls while driving.

Long answer: Speech recognition would reduce the manual and visual distractions associated with dialing a cellular telephone. It would allow drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road; however, it would not eliminate the cognitive distractions. Telephone conversations with hands-free phones demand driver attention, particularly complex conversations. Similarly, interacting with a speech-based operating system can increase driver reaction times to roadway events. Because the commands to dial a phone are not complicated the cognitive distractions might be minimal, but speech-recognition in an automotive environment may be prone to errors and recovering from these errors could draw drivers attention away from the road. In addition, even a perfect speech recognition system might distract drivers if the dialog structure is not well-designed. A poorly designed dialing system could lead the driver to make errors and recovering from these errors could pose a cognitive distraction.

Other considerations (an even longer answer): The question implies that if the distractions associated with dialing a telephone were eliminated then the use of a cellular telephone while driving would be safe or at least appreciably safer than using a standard cellular telephone while driving. Completely eliminating the distractions associated with dialing might not affect the overall safety consequences of using a cellular telephone. Several studies suggest that the primary distraction associated with cellular telephones is the conversation and not the dialing.

Because speech recognition technology makes cellular telephone use SEEM much less distracting than manually pushing the buttons, it may encourage people to make calls that they wouldn't otherwise make. This would lead to more telephone calls and increase the total potential for distraction, even though the speech recognition technology might reduce the distraction associated with placing each call.

Thinking beyond the ability of speech recognition technology to dial the number, developers may take advantage of this technology and introduce a range of features that could be substantially more distracting. With speech recognition, it would be possible to allow the driver to search for numbers using an electronic "yellow pages". It would also be possible to allow drivers to search through electronic business cards to find a number. These features might encourage drivers to do things they would be unlikely to do (hopefully) with a standard cellular telephone, but that could be very distracting even with speech recognition.

Speech recognition technology may slightly decrease the overall distraction associated with cellular telephones by making dialing the telephone less distracting, but it may also encourage drivers to place more calls and may lead to new functionality that could be quite distracting. Unless properly implemented speech-recognition technology may have the counter-intuitive effect of increasing driver distraction and degrading driving safety.



comment   MOTORCYCLES!!!   7/21/00 9:59:50 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Cell phone users appear to be less focused on the surrounding environment. I am a motorcycle rider who rides an average of 500 miles per week for the commute to and from work. Cell phone users, while operating their vehicles, are one of the greatest dangers to me. I keep an eye peeled for drivers in my vincinity on the road using cell phones due to the unpredictable way they drive while communicating. Their thoughts are NOT on the ROAD and observation of other traffic around them. Erratic is the best word to describe their driving performance whle on the phone. I don't know about pulling over and stopping, but how about right-hand lane only for folks on the phone???



comment   Freedom?   7/21/00 11:56:54 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Freedom

Is that the sort of freedom where you're free to take my life? And for what higher purpose? So you can shoot the shit with with your sweety pie about what's selling at the Gap? Jesus, Man. Thinking like yours makes everyone's (including your own) freedom impossible.



comment   That's because it's not a law yet.   7/21/00 12:09:29 PM
Randall   Johnson
Government

Refering to: Police talk on the phone while they drive around on duty!

If and when it becomes a federal or state law, the police WILL NOT be talking on the phone while driving around. There is NO double standard for police anywhere in the USA. They are required to set the example by abiding to all laws. Police enforce the laws. They're not exempt from them. If you do see a police officer doing that in a location where the law is in effect, please get the vehicle license plate (or tag) number and report it to the NHTSA, the Police Department Internal Affairs, or an organization who can investigate the incident. We all have to do our part to keep the world safe for our children.



comment   Re: Freedom?   7/21/00 12:17:36 PM
Charles   Indelicato
Private Citizen

Refering to: Freedom?

Is that the sort of freedom where you're free to take my life? And for what higher purpose? So you can shoot the shit with with your sweety pie about what's selling at the Gap? Jesus, Man. Thinking like yours makes everyone's (including your own) freedom impossible.

No one is saying anyone is free to take another's life. Anyone who professes that to be the point of view of people who are against cell-phone legislation is spouting so much pablum.  Fact: there are laws on the books against reckless driving.  Fact: reckless driving laws have been around for decades.  Fact: reckless drivers exist today, despite those same laws.   What is the point of passing meaningless legislation targeting one form of recklessness?  Why don't we enforce the current reckless driving laws already on the books?

I say if a person drives recklessly - be it steering with knees, applying makeup, eating, drinking, reading (be it a book, a map, or the NYTimes), smoking, fiddling with the radio, drying nail polish, slapping their kids, kissing their mate (or pet) OR talking on their cell phone - they should be punnished to the full extent the existing laws permit.  If you want to talk about stiffening the penalties for reckless driving (I've heard in some localities the penalties are $15), let's debate that.  But to write laws SPECIFCIALLY targeting cell phones is nonsense!  Every thing I listed above can cause a driver to be reckless.

And don't get me started about a FEDERAL law.  Let the states govern themselves.  There's already too many rights and freedoms (of LIFE and LIBERTY) that we have ceeded without a fight to our government.




comment   Draconian Inforcement   7/21/00 1:33:40 PM
Richard   Wetjen
Private Citizen
There are two large communities in this area that have inacted laws banning talking on cell phones when driving. After the law was on the books for about a year, I asked a traffic enforcement officer from one of them how many citations he knew of in that year for cell talking infractions not related to collisions. Answer, NONE! There were just too many other more serious things occupying their time. So what to do if you can't enforce a no distraction ordinance? How about suspending licences for more than x collisions or moving violations in x time. You fill in the x's. This raises a second point. I had the opportunity to talk to the lead traffic enforcement officer from my own community some months ago. He indicated that an incredible 45% of all traffic stops involve drivers with suspended, revoked or NO licence. I asked if the vehicles were impounded (state has a law authorizing localities to pass legislation to do so). Answer, NO, city hasn't yet inacted the ordinance (3 years). Don't blame the devices for the distracted drivers. Draconian enforcement of laws to get bad drivers off the road would go miles to improving our lot. Maybe one collision is bad luck, more is bad driving - hang'em. Suspend licences and impound (read CONFISCATE) vehicles for those who ignore. The only way I see to fix this is to hit them where it hurts.


comment   Cell phones are dangerous and should be banned while driving!   7/21/00 2:35:02 PM
I was stopped at a red light one night after just leaving work. It was still light outside and the weather conditions were clear. The light turned green for me. I looked to my left before proceeding and I saw a large utility vehicle coming toward the intersection. The vehicle was not slowing down at all. The speed limit on the road was 40 mph. I continued to watch this vehicle as the driver sped through the red light. He was talking on a cell phone and was obviously oblivious to the fact that he had just gone through a red light. If I had not waited after the light turned green, there is little doubt in my mind that I would have been killed or very seriously injured by the other vehicle. I was fortunate. Many others have not been as fortunate. The use of all cell phones while driving should be banned nationwide! The issue is not about driver education. It is just not possible to talk on a phone and NOT be distracted from driving. How many more deaths and injuries will it take before something is done?


comment   RE:Cell phones are dangerous and should be banned while driving!   7/21/00 6:17:42 PM
Richard   Wetjen
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell phones are dangerous and should be banned while driving!

Just curious, but what did the cell phone have to do with it? A counter example, I'm stopped for at least 10 seconds in the right lane (1 other lane in same direction.) A driver totally oblivious to the light comes up from behind without slowing down a bit blasts through the light. No cell phone, looking straight ahead but apparently not paying attention and didn't see the light. Wonder if the driver even noticed that I was there stopped. The driver of the pickup truck entering the intersection from my right was fumbling with a cell phone and didn't move out when the light changed. Fortunate, a 50mph broadside would have been ugly. If this was an isolated incident I'd keep my mouth shut but it's not. Distraction has nothing to do with the device, just bad habits.



comment   RE:Cell phones are dangerous and should be banned while driving!   7/21/00 6:18:20 PM
Richard   Wetjen
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell phones are dangerous and should be banned while driving!

Just curious, but what did the cell phone have to do with it? A counter example, I'm stopped at a red light for at least 10 seconds in the right lane (1 other lane in same direction.) A driver totally oblivious to the light comes up from behind without slowing down a bit blasts through the light. No cell phone, looking straight ahead but apparently not paying attention and didn't see the light. Wonder if the driver even noticed that I was there stopped. The driver of the pickup truck entering the intersection from my right was fumbling with a cell phone and didn't move out when the light changed. Fortunate, a 50mph broadside would have been ugly. If this was an isolated incident I'd keep my mouth shut but it's not. Distraction has nothing to do with the device, just bad habits.



comment   High School Girl Killed By Drunken Stoned Driver Distracted By Cell Phone   7/21/00 7:28:42 PM
Mary   Weinstein
Government

Refering to: Cell Phones vs. Alcohol

In the community where I live, a beautiful, gifted, 16 year old girl was killed as she rollerbladed on a bicycle path towards her home. Another teenage girl, a 17 year old speeding on the road, in a hurry to get home before her parents left on an out of town trip, so she could get money from them, attempted to dial her cell phone. Distracted, she lost control of the car, which fishtailed, and ran off the road into a tree, pinning the rollerblading teenager between the tree and car, killing her instantly. Blood alcohol levels on the driver were determined to be at 0.09 (legal limit 0.08, and 0.03 in a teenager in Florida), and it was determined that this girl had also smoked marijuana.In sworn testimony statements from other teenagers, schoolmates who had been with this driver prior to the accident,they said that this driver had drunk between 8 and 12 shots of tequila, and smoked about 6 marijuana joints in the 3 hours before the accident. In this tragic case, it's hard to tell which of the factors, alcohol, drugs, or distraction by cell phone useage plays the major role in the events which led to the death of a beautiful teenage girl. Certainly the combination is additive. Personally, I feel as though cell phone useage should be curtailed by individuals behind the wheel. There is no business, or even emergency that is great enough to warrant the hazardous driving which lead to tragdies such as this one. One can pull of the road for a minute to make an urgent phone call, and the nonurgent ones can wait. Most of the other phone calls are drivel anyway.



comment   Cell Phone Distrations   7/21/00 8:33:39 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
The only SAFE driver is one who drives DEFENSIVELY at all times. And that is totally impossible when one talks on a cell phone while trying to drive. I used to drive and talk on a cell phone, until I noticed that others I have seen doing it never seem to be totally in control of their driving. My wife also has a cell phone in her car, but we now use them for emergencies only. Since both of them have caller ID, we can see at a glance who is calling us. If deemed important, when safe we pull off the road and return the call. We do not answer incoming calls. My mind is still not made up regarding the use of no-hands cell phones. But getting all cell phone users to agree not to use their hand-held cell phones would never work on a voluntary basis because in part most cell phone users think they CAN safely drive and talk at the same time. My sister-in-law is one of them. Even today she continues to say she can talk on the phone and drive safely. Several months ago my wife and her older sister were in the car being driven by the sister who thinks she can talk and drive at the same time. Her phone rang, she answered it, and within 1/2 mile, she managed to run off the road twice. Her oldest sister pulled the phone plug out and yelled at her to pull the car over, that one of the others would drive because it was obvious she could not drive and talk at the same time. To this day, neither of the other sisters will ride in the car with this nut if she has the phone in the passenger compartment. I have yet to observe one person who is on a cell phone drive with the diligence that is required on today's streets and highways. Just today, a driver in an SUV turned in front of me, without a signal, causing me to jam the brakes so hard the anti-locks came on. This driver did not even look at me, he was that engrossed in his ever so important phone call. This example alone demonstrates why driving while using a hand held cell phone should be illegal: With one hand on the wheel, the other holding the cell phone, how can a driver obey the law and use their turn signals? Another time I was stopped in traffic when I glanced in my rear mirror and noticed a car with a women on a cell phone who was not looking down at something on her seat. I laid on the horn, much to the consternation of the driver in front of me, but at least Ms. Too-Busy did not rear end me and push me into the car in front of me. If these people are so danged important that they must be on the phone, then they need to stay in the office, at home, or hire a chauffeur. Personally, I do not think anyone is that important. The ONLY time I think it is permissible to use a hand-held cell phone is to call 911 or the police to report unsafe driving conditions or an accident (both of which will most likely involve a driver using a cell phone). Otherwise, there should be a state and/or federal law against the use of hand-held cell phones. Such a law should also apply to the use of computers while driving. How on earth could anyone even think they could drive and use a computer, either safely, at the same time?


comment   DISTRACTION: Failure To Concentrate And/Or Failure To Be Responsible.   7/21/00 9:48:17 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Government

Refering to: Cell Phone Distrations

I have to agree with the overwhelming response to the people who try to talk on the cell phone and forget they are travelling at a high rate of speed. A cell phone, a moving automobile, a complex conversation, and the key ingredient...an irresponsible driver, make for the perfect recipe for an accident. I can emphasize enough on the last ingredient, the irresponsible driver. People have grown accustom to being immersed into their conversations on the phone. If they allow themselves to, they will begin to remove themselves from their present surroundings; driving the car. More effort should be applied to driving than to the conversation. It can be done. I work for the Calif. Dept of Transportation and I must use a cell phone as I perform my duties on the highways. Yes, there are times when I am at full speed but to slow to the shoulder and resume after the conversation is finished would expose both myself and other drivers to potential risks that otherwise would not exist. We also use an 800 mhz radio simular to the type law enforcement uses in their vehicles. This also requires one hand on the microphone and another on the wheel. Should we ask all state highway workers and all law enforcement to stop to handle the call? I think you can see how ludicrous this would be. It all comes down to the individual. They must be an alert and active driver on the road. I didn't say I have an answer, but to disallow cell phone use on the highway to prevent accidents is like going back to the days of prohibition and making alchol illegal to prevent alcholism. The ultimate reason is in the responsibility of the individual driver. Lets not make another law to take the place of being responsibile adults. Don't do it if you can't-know your limitations.



comment   Police talk on the phone while they drive    7/21/00 10:35:33 PM

Refering to: Police talk on the phone while they drive around on duty!

I am totally opposed to the use of cell phones or any type of electronic distraction being used by a driver while driving but the police are excluded or exempt from my wrath because their calls are very probably non-frivolous (life or welfare endangerment) and the police have usually passed a rigid driver training course (if your police have not, why not?) I don't particularly like the argument that person B should be allowed to perform some activity because person A performs that activity. I could probably list hundreds of legal activities which I would be prevented from doing and most citizens would argue that I should not be allowed to do. As many of these activities would involve my death or injury or someone else's, I being of somewhat sound mind also do not want to pursue those activities.



comment   get a life.    7/22/00 11:51:42 AM
Ted   Walker
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Get over yourselves - Take Responsibility!

You folks need to get a life. Bad drivers are bad drivers. It is idiotic to blame to tool. But the same ones blame the guns and not the bad behavior. All we need is another reason for law enforcement to avoid chasing real criminals. If you cause an accident, whether incompetant, distracted or stupid, pay the price. It is the failure of our society to establish right from wrong that has put us here now. The liberalization of our country has changed to the socialization of our country to the infinite wisdom of those who bark is best for all. I'm fed up with it - them - it all. Signed, one tired Democrat



comment   re: Cell Phone Distractions!   7/22/00 12:48:36 PM
Mary   Weinstein
Government

Refering to: Cell Phone Distrations

I have to agree with what you have said in your post. A couple of observations there stand out. One is that most people who engage in extensive cell phone use while driving, and drive so carelessly, oblivious to the other drivers and driving conditions around them, say that THEY are good drivers and can handle both driving and talking on the phone. That's part of their being oblivious, they have no clue as to their contributions to an accident/unsafe driving condition/traffic violations. They don't know how many lights they've run, pedestrians who've scattered to avoid being run down, other drivers who've had to take evasive action to avoid being statistics, thanks to these cell-phone addicts who are driving while making those all important phone calls. From my observations of cell phone callers in other places, such as stores, restaurants, movie theaters, and concert halls, most of the phone calls made from cell calls are of a trivial nature,( the people making these calls are generally loud enough to be heard by folks around them!). There is generally no reason why a driver can't pull over to make a phone call. They talk on the phone while they drive because they can! The other point in your post,that stands out, is that driving conditions on today's roads requires that drivers practice constant defensive, undistracted driving. The roads are crowded, there are many lousy, don't-give-a-damn drivers out there who routinely disregard traffic laws, and who make sudden, unpredictable maneuvers, endangering everyone around them. So responsible drivers must constantly be on the lookout, and be instantly ready to take evasive action at any time to avoid becoming another driving statistic. One can't do this if he/she is even momentarily distracted by a cell phone conversation. The thought of having computer capability, on or off-line, as one is driving, is nothing short of terrifying, due to its potential to cause even more distraction to drivers who would use this technology as they speed down the highways, or maneuver through traffic.



comment   Rather save a life!   7/22/00 1:02:44 PM

Refering to: get a life.

I don't like the Govt. getting into any more areas than you do. This is a serious issue though. I commute over 100 miles a day and cannot use the major highways between my home and work because of the congestion on them. The vast majority of cell phone users that I encounter on the road simply aren't aware that they are slowing down then speeding up, or taking 4 miles to ease back and forth beside the car they could have passed with in a half mile. These rude drivers get beligerant if you try to wake them up. (don't flash your'e lights even if it is the universal sign to PLEASE let me by) This self centered attitude that they OWN the road is a contributing factor to road rage also. Just stick 2 or 3 of these bad drivers together and you will effectively slow traffic to a relative crawl. Let's get realistic, aside from the fact that they can kill you or get you killed, they are a leading cause of traffic slow downs. This simply means we now need more roads to handle the volume of slower, more hazardous traffic. IE more highway taxes are coming. This will either be regulated by law or by the victims law suits. The former makes the most sense.



comment   Amen to Ted!   7/22/00 2:18:52 PM
Christopher   Mursheno
Private Citizen

Refering to: get a life.

This gentleman has hit the nail right on the head. What is at issue here is something more profound. I've been waiting for a forum such as this to air out my frustration with people in general. It is something called consideration. It is evident on the road, while driving, shopping, in the work place, while dining out, at the movies and the list goes on. There is a general lack of compassion and or courtesy as people are so ignorant of other people that even if you did call an end to using cell phones while driving, there would probably be civil law suits galore. This in conjunction with the fact that people are unskilled, ignorant, stupid, thoughtless drivers just adds fuel to the fire. Some gleeming examples are basic rules of the road. I've witnessed people who want to get ahead of others so zealously that they run through stop signs , dodge red lights and if they're making a turn, they'll cut in front of another driver when a traffic light may be red just because they're in a hurry. I've seen people stop in front of traffic on major arteries just to ask directions, rather than pulling to a side street or a shoulder to let traffic through. I've seen people eating, reading the paper or a map while driving. Another such example is in front of where my mother works. An 84-year-old man, who shouldn't by his own children's estimation be driving, ran into an on-coming car with a grandmother, her daughter and her granddaughter, killing the grandmother and injuring the other 2! After the incident, this louse wasn't even remorseful. In lines at the store, the theater or anywhere, people always have to get theirs first. Our youth has inherited the disrespectful and defiant attitudes common to this way of life. Furthermore, adding insult to injury is the fact that it seems as though the same media that glorifies unadulterated violence and sex, portrays these and pagers as "chic/cool". Implying that if someone is calling you somewhere in public, that you're a person in high demand or of importance. What is so very important that you couldn't say it in your home, but rather you have to risk another life or lives while driving because your a rude driver thinking of your image or were too lazy or stupid to pick up your home phone and make the call? The only use for these devices would be if the driver pulled to the side of the road and made a call or if a young person was being followed or stalked and desperately had to make a call to notify the police. These are good for walking around and talking and not being restricted by a cord. Although studies may not be all inclusive, some researchers have associated the amount of radiation that these devices emit to certain types of brain tumors. That to me would discourage me from using one. But why would common sense enter into this society's way of thinking? We live in an age where the family structure has broken down, politeness and morals are non-existent, the education for which a lot of people vehemently fight to earn money is a disgrace. A good deal of the executives in a lot of the major corporations who are uneducated are allowed to use their power to intimidate, sexually harass, not pull their weight at their jobs while being able to get away with it and are constantly promoted. Thus, if you want to call an end to the car phone troubles, try starting by getting back to the basics, the root of the problem first. Let's start by throwing away the "Baby on Board" signs which self-centered people think gives them the right to drive like morons. Re-educating people on the rules of the road. Start glorifying politeness and morals and compassion instead of violence and responsibility free, self-oriented behavior. Have people take some accountability for their actions. Revisit the "family that plays together stays together". I don't live in a dreamworld, these are basically easy concepts to practice and embrace, IF people want to. I don't know where we lost them?



comment   Distracted drivers do kill pedestrians   7/22/00 8:33:51 PM

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

I echo this comment from Bellevue, WA. From newspapers: In the past year, I have noticed three deaths of pedestrians ran over by cars (all SUVs, incidentally) in the Eastside Journal (local paper). I don't read it every day, and it isn't the largest newspaper by any means, so who knows how many I've missed. Drivers were distracted twice by phone conversations, once by another event (a stray dog on another sidewalk). Personal experience: I bike and walk a lot. A car stopped at a STOP sign suddenly started while I was crossing in front of it and hit my bike - the driver was speaking on a cell phone. In addition, I see cars almost running into pedestrians as they turn right at the intersection closest to my home - drivers look left for traffic, but don't think of looking right. A cell phone would be another distraction.



comment   re: get a life   7/22/00 8:34:35 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: get a life.

If it's an issue between your personal freedom to do as you like including endangering others by driving and using a cellphone and public safety, I will take the side of public safety and lobby my representitives in government to put restrictions on the way cellphones are used.



comment   re: freedom   7/22/00 8:51:57 PM
Ralph   Wills
Private Citizen

Refering to: Freedom

If It's a choice between your "freedom" to use the phone endangering other drivers and public safety, I'm for public safety. Bring on the cell phone laws. I have had too many close calls with people like you putting your "right" to drive and using your cellphones.



comment   re:Cell Phones - What's more important?   7/22/00 9:05:30 PM
Ralph   Wills
Private Citizen

Refering to: In response to "check out the polls"

What's more important? E-commerce or public safety? I hope none of your children falls victim to a driver on a cellphone using it in the name of E-commerce.



comment   Remember Why the Car was Invented?   7/22/00 9:26:41 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: re:Cell Phones - What's more important?

The purpose of the automobile was to get us from point A to point B. With the use of cell phones, e-mail in these vechicles, this is not what the automobile was intended for. Remember those auto school films that showed us that we should not be doing while driving? putting on makeup or tring to read the newspaper. Well, I guess that we will be seeing "not to be using your cell phone while driving" in the next installment of those training films!! The bottom line is simply this, you can't drink and drive, you can't have road rage, and now lets add you can't be using a cell phone while driving. There are more and more cars entering our roads every year and in this economy, the drivers ages are getting younger and they are the first to be subceptable to the use of the new technology. Tell me, when is the government going to say enough is enough already? When they start making cars that can serve you breakfest as you are driving to work? Everybody has heard this expression, "There is a place for everything, and everything has it's place." I'm sorry Sprint and the likes, but your technology does not belong in a moving vehicle. A drivers' obligation is to pay attention to the road and to their surroundings. Cell phones, e-mail, maps, are distractions that can take a human life.



comment   Cell Phones and Computers   7/22/00 10:30:03 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I believe that cell phones should NOT be used while driving. If laws are passed to cover use of cell phones and computers in cars, what about the many police departments that use on-board computers? If not, how can they write tickets to the public for useing them???????


comment   Good Points but...   7/23/00 11:11:17 AM

Refering to: Draconian Inforcement

You do make a good point that laws are not enforced that are already on the books. There is a definite problem in our country with people who have the attitude that those laws are for other people not them. This problem goes clear to the top Govt. officials. They are very sorry examples of "citizens". The idea of giving these people the power to steal personal property under the guise of punishment is a power they're sure to abuse, just like they now do on drug confiscations. Innocent or guilty you lose both ways. The honest citizens will abide by the cell phone laws if passed and the spoiled prima donna's won't. So what is the answer? Pass the ban on their use while driving and at least give their victims some teeth in court to recoup some of the damages when one of these self centered cell phone user kills their family. At least this way the victim can get something instead of the govt. getting it all. If they don't care whether thay kill someone or not they deserve to be cleaned out in court. Maybe when a few of them lose everything they've got because they didn't care if they killed someone, maybe then they'll get their priorities straight.



comment   You're right, to a degree...   7/23/00 11:57:03 AM

Refering to: Re: Freedom?

I certainly wouldn't argue with the fact that there are already people driving hazardously. Reading, curling their hair, applying makeup etc. are all very hazardous activities to be doing while driving. Those people should be pulled over and cited. To me it is not a much a question of how they drive hazardous as much as it is how many of them are doing it. This use of cell phones while driving has taken normally sensible drivers and lured them over into the unaware driver category. Most of them are adamant that their driving hasn't changed. IT HAS. Unfortunately this is not a few isolated incidents but hundreds of thousands if not millions of occurences of driving while on the phone everyday. This is driving the odds of being hit by one of these vacant drivers from remote chance at best to you'll be lucky if they don't nail you sooner or later. That is the real threat. Millions of normally sensible drivers being deluded into thinking that they aren't a hazard on the roads. THEY ARE. I think that anything we can do to reduce these sky rocketing odds we should do. I remember when I was young drinking and driving was no big deal and people were slaughtered by the thousands every month for years before people really became aware of (or admitted) the danger. We need to wake up people to the hazard of phone calls while driving BEFORE they kill off even more than the drunks do. Unfortunately due to the delusions that these vacant drivers cling to, it will probably take a law specifically against cell phone use while dring to wake them up. We know there's a problem. It's gotten out of hand. We need to stop it and save lives. Pass the Law.



comment   Your'e missing the point   7/23/00 1:38:49 PM

Refering to: Let's focus on practical solutions.

The problem of lack of concentration while using cell phones cannot be solved by any number of "hands free" gadgets. While fumbling around to dial a number is dangerous, as you observed, it is an obvious danger. The real problem lies in the insidious split concentration to address convesations on phones. As you mentioned, there are also conversations between passengers in cars but the effect is not the same. For one the passenger is IN the vehicle with you and usually has a vested interest in NOT distracting you too much. If the driving situation gets busy or requires a more focussed driving state the passenger is right there seeing that also, and conversation tends to slow down or stop to allow more focus on the driving situation. This is NOT the case on cell phones. The person on the other end has no idea where you are or how hazardous the traffic situation may be. They continue their conversation as though you were right in the room with them regardless of the changing driving situation. This demands your concentration to stay on the phone call. You are faced with either lulls in your driving while you address the questions on the phone or lulls in the conversation while you try to stay on top of that moron changing lanes, tailgaiting, slowing down, merging etc. It is this lapse of focus that gives the cell phone driver that "vacant" look in their eyes. You can be looking right at them and they appear to be looking at you when the pull right out in front of you or nearly hit you by changing lanes right into your obviously occupied spot. The startled look in their eyes when you blast your horn to get their attention says clearly "where did you come from?". They weren't there mentally. No amount of "hands free" technology can solve the problem of vacant drivers. We need a ban on use of these phones while driving.



comment   Your'e missing the point   7/23/00 1:41:21 PM

Refering to: Let's focus on practical solutions.

The problem of lack of concentration while using cell phones cannot be solved by any number of "hands free" gadgets. While fumbling around to dial a number is dangerous, as you observed, it is an obvious danger. The real problem lies in the insidious split concentration to address convesations on phones. As you mentioned, there are also conversations between passengers in cars but the effect is not the same. For one the passenger is IN the vehicle with you and usually has a vested interest in NOT distracting you too much. If the driving situation gets busy or requires a more focussed driving state the passenger is right there seeing that also, and conversation tends to slow down or stop to allow more focus on the driving situation. This is NOT the case on cell phones. The person on the other end has no idea where you are or how hazardous the traffic situation may be. They continue their conversation as though you were right in the room with them regardless of the changing driving situation. This demands your concentration to stay on the phone call. You are faced with either lulls in your driving while you address the questions on the phone or lulls in the conversation while you try to stay on top of that moron changing lanes, tailgaiting, slowing down, merging etc. It is this lapse of focus that gives the cell phone driver that "vacant" look in their eyes. You can be looking right at them and they appear to be looking at you when the pull right out in front of you or nearly hit you by changing lanes right into your obviously occupied spot. The startled look in their eyes when you blast your horn to get their attention says clearly "where did you come from?". They weren't there mentally. No amount of "hands free" technology can solve the problem of vacant drivers. We need a ban on use of these phones while driving.



comment   Don't need a new law; the problem is with the drivers!   7/23/00 6:38:08 PM
Andy   Moore
Private Citizen
First, kudos to NHTSA for having this forum. I've seen some good points made here; I expected the usual pointless bickering common to internet "discussions," but this has been somewhat interesting. I came to this site ready to join the call for regulation of cell phone use in cars, but now I've changed my mind. I think the real problems are (a) poor drivers in general (inadequate training and testing); (b) distracted drivers (make-up, eating, reading, etc.); (c) aggressive drivers; and most of all, (d) SPEEDERS!! Has anyone noticed that over the last decade the average speed of drivers has crept up steadily? It used to be just a minority of jerks, but now the vast majority of people behind the wheel regularly clip along at well over (+10, +15 mph) the speed limit. We all tend to get swept up in this suicidal race. Here's a wild idea -- instead of trying to pass yet another law, let's give law enforcement officers the resources to better enforce the basic laws on the books now. Together with better driver education and tougher license testing requirements, this would be far more effective at making our streets safe.


comment   Short Sighted   7/24/00 6:29:40 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Government

Refering to: The ads in magazines alone are frightening

This comment is ridiculous. I see as many men as women on the roads with phone in hand jabbering away. We all do distracting things while on the road - the nature of the distraction may vary between genders - but it is short sighted and sexist to blame driver distraction on women.



Ask the Expert   Where are all the crashes? (see detailed question below)   7/24/00 7:19:12 AM
Michael   Goodman

Q. Figures that mobile phone use in cars involves a four-fold increase in crash risk are now commonly quoted. If this is true, where are all the crashes? There has been a massive increase in cell phone use in automobiles, but has there been a concomitant increase in crash rates?

A. The estimates to which you refer were made in an epidemiological study by a researcher at the University of Toronto. This study was able to examine crashes in detail, and by obtaining cell phone records, was able to draw an "association" between the use of the cell phone and the crash. While causality could not be established by this approach, the relationships were strong and was the basis for establishing the increase in crash risk for both hand-held and hands-free phones. Note also that the lack of crash data does not mean there is not a problem. The data does not exist because it is not collected by the state authorities. This situation may soon change as the various jurisdictions examine the issue more closely. You should also note that other research has consistently shown the relationship between wireless phone use and a deterioration in safety relevant driving performance. I would suggest that you read some of the research papers that are included on the web site.



comment   What distraction to ban !   7/24/00 9:57:33 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: Short Sighted

Women SHOULD NOT be blamed (as the last commentor wrote) MEN are equally to blame for distractions. What distractions are to be banned ? All take out fast food - the quick lunch. The makeup applying, the shaving while enroute to work ? The men and women watching as you run into the curb ? lighting a smoke ? picking up the dropped " binky " for your child ? Freedom of speech ? Freedom of expression ? Americans simply need to SLOW down and not be in such a hurry !! BMW has incorporated their cellphone into the car radio as other automakers have attempted. Folks have been after cell phone use since they became popular - anyone remember " you're going to get cancer from the antenna ? " Go ahead - govenment - take away another FREEDOM - but as you pass these laws remember - government for the people by the people - not just a few that set in congressional / senate seats. Oh, too, when the police officer writes the ticket - ask him if he was distracted by his in-car-computer or talking to his dispatcher on his hand-held-microphone- communication device as all your information came to him as he was following you before he stopped you. Technology - what price are we to pay ? More laws are not the answer. More common sense is !!!



comment   Governing the masses   7/24/00 12:35:18 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: What distraction to ban !

It is the governments job to make sure that we don't hurt ourselves. If accidents are caused by cell phones at a rate that is more than just 'noise' then you shouldn't be allowed to use a cell phone when driving. Driving is dangerous and we should all do what we should to protect ourselves and our fellow driver. If that has to be done by the government telling us 'you can not do anything other than concentrate on the road and drive in a safe manner when operating your vehicle', it has to be done. It is unfortunate that we can not govern ourselves and have to let situations like this become a major issue. Common sense is something that is highly touted and said to be the cure all, but most people don't have enough of it. Think of laws and regulations as common sense for people that don't have any.



comment   All drivers (including myself) are distracted when talking on a cell phone   7/24/00 2:13:42 PM
Ami   Lynch
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

There are many who say that there is no difference from talking to a person in a car and talking on a cell phone while in a car. I disagree. I have witnessed too many distracted drivers nearly causing accidents as well as felt the lessened awareness while I am talking on a phone to think that driving and talking on a cell phone is safe, or that it depends on the driver. If I saw only a handful I would say that my evidence is merely annecdotal but the prevelance of the problem is uncanny.



comment   All drivers (including myself) are distracted when talking on a cell phone   7/24/00 2:13:47 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

There are many who say that there is no difference from talking to a person in a car and talking on a cell phone while in a car. I disagree. I have witnessed too many distracted drivers nearly causing accidents as well as felt the lessened awareness while I am talking on a phone to think that driving and talking on a cell phone is safe, or that it depends on the driver. If I saw only a handful I would say that my evidence is merely annecdotal but the prevelance of the problem is uncanny.



comment   I was a victim of cell phone use in car   7/24/00 2:15:32 PM
As the victim of an accident partly caused by a cell phone user - I say ban cell phones of *any kind*. I have a cell phone and I pull off the road or next exit when I use it.


comment   Should be made illegal!!!   7/24/00 5:39:58 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: DRIVING IS A FULL TIME JOB!!!!

The mere possession of a cell phone in a motor vehicle should be made against the law, punishable by confiscation of the phone, a $1000.00 find and/or at least 1 year in prison (more if you cause an accident while using your phone.) What conversation is so important that you can't wait until you can get to a pay phone? Would you rather hurt or kill someone just because you can't wait the extra 2-3 minutes to tell your wife that your on your way home? It's bad enough to have the drunks out on the road, and according to recent studies, people using their cell phones pay just as much attention to the road as the drunks. I guess that kind of puts you in the same category as the drunk driver doesn't it?



comment   RE: What distraction to ban   7/25/00 10:17:13 AM

Refering to: What distraction to ban !

First of all I totally agree that this is not an issue of one sex or the other being worse offenders. Actually I, as a man, find that men are far worse offenders when on cell phones than women. Maybe this is because women have a generally better ability to multi-task. However all of that aside, this issue seems to be going the way of smoking in public buildings, restaraunts, public transportation etc. Remember before all of those places got regulated there were a FEW smokers that were on the soapbox about their rights to smoke where ever they want to regardless of whether it was respectful of other peoples rights or not. They saw it as "what problem?" and the few ruined it for the many. I have a RIGHT to expect anyone behind the wheeel of a moving vehicle capable of KILLING me or others to be fully focussed on what they are doing. Period. That's my right. Anything that conflicts with that basic right is not a right but a priveledge. Now if you decide to conduct yourself in a dangerous manner by being distracted instead of focussed you will put that conflicting priveledge in jeopardy. That is your choice. Like smoking, when enough people get fed up with their basic right being trampled by other peoples "privledges" those priveledges will be regulated/banned. Period. End of story. How many times do you think drivers who are paying attention are going to keep quiet about drivers using cell phones when they see them blasting through stop signs/lights, forcing people out of their lane, rear ending them, running over pedestrians/bicyclist/motorcycle drivers etc. Do you really think that is going to be allowed to continue? My advice to those who are execising bad judgement on when to use their cell phone is... clean up your act, use it in a manner that won't effect the other drivers on the road, preferably when you're stopped on the side of the road. If I have to contend with hazardous driving caused by "vacant" and distracted drivers using cell phones, I will do everything in my power to protect myself and get the use of cell phones while driving banned.



comment   RE: Don't need a law; the problem is with the drivers   7/25/00 12:08:39 PM

Refering to: Don't need a new law; the problem is with the drivers!

Yes, we have a lot of bad drivers out there, and we have laws on the books that in theory should stop bad driving. They don't. For instance when if ever have you seen someone pulled over for blocking the passing lane. There is a very ignored law against driving in the passing lane and not passing. So which of these laws should we enforce? It seems that you are keying in on the people who speed. You are right they shouldn't. Everyone should follow the rules and there would be less accidents and better traffic flow. Let's get real here. Our roads are more crowded than ever and it's only going to get worse if we can't educate our driving population. I feel that a great deal of road rage is caused by road hogs who NEVER let anyone by while they putt putt along in the passing lane trying to slow down traffic. These people need to be ticketed for what they are "agressive drivers". The power trip that they are on is one of bullying other drivers by physically blocking their attempt to pass. This is hostile driving by anyone's definition. This is totally against the law. Is it any wonder there are ticked off drivers out there? For every speeder out there I can show you a least one of these passing lane road hogs, the only difference is that it's Politcally Correct to rag speeders. As long as we're going to be selective in our law enforcement there is no chance that the chaos will end. Increase the fine for hostile driving in the passing lane and enforce it. As a by product watch the road rage decline.



comment   Cell Phones   7/25/00 2:15:46 PM
I am a former over-the-road driver and have seen things from people reading, eating and trying use the phone to couples actually having sex while traveling down the highway. But the worst distraction I see out there is the driver just trying to carry on a conversation over the phone. Even sitting at red lights they lose focus on what they are supposed to be doing, driving safely. Cell phones are great. Just don't use them while attempting to drive.


comment   please hang up   7/25/00 3:34:37 PM
michael   newton
Private Citizen
as a year-round motorcyclist and frequent pedestrian, i have a serious concern about the use of cell phones by car drivers. riding a motorcycle simply demands a much greater degree of attention than driving a car, and one is much more cognizant of the behavior of other road users (out of necessity). if i notice a car driver on the phone, i immediately begin paying a great deal more attention to that vehicle than i otherwise would. those who drive while on the phone are far more likely to pull out into an intersection without looking, swerve into another lane, or do any number of dangerous things that are the result of paying little attention to the road. please pull over to talk.


comment   History in the Making   7/25/00 7:25:43 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I think that if people were to study technology and its impact on humans at the onset vs. 5 years after the technology reached people, I think people would find that with all technology, there is resistance and always has been. Think of when when they made roofs on cars and the concern was that there would be traveling brothels, television and family time, the radio in cars, cellular phones, and now there is the navigational device. Education and the ability to make choices for ourselves is a moderate reaction for a certain future.



comment   Opposite of Major Opinion   7/25/00 9:20:39 PM

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

It seems there is an ovverwhelming voice of agreement for regulations against phoning while driving, but I disagree. I often roll my eyes when I hear thatt "education" as the answer to many contemporary public problems. However, after hearing so many reports on the news and internet about drivers causing accidents while talking on cell phones, I started paying more attention to my own driving habits. I occasionally use my cell phone while driving. I do not have a hands-free units, so I use a hand-held phone. However, I always pay attention to traffic FIRST. The person on the other end of the phone line may loose my attention from time to time as I am driving, but that is far better that gambling on causing a wreck. I see no reason why other drivers cannot quickly learn that driving is the first responsibility and talking is second. As a motorist in Houston, TX, I see motorist weaving and driving slow while talking to passengers, yelling at children, and viewing cars pulled over on the side of the road. Requiring motorists to pull over before making a call is a somewhat ludicrous idea. I would never do it myself, and I don't see most others obeying the laws either. If people did start pulling over to make calls, there would be an even greater traffic problem caused by vehicles trying to pull into and out of lines of traffic. Surely no one that drives in heavy traffic can agree with urging motorists to make more turns that required.



comment   Over regulation   7/25/00 9:21:18 PM
Chris   Glass
Private Citizen
How many times have you seen someone driving and: applying make-up, eating, drinking, talking to a passenger, arguing, taking care of a child, . . . The list is endless! You can not regulate everything with a law. You can not make everything safe by writing laws and guidelines. The more laws we pass, the more of us that become law breakers. People can, do, and will continue to be distracted by assorted other things when they are driving a car. It is reasonable to regulate the placement of a factory installed "TV" or similar display, no matter how helpful it might seem, that promotes and encourages driver distraction. However, it is not reasonable, nor possible regulate something a person may have setting on the seat next to them, whether it is a personal TV, computer, electronic navigation aid, or an old fashioned map. Nor can you regulate a woman applying make-up or a salesman using a cell phone. The only reasonable alternative is to hold one accountable for the results of their actions. If an accident is caused by "driver distraction" then the "distracted" driver should be held liable. No matter how good our intentions, additional laws and regulations will not cure the problems.


comment   RE: Over regulation   7/26/00 8:51:43 AM

Refering to: Over regulation

So you're saying that if drivers choose to use bad judgement or no judgement we should just treat them like errant children and turn a blind eye to the traffic accidents and fatalities they cause? Isn't that pretty much what you're saying? These people are the REASON we have to have laws and regulations. To protect the responsible, adult drivers who are paying attention to their driving. If these problem drivers were less self centered and understood the hazards that they are causing THEN we wouldn't need laws or regulations. They are the cause of this movement to ban cell phone use while driving. Why is it the loudest whiners are usually the ones causing the problem. Let's hope they can wake up and start driving with a focus on what their doing. If not THEY will cause/force the good drivers to pass laws to compensate for their lack of concern for other drivers lives.



comment   RE: Opposite of Major Oppinion   7/26/00 9:25:01 AM

Refering to: Opposite of Major Opinion

It sounds like you have become aware of the problems caused by using these cell phones while driving. That's encouraging. The only thing you said that I disagree with is the statement that drivers would cause even more problems pulling over in heavy traffic to make calls. NO ONE should be driving in heavy traffic and using a cell phone. NO ONE. This is exactly why the movement to ban them while driving is happening. Bad judgement causing innocent drivers to be hit, injured or killed. I doubt if you'll see anyone pulling over to make a call because that would mean they would have to vacate the passing lane and let the traffic flow. Seriously though, they will plan better and won't be using the phone to shoot the breeze with their husband / wife / friends at other drivers expense.



comment   RE: History in the making   7/26/00 9:56:07 AM

Refering to: History in the Making

Don't try to distort the issue by using simplistic examples. There is no resisance to using cell phones. Cell phones used in most any other environment are not a proplem. However the use of them while driving is dangerous and irresponsible. I challenge you to park your cell phone for a week and log the bad drivers you encounter on the road. You will find that the cell phone users are without a doubt the largest single cause (next to drunk driving) of accidents, near misses, and slow traffic on the road. Don't think that I'm just picking on drivers using cell phones. There are lots of other drivers distracted for other reasons, but no other sober group of drivers cause more accidents than the cell phone user group. There are always areas where the common sense use of new technology is needed. This is one of those areas. In the absence of common sense regulation will prevail.



comment   Measured Freedom.   7/26/00 4:57:14 PM
Winston   Williams
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Re: Freedom?

I agree-- enforcing laws on the books would be sufficient, If they could be enforced. But the fact remains, there is more and more reckless driving as a result of cell phone conversations where reckless driving laws are not or can not be enforced. (it's the conversations that really distract people, more than just operating the devices.) It's plain that the deterrant effect of a law against the use of those devices at high speeds on congested highways would save lives. And since each of our freedoms depends on the freedom of those around us, this measures the freedom, say, to talk smooch to one's sweety pie, right that moment! against that lost life and the lost freedom of the person killed to live that life, instead. The lost freedom to talk smooch (or sales stats ... whatever) right then! can be restored minutes later, at zero miles per hour, on the shoulder of the road. By comparison, that's a trivial loss. Therefore, a law to limit in motion use of cell phones would increase, not limit, All freedoms.



comment   IDIOT DRIVERS WITH AND WITHOUT CELL PHONES   7/26/00 5:15:16 PM
paul   bubel
Private Citizen

Refering to: Get over yourselves - Take Responsibility!

while i hate the idea of more automotive legislation, we need to get the cell phones out of the hands of idiot drivers. they, typically, are the ones who don't have enough sense about driving too even know that they are a danger on the road, let alone, while they're jabbing on the phone. if the U.S. would only teach people how to drive in the first place, at the age of 16, many of our troubles would be solved without more laws. as a recent "graduate" of drivers ed, i can say this; most new teenage drivers that i've encountered on the road are extremely dangerous and totally oblivious to this fact. IT IS TOO EASY TO GET YOUR LICENSE...



comment   Distractions   7/26/00 6:54:43 PM
Terry   Murphy
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

People have numerous distractions while driving such as switching their radio stations so they don't need an additional distraction such as talking on a cell phone. Driving requires complete attention. I immediately get away from a driver on a cell phone when I am driving. They are too distracted to watch the road and are an accident waiting to happen. Please don't kill me because you want to talk on the phone. Get off the road to talk on the phone.



comment   He's obviously a jerk   7/26/00 7:58:40 PM
Scott   Coughlin
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

He acknowledges the fact that he may be crossing against the light, but he's ticked that someone might come near him. Heaven forbid he risks his precious retarted life. Try that same shit here in New York and I guarentee that he'll get mowed. Bottom line is that people (ones in cars and the ones in the dark ages walking)have to pay attention in public. That jackass's dad wasn't paying attention when he scored with his mom, and now we're stuck with his genes still in production.



comment   Cell Phones   7/26/00 8:10:55 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
It is bad enough that the majority of drivers do not know how to make a proper turn, (signal & turning in the proper lane), without adding another distraction. Not only is it not caring about other drivers but dangerous too. Road rage is a product of bad driving and not driving to one's ability.


comment   People should be capable of doing multiple tasks   7/26/00 8:18:21 PM
Scott   Coughlin
Private Citizen

Refering to: Poor performance due to distractions not limited to cell phones

The real problem is that people should be able to do multiple tasks whether driving, eating, or showering. Most drivers are absent minded to begin with. Before passing a law that affects everyone, why not have yearly driving tests. I dare say that most people that are disapproving of cell phone use in the car can't parallel park or drive correctly in a traffic circle. The real problem is that there are poor drivers out there, whether their on the phone or not.



comment   Distraction in the first two minutes of the call   7/26/00 9:14:59 PM
Gary   Shafer
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

Every phone call could be a distraction - loss of a sale, a relationship, a loved one, whatever. The initial (seconds, minutes, etc.) period of conversation, of any phone call, regardless of content requires adjusting the mind to handle the situation. For example: Caller: "Your dog had puppies" Driver: "GREAT!!!!" (car swerves) Caller: "Your wife drowned them in a burlap sack" Driver: "WHAT??!!--WHY??" (car bumps the Jersey barrier) Caller: "I'm sorry Mr. Johnson, she said she couldn't raise a litter of puppies while you suscribed to AT&T long distance." Caller: "Sir?" Driver: "My name's not Johnson!! And I don't own a dog!!" Caller: "I'm so sorry, I feel your pain, would you consider subscribing to MCI?" etc., etc., etc...... The moral of the story is, TEN YEARS AGO NOBODY HAD THEM! WHY DO YOU NEED TO CONSTANTLY TALK ON CELL PHONES WHEN YOU SHOP, DRIVE, WALK, TALK WITH OTHERS, ETC.? Try turning it off when you drive, while you're in the drive thru, ordering fries (from me, obviously), while you're in the supermarket, in the management seminar, at the game, in the theatre, at the opera, with your spouse, with your kids, with your friends, please don't help me - you are a bigger loser than me if you do. I own the best computers, phones, and cars. I have seen all of the task-oriented morons (many run *.gov sites) who have trouble chewing gum, walking, try to drive, and talk on a cell phone at the same time. It can wait until you are off the highway. You are the reason for the rise in ROAD RAGE. Whatever happened to the sport of drining and driving? A lot less fatalities. GHS



comment   RE: People should be capable of doing multiple tasks    7/27/00 2:30:30 PM

Refering to: People should be capable of doing multiple tasks

You are obviously on a fantasy trip. Any driving test you choose to pick (traffic circle, parallel parking, city or highway traffic etc.) I will wax you in because I will be totally focussed just like I am every day on the road. The only rule is, you have to handycap yourself just like you do everyday, with a phone to your ear. You wouldn't stand a chance rookie! Go back to sleep and enjoy your dream.



comment   Everything you should know about talking and driving   7/27/00 3:25:16 PM
Please see http://www.geocities.com/morganleepena and learn why talking while driving is not only unsafe, it's deadly. Links to studies and information that will convince you, if this sweet little girl's smiling face cannot...


comment   Cell phones are a small portion of what you should be concerned about.   7/27/00 4:07:26 PM
Matthew   Heine
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

Yes, some people can be distracted while talking --- to someone sitting right there in the vehicle. I've ridden with drivers who feel it is necessary to make eye contact while conversing in a car. That includes adjusting the rear view mirror so they can see someone in the back seat. I commute about 40 miles one way to work in the S.F. Bay area. I've seen just about everything in the last 13 years. I've seen drivers eating what appears to be a six course meal, women applying makeup in the rear view, newspaper readers, novel readers, smokers looking for a light or looking for the lit cigarette they dropped. Smoking can really be a second-hand danger then. And what about those folks who are wearing stereo headphones while driving? Or better yet the cars with $10,000 sound systems that bring a new meaning to noise pollution. They can't possibly be able to have full attention on the task of driving. I think the anti cell phone campaign is being run by a bunch of technophobes. Go ahead. Ban them. Then when you call to get your A/C fixed or you need to get ahold of you physician or you need a tow truck dispatched, you can wait. Why wasn't this a problem 20 years ago when we all had CB radios in our cars? Are trucks crashing left and right because long haul truckers are distracted by 10-4/good buddying back and forth. I don't think so. If you are really concerned about drivers, require behind-the-wheel testing on a regular basis. And enforce the existing laws governing driving. Don't be a sheep.



comment   RE: Cell phones are a small portion of what you should be concerned about   7/28/00 9:03:15 AM

Refering to: Cell phones are a small portion of what you should be concerned about.

Why is it that if you want to make the roads safer by banning hazardous acts, like driving in a cell phone trance, you become a "techno phobe". I work everyday in a technical computer environment that would melt your brain. I am definitely NOT a techno phobe. I am however a responsible driver. You asked why CB's didn't cause crashes left and right when they came out. 2 reasons: 1 They weren't phones and therefore were very limited in their usefullness to the average person (short range, freinds/family didn't have them) so there were only a small fraction of drivers using them. 2nd 20 years ago trucking was regulated and even if every trucker on the road had a CB there were so few of them compared to now that they were insignificant. Also MOST CB conversations happened out on the open road unlike cell phones where most conversations seem to be in heavy city traffic. Unlike CB's, cell phones are in VERY wide use by millions of drivers. The hazard they pose is probably a hundred times worse than CB's could ever have been. You are right about one thing though. When one of these "vacant" cell phone users plows into someone and kills them, all they have to do is hang up and call the morgue. That's handy.



comment   Using a HUD Head-up Display with phone, internet etc.   7/28/00 12:40:53 PM
Ted   Klumb
Private Citizen
As someone who hates it when people are fiddling with "toys" while driving I find it ironic that I am supporting something like a HUD (a heads-up, head-up display). One of my clients provides software and HUDs for police and fire departments. I am allowed to use a HUD while woking on the project and will end up buying it when the project ends because it is so safe and useful. If someone would integrate voice commands with the HUD it would be the safest information conveyer on the road. It is so easy to read maps, e-mail, or caller ID on the cell phone. I connected it with a smart box in my trunk so I have wireless connections and no battery concerns. There was a successful test with a GPS unit where I never had to look away from the road. Usually I find reading the GPS too dangerous to view while moving in city streets (worry about kids) or highway speeds (trucks). The police use it so I figured it was pretty safe but it was hard to believe until I actually used it. My question is this: Why aren't HUDs used or even discussed more often in vehicles? Everything I read about the future of information delivered to the auto talks about things that would drive me crazy. Voice printout? No way. Display screens? Too dangerous-take your eyes off the road. I even hooked up a video camera to view my child in the car seat (has a tendency to find and put objects in mouth) and found the HUD monitoring safer than the rear view mirror. Anybody else able to use one of these? I am interested in hearing from people who use a HUD because until I used one I would have been opposed to allowing them on the road. Ted K.


comment   untitled;   7/30/00 12:07:26 AM
Donald   Paradise
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

How can the first two minutes be any different than the length of the entire phone call. I myself am guilty of talking on the phone while driving and I know from experience that you are not aware of what's going on around you while driving. Even talking to the person sitting next to you can be distracting.Today I seen a girl driving a car in the oncoming lane talking to the person next to her and I bet she never even knew we were on the same road as she was not looking at the roadway. Have you ever tried driving and writing down an address that was being given over the phone? It just does not work.



comment   untitled;again   7/30/00 1:31:21 AM
Donald   Paradise
Private Citizen

Refering to: untitled;

Having read a lot of the comments from my fellow citizens, I feel the need to address a few points. First of all, there is no such thing in this country as "States Rights". That was gauranteed by the outcome of the Civil War (U.S. History 1861-1865). Second, only the States of this country have the power to sue a manufaturer of a product and win, ie: Tobacco Co.'s, Smith & Wesson... Third, cell phone use in cars is dangerous and should be outlawed (even if cell phones are outlawed in cars, only outlaws will use them, or they have to pry your phone out your cold dead fingers.) The bottom line is I personally would not be very happy if I or someone I cared about were hurt or killed because some inconsiderate jerk just had to be talking on the phone while trying to operate a motor vehicle. If our legislators can enact laws about seat belts, helmets, car seats, alcohol,etc. while a motor vehicle is in use tnen they should certainly pass laws to keep ignorant drivers from killing your loved ones because they just had to be on the phone!



comment   Threat by cell usage in the US and Europe   7/30/00 11:14:13 AM
Tee   Kaiser
Private Citizen

Refering to: Vacant drivers threaten bicyclists as well as motorcyclists

I reside in Florida and in Germany, I drive a car and a motorcycle, and Imust say, much to my delight, Germany just enacted a law requiring a handsfree device for in-car use as of June 1st. Too new a law to provide any numbers yet, I observe enough drivers in both countries swaying erratically, misjudging traffic situations and showing slow or no reactions to changing traffic situations. In 8 out of 10 observations the driver is on a cell phone, however I have seen hairbrushes and spray in action at the same time, books on the steering wheel and so on. Case in point: five (!) motorcycle buddies of mine standing at a red light get run over in Gainsville by a female in a pickup, on a cell. Case in point: a 17year kills a 16year old rollerblader on a bicycle path in Boca because she's under the influence and on a cell. More out of convenience I started using a handsfree device in FL first and I am baffled how much that improved my attention to traffic - even being acutely aware of the problem as a rider already. I would opt for same legislation as in Germany, mandatory usage of handsfree devices, enforced by fines.



comment   "We don't all do it"   7/30/00 11:54:49 AM
Jimmie   Smith
Private Citizen

Refering to: We all do it!

Here we have a driver that admits his mind continually wanders when he commutes 130 miles per day. Then he trie to explain it away with the comment,"everybody does it". This is an accident waiting to happen. It maybe the conditioning of 5200 hours of jet fighter time but I drive maintaining my "situation awareness". Who is around me, what are they doing, and what movement options do I have open to me. People on cell phones and talking to passangers have lost the situation awareness and when the car in front makes a panic stop, you are now in the back seat with them. Studies point out the problem is cell phones in general, not hands free or not, both situations are dangerous. "Hands free cell phones" will be difficult to regulate. Singapore has the answer, if you are so important you have to talk on a cell phone in a moving car, hire a driver.



comment   Your comments are a distraction.   7/30/00 11:25:37 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: get a life.

If you drive as badly as you write (and think), God help us all. You fit into the category of people who can't see the connection between their individual freedoms and the social realities that make them possible. Since you are one of many unfortunate souls who think they were born with an inalienable right to drive a multi-ton vehicle (powered by an internal compustion engine that burns a polluting, non-renewable fuel into an atmosphere that ALL LIVING BEINGS SHARE), did it ever occur to you that your "freedom" is dependent upon a whole host of factors that would make you bust your last remainin brain cells if you thought about them as passionately as you think about your right to spout off pointless drivel in a forum like this? I thank you for providing this forum with the evidence that is needed to ensure that proper legislation is enacted to keep cell phone users off the road. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to make sure that it is effectively enforced. I'll even spend my free time assisting law enforcement to keep the drunks, goons, and other addle-brained terrorists off the road.



comment   Wireless companies know legislation is coming   7/31/00 1:29:02 AM
trip   allen
Private Citizen
Wireless companies have just begun advertising campaigns with tips about more careful use of cell phones in cars. This indicates that they know that the use of these units is indeed dangerously distracting. It's an adfmission of guilt. Their recent actions lead me to believe that hands-on cell phone use while driving should be nationally legislated with a stiff fine for the first offense. Second offenders shall be disconnected and disallowed to have wireless communications for three years. It's a very simple case of "either assume the responsibility, or give up the privelege". However, how about some REAL TEETH in keeping unlicensed and uninsured drivers in check, also? The wireless companies should welcome a "hands-free cell phones only" policy for autos anyway. The less distracting and easy it is for some idiot to yak away while driving, will add up to many more minutes. I'd rather take my chances on the road with them speaking hands-free, than with a hand off the wheel and in their face.


Ask the Expert   What impact has cell phone use in Japan had on accident rates, and what steps, if any, has the government taken to improve safety?   7/31/00 6:33:42 AM
Hiroshi   Tsuda
In Japan, the accident rate has increased with the proliferation of cell phones. In 1996, the Japanese National Police Agency conducted a nation-wide one month survey of all "Police reported" and "injury related" accidents. The resulting accident ratio suggested that the most dangerous part of using cell phones was receiving the call. The next was in placing a call. In order to get more data, in both 1997 and 1998, there was a 6 month nation-wide survey, also for all "Police reported" and "injury related" accidents. The results were in line with previous studies, indicating that the highest number of accidents occurred when drivers were receiving calls (43.0%), followed by those occurring while making calls (22.9%). In this second survey, car phone-related traffic accidents were found to represent 0.34% of all accidents involving injuries (370,536 total cases).

As a result of these investigations, it was concluded that although talking on the phone still caused accidents, the majority were caused by trying to pick up the call and secondly trying to place a call. The risk would be greatly reduced if the phones were to be hands-free, so the National Police Agency decided to put a ban on using the phone (or any hand held transmission device) with the exception of hands-held phones. A very good article describing the National Police Agency's ban can be found at the following link (http://www.drivers.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?type=ART&id=000000273&static=1)

An extensive campaign on national TV, radio and newspapers preceded the ban that began November 1999, so it is safe to assume that it would be difficult to make excuses as to not having known of such a ban. The National Police Agency did a survey for the first month (i.e.; November 1999) and compared this with the month before (October 1999) and the same month the year before when there was no ban in place. Results found that in the month after the revised Road Traffic Law went into effect, the number of traffic accidents caused by drivers using cellular phones that resulted in fatalities or injuries fell by about 75 percent. Another survey was conducted for the half year from November 1999 to May 2000 and compared that with the same period in the previous year. The agency revealed that in this first 6-month-period, when the use of cellular phone while driving was banned, the number of accidents involving the use of cellular phones decreased by 60%.

My guess is, not everyone changed over to a hands-free phone, although there was an increase in demand for these devices. My personal view for reasons that accidents went down are:

  1. Since most drivers knew it was against the law to use a hand held phone, they just simply refrained or only used it in very restricted instances.
  2. Knowing it was against the law, when they did use it, they used it very carefully, which helps a lot.
  3. In reporting to police, excuses such as, "I was using the phone" no longer seemed appropriate.

I would view that in Japan, with the statistics as those in 1997 and 1998, the decrease in accident rate compared to before the ban will stabilize at around 40%. Of course, the statistics cited above apply to Japanese drivers, and since the traffic situation and the way phones are used in Japan and in the US is quite different, the same statistics may not generalize to the US.




comment   Yes, let's do focus on (key word) PRACTICAL solutions   7/31/00 8:42:43 AM
william   biondi
Private Citizen

Refering to: Let's focus on practical solutions.

There may be reasons to have a phone in the car, but there is NO reason to use one while driving. NOTHING - no technological device, no passenger, no song, NOTHING - should distract one from concentration on the primary responsibility of being behing the wheel of an automobile. When ANYTHING causes distraction, a responsible driver WILL eliminate it. Even an emergency is no excuse unless or until one has stopped the vehicle. I cannot imagine a more dangerous or more ludicrous scene than the typical already unaware driver trying to dial and use a cell phone while attempting to extricate himself from an emergency situation that was caused by his driving-while-distracted behavior. Any argument that effectively says, "There's nothing we can do about it -- we can't legislate safe driving" is abdicating personal responsibility and blaming "society" for the problem. That is a real copout - and the mark of an irresponsible driver. If you want practical solutions, some do exist. First, even-handed enforcement of existing safe-driving laws. For example, here in Texas, laws exist prohibiting the use of headsets or similar devices while driving. Aside from placing the distracting sound against one's head, they create an electronic and physical sound-cancellation barrier for surrounding traffic sounds which may alert and protect one from accident or injury. Where necessary or where they do not exist, enact laws which require teaching of safe-driving techniques and which require their application on the road. For example, Tacoma, WA, had ordinances which required that drivers keep both hands on the steering wheel while driving. Such an ordinance covers a multitude of bad driving habits, not just use of a cell phone. Second, take the issue out of the arena of first amendments rights or free speech infringement. The issue is safe driving. Enacting laws which inform drivers of, and require them to implement, expected safe and responsible driving techniques removes the issue from the constitutional arena and places it where it belongs: in the area of state and federal rights to mandate laws regarding use of the roadways and safety of all citizens. Driving is still a privilege, not a right. Third, in all cases, require training and education prior to granting a person the privilege of driving; and impose serious penalties for infractions. After all, breaking a traffic law is a criminal offense, even if it is a "misdemeanor." "Three strikes" laws should be a real consideration when it comes to driving. If we can get felony criminals off the road for three strikes - regardless of the seriousness of the felony crime - then we should be able to remove drivers who pose a threat to life and property in the same way. As with all soultions, enforcement is the crux of their effectiveness, whether it be through self-discipline or imposed discipline. Unfortunately, neither of these laws I mentioned earlier were/are enforced, nor were they taught to the driving populace at large. As a result, people obtain a driver's license and are already behind the awareness curve through ignorance of the law. Existing safe driving laws are not enforced unilaterally because they do not generate the revenue. No "traveling too slow" or "impeding the flow of traffic" infraction generates the same monies as "excessive speed" even though in Texas traveling too slow is statistically the contributing factor in ten times the number of accidents of all kinds (non-injury, injury and fatal) as excessive speed, and is number two behing DWI/DUI for fatal accidents! (These are state statistics available through the Texas DOT). Thus, it is incumbent upon those granted the privilege of driving to take responsiblity and force themselves to apply safe driving habits. Without copouts.



comment   Cell Phones - Hands Free Attachments/Accessories   7/31/00 9:41:47 AM
Dave   Abbey
Government
With all the legitimate concerns about using cell phones, the manufacturers have put out lots of information suggesting when to use phones, promoting use of hands free attachments etc. All this is well and good.. but it would be nice if manufacturers would make hands free attachments more reasonably priced. I recently saw a hands free attachment which made a lot of sense.. had no more effect on a driver than, say, a conversation with a passenger. Yet the attachment cost several hundred dollars. Manufacturers should make inexpensive hands free attachments so cost conscious consumers would use them.


comment   RE: "We don't all do it"    7/31/00 10:44:57 AM

Refering to: "We don't all do it"

When you brought up the issue of situatonal awareness when flying that got me to thinking. How many people would get on a airliner if they knew that the pilot and co-pilot were going to be talking to their wives/husbands as they approached for landing through the clouds at night. You know "gee honey do you think that condo in Maui is a better deal? I'm not so sure...WHOA.. you should have seen how close that other plane got to us. Idiots, why don't they pay more attention...anyway I think the one in Carmel is nicer for the money." Yeah people would really put up with that. Why would anyone expect someone to tolerate that same basic situation on the roads? There are, no doubt, weeks that the same number of people get killed on the roads in the U.S. by distracted cell phone users as would die in an airline crash but it's no big deal because they kill them 2 or 3 at a time. This is an excellent example of a double standard. Drivers using cell phones would sue the airlines for doing exactly what they do everyday. Oddly the airline pilot is a pro and would probably stand a much better chance of being able to handle the dual task better than the untrained/non-pro cell phone driver. Situational awareness saves lives in both cases. We wouldn't even dream of letting the airline pilots be distracted. Why should we put up with it on the roads?



comment   speed/distraction/miles traveled   7/31/00 2:14:34 PM
Patricia   Janes
Commercial Driver

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

re: the use of cell phones & driver situation awareness I understand that the driver becomes more distracted from his driving as the conversation progresses. How much distance would be covered in 2/10ths of a mile @ 60 mph? How much distance would be covered in 3/10ths of a mile @ 60 mph? How much distance would be covered as the driver replaces the phone & reasserts his full attention to his driving?



comment   If you can't drive safely... DON'T!   7/31/00 3:44:14 PM
Lance   Whittemore
Private Citizen
When I ride my motorcycle in traffic, the first I try to be aware of is someone with a cell phone in their hand. The vast majority of stupid, careless near-misses or accidents that I see are caused by someone talking on the cell instead of driving their car- swerving, tailgating, drifting across lanes, pulling out in front of other vehicles, cutting them off (especially bikes)... often people are so absorbed in their conversation that they don't even realize that they've had a close call. A horn blast only gets a glazed stare in response, if they even bother to turn their head and take the phone off their ear. Hands-free rigs seem to help, but... come on! Are we so far gone we can't shut up long enough to drive somewhere? A little common sense would save us from more regulations...


comment   A Costly Price for Experience   8/1/00 7:07:25 AM
Michael   Ross
Private Citizen

Refering to: July 6,2000 Fatality in Grand Rapids, MI

I am full of regret that such a young and vibrant woman should lose her life to gain experience for the rest of us. I am saddened that the young man has experienced such loss that could have been prevented with a few words of wisdom. For the rest of you here are those words of wisdom: When you get behind the wheel of any vehicle, you are at the controls of an instrument of DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. Your senses and thinking MUST carry this mind set if you are going to drive in this day. All of your senses and all of your mind must be on your driving. If this is not possible, stay off the road until it is possible. Finish the cell call before you drive. Teach your kids to talk and play quietly in the car. Pull off the road/street to consult the GPS/Map System/Atlas. Nuf said.



comment   Ban Cigarette Smoking & Eating TOO   8/1/00 9:14:16 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pedestrian vs. SUV?

If use of Cell Phone & other in-vehicle technology is to be regulated so too should smoking cigarettes be banned!!!! Finding their cigarettes, lighting their cigarettes, dropping their cigarettes, driving one-handed with a lit cigarette. Yikes!!!! I have seen far more distracted drivers smoking than on cell phones



comment   A solution to prevent 100% of ALL car accidents......   8/2/00 4:29:57 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Ban all cars! save the people from themselves! hurry, before we all die....Henry Ford was the anti-christ, brought death and destruction to our once peaceful earth....actually, now that I think of it, in about 100 years, everyone alive today is going to be dead anyway....no wait, give us back our cars!!


comment   Voice control instead of visual/manual, but not quite far enough . . .   8/3/00 8:45:47 AM
Rick   Huey
Academia/ Research Firm
I was pleased to see that Sprint PCS is initiating a system that will allow next generation voice recognition technology as an option. This should relieve part of the the visual/manual loading required to use the phone. You can read more about it at the following link. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000803/mo_sprint_.html However, it only goes part of the way. The phone provides a channel for audible feedback that is, as yet, untapped. I have to speak from the experience of my particular phone, but I'm sure it is not far from the norm. Why must I look at a little display to determine that I'm calling whoever at whatever number at their office and I'm currently trying to connect? This phone which has a mic and speaker could just easily verbally tell me what's happening with digitized or synthesized voice feedback and request verbal confirmation as needed. For example, interaction could transpire like this: USER: "Call Eddy at home." PHONE: "You want to CALL EDDY at HOME? USER: "Yes." PHONE: "CALLING EDDY at HOME." USER to EDDY: "Yadda, yadda, yadda, . . ." USER: "End call." PHONE: "ENDING CALL - 2 MINUTES 30 SECONDS" How tricky would that be compared to voice recognition? I find it difficult to believe that it would be AS tricky. We need to push the human factors design to make intelligent use of the state-of-the-art. All these systems keep taxing the visual and manual manipulation I/O channels unnecessarily. Such techniques should also eventually eliminate the need for visual displays and/or keypads for this audio-centric task. Web interaction is another story, but . . .


comment   Another Safety Nazi!!!   8/3/00 12:33:58 PM

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Give me a break! In today's business world, cell phones are more than just "...a great way of ensuring that emergencies are addressed in a quicker fashion..." I could not function in my sales job without being in constant contact (a requirement of my employer and an expectation of my customers), and a cell phone is the primary way to reach me. So while it may seem to you that "...it is entirely unnecessary to use the phone while you are actually driving...", it's a necessity to me. If you acedemic types would have to get a "real" job you'd quickly fiond this out yourselves. Instead, you sit in your protected ivory towers and encourage a socialist agenda. I do NOT want the government intruding into my life any more than it does now -- in fact I want it OUT more. If you want to help "change the world", then how about encouraging the cellular industry to come up with standards for voice recognition software (so I don't have to look down to dial) and a universal hands-free adapter for all cars (both OEM and aftermarket) so that everyone with a handheld phone can simply plug it in and use it in the car hands-free (which is without question the safest way to use one in the car). Personally, I always use a hands-free adapter, I never take notes while driving, and keep both hands on the wheel. This way I can keep my eyes open for all you safety nazis looking for another way to infringe on my rights to keep the government the hell off my back!!



comment   Commercial Trucks & Phones 7/16/00 6:30:22 PM   8/3/00 3:36:38 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Commercial Trucks & Phones

I wanted to comment on the post "Commercial Trucks & Phones   7/16/00 6:30:22 PM", especially because of the fact that I saw the results of the accident that was described in that post.

I was leaving work on the afternoon of 6/08/98 when I passed the accident scene mentioned in the above post. I was traveling in the opposite direction at the time on a road with a median in between the two roadways. I usually DO NOT rubberneck accident scenes, preferring to keep my attention focused on the traffic that poses the most immediate threat.  For some reason though I looked over at the scene of this one as I passed by it.

A large commercial truck had slammed into the car ahead of it with enough force to accordion the trunk of the car all the way forward into the front seat area. In fact, the front of the truck itself was sitting on top of all that mangled metal with the front bumper of the truck in about the location that the steering wheel of the car would have been located, had it not been repositioned by the impact. The car had been pushed forward by the impact into the vehicle ahead of it and because of that the car's front end was shoved back almost halfway to the windshield.

I only looked over at it for about a second, and what I saw was enough for me to have no doubt in my mind that whoever was in that car was dead, of that fact there was no doubt in my mind.

There were several people already getting out of their cars on the accident side of the road to render assistance and there was no apparent need for me to pull over to help, even if there was a safe place for me to pull over.  A month previous to this accident I had stopped to help the driver of a car in Pa. who had just broken a telephone pole into two halves with her car.  She was bloody and unconscious at the scene, but survived with no long term injuries ( as I understand from the news reports about that accident ).

With the memory of that scene still pretty fresh in my mind, I had no desire to stop for this one.  If I had thought that by stopping and lending a hand I could have helped the victims I would have, but I had no desire to view what I believed would be nothing but bloody death.  There were already plenty of people stopping to help, so I drove on.

I don't know if it was because I did not stop to help (even if my help was not needed) or if it was for some other reason, but I was somewhat haunted by that accident for a while.  I asked a coworker the next day if she knew anything about the accident from the night before ( it happened about a half a mile from where we work), and she told me that all she knew about it was from a news report on the radio that evening.

She told me that the driver of the car involved had been finally extracted from the car and taken by Medivac Helicopter to the Shock Trauma unit at a nearby hospital.

I was absolutely amazed that the driver had survived after what I had seen.
 
 

About a month later my phone rang at work.  It was a call from a longtime friend of mine. She was calling from the hospital, where she told me she had been since June 8th.  She had been the driver of the car in the accident above.

I was completely flabbergasted..........

That car was so mangled that I didn't even recognize it as her car.

It turned out to be a good thing that I did not stop to help, because if I had stopped and realized who was driving that car I don't know what I might have done to the driver of a truck that was so preoccupied with his cell phone that he did not even see two lanes of stopped traffic about 10-15 vehicles deep at the red light up ahead of him.  As I understand it, he was doing at least 40 MPH and never even touched the brakes before the collision occurred.

To make things worse, that section of road provides a straight, clear and unobstructed view for a good 1/2 mile or more before that traffic light. If he had been watching the road instead of being distracted by that cell phone, my friend would not have been put through the two years of hell that she has gone through so far, with no idea if or when she may get back to normal again.

I see people driving while talking on cell phones all the time, and they are some of the worst drivers I see.  That truck driver did serious damage to another because of the cell phone, and there are plenty more idiots out there like him.

As far as I am concerned, a cell phone should be used by the driver of a moving vehicle ONLY in an EMERGENCY !!!
 
 
 



comment   RE: Another Safety Nazi!!!    8/4/00 10:40:56 AM

Refering to: Another Safety Nazi!!!

WOW another yuppie baby. Worshipper of me firstism. Prays at the shrine of the SUV. YOU are an exellent example of the self centered me first babies that CAUSE MORE LAWS. You need to grow up and learn to share. You don't own the road and those of us who execise good judgement are tired of you jerks causing more laws for the rest of us. So stop trying to impress us with how important you are (your not)and work on driving safely. If you can't, then do the rest of us good drivers a favor, take the bus.



comment   Too many close calls   8/5/00 8:31:56 AM

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I drive approximately 40,000 miles a year, mostly urban and freeway driving, both car and motorcycle. I have encountered many close calls with distracted cell phone users. My own unscientific observations lead me to conclude: (1) talking on cell phones is more distracting than talking to someone else in the car, and is dangerous,(2) dialing and answering phones often distracts drivers from the road completely, (3) cell phone distracted drivers react in sudden, unpredictable and dangerous ways when they realize that they are not where they should be in traffic, or are about to miss an exit or stop, (4) many drivers in general operate in gross disregard for the safety of others or the orderly movement of other traffic, and such behavior is exacerbated by cell phone distraction (training or education would not influence these people).



comment   There is a simple answer   8/5/00 8:36:35 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: RE: Another Safety Nazi!!!

I certainly see both sides of this issue. I am a large animal veterinarian in a predominately rural area. I spend up to 1000 minutes a month on the phone. Most of the time I continue to drive, other times I stop. My concern is that I do think that cell phone use is a safety hazard. So is listening to music loudly, talking to others, eating and driving, and looking at the map. I am pained by the individuals that have had horror stories to relate but unfortanatly that is life. I would encourage the Law enforcement agencies and the american public to refocus highway safety. It seems to this individual that we are to concerned with petty laws such as seatbelt use and maintaining the speed limit when their time should be solely directed at maintaining order. If an individual is failing to single a lane change and they are on the phone then write them up. As far as I am concerned if the aren't on the cell phone and fail to single write them up. If the are in the passing lane and not passing then write them up. I am not a fan of more laws, we certainly have enough; yet, it does seem that if you are using the cell phone and driving poorly then there out to be a way to ticket you. This would be real easy if unmarked cars threw away their radar ( then you wouldn't know where they were) and just mingled in traffic writing up poor driving skills.



comment   Hands-free as minimum restriction for driver   8/5/00 8:54:49 AM
John   Schubert
Private Citizen
My commute is ~32 mile, one way. I see some of the most unbelievable things done by drivers. The most common is use of a cell phone. I would like to see a law in all 50 state that at a minimum, requires a driver of a moving vehicle to use a hands-free system. Violation should carry a penalty at the level of drunk-driving...


comment   I agree - examples:   8/6/00 9:12:29 AM
Eric   Hansen
Private Citizen

Refering to: Poor performance due to distractions not limited to cell phones

People are social animals, and some are more "social" than others. Ever watch a driver in animated conversation with their passenger, using hand gestures with BOTH hands, and maintaining 90% eye contact with the passenger? Cell phones are an extension of this behavior, with a mental image of the receiver replacing the eye contact. Even listening to loud music or talk radio shows sucks away situational awareness - Ever notice how you turn down the radio when you're driving around searching for a street address?



comment   Do we have laws already on the books?   8/6/00 9:28:22 AM
Eric   Hansen
Private Citizen

Refering to: Laws to address hazardous driving

I may date myself, but in the 70's when CB had a huge surge of popularity, there was an early reaction to emphasize safety due to the distraction of operating a two-way radio, and it was pointed out in newspaper and magazine articles, and even in the manuals that came with the CB sets, that most states had laws on the books making it illegal, except for law enforcement, to operate a two-way radio while operating a motor vehicle in motion. Although blatently ignored, I'm sure those laws are still there. Cell phones are merely sophisticated two-way radios.



comment   private or police issue   8/6/00 7:35:14 PM
Andrew   Rowland
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Police talk on the phone while they drive around on duty!

Are these phones privately owned by the police officers and if so should they be banned while on duty. If they are police issue then clear guidelines on their use would seem to be the thing to do



comment   Women are NOT the Problem   8/7/00 6:51:25 PM
carole   young
Private Citizen

Refering to: The ads in magazines alone are frightening

Please!! Do NOT even start this direction! No wonder you wrote anonymously! I am a woman. I do not even own a cell phone. I have driven behind BOTH men and women who were hazards on the road because of various distractions. It's not about having 'hands free' devices, either. It's about having your MIND free to pay attention to your driving as well as road condition, other traffic, signs, signals, pedestrians, animals, your vehicle performance, etc., etc. It's the same as trying to read a book while you watch tv---you are definitly going to miss a lot going on with one or the other. Sometimes you see people stop at a green light because they're not paying attention. Other times you see them roar right through a red for the same reason. People must accept that there are some limitations to what they can do and that if they are driving then the focus MUST be on the driving, NOT elsewhere. This applies to both men AND women.



comment   Cell Phone Idiots ! !   8/7/00 9:04:35 PM
Christopher   Morris
Private Citizen

Refering to: look out!! He/she is on the phone!

I have seen time and time again, people so preoccupied with their phone conversations cause so many near misses and never even realize it . On April 15th. of this year I was witness to a fatal "Accident?" that very nearly involved me in the making. A young women was attempting to make a left turn out of our business park onto one of the busiest highways in N.C., S.C. US 21 Carowinds Blvd. Not paying the least attention to her surroundings , more concerned with dialing her phone, which I could clearly see, she began pulling out into traffic barely missing my vehicle , I heard a terrible screeching of tires ,looked into my rearveiw mirror to see her vehicle simply disappear in midair after being broadsided by a Jeep which flipped three times before landing on its roof. Luckily the Jeep driver survived with massive injuries, the young woman in the white Accord never knew what hit her. Wonder how many times she had driven miles and was never aware of her surroundings ? I firmly beleive cell phones ,even hands free , should be outlawed on our public highways. Disagree ? If I am involved in an accident and your phone records PROVE you were lost in conversation, I promise you will never drive again. Christopher C. Morris Charlotte N.C.



comment   RE: There is a simple answer    8/7/00 9:09:43 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: There is a simple answer

Unfortunately, your suggestions don't adequately address the issue at hand. Aside from drinking and driving, the most dangerous and distracting behavior that people have developed nowadays while driving is getting behind the wheel and then getting on the phone. There is a law for drinking and driving. Frankly, it has gotten to the point that there should be a specific law for using the phone while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. More than any other distracting behavior (such as putting on make-up, etc.) phone usage is by far the most common. I have already been badly injured in a serious accident because the driver of a truck was SO distracted by using a phone that he didn't notice the traffic stopped ahead at a red light. Had there been no traffic stopped before the light he could have easily run a red light without even realizing it. These type of accidents are 100% avoidable! There is so much traffic on the road these days and already too many accidents as it is. Something should be done about preventing the avoidable ones. I don't consider the horrific AND at the same time avoidable, insane accidents as part of life - it's gross negligence. Some accidents happen as an act of nature/God such as when a tree is knocked over a car during a thunderstorm, or icy road conditions or other bad weather. Those are cases when you can say, unfortunately, that's part of life. A physical therapist had asked me if the driver had fallen asleep at the wheel (it was so incredulous a driver in a truck could be totally oblivious to the fact he had just gone through one light and didn't even see the one beyond it and the fact that everyone else ahead and in the lane next to him was stopped or in the process of stopping) that she figured he had to have fallen asleep. I told her no, believe it or not, he was wide awake! That's what makes it so pitiful. He was simply using a phone. Police are not always there when you need them in order to pull someone over in the way you suggested. Even if a police car was on the road at that point in time, the accident happened so fast, it wouldn't have made any difference. That's why a specific law (like drunk driving) would help in the PREVENTION of such avoidable accidents. People would then be much less likely to use the phone in the first place. Also, truck companies would be less likely to install such devices. I guess for you a specific law against cell phone use while driving would seem inconvenient (since you admit to using a phone while driving - yet at the same time admit that it is dangerous), but such a law would protect others on the road from physical harm or even death. In any society, there are times when we need laws - sorry, but that's life.



comment   One "Tool" at a time   8/7/00 10:04:32 PM
Christopher   Morris
Private Citizen

Refering to: get a life.

I believe only one piece of equipment, or "tool" as you put it , should be operated at one time. If you feel the uncompelling need to talk, PLEASE pull of MY road and concentrate on one thing at a time. Remember, I can PROVE you were on the phone at the time of our accident. Christopher Morris Charlotte N.C.



comment   Yes, Eating or talking is equally dangerous   8/7/00 10:24:49 PM
Christopher   Morris
Private Citizen

Refering to: Eating fries are more dangerous!

Yes, I have to agree that any distraction, including Cellphones is dangerous. South Carolina legistration has a bill in the works that will in fact outlaw eating, putting on make-up and a long list of distractions, but fails to include "Cell Phones" What idiots would miss an obvious safety endangerment?? Christopher C. Morris



comment   One or Two Minutes ?   8/7/00 10:41:15 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Distractions other than Cell Phones

Yes indeed , those two minutes equals 8 or 10 miles you drove without being totally aware of your surroundings. GET OFF THE PHONE while driving !!



comment   Idaho`s Government ?   8/7/00 11:56:50 PM
Christopher   Morris
Private Citizen

Refering to: Saving Lives

To Bryan Smith of Idaho, we do propose to ban carrying cellphones in vehicles, in a pocket or purse, and surely if you just witnessed an accident you would be shakened enough to pull over to make the desperate call I hope you would make for me.



comment   Reply to : Who ever dials while driving?   8/8/00 12:12:07 AM
Christopher   Morris
Private Citizen

Refering to: Who ever dials a phone while driving?

The young woman I saw die while trying to dial and drive must not have known of your solution, as if that would really help keep the distraction of talking from preventing an accident.



comment   age of test subjects   8/8/00 12:20:32 AM
MaryMargaret   Flynn
Private Citizen

Refering to: Individual Differences and In-Vehicle Distraction While Driving: A Test Track Study and Psychometric Evaluation

Is anyone studying the difference in age groups--eg do some of the technologies enhance the capabilities of older drivers--or are they too confusing. Do older drivers learn to use the new devices and then drive better? I am 59 and I wonder what it would be like to drive a "high tech car" with additional visual devices I have cateracts and can't see as well at night anymore which has curtailed my driving at night. Also it takes me longer to work some of these devices eg I still haven't figured out how to work my cruise control, a relatively low tech thing compared to what you are studying. ANyway the main question are test subjects in the above 50, above sixty and above seventy catergories being studied with these new high tech devices.



comment   Cell Phones   8/8/00 7:28:49 AM
Delane   Snarr
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I have seen MANY people that do not pay attention of what's going on around them while using a cell phone while driving. Even to not paying attention as to the traffic they are holding up. I think it should be outlawed to talk on a cell phone while driving.



comment   Education for use of cell phones by 16 yr. olds.   8/8/00 10:10:37 PM
Myron   Miller
Academia/ Research Firm
On Saturday evening, July 29, the car driven by my brother-in-law was struck at the intersection of Routes A-2 and M-43 near South Haven, Michigan. The 16 year old driver ran a red light while talking with his mother on his cell phone. His car sheared off the front bumper of my brother-in-law's car, and also damaged the front left of the car extensively. My brother-in-law's quick response saved my life. The 16 year old had been driving for only six months, and obviously had not learned about the use of cell phones in a car. I strongly suggest that people who are receiving driver's training be taught the use of cell phones in a car before they can obtain a license. Also, there should be questions on all driver's tests in all states pertaining to the use of cell phones in cars!


comment   Speak now or forever hold your peace and hope these Idiots do end your life   8/8/00 10:41:14 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell Phone Idiots ! !

I truly wish this survey would last longer than the time prescribed, as I am sure if more motorist were aware they would agree that Cellphone usage should be banned from out shared highways. I am quite sure the young womans phone was probably purchased by a family member for use during an emercency , too bad she did not have a chance to use as intended. Concerned citizen



comment   Speak now or forever hold your peace and hope these Idiots do NOT end your life   8/8/00 10:42:45 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell Phone Idiots ! !

I truly wish this survey would last longer than the time prescribed, as I am sure if more motorist were aware they would agree that Cellphone usage should be banned from out shared highways. I am quite sure the young womans phone was probably purchased by a family member for use during an emercency , too bad she did not have a chance to use as intended. Concerned citizen



comment   RE: Finally, someone with sense!   8/8/00 11:34:59 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Finally, someone with sense!

Your title should read "Someone without sense" rather than "Finally, someone with sense". Think about what you put in your comment. You actually said that you're afraid to pull OFF the road in a section where it's not a safe place to do it in order to answer or make a call. Yet,by choosing to STAY on the road and answer or place a call, YOU are making the road itself an unsafe place for the OTHER drivers - very likely, the ones who are not fiddling with a phone. How illogical and thoughtless that is! Don't use a phone while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on the back of a pick-up truck almost 2 years ago. It said "Hang up and Drive". Now, that makes common sense. I should know. About 3 months before that I had been in a terrible accident because of an irresponsible truck driver using a phone while his foot was on the accelerator. It is actually a miracle I didn't die in that accident. In fact,a number of people told me I'm lucky to be alive. I suffered a massive head injury along with a shattered right shoulder, requiring a total shoulder replacement. My arm will never be the same, and neither will my hearing (despite several ear surgeries I've had to undergo). I have horrible, constant pulsating sounds in my left ear, even making it difficult for me just to get to sleep at night. I now have to play tapes of waves, etc. when in bed to try and cover up the tinnitus. Also, I can't even raise my right arm and still undergo physical therapy 2 years later. And I was only 37 at the time of the accident! So, when people ssy I'm lucky to be alive, I say there's nothing lucky about being turned into a sitting duck at a light - all because of a phone. On top of that, I have NEVER used a phone while driving. Yet, I was hit by another driver because of one. So much for defensive driving. You're helpless when you're stopped behind traffic at a light. You're at the mercy of the drivers entering the road you're already on and coming up behind you - which is what happened to me. The people who are trying to find a way to allow phone use in a moving vehicle by supposedly making it safer with more hight-tech means are the ones lacking common sense. Bottom line: It is not safe to get on a phone while driving, period! As far as answering calls, that's what voice mail is for. If you have a phone in your vehicle and it rings WHILE you are driving, just let voice mail pick it up. Be reasonable. It's not worth putting the health of others at risk. Simply return the call after you get off the road. By the way, I'm not part of a "case study" who wants something banned because I don't like it. I don't mind if people use cell phones in a store, restaurant, or while on the sidewalk along a city street, etc. In those situations, they're not putting other people's health at risk. BUT, in a moving vehicle, it's a totally different situation. I'm also not part of an organization trying to get more power. That's nonsense. I'm just an individual whose health was ruined one day in June of '98, just because I got on the road - probably to run an errand (to this day I can't even remember because of the head trauma). You said you dial while driving, although you realize it's dangerous - sorry. If you ever cause an accident for that reason and badly injure somebody, sorry won't be enough (unless someone could invent a time machine and you could go back to just before the accident and undo it). Obviously, that's impossible. So, just don't do it. You could prevent someone else's senseless pain and suffering, such as what a total stranger has put me through. You ended your comments with Beware! To that I say to the responsible drivers, beware of the phone junkies who are out there on the roads!



comment   Situation Awareness and Driving   8/9/00 11:48:42 AM
Warren   Hack
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

This study supports the primary tenet behind the use of any device while driving: concentration. Driving requires a significant amount of concentration by the driver in order to maintain awareness of the driving situation. Listening to the radio while driving doesn't take any real level of concentration as it is a 'passive' activity. However, holding a conversation requires driver input just as the act of driving itself requires, and this competition for attentiveness results in one or the other activity (usually the driving) suffering from a lack of concentration. It is physically and mentally impossible for any person to maintain full active participation in more than 1 activity at a time (i.e. each 5 second period while driving). The key to this is 'active' participation. Therefore, any activity where the driver must make a decision about what is done while driving must be closely scrutinized to insure that it doesn't compete for their attention for more than a few seconds at a time. This should be done with formal laws uniformly across the nation since it has been demonstrated by drivers across the nation that voluntary efforts do not work. The driver always think they have complete control of a situation. However, how could they know if there was a problem when they weren't paying attention to it? For that reason, drivers can't be trusted to make these decisions on the fly, they must be made from outside the driver's seat. In short, conversations on cell phones take the driver's attention away from driving, they require active participation in the conversation in competition to staying aware of their driving. As a result, they are incapable of driving safely while talking (hands-free or not) and federal regulations should be enacted to prevent this from killing to many more people out of an over-inflated ego from using a mostly unnecessary device while driving.



comment   Victim of a cell phone?   8/9/00 12:05:32 PM
Alan   Dixon
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: RE: Does anyone else remember the CB radio craze of the 70's

Not to take away from your very real suffering, but you were the victim of an idiot, not a cell phone. A few years back my car was rear-ended at high speed in traffic. The impact knocked my stopped car some 200 feet. The young lady whose car struck mine was, I contend, totally distracted by something or other. She had no cell phone, though. Now was I the victim of a negligent driver, or of whatever allegedly distracted that driver? We need to hold people (key word) accountable for their actions. Admittedly, this is difficult in the New Millennium, since accountability has not been fashionable for a couple of decades now. It is far easier to blame an inanimate object, a situation, or a third party if the buck can be passed. Do you have the guts to look your assailant in the eye and say "Don't try to blame your cell phone for your ignorance, just admit to me that you have failed in your responsibility as a driver!" Most sincerely, Alan Dixon Contributing Editor - Legislative Affairs Popular Communications



comment   I see examples EVERY day during my commute.   8/9/00 3:29:14 PM
Lynn   Alcock
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

I have a one-way commute of 25+ miles, over half on a high use, multi-lane divided highway. I can now pick out the mobile phone users by the movement of their vehicles, with two tell-tale signs being: 1) weaving from side to side (often actually crossing lane lines) and 2) slowing without application of the brakes, followed by sudden acceleration as the driver "comes to" and recognizes the deceleration. It is frightening to observe drivers who are oblivious to what is going on around them, up to and including other drivers trying to get their attention by honking, flashing lights, etc. I have discussed this phenomenon with many people who use cell phones while driving and NOT ONE has ever admitted to being distracted during conversations, although many say they have seen troubling behavior by OTHER drivers. This is why I feel education campaigns are not enough. I would like to see the technologies programmed to work only for emergency numbers if the vehicle is moving. Sadly, I don't see ANY Federal restrictions being placed on the use of this equipment; their popularity in this "me first, my time is more important than your safety" environment and the pressures from the business community (equipment/service providers and vehicle manufacturers) will prevail. I am not sure how effective local attempts to control their use will be but I applaud their courage. I have seen pedestrians talking on their cell phones walk into the path of moving traffic and thought how lucky they were that the drivers weren't also engaged in "important" conversations on their phones.



comment   Laws are not the answer   8/9/00 10:18:41 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: Communications Industry

Cellular providers are in the position to detect when a cellphone is logged on their system and also can measure the change in timing due to the motion of the phone when located within a moving car. Knowing this, simply terminate the useage of the cellphone! The use of handsfree kits for use in cars can provide a key to override this lock out. New technology such as bluetooth can be used to allow cellphone use on trains and buses. Laws have to be enforced, this doesn't.



comment   I agree, but   8/9/00 10:33:50 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: Voice control instead of visual/manual, but not quite far enough . . .

Voice recognition will work.... but not in a noisy environment such as a car moving at highway speeds. Technology has produced handsfree kits that can reduce the noise at the expense of digitally altering the sound of the voice. I do not think VR will work under these circumstances. You need to ask Sprint.



comment   First to market wins   8/9/00 10:48:07 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: Cell Phones - Hands Free Attachments/Accessories

Cellular providers contract to buy phones and Handfree kits based upon their marketing schedules. This results in phones "first to market" and their accessories being purchased in quantity. This also means that later products, even though they are less expensive and perform better, do not reach the consumer



comment   The Buddy System: Being courteous and letting someone else take the lead when talking and driving   8/10/00 10:22:57 AM
richard   simpson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

Realizing that talking on a cell phone is a distraction, the courteous thing to do is get out of the fast lane and pace a car in front of you. If you are in a hurry and need to talk on the phone, let the person eating your bumper go buy and tag along behind them. Pulling over to the side of the road to use the phone is unrealistic and it violates the law. If everyone pulled over whenever they had to make or receive a phone call, the roads would be littered with cars on the side of the road. Now imagine these people re-entering the highway. The minimum speed limit of 40 MPH is already dangerously low, having large quanitites of people merging onto a highway from a stop is stupidly dangerous.



comment   Other lives are at risk!   8/10/00 10:39:14 AM
Bill   Burks
Private Citizen

Refering to: Pull over or get off of the Phone!!

It use to be a common sense aphorism that a person "couldnt chew gum and talk at the same time". Common sense has been replaced by public sentiment that "my rights outweigh the rights of others". The research I have read about simultaneously combining driving with other activities, suggests that there is a strong correlation that the human brain can not adequately handle both activities in parallel. Clearly, empirical evidence and experience suggests to many drivers such as myself, that drivers who talk on the phone, or read a book, or put on lipstick etc. are clearly distracted for periods of time. In a powerful vehicle moving at great speed, the outcome often means death or injury for those caught in this preventable sequence of events. I recognize that cell phones and computer technology in cars can make our lives simpler and provide some safety margin. But the wise course of action is to avoid speaking on the phone while driving. Seldom if ever are calls life threatening. If they are, pull over and talk. I believe the lives of those who also must use the roads must be paramount. Any risk - such as performing dual tasks while driving - that threatens the lives of others, must be prevented. People's lives are more important than people's convenience.



comment   Yes!! -- Re -- There is a simple answer   8/10/00 10:41:42 AM
richard   simpson
Private Citizen

Refering to: There is a simple answer

As complex as driving is, police taking a snapshot (1/100th of a second and probably less) of your driving ability (using radar) and judging wether or not you are a good driver is ludicrous. Cheers to unmarked (or preferably marked) cars driving around looking for bad driving habits. "Uh, mam did you realize you were doing 50 in the fast lane with a train of cars behind you." "Sir, did you realize that you were in the fast lane pacing the car next you and preventing other cars from going around, probably because you were distracted while talking on your cell phone? I'm going to have to ticket you with failure to yield right of way. Next time you should consider getting over a lane when you are going to talk on the phone."



comment   Tending to children, especially to babies in distress; an accident waitong to happen   8/10/00 11:19:42 AM
Dan   Goor
Other

Refering to: Tending to a child in the vehicle is another distraction problem

Attending to children while driving is a distraction. A single adult alonr in a car with baby, especially rear-facing in the back seat is an accident waiting to happen. A distress of said baby which take the driver eyes off the road for just ten seconds at 35MPH, is paramount to the vehicle out of control for over 500 feet.



comment   Cell Phone Drivers do not re-act   8/10/00 12:30:12 PM
Bruce   Sawicki
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Influence of the Use of Mobile Phones on Driver Situation Awareness

Cell Phone Drivers do not re-act well in ANY situation while driving. I have almost been mowed down serval times as a pedestrian by driving cell phone users. I have seen the suprised looks on their faces when they realize that someone is in the crosswalk AND that only the quickness of the pedestrian, saved an accident.



comment   Save a Life   8/10/00 1:17:59 PM
David   Skarjune
Private Citizen

Refering to: get a life.

Ted Walker wrote: "You folks need to get a life. Bad drivers are bad drivers. It is idiotic to blame to tool. But the same ones blame the guns and not the bad behavior." Mr. Walker's opinion is interesting--unfortunately, it ignores facts, plain and simple. For example, decades of research has proven that seatbelts Save Lives. Before Ralph Nader published "Unsafe at Any Speed," in 1965, nobody fully understood the extent of safety engineering issues in the automotive industry or dared to proclaim that improvements could be made on safety issues. Today, automotive engineers understand safety issues such as mandatory seatbelt installation on passenger vehicles. Mr. Walker also states: "But the same ones blame the guns and not the bad behavior. " It's not as simple as placing blame on one agent--the criminal or the gun manufacturer or the gun seller or the criminal's parents--it's about protecting and saving lives! If you compare the homicide rates in Western European nations that have strict gun laws, they are dramatically lower compared to the United States. Of course, criminals should be held responsible for gun assaults and homicides. But, it is also the responsibility of an ethical society to find ways to prevent such tragedies. If we ignore the facts, such as stricit gun laws reduce deadly assaults, we will continue to watch people die. I could have been killed in a 1996 accident in which my truck was totalled. I was driving on a Minnesota state highway in broad daylight with the full right of way, when a SUV slid through a Stop sign into the highway from an unmarked intersection. I veered but could not fully avoid the other vehicle, which took out my front-end and spun my truck around several times until it landed on a narrow cement median in the middle of the highway. Had the truck flipped or crossed into oncoming traffic, I would have been seriously disabled or killed. The driver was using a cell phone at the time of the accident, and the Minnesota State Highway Patrol refused to file any type of accident report or driver violation, even though the driver acknowldeged running the Stop sign. I can't stop bad driving, but we can outlaw unsafe driving behavior. Does Mr. Walker suggest that we roll back all driving laws that anyone finds inconvenient? Drunk driving is OK? Driving without a license is OK? Driving without insurance is OK? Driving at night without lights is OK? Preliminary studies have indicated that driving while operating a cell phone and driving under the influence of alcohol both generate the same accident rates. It's time for U.S. society to take action and Save Lives. -David Hedrick Skarjune



comment   RESPONSIBLE CELL PHONE USE IN VEHICLES   8/10/00 1:21:04 PM
William   Martin
Industry Trade Association/Society
Not everyone who uses a cell phone while driving is a menace. One example of positive cell phone use: There are time that the use of a cell phone can actually assist in makinga better driver at the time. How many time have wee seen the lost driver, wandering from lane to lane, unsure which way they want to go. If a person is lost, and is able to call someone and be guided to their destination by the phone, that is better than having them wander from lane to lane - usually creating havoc among the other traffic - while trying to decide which way to go next. I use a cell phone while driving when necessary. Obviously the operative words are "when necessary". Responsible cell phone use is the same as responsible use of anything. The first priority is to pay attention to the task of driving. Some people can do both. A person who is intent on being a good driver will also make the effort while using a cell phone. The real problem as I see it is the people that chat on the phone while driving. They are bored with having to devote their attention to driving, and they decide their time could better be used talking to someone. Since thewy are alone, they chat on the phone. These people seem to have a tendency to get more involved in their chat than driving. If you use the phone as necessary, and keep the calls relatively short, it can be accomplished without losing the focus of driving. And by all means, if the situation on the road requires it, put the phone down!!! I am vehemently against any broad-band legislation against the use of cell phones while driving. If a driver is using their cell phone and are all over the road, committing violations, there are already statutes on the books to deal with careless and reckless driving. These statutes do not require a given reason that the operator is operating carelessly or recklessly, just that they are. Theyt should be stopped and cited for the violations that they committed, not for cell phone use. It is highly probable that they will commit those violations even without the help of a cell phone!! There was a fatal accident in Hilltown Township, PA several months ago, wher a vehicle ran a stop sign and broadsided another vehicle, killing a child. The driver of the striking vehicle stated that he was dialing his cell phone and didn't see the stop sign. Right away the parents of the child and Hilltown Township authorities went on the warpath against cell phone use, and passed legislation outlawing cell phone use while driving. While it was a tragedy, the cell phone did not cause the accident. A careless, ignorant driver caused the accident. He could just as easily have been adjusting his radio or daydreaming. The bottom line is that he chose to look away from the road, apparently for a rather lengthy period of time to not see a stop sign as he was approaching it. Punish the driver for his stupidy, not all drivers because his stupidy involved a cell phone. Lasty, do not get me wrong. I have seen my share of idiots behind the wheel with a cell phone stuck to their ear. However, I'll bet they are idiots even without the cell phone. Thank you.


comment   RE: Victim of a cell phone?   8/10/00 11:58:51 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Victim of a cell phone?

Don't get me wrong. I never said the truck driver wasn't responsible for causing the accident. You're taking me way too literally. Obviously, a cell phone is an inanimate object. The driver was the one supposedly driving. However, the fact that a phone was added to the commercial truck contributed to his negligent behavior. As a result, the truck driver started fiddling with the phone (either placing or answering a call) while his foot was on the accelerator - and it's as if he forgot he was driving. Yes, irresponsible drivers can get distracted for various reasons. That's why adding devices such as phones, faxes, Internet access, etc. makes it that much more dangerous for others who are on the same road. Bottom line: The more distractions available inside vehicles, the more likely some drivers will get involved with these devices and then forget they are driving. Multi-tasking behind the wheel can be lethal. The purpose of driving is to get from Point A to Point B, NOT see how many other things you can do simultaneously. There is a law for drunk driving. As a result, a drunk driver would get a stiff punishment (DWI). If there is a law for using a phone WHILE driving, any perpetrators would get more adequate punishment if they cause an accident. That's the key to help PREVENT these accidents in the first place. What this driver did was gross negligence. However, without this specific law, he basically got off with a slap on the wrist. The company was held accountable. As far as I know, the driver probably still has a commercial truck license and is still out there driving a truck, despite the fact that my life has been put on hold. I never actually met the driver. At the time of the accident (of which I have no memory), I was literally trapped in my car. I had to be extracted and taken by Med'Vac helicopter to a hospital. That driver never once called me to apologize and ask how I was. I wish he would. I would love to have the chance to tell him about all the ailments I have from the neck up combined with a total shoulder replacement and the difficult physical therapy that involves. By the way, a few weeks before that accident, I saw a news program about drivers around L.A. using phones. The interviewer explained the dangers. They all had excuses for getting on the phone - personal, selfish reasons. No real emergencies. A camera was set up. It indicated that while on the phone, one's visual field is directed down toward the dashboard rather than the windshield. Little did I know this would have a direct effect on my life a few weeks later. It could happen to anyone. A few months after the accident when I was able to start driving again (after the double vision went away - just about the only real recovery from that acccident so far) I've noticed more and more drivers on phones. They drive erratically, meander across 2 lanes without signaling, fail to keep up with stop & go traffic, etc. As teenagers get licenses, most likely they will use a phone behind the wheel (they grew up with cell phones). That's more % of drivers using phones. It's getting out of control - like an epidemic. A law will help in preventing people from fiddling with a phone while on the road. Ultimately, it could help save lives or at least prevent others on the road from horrible injuries and ailments they wouldn't otherwise have. By the way, when you said the driver was an idiot, you took the word right out of my mouth. I sincerely thank you for that affirmation. I was told he was nice and felt bad. However, he never contacted me to ask how I was doing. If he has a conscience, he would.



comment   RE: RESPONSIBLE CELL PHONE USE IN VEHIICLES   8/11/00 1:41:35 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: RESPONSIBLE CELL PHONE USE IN VEHICLES

Calling someone on a cell phone to get directions WHILE still driving does not make a better driver. This is an oxymoron. If a driver is lost to the point that he/she is not paying proper attention to the traffic and then combines that distraction with the distraction of getting on the cell phone for directions is a scary thought. As he/she is being guided while on a phone that person will forget to pay attention to others on the road. For example, trying to concentrate on what is being said over the phone while still driving or even attempting to write the directions down on paper. I hope I'm never on the same road with such a driver. If someone is lost, then that person should pull off the road onto a shoulder, along a curb or even into a parking lot of a nearby shopping center. Then he/she can make the call on the cell phone to get directions. THAT is responsible cell phone use in a vehicle. (After all, the person is still in their vehicle, but they're off the road.) This is just common sense. Also, keeping a call relatively short won't help if a person can get distracted enough to cause an accident because he/she was looking down to dial. The same goes for answering a call. Not all drivers can accomplish this without "losing the focus of driving". Maybe some people are capable of keeping their attention on the road even though they use a phone "when necessary". However, MANY aren't. Without a specific law for phone use while driving, how do we weed out those who are incapable of doing both in a safe manner. Police are not everywhere on the roads to stop a dangerous driver BEFORE an accident happens. Legislation could go a long way in accomplishing this. If you think that legislation against using cell phones while driving punishes all drivers who want to use cell phones, even though they have not caused such an accident, then it has most likely become a form of an addiction. (Like an alcoholic - although we have drinking and driving laws). Ten or more years ago, people got along fine driving without getting on a cell phone. Sometimes, technology can do more harm than good. This is one of those times. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying don't take a cell phone with you in the vehicle. It can come in handy. For instance, if your car is broken down, you have a flat tire, or you're stuck in snow and need a tow truck. You're stopped along the side of the road with a real emergency. Another example, as I mentioned earlier, is to pull off the road to call for directions. Obviously, in these situations, the drivers on the road are NEVER at any potential harm from THOSE cell phone users. Not being allowed to use a phone while operating a moving vehicle is NOT punishment. It is a minor inconvience at most that you can easily live with. Like I said, pull over and get off the road to make a call if it's really necessary. The people who are truly "punished" are those who've been hit by others because the one causing the accident was on a phone. If you are ever hit by someone else who is using a phone, and at that time, you weren't the one on the phone, however, you end up with serious injuries or sickly ailments with no hope of a full recovery, then you'll know what it's really like to be "punished". If you're lucky, it may never happen to you. But, there's that possibility, especially without legislation. Safety should always come first.



comment   RE: Yes!!--Re--There is a simple answer   8/11/00 4:18:52 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Yes!! -- Re -- There is a simple answer

These examples are petty and do not prevent the serious accidents. When someone runs a STOP sign or a red light because he/she is so distracted by getting on a cell phone, those are examples of failure to yield. Those situtations are the ones that can cause accidents with bodily harm to others and sometimes even death. It is a waste for a police officer to spend his time to make sure drivers are going fast enough in the left lane and then call it failure to yield. It is even more ridiculous for a police officer to stop someone in the left lane, and then say to that person "Oh, you probably weren't keeping up with traffic because you were on a cell phone". "Just get over in the other lane of the highway if you want to continue to use the phone while driving. No problem". So, then that driver gets in another line, stays on the phone, and suddenly for unexpected reasons, traffic in that lane up ahead has to come to a stop. While this person was allowed to continue to yak on the phone, he/she may not realize the traffic coming to a stop and crash into the last car in the same lane up ahead. That's just wonderful. I guess going the speed limit and over in the left lane takes precedence over the prevention of serious, avoidable accidents. It sounds like you just want to get to your destination as quickly as possible and forget about the safety of others on the road. Now that person who was ALLOWED to continue to use the phone even though they had been pulled over by police, causes a wreck in another lane. I feel for the individual who was just hit from behind. That individual may not ever arrive at his/her destination that day. He/she may end up in a hospital instead with serious injuries. Please, let's get our priorities straight.



comment   RE: The Buddy System:Being courteous and letting someone else take the lead when talking and driving   8/11/00 5:26:07 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: The Buddy System: Being courteous and letting someone else take the lead when talking and driving

How does pulling over to the side of the road when you have an emergency violate the law? That's the only time drivers in vehicles should use a phone in the first place. It is just too dangerous for someone to use a phone while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. There already have been serious accidents on the road because of phone useage. One time is one too many. With a law to ban phone useage by drivers, the people behind the wheel are much less likely to get on a cell phone, period. Most people will decide it's not worth pulling over because it's not an emergency, and also decide it's not worth getting a ticket, either. Before the abundance of cell phones, people drove without feeling the need to amke a phone call. I hope people today aren't so addicted that if a law were passed, they would pull over just to get on the phone for any reason. I would hope they would be more vigilante. After all, there already is such a law in alot of Western European countries. Frankly, the only time a driver should use a cell phone is when he/she is stopped along the road with a REAL emergency (flat tire, broken down vehicle). Otherwise, use the cellular phone when you get to your destination. Even to answer a call (that's what voice mail is for). Please, let's not use phones while the vehicle is in motion (unless you're the passenger).


Navigation Systems
                 
comment   Issues in the Evaluation of Driver Distraction Associated with In-Vehicle Information and Telecommunications Systems

Authors:   Tijerina, L. (Transportation Research Center Inc.).

PDFView Entire Paper

Abstract

The evaluation of in-vehicle information and telecommunications systems from the standpoint of driver distraction is of great importance to highway safety and the successful deployment of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) initiative. In this paper, several issues are discussed that bear upon the evaluation of distraction associated with such systems are discussed. The range of distraction phenomena that should be examined are described. The measures commonly used to assess such demands are mentioned. The issue of incidence of use is introduced with a numerical example to illustrate its importance in estimating the safety impact of a technology. The hazard analysis approach to predicting safety impacts in terms of crash counts is discussed, again with a numerical example showing potential pitfalls of restricting attention to “near miss” data only. Finally, the prospects of building a solid case for the importance of driver distraction on highway safety is discussed by drawing an analogy with research into the link between smoking and cancer.


comment   Driver Workload Assessment of Route Guidance System Destination Entry While Driving: A Test Track Study

Authors:   Tijerina, L., Parmer, E. B. (Transportation Research Center Inc., East Liberty, OH), & Goodman, M. J. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, Washington, D.C.).

PDFView Entire Paper

Abstract

This study examined destination entry while driving with four commercially available route guidance systems. Three of the systems involved various visual-manual demands while the fourth involved voice input and output. Cellular phone dialing and radio tuning were included as comparison tasks. Test participants drove an instrumented passenger car, accompanied by an experimenter, on a 7.5 mile multilane test track with light traffic. Results indicated that, on average, all three systems with visual-manual methods of destination entry were associated with lengthier completion times, longer eyes-off-road-ahead times, longer and more frequent glances to the device, and greater numbers of lane exceedences than the voice system. However, the voice system was associated with substantially longer and more frequent glances away from the road scene to a containing destination information. Performance differences between younger and older test participants tended to be reduced with the voice system. Regardless of system, the destination entry task took substantially longer to complete than 10-digit cellular telephone dialing or radio tuning to a specific frequency. Voice recognition technology appears to be a viable alternative to manual destination entry while driving but other subtle safety issues remain and are discussed.


comment   For navigation systems, how important a feature is the capability to view maps while driving (when the vehicle is in motion)?   

comment   Would you purchase a system that prevents you from entering a destination address while the vehicle is in motion?   

Ask the Expert   Given that many in-vehicle technologies are now available and being used in Japan, what lessons can you offer to make these systems safer for drivers?   7/6/00 11:38:54 AM
Hiroshi   Tsuda
Before giving my view regarding this, I would like to point out that there are differences between the two countries and that some aspects will not translate from one country to the other.

In 1989, when the first "accurate-to-the-exact-street" navigation system for the Japanese market came out, there was much discussion as to how much information should be shown to the driver while the car was in motion. There was also concern over operation of the navigation system, such as inputting destinations. After much debate, it was decided that the major automotive OEMs would get together and conduct research to form the basis for common guidelines that would ensure good usable products while ensuring safety.

Reviews of previous research and follow up experiments with various systems and loads were conducted to come up with what is called the JAMA guidelines. (JAMA: Japanese Automobile Manufacturing Association.) The guidelines have undergone couple of revisions as technology emerged, such as when communication of real-time traffic information became common.

I would not want to use the expression "learn", but rather address what is worth considering when developing and marketing such new in-vehicle systems. Below are personal views that I believe many of my colleagues share.

  1. Human nature; Will the product (even if unintentionally) cause "human nature" to do what is not rationally safe? If the answer is yes, then consideration should be given as to how these systems are designed and marketed.
  2. The Good and the BAD; Will the public benefit from these systems? If so, we should seek to ensure that the merits from these systems will be realized without getting overly cautious and killing the good in them. Therefore, guidelines must be practical. We cannot expect perfection.
  3. Cooperation & Competition Without going against anti-trust issues, there should be good (honest) cooperation between OEMs so that logically and practically correct systems emerge and competition will be fought in areas where we will not sacrifice safety. Having certain restrictions will in many cases spawn new innovative design that are easier to use as well as being safer. This is healthy competition.
  4. Timing is crucial. It is difficult to come to consensus once products come out in great numbers. After committing to a certain design, there could be a tendency for non-logical factors to dominate discussions. So it is better to come to a timely conclusion of a Grade-B solution rather than waiting forever for a Grade-A solution. In some cases, "Good is better than best, because best may never come."
  5. Flexibility. Since technology evolves, we should be prepared to change guidelines to match these changes. There should be an institutional effort and climate that facilitates this making it possible to observe timing issues mentioned above (number 4).



comment   Issues with in-vehicle and telecommunications   7/6/00 1:33:21 PM
Michael   Obradovich
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Issues in the Evaluation of Driver Distraction Associated with In-Vehicle Information and Telecommunications Systems

The real issue how will transportation systems evolve. Will the driver be allowed multiple duties while operating a vehicle. The discussion needs to address the process of evolving to mulitiple tasks, not if it should evolve, but how will it evolve. As functions in transportation become routine functions higher level communications can be initiated by the driver. Just in time information and communication systems need to be implemented. Today vehicles have over 350 seperate driver controls, yet all of these controls do not impede the driver from operating the vehicle normally. In a few years 1500 driver operations will be in the vehicle. A process model is needed to educate the public and government to add functionality.



comment   re driver distractions   7/6/00 4:53:52 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Issues in the Evaluation of Driver Distraction Associated with In-Vehicle Information and Telecommunications Systems

while reading the research paper I realized the overall position, "Here are the stats and the cause of the problem.." not here are answers. I need to here some answers.



comment   Police accident rate using radios   7/10/00 8:58:49 PM
Michael   Obradovich
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Issues in the Evaluation of Driver Distraction Associated with In-Vehicle Information and Telecommunications Systems

Police departments routinely use radio communications, do they have a higher incidence of accidents than other police officers not using radios? Since these people are highly trained valuable information could be gained. Do police using onboard computers (aka using email) have higher accident rates than police officers not using computers. This seems to be the first place to look for accurate accident information, they generate reports and this information can teach us.



comment   In-Vehicle Navigation Systems and Other Yuppie Toys   7/12/00 10:37:52 AM
Tom   Johnson
Private Citizen
These devices are being offered not to address an actual need or safety issue, but to respond to the new affluence and tendency of affluent techies to buy whatever advanced and expensive electronic gear is available. I don't think the government should consider these devices in any different light than it does things like bumper design -- do the proposals have the potential to decrease safety and endanger the public? The early experience with cell phones says yes -- everyone has had a close call from someone who is not paying attention because they're paying more attention to the call than the car(and the road rage factor attributable to the apparent rudeness of drivers who are oblivious to others because they are on the phone should not be ignored)-- so it seems clear that even more devices, especially ones designed to take your eyes off the road, will be a bad thing.


comment   Road Testing the Best and Worst Nav Systems   7/13/00 1:55:27 PM
Christian   Wardlaw
Private Citizen
I've used a number of navigation systems in my work as an automotive journalist, and few are user-friendly enough to program quickly, much less operate while on the road. Most are located in the center of the dash, requiring audio and sometimes climate controls to be bundled with the system to create enough space for the screen. These are the worst. It is ridiculous to force the driver to use toggles and buttons, which scroll thru menus on a tiny screen that can easily be washed out by sunlight, to change audio and climate settings. I would never buy a car that contained a system like this. Mercedes-Benz and Cadillac make perhaps the worst of this kind, installed in the S-Class and DeVille (though offhand, I cannot recall if either bundles the climate control functions with the nav sys -- sorry), but at least Mercedes gives you satellite controls on the steering wheel and a small function monitor in the gauge cluster. Heck, the Benz has a hard-bound manual with more than 100 pages in it that describes how to use the stereo, nav sys and integrated phone functions. It's almost as thick as the manual describing the features and operation of the rest of the car! I spent hours reading it and playing with the gizmos, and the next day I'd forgotten half of what I'd learned. Do we really need this kind of complexity in today's vehicles? Better is the type of system found in the Lincoln Navigator and Land Rover Range Rover. Both of these vehicles offer conventional audio and climate controls, with the nav sys a stand-alone unit. The problem with the one in the Navigator is that it is located down low, so drivers tempted to check the map while hurtling along at 80 mph (traffic speed in LA when things aren't tied up) will not see anything happening in front of the vehicle, even peripherally. I did have the pleasure of driving a 2001 Volvo V70 recently, and the nav sys in this car is a stand-alone unit whose screen pops up from the top of the dashboard. Fingertip controls on the back of the top right steering wheel spoke operate the functions, and the system is relatively easy to use. It's unobtrusive in terms of design, and when viewing the screen at speed, you're still aware of brake lights that might be illuminating in front of you. With the exception of the fact that a front passenger cannot control the system because of the location of the buttons on the steering wheel, this is the best navigation system I've ever used. Does voice-recognition technology help? Not bloody likely, if my experience in the Jaguar S-Type is any indication. Half the time it didn't recognize what I was saying unless I concentrated on speaking slowly, and the damn thing was very hard to learn how to use. In my opinion, the best of the breed is found in Volvos, and all they need to do now is provide dash controls (in addition to those on the steering wheel spoke) so a front passenger, when present, can fiddle with the programming rather than the driver.


comment   My sister was critically hurt by a guy staring at a GPS.   7/14/00 12:20:59 PM
Mark   Shields
Private Citizen
A man staring at a GPS installed in a rental car ran a red light (by 15 to 20 seconds) and plowed into my sister at full speed. He was killed on impact, and she by all means should have been killed. Instead, she suffered a broken left wrist, several broken ribs, a punctured lung, a shattered left shoulder, a broken right femur, a shattered right knee and a shattered right ankle. The GPS was installed down and to the right of the driver -- by where the emergency brake is in most cars. What's worse, Hertz carefully removed the system immediately following the accident. If the police officer hadn't taken pictures and described the problem to us, we never would have known about it. The driver was not drunk and had no physical impairments. However, because he was killed, we will never know for sure that he was staring at the GPS when he went through the intersection. If Hertz hadn't removed the GPS, we probably could have traced the unit's memory at least to see if he had input any coordinates around the time and place of the wreck. HAS ANYONE HAD A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE? I'm sure it has happened before somewhere, and that someone has succeeded in a lawsuit. Right now, Hertz is only willing to pay $15,000 to my sister. That will cover about the first hour of medical bills, which now total over $200,000. Any information anyone might have would be EXTREMELY HELPFUL. Thank you any and all who might help. Mark Shields Markandcam@az.freei.net


comment   Navigation tools    7/14/00 1:00:41 PM
D   hill
Private Citizen

Refering to: In-Vehicle Navigation Systems and Other Yuppie Toys

Can car manufacturers program their electronics so they can not be used if the car is going over say 15mph. If people are lost they shouldn't be speeding at 80mph to see where their next direction is coming up on the screen. Then you're looking at road signs and the nav. screen and ignoring other road traffic/dangers.



comment   should be audio-enabled ONLY while car is in motion   7/15/00 12:42:32 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
maybe there is some way they could be audio-ONLY while the car is in motion, and no display could be seen without stopping the car. Anything else is playing with people's lives so somebody can make a buck off a new gadget.


comment   You are so right   7/15/00 12:52:27 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: In-Vehicle Navigation Systems and Other Yuppie Toys

Like I said, you are so right. There's nothing quite like almost being in a wreck because of one of these gadget-freaks, and then, as you are trying to remember to breathe again after the close call, you look at them and see that they are either cursing at YOU or flipping YOU off. It really brings it home how things have changed in this country about people having any respect for other people, or even seeming to value human life outside their own. These "toys", all of them, contribute to that mentality, in my opinion. P.S. I am not a Luddite; I have been a high-tech professional for over 20 years. I have and use lots of "toys", but not ever at the risk of crippling or killing either myself or someone else.



comment   What about Maps?   7/15/00 10:18:48 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I know for a fact that there are lots of incidents of people getting in accidents while reading a plain old map, and going 55mph. Maybe we should ban maps. Yeah, lets save the people from the destructive force of maps.


comment   Data would not be accurate   7/17/00 1:29:06 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Commercial Driver

Refering to: Police accident rate using radios

While it is true, police are VERY highly trained drivers (probably the BEST outside of commercial realms) any data would be of little use, because, generally speaking, our 'men in blue' are also trained liars. With not so much as a parking ticket in over 10 years, I was convicted of speeding... 69 in a 55... in Kirkersville, OH on the last day of February, 1998 (does 'quota' have something to do with this perhaps?), in a rig which, on flat ground, would require at least a good frost in Hell to exceed 58 mph (yes, it was 'governed'). I regard myself a law abiding citizen (I'm an ex-Navy Veteran), but this experience lost a LOT of my respect for law enforcement personnel. The court experience was humiliating... I'd LOVE to nail Officer Dorman on perjury charges, but I'm not a lawyer, nor can I afford one. Humans are simply too subjective, and cops are no exception.



comment   "HEADS UP AND HANDS ON"   7/17/00 2:34:06 PM
David   McFarland
Commercial Driver
I will attempt to address several issues here, but wish to remain 'upbeat,' because I firmly believe that there are at least 13 solutions to any given problem. Navigation systems are pretty much standard equipment on commercial rigs (at $12,000 a pop), but most of us truckers have the common sense to write down the directions on a 'post-it' note and stick it on the windshield in plain sight prior to placing our 40 ton vehicles in motion. I'm not against technology in motor vehicles, but it should be mandated that everything be 'Heads Up and Hands Free.' In other words, you could put anything you want into a vehicle, provided it takes neither your eyes from the road nor your hands from the wheel. Cell phones would be fine... if they weren't hand held, could be dialed by voice activation, and recorded the conversation 'in totem' so the driver could take down the notes later. Navigation systems vary. If a map is given, it should be given on a heads up display or disabled while the vehicle is in motion. If directions are typed ('Qualcomm'), again, disable in motion. If directions are vocal, based on GPS positioning ('Onstar' system), that would be best. Mobile e-mail is fantastic, but again, disable during motion, or place it on a heads up display and make it voice activated. The technology to make these suggestions a reality exists... it has for some time (F-16 fighters have had 'heads up' displays for 20+ years now); however, I fear, the automotive industry has not incorporated the technology into the 'mainstream' because they can milk more 'Almighty Dollars' out of affluent yuppies by keeping the technology exclusive. 'The simplest solution is the best solution...,' and it doesn't take college educated brainpower to paraphrase 'Occam's Razor.' Anything is possible... let's try to make it AFFORDABLE AND SAFE, and most of all COMMON SENSE! ("Common sense is not so common," -Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac, circa 1789)


comment   Mark... you are SO RIGHT, DUDE!   7/17/00 3:52:55 PM
David   McFarland
Commercial Driver

Refering to: My sister was critically hurt by a guy staring at a GPS.

Mark, you are THERE, mon! Accidents are usually NOT accidents. Most of times they're an example of idiot human beings trying to exceed (deny?) their own mental limitations, then they lie about it when the lawyers get involved. The only justice I see in your situation is that the B*****D died as a result of his own idiocy. Hertz really isn't responsible for your dilema... they were simply trying to provide a service to a customer. Its pretty lame that they pulled the system from the wreck (probably upon the advice of their insurance broker!) though. I am a Responsible Trucker, and some of the carnage I've seen on the road will never EVER leave my soul. Your grief is completely qualified, and understood. I'd advise you to goto CARTALK@CARS.COM and sign into (DR.)Tom and Ray's website. Post a 'Rant 'n Rave' in the 'Cafe Dartre.' They'd LOVE to hear from you, as your experience is truly tragic. 'We' grass roots fans have been lobbying for 3-4 years to ban cell phones. Go there... you will find more sympathetic voices than mine alone- maybe Tommy and Ray will give you a call, they are totally International. They are P****d off about this crap, and so am I. Maybe... 'WE' collectively can do something for you and your 'FAM.' But, you can't get there if you don't go! Dave



comment   GPS nav systems - Save lives   7/18/00 4:20:25 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I have a GPS reciver in my car. In a snowstorm in Nebraska it allowed me to find my way to my parents rural home and safety in near white out conditions. Had I not had it, I would have been standed in a blinding snowstorm with no shelter. Most GPS systems sold today are worthless for this purpose since the are moving map type designed for urban cities. There require you to watch them like a TV set. Mine is a logitude/latitude/heading/speed type with postion fixes. It's disply is small and takes up no more driver scan time than the speedometer. These are useful and life saving devices, with a GPS and Cell phone you can call for emegancey help and tell them where to find you, in any weather, day or night, to great acuracy.


comment   use of cell phones while driving   7/18/00 6:22:20 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Given that many in-vehicle technologies are now available and being used in Japan, what lessons can you offer to make these systems safer for drivers?

The use of cell phones while driving has been a concern of mine ever since they came on the market. While I agree with the writer that said "Cell phones don't cause accidents, people do." It's people using cell phones while driving which increase the risk of accidents increases. I propose that while restricting drivers from the use of cell phones while driving is one posible solution it will not totally resolve the problem. Therefore a backup measure should be enacted. I feel tht legislation should be proposed and lws put into place making the manufacturers and sellers of technical devices such as cell phones, on board computer devices such as navagational and movie devices be hed accountable and bare responsiblity in any accident where the use of these devices are deemed possibly responsible. I was watching a tak show one morning when one of the guest was a 16 year old who's father was buying him a mercedes fully loaded with phone, vcr and video game player. My first question was why would any parent even concider buying any child something like this at such a young age and two who needs a vcr and game player in the car. I use a phone myself because of my profession. But I've got sence enough to use my cell while parked.



comment   Long-term solution   7/18/00 8:56:05 PM
Alex   Mabry
Private Citizen
Technology is not going away, and the number of technological applications which can be used in motor vehicles will continue to grow. Nor are we likely to convince drivers to do without. Furthermore, approaches to driver distraction which focus upon making the various technologies less distracting are somewhat akin to putting fingers in the dike: they are temporary solutions to a permanent problem. Rather than struggling to reconcile the conflicting demands on driver attention imposed by automotive and electronic technologies, we should harness the latter to obviate the need for the former. In short, our researchers should begin developing "driverless" cars. The needed satellite technology, road sensors, etc., either exist presently or could be developed in short order. Absent human error (whether rooted in technological distraction, sensory impairment, or other causes), our roads would become exponentially safer. Additionally, commutes would become smoother, as rubbernecking and traffic jams would be substantially eliminated by automated adjustment of traffic speed. Admittedly, a project of this magnitude would involve huge infrastructure costs, and would also meet with resistance from certain quarters. But the elimination of the need for the nation to spend billions of dollars every year on medical expenses, insurance premiums, and litigation costs, as well as the savings in fuel economy (and consequent environmental gains) would surely make up for the initial high cost. In addition, there is also the simple fact that automobile accidents alone account for approximately as many deaths nationwide annually as the country lost during the entirety of the Viet Nam War. If technology can provide us with the means to save 50,000 lives or more per year, while simultaneously providing the other benefits previously alluded to, then surely we have an obligation to give such an option very serious thought.


comment   Message from the Moderator   7/19/00 8:25:38 AM
Chris   Monk (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Long-term solution

While most of the posts in this session have been engaging and informative, some are drifting from the topic of navigation systems. In particular, the posts that only deal with cell phones should be posted in that session. Also, please refrain 'ranting and raving' about this topic in a personal way if possible. Most of the personal anecdotes are appropriate, but mentioning names of officers that you'd like to 'nail' is not appropriate. If you find yourself using stars (*) in the words you're using, then you should probably choose different words. Please try and maintain a dialog that focuses on the use of navigation systems in vehicles. Thanks for participating! Your voices are being heard.



comment   GPS nave systems -Save lives (yeah right)   7/19/00 9:06:16 AM
Glenn   Wiltse
Private Citizen

Refering to: GPS nav systems - Save lives

I'd like for you to explain how a GPS that only displays your coordiantes could possibly help you drive a vehicle in a white out. How does it keep you from driving off the road, or missing a stop sign? or anything to do with driving a car? I should not have even responded to this because it's pretty clearly just a troll. If on the off chance it's not, you must be a truely remarkable driver to be able to drive by coordiates alone... Note that a moving map system would not be any better or worse in the situation you discribed. I suspect that your just some punk who doens't know his head from a hole in the ground.



comment   A Dangerous Distraction in Moving Vehicles   7/19/00 9:49:34 AM
Bob   Parsons
Private Citizen
A navigation system which requires the driver to take his eyes off the road to view a moving map on an in-dash display is obviously a driver distraction. Unlike a dashboard gauge like a tachometer which requires a quick glance, a continuously changing map or text display requires a significant amount of driver CONCENTRATION. During this time, the driver is not concentrating on the road. This is dangerous, period. I do not oppose voice-activated directions, like "Two miles ahead take exit 7 onto I-80 West" and the like, but I do oppose any in-dash display if the vehicle is moving, which is like a magnet for the driver's attention.


comment   unnecessary toys   7/19/00 4:11:04 PM
d   garrett
Private Citizen

Refering to: In-Vehicle Navigation Systems and Other Yuppie Toys

the only reason for ALL of the "toys of distraction" is the money that's made from "us" buying them.We're told they are going to make our "lives easier".....Ha Ha Ha... Just try calling one of the help numbers to fix one of those toys when it breaks down in 4 months due to todays cheap standards.We're ALL being suckered into these gimmicks! We swallow anything the damn "marketers" tell us. And keep coming back for more! This "constant contact" thing of today is a plague. whew !!!!!!! moonpies



comment   Yes, this is believable   7/19/00 10:27:56 PM
Philip   Robare
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: GPS nave systems -Save lives (yeah right)

I'd like for you to explain how a GPS that only displays your coordiantes(sic)could possibly help you drive a vehicle in a white out.

I believe the system referred to would give notice when the driver reached a turn point. When driving in "near" whiteout conditions it would be possible to see some distance ahead, but not allow you to see sufficiently far to refer to landmarks to determine if a cross road was the one you wanted to turn on. Similar to driving in fog in an unfamiliar area. A nav system that merely informed you when you reached the desired intersection would be enough to safely see the original poster through to his parents house.

I do take issue with the original posters contention that Most GPS systems sold today [...] are moving map type designed for urban cities. They require you to watch them like a TV set. Almost all systems sold today have a startup screen display that reminds the driver to look at the road and not at the map while driving. Many display only the distance to the next turn, and that turn's direction, in the default driving mode. Not something that is interesting to watch. A map display is useful in assuring the driver that they are where the intend to be, haven't gone too far or missed a turn. Something that a quick glance can tell you, similar to the time it takes to read a billboard. Zoom in/zoom out, sliding map displays, etc. are desired by consumers and cost only a small increment to add and so manufacturers do so, afraid of losing competitive advantage. They are not useful while driving.

In response to the second poster's question How does it keep you from driving off the road, or missing a stop sign? I would like to point out that research in Intelligent Vehicles is progressing that will allow systems in the car to alert you if you are about to miss a stop sign, warn you if you are about to leave your lane, slow you down if you are going to fast for an upcoming curve, stop you if there is an obstruction ahead and point your headlights in the direction of the road as you go around a curve.

In furtherance of the main topic in this thread of the discussion - that Nav Systems can save lives - I would like to point to anecdotal evidence collected from consumer surveys that point to a lessening of last minute maneuvers, an increased feeling of safety, and an increase in driver confidence (e.g. less need to look for street names) when using a nav system in an unfamiliar area. Surely accidents are prevented when drivers don't dive for the exit ramp from the left lane because they suddenly realize that they have reached their exit.




comment   Yes, this is believable   7/19/00 10:29:13 PM
Philip   Robare
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: GPS nave systems -Save lives (yeah right)

"I'd like for you to explain how a GPS that only displays your coordiantes"(sic)"could possibly help you drive a vehicle in a white out."

I believe the system referred to would give notice when the driver reached a turn point. When driving in "near" whiteout conditions it would be possible to see some distance ahead, but not allow you to see sufficiently far to refer to landmarks to determine if a cross road was the one you wanted to turn on. Similar to driving in fog in an unfamiliar area. A nav system that merely informed you when you reached the desired intersection would be enough to safely see the original poster through to his parents house.

I do take issue with the original posters contention that "Most GPS systems sold today [...] are moving map type designed for urban cities. They require you to watch them like a TV set." Almost all systems sold today have a startup screen display that reminds the driver to look at the road and not at the map while driving. Many display only the distance to the next turn, and that turn's direction, in the default driving mode. Not something that is interesting to watch. A map display is useful in assuring the driver that they are where the intend to be, haven't gone too far or missed a turn. Something that a quick glance can tell you, similar to the time it takes to read a billboard. Zoom in/zoom out, sliding map displays, etc. are desired by consumers and cost only a small increment to add and so manufacturers do so, afraid of losing competitive advantage. They are not useful while driving.

In response to the second poster's question How does it keep you from driving off the road, or missing a stop sign? I would like to point out that research in Intelligent Vehicles is progressing that will allow systems in the car to alert you if you are about to miss a stop sign, warn you if you are about to leave your lane, slow you down if you are going to fast for an upcoming curve, stop you if there is an obstruction ahead and point your headlights in the direction of the road as you go around a curve.

In furtherance of the main topic in this thread of the discussion - that Nav Systems can save lives - I would like to point to anecdotal evidence collected from consumer surveys that point to a lessening of last minute maneuvers, an increased feeling of safety, and an increase in driver confidence (e.g. less need to look for street names) when using a nav system in an unfamiliar area. Surely accidents are prevented when drivers don't dive for the exit ramp from the left lane because they suddenly realize that they have reached their exit.




comment   No substitute for a live person   7/20/00 10:11:52 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Road Testing the Best and Worst Nav Systems

I understand there are concerns with anyone doing anything but driving while in the car. Looking past that ideal state, I would suggest that GM's OnStar solution available on Saab and Cadillac is much safer than in-car screens on Mercedes, Acura, and Volvo. With the OnStar system, the driver is connected with a live operator who can provide conversational route navigation assistance, leaving the driver's eyes and hands to concentrate on moving the vehicle down the road. Of course I would suggest that anyone that is lost should pull into a well lit parking lot to use any in-car navigational aid, including road maps, OnStar,and in-car systems.



comment   Come again?   7/20/00 1:07:46 PM
Steve   Marlett
Other

Refering to: Issues with in-vehicle and telecommunications

I would like to see you ride a motorcycle and then say that the current level of "driver controls" are not too much for a driver to cope with.



comment   Reference   7/20/00 3:29:34 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Long-term solution

See the "Ask the Experts" comments made by Steven Shladover (also in Design Features). He responded to this question: "What role can automation play in reducing the driver distraction problem? What automated or assistance systems can we expect to see in the future?"



comment   Have you used one?   7/21/00 12:38:34 AM
Joseph   McMillan
Private Citizen

Refering to: A Dangerous Distraction in Moving Vehicles

I would like to take issue with anyone who comments negatively about using a GPS navigation device in a moving vehicle that has never owned or used such a device. I have had more close encounters with people putting in a tape or CD or tuning in a station or spilling their food or putting on makeup or reading or yelling at their kids than I have ever had with using a GPS. Anyone who has used a GPS that is installed properly inline with the drivers view of the road knows that viewing the map or text or compass arrow is just as fast as watching your speed on the old speed-o-meter and it is quite a bit more accurate too. It's been more than once that I have glanced down and noticed that I have missed a turn and in far less time than before I am back on track. I have crossed the country with confidence knowing that poorly placed and missing road signs are no match for a GPS. I never have to worry about the police pointing their radar gun at me either because the GPS speed indicators are dead accurate unlike nearly every car speed-o-meter I have checked for accuracy. Anyway I just want to say don't shoot it down if you have never tried it. I have found several difficult to locate places using the compass pointer on the GPS. I will never be lost. Will you?



comment   The Honda Navigation System   7/24/00 10:30:50 AM
Albert   Prater
Private Citizen

Refering to: Road Testing the Best and Worst Nav Systems

I own a 2000 Honda Odyssey with it's navigation system onboard. I think its great. This system is easy to program and provides voice navigations instructions to the driver. The 4" color monitor is locared in the center of the dash in reach or tht driver and the front seat passanger. It is a touch screen assisted with a joystick and advance programing. The programs that assist you in programing the system are the best i've seen. It also provides for recalling preprogram distinations. This system uses voice commands to give instructions to the driver even if the radio is off. If the radio is on, it turns down the radio and gives a voice instruction to the driver. This system advises (voice) the driver to get in the correct lane long before the intersection. It also advises the driver (voice) as much as a half mile ahead of in intersection, as to the direction he is to turn, then remindes (voice) him when he is within 200 feet of the intersection to turn. If you miss your turn it instructs you back to your route. You are allowed to store addresses and other information in this system. The only drawback I have found has been in rural areas the mapping is poor. As the maps are updated It a matter of uploading a CD.



comment   Controlling usage of driver interface computers.   7/24/00 12:02:20 PM
Mark   Haslam
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Navigation tools

In the truck and bus world we have recognized the different modes of operation. Two of these modes are "Driving Mode" and "Stopped Mode". We use the information from the on-board power train network to know which mode the driver interface computer is in. If the "road speed indicator" on the transmission computer indicates the vehicle is in motion, or in gear, only programs okayed for driving can be used. Other programs cannot be opened or will not operate in a way that distracts the driver. During "Stopped Mode" when the vehicle is at rest and not about to be driven, the driver interface device can run pretty much any program, allowing the truck driver to do things like enter expenses, look for cheaper fuel, or type an e-mail to his family. During driving these devices prevent a driver from having to use a cell phone to get dispatch instructions, or to use a paper map to navigate through an unfamiliar city (to long-haul drivers every load is a new adventure to unfamiliar territory). The net effect is less distraction as a result of new technology.



comment   In your opinion, would a night vision system (designed to display distant objects on a head-up display low on the windshield) improve safety or pose a threat to safety by distracting drivers?   

comment   Technology and Resistance   7/25/00 7:27:36 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I think that if people were to study technology and its impact on humans at the onset vs. 5 years after the technology reached people, I think people would find that with all technology, there is resistance and always has been. Think of when when they made roofs on cars and the concern was that there would be traveling brothels, television and family time, the radio in cars, cellular phones, and now there is the navigational device. Education and the ability to make choices for ourselves is a moderate reaction for a certain future.


comment   Accidents do happen to police   7/26/00 5:56:31 AM
Roger   Caliger
Other

Refering to: Police accident rate using radios

A friend of mine was a police officer in a Kansas City suburb. I know from what he told me, communications from a patrol car can distract you. This is especially true on a "hot" call. This friend of mine was involved in an accident several months ago while on such a call. He blew a stop sign at approx 45 mph, and was t-boned by another vehicle. My impression from what I'm told about this by this police officer. Is that had he not been so glued to what was happening on the radio, and arriving at his destination. This would have never happened. My father is a former Des Moines Iowa police officer. He always told me that the objective was to get there quickly, but not recklessly. And to use only minimal radio contact. He said the only exception was a high speed chase. I see police officers in the town I live in busy talking on cell phones all the time. Sometimes they don't realize that the're holding up the line at a stoplight just yacking. They seem to be in their own world. This isn't true of all police officers, I'm sure. This is just what I've seen, and have been told.



comment   Re-Police Vehicles   7/27/00 5:31:44 PM
A.J.   Hartzer
Police/Enforcement Agency

Refering to: Police accident rate using radios

If you have two Police Officers in the patrol vehicle. It is a fact that the passenger(officer) will do all the commuicating and enter license plates,DL'#s etc.etc. in the on-board MVT(moble video terminal) and use radio there was no problem at all. But, If you are riding solo which I did for the last eight years of my career. On patrol "running a roller" on the MVT it was without a doubt a distraction. The radio was not as you were communicating directly to the dispatcher, and not looking down at your phone trying to punch in someones phone number while weaving all over the road.. OFFICER A.J. HARTZER S.F.P.D.(RET.)



comment   Personal experience   7/27/00 7:37:34 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I have never used a built-in in-car navigation system, but I have often used computer-based mapping software with a GPS to navigate. With the computer on a stand and properly positioned, this setup causes very little distraction. This system has proven very useful to me in two ways: 1) To navigate (by map and voice direction) to places I've never been. 2) When performing drive testing for a cellular phone company, in which we had to drive a very precise and intricate route while another piece of software logged cellular data. My point in all this is that when properly set up, these systems can be very beneficial without causing a driver to be overly distracted.


comment   Mobile Desk for GPS   7/28/00 6:18:36 PM
Doug   Mayer
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier
My name is Doug Mayer; I am the president of Mobile Office Enterprise. We manufacture a mobile computing product called Mobile Desk (www.mobiledesk.com). We also distribute or resell a variety of ancillary products such as TravRoute's Co-Pilot 2000 GPS System. About 30 percent of our Mobile Desk product line is sold for use with a GPS system for in vehicle navigation. Many GPS systems including CO-Pilot 2000 have a special driver mode that blanks out the screen when the car is moving. Some of these GPS software packages include two way interactive voice commands that allow the driver to ask questions like "Where is my next turn?" and "How Far" at which point the software responds "Left turn 500 Feet" or " 5 miles to destination" In my opinion the driver of a vehicle most use extreme care to use a GPS system in what is referred to as Passenger or Navigator mode. Passenger/Navigator mode allows the map to be displayed while the car is moving. As the vehicle driver I ran a one-week experiment that left the software in passenger mode (Map Displayed) while I drove down the road. By the end of the experiment I had concluded that the temptation to glance at the screen was strong at first but the temptation-decreased daily as my confidence in the software grew. I feel that the GPS software packages can be used in both passenger and driver modes safely as long as it was used responsibly and the driver has confidence in the software package. I also feel that the mobile Desk laptop computer mount actually increased my level of confidence because I didn't have to worry about my laptop sliding off the seat or adjusting the laptop in the seat when I felt it was necessary to glance at the screen.


comment   Navigation systems like anything else require common sense.   7/29/00 10:46:27 PM
Richard   Ratcliffe
Academia/ Research Firm
Navigations systems just like any item in a vehicle, speedometer, radio, whatever, require that the driver realizes that he is driving. Glancing at your navigation system is fine, but you don't sit there and study it. I use a toshiba laptop on a desk and a small GPS, it gives me written instructions, moving map and voice. I have used it for a period of years and it has saved me a fortune in maps and time. But I have no problem remembering that I am driving and that is my primary job. Glancing at the nav system is the same as glancing at my speedometer. I would love to have it put on a heads up display however.


comment   Maybe that's why that Boston Police car hit the cab I was in..   7/30/00 11:30:10 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Police accident rate using radios

The police have little accidents all the time. But somehow, it's never their fault. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a LEO zipping along the highway without his seatbelt. The next time you see a police car go by, check out the where the belt is hanging. Talking on the radio is not real safe. I've been a Ham Radio user for 30 years. I've used an FM two-way in all my cars. It's easy to find yourself going towards the sidewalk while looking at the radio display. I've heard other Hams getting into crashes, but I've been lucky so far.



comment   Non-Tech distractions: Paper maps, kids, getting lost   8/1/00 3:51:23 PM
How quickly people forget about non-technology examples of driver distraction. How safe is it to fumble around with folding and reading a paper map? Countless times have I seen people look up or pear out from behind a map. Do you kids ride quietly in the back seat? Their fighting and screeming and talking are equal distractions to issues voice commands to navigation. Finally, the value back to consumers is safety. A driver who is lost is more likely to make unsafe lane changes, spend too much time looking for a place to turn. Most people tend to be less safe when they are lost. Navigation systems will make certain aspects of driving more safe at the cost of increasing risk in other areas. This tradeoff is only questionable if the risk greatly outweighs the benefit. I feel the benefit is there and that Japan and Europe have demonstrated this.


comment   The Human Interface   8/3/00 5:25:43 AM
Mike   Macro
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: No substitute for a live person

My comment applies to all in-vehicle technology - cellphones, navigation internet etc. In my experience drivers prefer to speak to a 'live' operator. In many driver stress conditions a live operator can take the heat out of a situation by offering help and reassurance to a driver. Unfortunately the live operator dedicated to the driver environment is still a rarity, but looks set to take a strong foothold here in the UK and Europe as bureaux open to provide this service. In my experience, listening to car manufacturers and motoring organisations, they are very worried about driver overload and are reluctant to be leaders in placing too much technology under the noses of their driver customers. Until voice recognition and simulation are able to take on genuine human traits (compassion, understanding, patience etc) I believe the human interface is the only answer. The technology exists to deliver as much information as a driver can absorb - and more, (and we're still working with narrow bandwidths!), but at the same time our roads are becoming more congested and increasingly hazardous. I for one want to press a 'Ford' or a 'Mercedes' Button on my steering wheel and have a professional, polite operator help me on my way or connect my telephone call while I keep my hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.



comment   No visual display while moving.   8/5/00 8:57:12 AM
John   Schubert
Private Citizen
IMHO Navigation Systems should not have a visual display (map) viewable by the driver while the car is in motion.


comment   Safety benefits of navigation systems   8/8/00 12:28:17 PM
Mark   Barton
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier
Lost drivers are dangerous drivers. Accidents are caused by: --Drivers who look at paper maps while driving. --Drivers who look at written directions or notes while driving. --Drivers who look for a street sign or landmark, and are distracted from traffic. --Drivers who back up to make a missed turn. --Drivers who make a sudden turn, a sudden stop, or a sudden lane change, because they didn’t know that their turn was coming up. --Drivers who pull over to park and study a map in a dangerous place, such as a freeway shoulder, and are struck by another vehicle at a high speed. There are undoubtedly many other scenarios for accidents that could be prevented with the aid of navigation systems. Navigation systems are perhaps analogous to seat belts and airbags, in that they contribute to overall driver safety even though they may introduce some new risks. Having said all that, I agree that there is potential for improving navigation systems so that they reduce driver distraction. I hope that there is continued and rapid industry innovation and progress to that end. This forum will no doubt serve to encourage that.


comment   HEADS UP DISPLAY, POLICE EXPERIENCE   8/10/00 9:24:50 AM
Richard   Felzer
Police/Enforcement Agency

Refering to: "HEADS UP AND HANDS ON"

I am a retired Police Officer with 33 years of law enforcement experience as a street officer and administrator. Three of those years involved active squad duty with a Mobile Data Computer, (MDC), incorporating a Head Up Display,(HUD). The HUD displays information on a see-through screen on the windshield in the drivers line-of-sight of the road ahead. The displayed information appears to be out in front of the vehicle, so the driver never has to take their eyes off the road nor do they have to re-focus from an in-car or dash mounted monitor. Voice radio traffic is minimized because the officer has all the critical information in front of him or her such as addresses, descriptions etc. This "HEADS UP" technology has been used in jet fighters for years for obvious reasons and with great success. ALL OTHER IN-VEHICLE DISPLAY DEVICES, Monitors,LCD panels etc. require the driver TO TAKE THEIR EYES OFF THE ROAD! Technology in general has improved our lives, and provided us with a wealth of information in a timely fashion,when it is used properly. The safest and the best technology needs to be the standard. Dangerous technology needs to be eliminated. The public drives the market with their buying habits to a great extent but government can guide it with proper regulation. Supply and demand will provide competition to make it affordable. IN MY OPINION, THE ONLY IN-VEHICLE DISPLAY DEVICE VISABLE TO THE DRIVER,THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWABLE BY LAW, IS A HEADS UP DISPLAY. This holds true for GPS, E-Mail, Night Vision, vehicle information such as speed, compass etc. Think about it, EVERY TIME YOU TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THE ROAD TO LOOK AT YOUR; SPEEDOMETER/COMPASS/CELL PHONE/RADIO/MAP/REAR VIEW MIRROR, your car becomes a 2000 POUND UN-GUIDED MISSLE. I hope I'm no where near you when that happens!



comment   Potential Expansion of the 15-Second Rule   8/11/00 9:30:46 AM
Paul   Green
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Driver Workload Assessment of Route Guidance System Destination Entry While Driving: A Test Track Study

Potential Expansion of the 15-Second Rule Paul Green University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Human Factors Division Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 Pagreen@umich.edu Introduction SAE Recommended Practice J2364, commonly known as the 15-Second Rule for Total Task Time or the 15-Second Rule, specifies the maximum time allowed (15 seconds) for completing a navigation system task involving manual controls and visual displays when the task is performed statically. The scope of the rule (Society of Automotive Engineers, 2000) reads as follows: "This Recommended Practice applies to both Original Equipment Manufacturer and aftermarket route-guidance and navigation system functions for passenger vehicles. It establishes a design limit for the total task time for the presentation of visual information and the manual control inputs associated with navigation functions accessible by the driver while the vehicle is in motion. The Recommended Practice does not apply to voice-activated controls or to passenger operation." Section 4 (function accessibility criterion) states, "Any navigation function that is accessible by the driver while a vehicle is in motion shall have a static total task time of less than 15 seconds." Recently, Tijerina, Johnston, Parmer, Winterbottom, and Goodman (2000) have presented research results pertaining to that rule along with a commentary. They are to be commended for their effort to collect data relating to the 15-second total task time rule and provide a stronger scientific basis for safety standards. However, they have drawn conclusions about the rule that go beyond its stated scope, though their thoughts provide useful insights into how the standard might be expanded. How broadly can the rule be applied to other systems (and how can it be extended)? The scope of the rule specifically states it is limited to navigation systems. The data on which the rule was based (see Green, 1999b) involved the analysis of tasks concerned with the operation of controls that required visual guidance. Typically, the eyes-off-the-road time for those tasks was approximately 60% to 75% of the total task time, or roughly 10 seconds (2/3 of 15 seconds). These tasks are structurally similar to navigation system data entry, though the navigation task sequences are much longer. The rule could be applied to other systems that have similar task characteristics and use the same modalities, but cannot be applied to any task. The 10 second total for eyes-off-the-road time, however, can be applied more broadly. As an approximation, many of the common tasks of interest fall into 3 basic categories: (1) tasks that are predominantly visual, such as reading a map, (2) tasks that are predominantly manual but have significant visual components, such as destination entry, and (3) tasks that are predominantly manual, but have some visual aspects, such as dialing a hand-held cellular phone or operating a turn signal. For the predominantly visual tasks, there may be single terminating switch operation, but some situations may only involve visual search. In those cases, the total eyes-off-the-road time and the total task time are approximately equal. Given the fundamental difference between those types of tasks and those covered by the 15-second rule, and the concept on which the 15-second rule was based (10 seconds of eyes-off-the-road time), a maximum task time on the order of 10 seconds could be reasonable in that case. This time, and others offered in this note should not be viewed as precise values supported by an extensive literature review, but reasonable first-cut engineering estimates useful for design and values that can serve as a starting point for broadening the maximum task time rule. For tasks that are highly manual and well learned, much of the data entry is performed without looking at the device, though there are occasional glances to check that manual operations are correct. For example, the author’s impression is that for thumb dialing of a hand-held cell phone, eyes-off-the-road time is about half or less of the static total task time. Consistent with the prior logic, this suggests a maximum allowable task time of double or more the 10 second limit on eyes-off-the-road time, or roughly 20 seconds, though a more careful examination of the literature might support other values (say 18 seconds or 25 seconds). For other mounting locations of cell phones, where the task could be performed differently, other limits may be appropriate. Clearly, the appropriate times for these situations deserves further investigation, and based on those investigations, the times should be refined. However, the key point is that the 15-second limit was specifically intended for navigation systems (with visual displays and manual controls), and application to interfaces and tasks with dissimilar visual demands, such as cell phone dialing, is inappropriate. But, there are extensions of the 15-Second Rule to fit other situations. How broadly can the rule be applied to other modalities? The rule was developed because of concerns that interacting with manual controls and visual displays impose visual demands that distract drivers from looking at the road. In contrast, the visual distraction of voice systems is relatively low, and for them use of the 15-second rule is inappropriate. However, as Tijerina, Parmer, and Goodman (1998) have shown (for the case of the Clarion voice-operated navigation system), eyes-off-the-road time is about 1/3 of total task time. One possible interpretation of this rule would be that a maximum allowable task time for voice-entry tasks should be 30 seconds (3 times 10 seconds). However, the Tijerina, et al. (1998) data also shows that the mean glance times are much shorter than those for manual entries, suggesting that the 30 second limit could be low. Thus, extension of the 15-second limit to beyond navigation systems with manual controls and visual displays should be done with great care, and if anything, the limited literature available suggests that other time limits may be appropriate. Given these comments, how should one view the findings presented in Tijerina, Johnston, Parmer, Winterbottom, and Goodman (2000). In brief, they conducted an experiment on a test track in which 10 drivers matching the demographics of the test protocol specified in SAE J2364 entered destinations using various methods (some manual, some voice), tuned a radio, and dialed a cell phone. Based on a signal detection analysis of the data, they reported "the diagonostic sensitivity of the static completion time measures is close to nil" (page 57). This comment is based on the selection of lanekeeping as a perfectly predictive safety criterion, a selection deserving further debate. Their table 4-2 (page 54) shows the data used to arrive at that conclusion. If the voice entry (VAAN) task and cell phone task are removed from the table, interfaces to which the 15-second rule does not apply, the classification capability of the rule looks even better. If strictly applied (in which case the HVAC adjust and radio tuning tasks are deleted), the predictions are perfect, but of course this assumes that the lane keeping data sampled are the ultimate truth. Is the collection of eye glance data feasible and what will be its impact on product design? Tijerina, et al. (2000) argue that obtaining data on the number of eye glances by direct recording of the driver’s face is not that difficult, an approach that is much easier than using a typical corneal reflection eye fixation recording system. However, even the direct recording approach requires a fully operational navigation system or a high fidelity simulation of one, something that might not be available until late in the design phase (at best). For many manufacturers, the devices used for testing are preproduction prototypes, interfaces so close to production that only minimal changes can be made and for which a commitment to production has already been made. Hence, in many situations, data collected using eye glance schemes occur too late in production to have any immediate impact, though they can be of value in the long term. In contrast, compliance with the 15-Second Task Time Rule could be checked using the calculations procedures in SAE J2365 (Green, 1995a), calculations that only require a description of the design, a paper prototype, or even a back-of-the-envelope sketch. Such information is available very early in design, when changes are easy to make. Furthermore, such calculations can be made fairly quickly, and in situations where the task sequence has been coded in a spreadsheet, some interface modifications potentially could be evaluated in minutes. How good are the modified GOMS estimates? Quite correctly, Tijerina, et al. (2000) point out that there are assumptions of GOMS analysis that may not be true for driver interfaces such as error-free performance, though they provide no supporting data. Should correcting for errors be a common occurrence, completion times for those sequences can be computed, and based on their probability, used to compute a weighted mean time. A simpler computational solution is to add an error correction overhead, say 25%. The author’s experience in using J2365 estimates have been positive but limited. In recent work for 1 sponsor (1 test case so far, currently proprietary), calculations made using the J2365 gave accurate estimates of task times measured using the empirical procedure in J2364. Pending sponsor approval, this analysis (and others) could be released in the near future. Conclusions The author believes that the 15-Second Total Task Time Rule is supported by the literature for the purpose for which it was intended, using manual controls and visual displays associated with navigation systems. Limited experience to date shows that task time estimates determined using the procedures in J2365, a modified GOMS model, are reasonable for determining compliance with the 15-Second Rule. Thus, SAE J2364 and J2365 make sense as they are now and should be used to evaluate the safety and usability of navigation systems. There is clear interest in expanding the scope of J2364 to cover other types of interfaces and tasks. For tasks that are visually intensive, a 10-Second Total Task Time Rule may be appropriate. For tasks that are highly manual, a 20-Second Rule might be appropriate. For tasks involving voice input, a 30-Second Rule may be appropriate. However, before proceeding with these suggestions, further review of the literature and additional research are desired. As a practical matter, the development of an expanded SAE recommended practice, especially without a funded consultant to complete the background work, could take as long as the development of the current version of J2364, close to 4 years. Waiting an additional 4 years before releasing a driver interface safety standard presents an unacceptable risk to the driving public. Therefore, SAE J2364 should be published as is, with enhancements broadening the scope (such as those described here) to be included in a future revision. References Green, P. (2000). Dealing with Potential Distractions from Driver Information Systems, Convergence 2000 Conference Paper, Dearborn, Michigan (to appear). Green, P. (1999a). Estimating Compliance with the 15-Second Rule for Driver-Interface Usabilty and Safety, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Green, P. (1999b). The 15-Second Rule for Driver Information Systems, ITS America Ninth Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.: Intelligent Transportation Society of America, CD-ROM. Society of Automotive Engineers (2000), Navigation and Route Guidance Function Accessibility While Driving (SAE Recommended Practice J2364, draft of January 20, 2000, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Tijerina, L., Parmer, E., and Goodman, M. (1998). Driver Workload Assessment of Route Guidance Syhstem Destination Entry while Driving: A Test Track Study, Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Ceoul, Korea, CD-ROM. Tijerina, L., Johnston, S., Parmer, E., Winterbottom, M.D., and Goodman, M. (2000). Driver Distraction with Route Guidance Systems (Technical Report DOT HS 809 069), East Liberty, OH: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.



comment   map display is very useful   8/11/00 10:28:55 AM
Ray   Bender
Private Citizen

Refering to: Safety benefits of navigation systems

I think that having a map display is less hazardous than looking at a paper map. It is also very useful when you get off route, you can visually see how to get back on route. It is also very useful when the road you are on is NOT in the database, but at least you can see nearby roads that are in the database and you can manually steer towards them.



comment   Destination input while driving   8/11/00 10:34:12 AM
Ray   Bender
Private Citizen

Refering to: Given that many in-vehicle technologies are now available and being used in Japan, what lessons can you offer to make these systems safer for drivers?

I think it is dangerous to allow data input by the driver while driving. Unless the destination can be selected by "Voice Recognition" from a previously prepared address book. I think the main safety improvement would be to put the Navigation Display in the instrument cluster, rather than off to the side where the radio typically is located. Drivers are used to glancing to the instrument cluster, and then returning their eyes to the road quickly. This is why radio controls were moved to the steering wheel.


Night Vision Systems
                 
comment   a good idea   7/8/00 10:21:11 AM
peter   rosenbluth
Private Citizen
any system that expands the vision range of drivers at night , especially in a heads up display, is good. headlights do not range as far as stopping and reaction distance at night on a dark road, especially a twisting one.


comment   Do you own a Cadillac DeVille 2000 with the Night Vision system?   7/10/00 11:57:33 AM
Ken   Gish (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm
We would be extremely interested in hearing from anyone who has had experience using the Night Vision system on the Cadillac DeVille 2000. We would like to hear overall impressions and opinions about the Night Vision system. It would be particularly useful to back up your comments with specific experiences you have had using the display.


comment   Agreed - good idea   7/12/00 3:16:41 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I agree - I drive in the country areas in the summer in forest areas. Night driving is especially nerve wrecking, worrying about hitting an animal or a vheical stopped on the road. Having night vision heads up display is an invaluable asset. I wish it was avalible years ago. I would like to see it become a standard feature in vheicals soon. Perhaps a mandated safety feature. I do not believe it would be a distraction to drivers. But more along the lines of being used like rear view or side mirrors. Tom


comment   Haven't actually seen one of these except on TV   7/15/00 1:16:43 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I think we'll know pretty soon, as they become more prevalent, if these things are human-race-friendly or not.


comment   A HUGE distraction for unqualified drivers   7/19/00 10:12:41 AM
Bob   Parsons
Private Citizen
Night vision devices do NOT belong in any highway vehicles. They permit a driver to drive far beyond the range of illumination of the headlights. This means that people can drive faster into danger. Night vision devices are in common use by the military. Their proper use requires training and discipline. Does General Motors really believe that Caddy drivers have the skills of F-15 pilots? With the new super-intense arc headlights already on these cars, why is a night vision system needed (except to bring GM more money)? Night Vision devices could give drivers false confidence. Drivers using them would willingly drive into fog, rain or dust storms much faster than other drivers, thinking they are safe. How does this promote highway safety? Finally, the one-color heads-up presentation would be the only thing the driver looks at, because it is the only thing the driver can see in poor driving conditions. What about things to the side which the driver would not see because he is going too fast, like approaching vehicles at intersections or trains?? The driver would also loose the COLOR information of important things like traffic lights, railway crossing lights, etc. which would not become visible until too late. This is a dangerous and unneeded application of technology the point of which is not highway or driver safety but just for GM to have a new gadget which sells more cars.


comment   Re: A HUGE distraction......   7/19/00 11:14:39 AM
Ken   Gish (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: A HUGE distraction for unqualified drivers

Do you believe that training would be an effective means of eliminating distraction? Would the training have a lasting effect?



comment   Distraction or Driving Aid?   7/20/00 8:13:11 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Re: A HUGE distraction......

I do not own a Deville but have had the opportunity to have an overnight drive in one equipped with night vision. I have over 20 years of experience in automotive human factors and have driven many prototype and production high tech systems. In a typical urban/suburban environment I found it more of a distraction than an aid. I found my eyes continually jumping between the HUD and the true driving sceen trying to match the two types of information. The restricted field of view of the night vision missed useful information and did not reveal anything that was not visible in the headlights. Items like stop signs were difficult or impossible to 'see' with night vision. The glow from the exhaust systems of leading cars was visually interesting but did not give any information relevant to control of the car. Although more usefulness may come from more experience my initial impression is that it is technology for technology's sake. For a presumedly objective view go to http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/romans/deville.nvision.html



comment   Training would NOT be a satisfactory solution   7/25/00 2:00:56 PM
Bob   Parsons
Private Citizen

Refering to: Re: A HUGE distraction......

Hello, I believe that training would ABSOLUTELY NOT be a solution. If we assume that a special license is NOT required to drive a vehicle equipped with night vision aids, then anybody could plop themselves down in the driver's seat and take off with or without 'training'. Even if the purchaser received 'training,' what happens when he or she sells the car. Who trains the new driver? Will these vehicles enter the rental fleet? You betcha! Who will provide 'training' at Avis? Hertz? Rent-A-Wreck? The concept of training is a joke. I can see it now; Drivers will have the thrill of careening down the roads at night without any lights on to show off and impress their friends because they can still 'see'. How does this promote highway safety? The notion is ABSURD. Action must be taken to stop the misuse of technology which allows people to drive recklessly in poor vision conditions where a sensible person would slow down. The same people who drive recklessly in broad daylight should not have tools to enable them to do in pitch dark!



comment   Good Idea   7/25/00 2:09:16 PM
A Heads Up Device would be extremely practical for people who do a lot of night driving. I now work for the US Air Force where pilots use these systems. I am a former over-the-road driver and would have liked to have had some type of night vision/infrared system.


comment   Technology Advancements are Guaranteed   7/25/00 7:29:48 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I think that if people were to study technology and its impact on humans at the onset vs. 5 years after the technology reached people, I think people would find that with all technology, there is resistance and always has been. Think of when when they made roofs on cars and the concern was that there would be traveling brothels, television and family time, the radio in cars, cellular phones, and now there is the navigational device. Education and the ability to make choices for ourselves is a moderate reaction for a certain future.


comment   HUDs in Cars: Theory and Practice   7/26/00 9:55:38 AM
Ken   Gish (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: Good Idea

Although the idea of HUDs in cars may seem like an appropriate application of a "proven" technology (as was mentioned, HUDs have been in military and commercial aircraft for quite some time), it has not been demonstrated that HUDs are appropriate, or even necessary, for use in cars. The idea is that drivers won't have to risk taking their eyes off the road to acquire information (as with standard instrument panel displays) because (1) the HUD image is closer to the forward line-of-sight, (2) it is possible to see through the image (so, you may still be able to see the road behind the HUD image), and (3) the virtual image distance (typically greater than 10 feet ahead) is more comfortable for most viewers (particularly older drivers with presbyopia). These are some of the reasons HUDs should benefit drivers. At least, that's the theory. What's the practice? Although it is too soon to tell for sure, actual drivers using automotive HUDs may experience numerous problems. For example, the eye has to be within a small 3-D space (called the eye box) in order to acquire the image. So, if you're head is outside the eye box, you will miss important information displayed on the HUD. More pertinent to this forum is the fact that HUDs may be distracting. This may be particularly true at night when workload is "low" (drivers may be bored and/or fatigued). Also, it is important to keep in mind that HUDs will not serve as the primary information source for driving a car(at least not in the foreseeable future). In contrast, HUDs are often the primary information source for aviators. So, anytime the driver glances at the HUD it could (I am playing devil's advocate here a bit) be categorized as a distraction, even though (in the case of Night Vision systems) it is providing longer previews to some objects. So, should HUDs and/or Night Vision be in cars or not? Any opinions? Experiences? We want to hear from you.



comment   HUDs seem to be the Only safe method of conveying info to drivers   7/28/00 1:40:02 PM
Ted   Klumb
Private Citizen

Refering to: HUDs in Cars: Theory and Practice

Greetings: I just posted a comment before noticing yours. I am very concerned when it comes to driving and paying attention. HUDs seem to be very misunderstood. As a user of a HUD I can see why the Police use them and can't understand why HUDs are not explored more are a safe way to convey info to drivers. Many people theorize (I was one of the skeptics) but now that I use one it seems strange that they aren't in every large truck to prevent blind spots or are integrated with cell phone to make them safer. The HUD I am using is the DataVision that was made by Delco for police vehicles so it is not the small display that comes in some GM cars and is displayed on the windshield. Information is displayed on a clear combiner for better resolution and less head and eye movement. It seems to me that there is a big opportunity to provide the information that people want in a safer manner. You seem to be quite correct regarding pilots. Their "driving" is environment far more intense (especially when in attack mode or landing on an aircraft carrier) and the HUD is one of the few indespensible tools that pilots use. If anyone in the world had to deal with information overload it would be a combat pilot. They use the HUD, the radio and their skills and turn off the other distractions. The devil's advocate view might be interpreted that a rear/side view mirror, oil light, brake light, etc. would also be a distraction... I wish I could show you my HUD so that you could better understand my position but your assesment seems fair and reasonable. Ted Klumb



comment   DataVision HUD   7/28/00 1:48:43 PM
Ken   Gish (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: HUDs seem to be the Only safe method of conveying info to drivers

I am familiar with the DataVision HUD. What information do you display on the HUD? Do you use it primarily at night? How long have you been using it? Is the combiner up and to the right (near rear-view mirror)? I am very interested to hear your thoughts.



comment   Re: A Huge Distraction-No way   7/28/00 2:20:31 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: A HUGE distraction for unqualified drivers

Your argument seems weak and, based on your opinion, any new safety device would only entice already stupid and unqualified drivers to act more irresponsibly. The same could be said about airbags or anti-lock brakes giving more confidence to reckless drivers. There is not much that you can add or take away that will change that behavior. I see idiots driving through the conditions you mentioned without any equipment (or insurance-probably)and their fate is deserved-hopefully they don't hurt innocents. Perhaps the HUD could provide a useful warning message like "PULL OVER YOU IDIOT!" to the drivers you describe. I don't understand the comment on color. What specific HUD are you talking about? Is this based on experience, scientific evidence, or personal opinion? Why blame GM for providing a safety feature that people obviously want? I want it and my local Cadillac dealers can't get them... Don't want one? Don't buy one. Don't prevent me from getting one because irresponsible people that should not even be driving (or handling sharp objects) won't be able to handle a sensible safety feature. This is how real progress gets held back.



comment   Training would NOT be a satisfactory solution- 3 other tools would be satisfactory   7/28/00 2:39:44 PM
Ted   Klumb
Private Citizen

Refering to: Training would NOT be a satisfactory solution

There are already three tools that would prevent what you just described. 1. The Law 2. Common Sense 3. Personal Responsibility They are supposed to keep dangerous drivers off the road so that we can develop, use and benefit from technology that works for the vast majority of responsible people. I can't believe that anyone who would need training for night vision would buy it much less use it. Oh, there is yet another solution - push the OFF button.



comment    A HUGE distraction for unqualified drivers - Ol' Wives tale   7/31/00 7:53:19 PM
Jeff   Phillips
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: A HUGE distraction for unqualified drivers

First I would like to state no one will be driving in total darkness with these units, the Cadillac NightVision will only operate when the headlights are on. These units are produced by Raytheon Systems, the company I work for, and are intended as an aid not a substitute for headlights. The GMX Night sight has a MRT (Minimul Resolvable Temperature) of approx. 0.15 degress C and has a FOV (Field of View) of 12 degrees which is more than adequate to detect any side movement. This MRT value should allow you to discern which traffic signal is illuminated just by the heat from the bulb alone. (Top-red, middle-yellow, bottom-green) It should also allow you to make out the letters written on a stop sign due to metal of the sign being cooler than the lettering. After testing these units ( approx. 400+ / month ) we have found it should only take a driver about 30 minutes to become accustomed to the HUD. The average distance of headlights is approx 200 meters with the GMX Night Sight you shoulod be able to detect movement of objects at 600 to1000 meters. The HUD is not meant to be stared at, it is there for your periphal vision to detect movement, that is why a black/white display is used to better detect movement.



comment   DataVision HUD Reply with info   8/2/00 11:19:47 AM
Ted   Klumb
Private Citizen

Refering to: DataVision HUD

I have been using the DataVision HUD for alpha/numeric pages, dispatches from my office, directions (getting the directions before I go and saving the web page) as well as full motion video to monitor my foreign object consuming kid. I have used it primarily in the day when I mostly need those functions-but it works as well in the pitch dark. It does not illuminate the interior of the vehicle and I can adjust the brightness easier than my interior dash lights. I have been trying to connect a palm pilot, and cell phone without much success but I am using a trunk mounted rugged "smart box" with strong wireless capability to try and get it to work with more things. I would prefer it over a standard dash for night driving as we have a big problem with deer in our part of the world. I dislike drivers that don't pay attention and personally don't like to take my eyes off the road to get a piece of gum, so I was a big skeptic. It is really a safe and handy device and can't understand why it is only used in police and emergency vehicles... I will get the guy who lent me the DataVision HUD to participate in this forum as he knows all of the specifics. TK



comment   HUD Distractions - No way   8/2/00 12:55:21 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Police/Enforcement Agency

Refering to: HUDs in Cars: Theory and Practice

I recently had a HUD installed in my car. It is the same system that is used for Police applications. I find that the HUD is a lot less distracting to me then changing my radio channel. I do have to refocus my line of vision to the HUD display and back, but the time it takes to do that is much shorter than looking down at the display on the dash. It is incrediable how well the display works in full sun, I have yet to have a display problem. I have used the HUD with the auto controls, radar, and video on the screen and have yet to find it distracting. I find it much more distracting to dial my cell phone when driving. The future of voice recognition will be a big improvement for this technology.



comment   Better headlights and or trainng instead?   8/5/00 9:12:50 AM
John   Schubert
Private Citizen
I don't think Night Vision Systems issue is as simple as is it a distraction or not. One factor could be as out driving headlights. IMHO US manufacturers (and those responsible for standards) should stop looking for new wiz-bang (read NON-driving) products to add to a car, and go back to the basics.

Headlights for example; Start by looking at what is used in Europe. Figure out how to give the best lights possible on low-beams without causing retinal damage to oncoming drivers. Give us high beams on par with real world speeds.

Drivers training; The requirements to get a license are pathetic. Do some real drivers training, including the areas of car control and common sense. The area that relates to Night Vision Systems, is the obvious to some, DON'T outdrive your headlights!



comment   HUDs in Cars: A suggestion...   8/5/00 6:53:52 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: HUDs in Cars: Theory and Practice

Ok, I am not a fighter pilot - nor do I "need" a constant barrage of information. What about a/an intermittant HUD that can display information that you request (via a thumb switch on wheel) when you need it? For about 15-20 seconds.



comment   Just-in-Time learning is the solution   8/8/00 3:49:31 PM
Michael   Obradovich
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Training would NOT be a satisfactory solution

Driver overload is a problem, new devices will continually try to make thier way into vehicles. Each driver would need an in vehicle system that would educate the driver immediately before the manuever is to be performed. A complete system would include rental cars or personal friends borrowing your own car. Security meassures would include many levels of proof that the driver is informed and ready to perform the manuever. Just-in-Time learning is the answer. New devices need a system for inclusion in the vehicle, the driver learning system would provide the means. Many automakers are familiar with the Just-in-Time learning system but there is little support so far.



comment   Just-in-Time learning in cars   8/8/00 4:19:26 PM
Michael   Obradovich
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: HUDs in Cars: Theory and Practice

Just-in-Time learning provides a means to educate the driver on the usage of the system and illustrate any potential hazards. Drivers need a system that educates the driver to various events. Communication with the driver is what HUD is all about. Communication can and will take on many new forms from technology enhancements to the vehicle. HUD is just one of the first systems to be put in the vehicle offering some value. The question is " how will new devices go through a process model for validation in the vehicle". Just-in-Time learning offers the opportunity to train ever driver at the time of usage. Every driver would need to be present in the moment and use the system properly or not at all. HUD systems offer the driver the opportunity to get assistance when needed in performing driving tasks. Driver work load management is the goal of HUD systems. It seems to me we need to look at these systems more completely, not just as a new device of the moment. We need to consider that more HUD technology will be offered to drivers in the immediate future and that our approach to evaluation is to determine the completeness of the entire driver information system.


Wireless Internet (E-mail)
                 
comment   Speech-based Interaction with In-vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-based E-mail on Drivers’ Attention to the Roadway

Authors:   Lee, J. D., Caven, B., Haake, S., & Brown, T. L. (Cognitive Systems Laboratory, University of Iowa, Department of Industrial Engineering, Iowa City, Iowa).

PDFView Entire Paper

Abstract

As computer applications for cars emerge, speech-based interfaces provide an obvious alternative to the visually demanding graphical user interfaces common on desktop applications. However, speech-based interfaces may pose cognitive demands that could undermine driving safety. This study uses a car-following task to evaluate how a speech-based e-mail system affects drivers’ response to a periodically braking lead vehicle. A baseline condition with no e-mail system was compared to a simple and a complex e-mail system in both simple and complex driving environments. The results show a 30% (310 msec) increase in reaction time when the speech-based system is present. Subjective workload ratings also indicate that speech-based interaction introduces a significant cognitive load, which is highest for the complex e-mail system. A simple model of driver performance shows that, in imminent collision situations, the 310 msec delay induced by the speech-based interface can have important safety implications.


comment   E-Distraction: The Challenges for Safe and Usable Internet Services in Vehicles

Authors:   Burns, P.C. (Volvo Technological Development Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden) & Lansdown, T.C. (Transportation Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, U.K.).

PDFView Entire Paper

Abstract

The availability of Internet information in the vehicle can provide wide and enduring benefits for drivers, passengers, commercial vehicle operations, service providers and transport systems managers. However, there is considerable evidence that complex in-vehicle information systems can distract the driver. These in-vehicle Internet (IVI) services should not be available if they are dangerous to road users. Road safety is paramount and systems must be designed that do not distract drivers dangerously. Presentation of IVI information would be clearly inappropriate in the format that we experience on our desktop computers. Although there are many challenges to be overcome, it is argued that it is possible to design safe integrated IVI systems. This paper discusses some preliminary Human Factors solutions for designing safe driving-compatible interfaces. It is hoped this Driver Distraction Forum can contribute further solutions to this problem.


comment   Speech based E mail on drivers attention   7/6/00 1:42:05 PM
Michael   Obradovich
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Speech-based Interaction with In-vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-based E-mail on Drivers’ Attention to the Roadway

Most vehicles have 350 seperate driver controls. Measuring eachs latent response time would show a scenario where some controls need to be eliminated because of latent response times. What is needed is a complete systems approach to controling transportation devices and individual components. Today vehicles are built using an airplane environment where components are placed at random around the vehicle for drivers to manipulate. Surely some unified control system is needed to minimize distractions and improve operations.



comment   E distractions the challenges   7/6/00 2:02:33 PM
Michael   Obradovich
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: E-Distraction: The Challenges for Safe and Usable Internet Services in Vehicles

Today vehicles have 350 driver controls, tommorrow vehicles will have 1500 controls. What is needed is a common control system that provides intuitive, easy to use functions. Just in time learning will assist drivers in dealing with new devices while operating the transportation device (vehicle). The old paradigm is showing its age, central control sytems are needed for each vehicle.



comment   wireless internet (e-mail)   7/6/00 3:03:22 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Speech-based Interaction with In-vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-based E-mail on Drivers’ Attention to the Roadway

listening to your e-mail in your car should be no more difficult than listening to the radio or the cd/dvd...lets make it easy for ourselves...keep it simple.



comment   Hmmmmm....   7/11/00 7:36:53 AM
Mike   Solibar
Private Citizen

Refering to: wireless internet (e-mail)

Yes, but answering an E-Mail brings up the same problems associated with cell phones. Some people just can't drive and talk at the same time. They become too distracted and crash.



comment   Talk and Drive   7/12/00 11:27:20 AM
Thomas   Bock
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Hmmmmm....

so, should we also ban all passengers from our cars, since we're talking to them also while we're driving. I don't think so.



comment   talking to computers vs. talking to humans   7/12/00 12:49:01 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Talk and Drive

Talking while driving encompasses many different kinds of interactions. Consider these three distinct Scenarios: 1. Conversing with a front-seat passenger while driving 2. Conversing with a friend via phone while driving 3. Interacting with an automated voice system while driving (e.g. managing a list of email messages, or listening to text-to-speech email). S1 is the situation with the least amount of distraction for the driver. The driver and passenger share the same visual and physical contexts: they can both see and react to the driving environment. The conversational interaction is responsive to the driving task: when the driver is in the hot seat (heavy traffic, changing lanes, preparing for a maneuver, etc.), the driver and passenger are both sensitive to this priority and adapt/suspend the conversation accordingly. S2 is more demanding for the driver, because the remote interlocutor is not aware of the demands of the driving situation at any point in time. The passenger does not adapt the conversation in order to accommodate the driving task, so the driver is solely responsible for managing the conversation vis a vis driving. It's harder to do. Also, the driver lacks the visual cues that support conversational interaction with someone who is physically present: think of the difference between speaking with someone on the phone, and someone who is with you. Do you find that it requires more concentration to remain focused on a conversation with someone you cannot see? S3 is like S2 with an additional dimension of difficulty: managing speech interaction with a remote interlocutor who does not adapt the interaction to the driving situation, and who has just landed here from another planet (an automated voice rec system). He doesn't know much English yet, and he doesn't know much about protocols for conversational interaction with humans -- he expects us to figure out how to interact with him. He has a hearing impediment -- he finds it hard to distinguish human speech from the rest of the noise signal, so he frequently misunderstands us. S3 is not at all comparable to S1 (or even S2) in terms of cognitive workload. S1 and S2 are normal human interactions. We can assume that we are understood when we speak with a human -- we do not have to listen closely to verify this. We do not have to think about what the interlocutor expect to hear. We do not have to use strict discourse protocols in order to change the subject, or to resume a conversation that has been interrupted by another event. Our natural human methods of interaction impose a lighter workload than the artificial, imperfect methods of interaction with voice rec systems.



comment   talking to computers vs. talking to humans   7/12/00 12:49:21 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier

Refering to: Talk and Drive

Talking while driving encompasses many different kinds of interactions. Consider these three distinct Scenarios: 1. Conversing with a front-seat passenger while driving 2. Conversing with a friend via phone while driving 3. Interacting with an automated voice system while driving (e.g. managing a list of email messages, or listening to text-to-speech email). S1 is the situation with the least amount of distraction for the driver. The driver and passenger share the same visual and physical contexts: they can both see and react to the driving environment. The conversational interaction is responsive to the driving task: when the driver is in the hot seat (heavy traffic, changing lanes, preparing for a maneuver, etc.), the driver and passenger are both sensitive to this priority and adapt/suspend the conversation accordingly. S2 is more demanding for the driver, because the remote interlocutor is not aware of the demands of the driving situation at any point in time. The passenger does not adapt the conversation in order to accommodate the driving task, so the driver is solely responsible for managing the conversation vis a vis driving. It's harder to do. Also, the driver lacks the visual cues that support conversational interaction with someone who is physically present: think of the difference between speaking with someone on the phone, and someone who is with you. Do you find that it requires more concentration to remain focused on a conversation with someone you cannot see? S3 is like S2 with an additional dimension of difficulty: managing speech interaction with a remote interlocutor who does not adapt the interaction to the driving situation, and who has just landed here from another planet (an automated voice rec system). He doesn't know much English yet, and he doesn't know much about protocols for conversational interaction with humans -- he expects us to figure out how to interact with him. He has a hearing impediment -- he finds it hard to distinguish human speech from the rest of the noise signal, so he frequently misunderstands us. S3 is not at all comparable to S1 (or even S2) in terms of cognitive workload. S1 and S2 are normal human interactions. We can assume that we are understood when we speak with a human -- we do not have to listen closely to verify this. We do not have to think about what the interlocutor expect to hear. We do not have to use strict discourse protocols in order to change the subject, or to resume a conversation that has been interrupted by another event. Our natural human methods of interaction impose a lighter workload than the artificial, imperfect methods of interaction with voice rec systems.



comment   This is an absolutely absurd idea   7/15/00 12:35:08 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
If someone wasn't serious about doing this, I would think it must be a joke. As it already is, I cannot make a simple drive anywhere in my city without encountering crashes and/or near-misses due to people on cell-phones, engrossed in conversation or dialing, oblivious and unconcerned that they are an actual threat to the very lives of the rest of us on the road. Adding even more distraction for people who already can't handle what they have is truly rediculous, especially when you can be sure that the folks who already run out and get the latest distraction will also add the newest one to come along. I firmly believe that the insurance ratings should be brought into this, also, and that people who have these devices should pay significantly higher auto insurance rates. I have been too many times too close to being in a wreck due solely to irresponsible and inconsiderate gadget-queens and gadget-kings.


comment   You *can* safely use e-mail while traveling...   7/15/00 11:47:07 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
The amazing technology that makes this possible? Mass Transit.

If every single minute of your day is in such demand that you must resort to composing e-mail while you commute, then take a train or bus (or taxi, carpool, limo, helicopter, whatever) to your destination. If your local transit options don't meet your needs, write your elected officials and do something about it.

Whatever method you choose, it will free you to be as productive as you feel you must be, while letting someone else concentrate on the real life-or-death task of safely operating the vehicle.



comment   Its a basic answer...   7/15/00 4:40:55 PM
David   Witt
Private Citizen

Refering to: E distractions the challenges

Make a device in the car when a fax or email comes in, the driver cannot open or read it until the car has come to a full stop. They can make anything these days, why do that, and the same with cell phones except for emergancies when you dial 9-1-1. There's no answer in the world or no driver in the world that can tell me that they absolutly must drive their car and talk on the phone. We did fine 10 years ago with out them. Maybe their lives aren't worth it, maybe their kids in the car aren't worth it but mine is.



comment   Cars MUST be connected to the internet.   7/15/00 10:41:58 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
The internet is like the nervous system. It is essential. Any device that is not connected has limited potential to develop advanced features. This may sound esoteric but its true. Communications networks are absolutely essential. Consider a PC. Can you image how useful a PC is without an internet connection? It is now un-imaginable to consider having a PC and note being connected. It is totally limited. By connecting a PC to the internet, it becomes a much more powerful tool. The same can be said for Cars. Cars today have limited value. When you connect a car to the internet, it becomes a MUCH more valuable piece of technology. The possibilities are endless, even though today we are only considering email. The fact is that this is a capability that should not be suppressed. The benefits far far outweigh any risks. We just need to learn to use this technology and adapt to it. Just like fire, it can burn you, but if you learn to use it properly, it can improve the quality of your life. Same with any technology. Man must learn to harness nature and technology, not shy away from it.


comment   voice controled emails   7/16/00 11:46:17 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Speech based E mail on drivers attention

I believe that emails should only be activated by voice command while your driving. I am really interested in what General Motors Onstar division has been doing of lately. All these functions have to be available through a voice user interface like the one General Magic is building for Onstar.



comment   Re: OnStar   7/17/00 4:26:21 PM
Aaron   Steinfeld (Moderator)
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: voice controled emails

As a point of clarification, OnStar interactions are with a human over a cell phone connection. This operator has several advantages with respect to safety. First, they are adapted to talking with drivers; they are less likely to demand excessive amounts of attention. Secondly, the connection provides them with contextural information like location (via GPS) which reduces the amount of questions they need to ask the driver. I would describe OnStar interactions to be closer to those over cell phones than those with e-mail systems.



comment   Outlaw this dangerous distraction   7/19/00 9:15:56 AM
Bob   Parsons
Private Citizen
It is common knowledge that reading an e-mail, composing a reply, correcting or rewriting the reply, sending it, forwarding it to others, etc. requires ATTENTION to the task. The amount of attention that should be allowed to such tasks while someone is driving a motor vehicle should be ZERO. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. NONE! This kind of driver distraction endangers the driver, passengers, and other innocent drivers on the road as well. Would you want Greyhound bus drivers to check their e-mail? Would you want airline pilots to check their e-mail while flying an aircraft? How about doctors in an operating room? Just because technology is available does not mean that it is appropriate to use it anywhere and everywhere! The average driver pays little enough attention to the road, and permitting them to play with e-mail is dangerous, unsafe and plain stupid.


comment   Importance of life   7/19/00 10:54:48 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Speech-based Interaction with In-vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-based E-mail on Drivers’ Attention to the Roadway

What in our lives is so important that we must be accessible to everything and everybody every second of our lives? If you think you are that important you had better reevaluate your life. Do you take your phone or laptop with you when you use the bathroom? When you drive, pay attention to what you are doing (driving) and don't endanger your life or anyone else's. Use a little courtesy (or does that not apply to you because you are so important?) The calls and e-mails can wait.......nothing will happen in the meantime.......they will still be waiting for you and the world will continue.



comment   You're nuts!   7/19/00 11:01:06 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cars MUST be connected to the internet.

What earthly use is there for connecting a car to the Internet? Can the Internet drive the car for you? Stay off the 'net till you get home or to your office. It doesn't belong in the car.



comment   Time Waits for No one, nor do Emails   7/19/00 1:50:15 PM
Reyn   Mansson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Importance of life

I'm the E-commerce director for 7 transportation retailers. I coordinate to efforts of 2 dozen people in 3 locations in two states. I will not be tied to a desk to be able to work. I have been mobile since 1987. I can also chew gum and walk. I have always fell it was at least part jealousy that motivated the propagators of such foolish ideas as banning new technologies like email pagers, cell phones and on-board navigation devices. Like the 55 MPH speed limit, how would you enforce such an unpopular prohibition? Road blocks? You can’t even get people to wear seat belts! They tried to ban radios in cars for the very same reasons 80 years ago. I see we still have radios. Leave it alone!



comment   RE: Outlaw this dangerous distraction   7/19/00 2:07:37 PM
Charles   Indelicato
Private Citizen

Refering to: Outlaw this dangerous distraction

It is common knowledge that reading an e-mail, composing a reply, correcting or rewriting the reply, sending it, forwarding it to others, etc. requires ATTENTION to the task. The amount of attention that should be allowed to such tasks while someone is driving a motor vehicle should be ZERO. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. NONE!

The average driver pays little enough attention to the road, and permitting them to play with e-mail is dangerous, unsafe and plain stupid


How do you propose to outlaw this technology? If I car pool, and I am a passenger, would I be breaking the law if I checked my e-mail or made a cell call? Why? Don't you see how short-sighted automatically demanding a law can be?

We have laws on the books for reckless driving, and yet they still act reckless (with and without technology in their hands). Let people pay the consequences for their actions and be done with it. More laws are only feel-good and do nothing to combat the problem of inattentive drivers.

C:




comment   Driver use is the problem, not passenger use   7/25/00 2:16:35 PM
Bob   Parsons
Private Citizen

Refering to: RE: Outlaw this dangerous distraction

Charles, Nobody cares if a passenger checks their e-mail, combs their hair, brushes their teeth, or nukes dinner in a microwave oven. If the driver does these things, obviously THAT is where the problem is and it absolutely must be outlawed. That's right- made illegal, just like many activities that are dangerous or are not in the interest of public safety are illegal. This is the responsibility of government- to enact laws that protect the average citizen, like you and me- even if we don't like it. Without law, we would have people who think it's OK for anybody to do anything. You mentioned reckless drivers. Yes, they are bad enough to have on the road. Let me ask you a question. Who would you want to have tailgating you at 60 MPH in the left lane while you are boxed in in heavy traffic, a reckless driver or a reckless driver who is also reading their e-mail (or talking on a cell phone, or sending a FAX?) Are you getting the point?



comment   The Future vs. the Past   7/25/00 7:28:38 PM
belinda   lamb
Private Citizen
I think that if people were to study technology and its impact on humans at the onset vs. 5 years after the technology reached people, I think people would find that with all technology, there is resistance and always has been. Think of when when they made roofs on cars and the concern was that there would be traveling brothels, television and family time, the radio in cars, cellular phones, and now there is the navigational device. Education and the ability to make choices for ourselves is a moderate reaction for a certain future.


comment   The Future vs. the Past   7/25/00 7:28:44 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I think that if people were to study technology and its impact on humans at the onset vs. 5 years after the technology reached people, I think people would find that with all technology, there is resistance and always has been. Think of when when they made roofs on cars and the concern was that there would be traveling brothels, television and family time, the radio in cars, cellular phones, and now there is the navigational device. Education and the ability to make choices for ourselves is a moderate reaction for a certain future.


comment   Conversation   7/26/00 10:14:57 AM

Refering to: Speech-based Interaction with In-vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-based E-mail on Drivers’ Attention to the Roadway

Has anyone done a study based on carrying on a conversation with another person in the vehicle? If so I would like to see the results of it.



comment   No, You're nuts! Cars MUST be connected to the internet.   8/1/00 11:03:37 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: You're nuts!

In reply to "You're nuts": Ah, my little grasshopper. You have much to learn about the power of the Net. We are only at the beginning of the journey, and it is difficult for you to see what lies ahead. But have no fear, grasshopper. Open your mind, and one day you might understand. The Net is the key to intelligent machines. Imagine a place, where the Net is everywhere, and in everything. Imagine if everything is part of the net, and every object is able to "talk" to other objects. Objects that are inanimate today, will come to life. Imagine a car that can "talk" to the car ahead, and each car know's where it's going, and they exchange what speed they are going. When one car slows down, it immediately communicates this to the other cars behind it, who communicate to the cars behind them, instantaneously, and the cars adjust their speed accordingly, avoiding a pile-up. Your car "knows" before you do, that the fifth car ahead of you just slammed its brakes, because the cars ahead told it so. Imagine that you get in an accident in a lonely highway, and your car automatically contacts 911 for you. Imagine that the speed limit sign has a chip inside it, and is connected to the net, and it talks to the passing cars and tells them to slow down. Imagine that the streetlight can communicate to headquarters when one of its bulbs has blown out. Imagine that the streetlight can "tell" your car that it's about to turn yellow in 1 second, and your car tells you to slow down. Imagine that your car can receive personalized traffic reports, and suggest alternate routes. Imagine that your car can detect when it needs service, and can send an automatic email to the repair shop and schedule an appointment for itself. My little grasshopper, just imagine the possibilities of intelligent cars.



comment   WHY???   8/5/00 9:00:13 AM
John   Schubert
Private Citizen
Who's idiotic idea is it to put Wireless Internet (E-mail) in a moving vehicle, accessible by the driver?


comment   You're Nuts   8/8/00 11:18:09 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: You're nuts!

Exactly--keep the internet in the office, home, coffee shop or wherever. There is absolutely no place for it in a vehicle. The only exception I can think of is someone who just came up with a cure for cancer, the common cold or the idiot driver.



comment   voice email   8/11/00 10:41:31 AM
Ray   Bender
Private Citizen

Refering to: voice controled emails

I think Voice Email (listening to or speaking to create one) can be safe for the driver to perform while driving. It is no more dangerous than a regular Cell phone conversation. The controls for reading/creating "Voice Email" should be located on the steering wheel, rather than requiring the driver to lean over to the radio and press a series of buttons. The interface can be a combination of button press and audible command (i.e. press the EMAIL button, and then the system audibly prompts you with: READ or WRITE to which you audibly respond: READ or WRITE). Choosing the destination address for the email becomes trivial when replying to an email. Choosing the address for a newly composed email requires more driver interaction. Must choose from his "Email address book". I think the main safety improvement is to put the Display in the instrument cluster so that the driver can keep his eye on the road while selecting an email address.



comment   RE: You're Nuts   8/12/00 1:27:31 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: You're Nuts

I totally agree with you. Idiot drivers with cell phones in their vehicles have already caused serious accidents. Unfortunately, I already experienced that first hand just over 2 years ago. A truck driver got so distracted by fiddling with a phone, he didn't see the line of traffic that was stopped ahead of him where there was a red light. Still oblivious to his surroundings he crashed into the back of my car, knocking it into the vehicles stopped in front of me. I sustained a severe head injury, fractures in my face, base of my skull and both middle ears. Combined with that, the bones in my right shoulder and upper arm were shattered. As a result, I had to have a total shoulder replacement. I've also been robbed of my tears, adequate saliva, and moisture in sinuses due to nerve injuries. These problems cause painful conditions in my face, eyes and severe dry mouth. Recently, I saw a cartoon in the Washington Post that sums it up perfectly. In the cartoon, there are two men in a vehicle. The driver is looking down at the console between the front seats, tapping away, just mesmerized with all the wireless features. He says to the passenger "Yep...Got my cellphone, my pager, my internet link, my wireless fax, and thanks to this nifty satellite navigating system, I know precisely where I am at all times!". As he is saying this, there is an image of the front of a huge truck heading right at their windshield. The passenger has this frozen look of fear on his face, with his hair standing on end. I don't know what happened to common sense. There is already such a problem with cell phone distractions, and now they want to add Internet access on top of that!? Aside from a cure for idiot drivers, I can think of only one other impossible invention that can allow this to take place. That would be a magic wand. Then, the victims of these accidents waiting to happen (and some that already have) can be cured of all their injuries and ailments with that magic wand.



comment   RE: Cars MUST be connected to the internet.   8/12/00 2:45:22 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cars MUST be connected to the internet.

Learn to use this technology - in a moving vehicle!? That's irresponsible and dangerous. Adding e-mail access and the Internet to a vehicle would put people's lives at risk. Don't forget about the other people on the road. Their lives and health are much much more important than the "limited value" of a car. Cars can be replaced. A person's health or life can't be. A car isn't supposed to be a "piece of technology". The purpose of a car is to provide a means of getting from point A to point B, and IN A SAFE MANNER. Please, remember what you learned in Driver's Ed. That is, to keep your attention on the road and the surrounding traffic, period. Today, drivers can't even use a cell phone without causing horrific accidents. I've already been involved in an accident because of an irresponsible cell phone user. While fiddling with the phone, he forgot he was driving and slammed into the back of my car, which was stopped behind traffic. The availability of this technology only did harm to the quality of my life. As a result, my health will never be the same. Combined with a shattered shoulder, I suffered head trauma and nerve injuries. I was robbed of the natural ability to produce tears, adequate saliva or moisture in my sinuses. Those glands aren't functioning properly because nerves aren't signaling properly from the brain to those areas due to the severe impact of that crash. Because of that, I'm in pain every day and have to take time out to put thick, sticky drops in my eyes, irrigate my sinuses with saline solution, and take a prescription drug for more saliva, which causes side effects. So, don't talk to me about the nervous system! I no longer trust other drivers to be capable and responsible while operating a moving vehicle, which can become a lethal weapon when used improperly. Defensive driving doesn't help when stopped behind other traffic. You become a sitting duck. That's why I cringe at the thought of adding Wireless Internet inside a vehicle. As it is, drivers can't even use phones in a safe manner.



comment   RE: No Your Nuts! Cars MUST be connected to the internet   8/12/00 7:42:00 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: No, You're nuts! Cars MUST be connected to the internet.

And who do you think will supply all this wonderful technology? Microsoft? Then the "Blue Screen of Death" can be taken literally instead of figuratively.


Information & Entertainment Systems
                 
comment   Stereo systems with wheels   7/5/00 10:08:33 AM
Sean   Ross
Private Citizen
A number of drivers, mostly young males, have converted their vehicles into mobile sound systems. In many cases they have extra batteries in their trunk and high powered stereo systems. #1- If the volume is loud enough to be heard inside another vehicle with its windows shut when the sound producing vehicle also has its windows shut, then the driver producing the sound cannot hear horns or sirens. Music of this volume is also physical, meaning that it vibrates doors, windows and body parts. The driver of the sound producing vehicle cannot help but be physically vibrated and thus pay less attention to his driving than otherwise. #2- Loud sounds, especially from 200+ Watt subwoofers, create an "annoyance" radius around the sound producing vehicle causing surrounding drivers to pay attention to the four wheeled stereo next to them. Therefore- There needs to be decibel limits on how loud one is permitted to play a stereo in a vehicle and power limits on stereo systems making it illegal to install stereos capable of exceeding the decibel limit in ones vehicle.


comment   To My Kids   7/5/00 12:42:12 PM
Bill   Rees
Private Citizen
William H. Rees 5652 N. Pike Lake Rd. Duluth, MN 55811 (218)729-5852/whrees@aol.com 7/5/2000 To NHTSA Re. Comments on driver distraction. I sent the article “Distracted drivers cause up to half of traffic mishaps, safety group says,” in the June 28 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, to my three teen-age drivers, and with it sent the following comments. I pass the comments along in response to your request for comments about the distracted driver problem. I add that holding manufacturers and vendors responsible for driver distractions is an appallingly bad idea, one with limitless legal implications. Teach safe attitudes by all means, but never sue a manufacturer for stupid use of a product. Sincerely, William H, Rees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rees Drivers, (7/4/00 Driving Distractions) This article brings up a point that simply cannot be over-emphasized; never, ever, allow distractions to affect your driving. Always, under all circumstances, maintain control of your vehicle. This means that if a bee lands on your hand, and is merrily stinging the hand, first above all else control your vehicle, for stings will heal and death will not. Needless to say, a bee flying around inside the vehicle is even less cause for concern, for he just wants to get out. It is of course therefore hardly necessary to mention that stupid and rude drivers, and those who give you the finger, never justify distraction. Don’t ever forget this! That said, I have some problems with the article. The 15% in the poll is probably more like 1% (a lot of people lie to pollsters). Everybody does some of the mentioned things. I do them all, but always with vehicle control first in mind. When I need to do something distracting I first pick my place and time. I pour coffee only when the road is wide, straight and clear. I don’t eat things in the car that may drop a mess in my lap. If there is no safe place and time, I pull over and stop the vehicle. If I drop something on the floor, I know It will stay there until I can safely get it. If I drop a lit cigarette in my lap, I knock it to the floor and leave it there until I find a safe place and pull over. In short, one can do all the listed distracting things, but NEVER do them in a distracting way. It’s really a matter of attitude. The accident in which pedestrian Steven King was run down deserves a comment. You are never safe just because you have the right-of-way. King had a perfect right to walk alongside the road but a stupid driver still put him in the hospital. Thoughtless use of crosswalks is perhaps less safe than careful jaywalking. Whenever a vehicle is in a position where it can get you, make sure it doesn’t. All accidents are unexpected. I shudder to read the words, “Manufacturers and vendors have a responsibility...” They tell me that this advocacy group would favor lawsuits against people who produce or sell things that somebody can blame for their distraction. Bad drivers can thus become victims rather than perpetrators, a very bad idea. People become distracted only because they allow themselves to become distracted. Don’t let it happen to you! Love, Dad


comment   Agreement on noise level   7/7/00 1:18:28 PM
Allison   Jones
Private Citizen

Refering to: Stereo systems with wheels

If I can hear the stereo of the vehicle next to me when my windows are up it is too loud. Especially when it drowns out my radio. There is no way the driver will hear the sirens. During the daytime drivers hear the sirens before they see the flashing lights



comment   TV on board.   7/8/00 9:48:27 AM
Gabriel   Edell
Private Citizen
The other night I was driving and noted 3 vehicles had televisions that were being viewed by the occupants. I know this feature is being added to a lot of minivans and SUV's to keep children in the back occupied. One SUV in front of me was swerving back and forth dangerously. As I changed lanes to keep a safe distance, I saw that there was an LCD TV screen mounted on the dashboard AND THE DRIVER WAS WATCHING IT!! We came to a light and I was able to discern that they were watching a popular network sitcom. That this is incredibly dangerous should be apparent to everyone, but this person was obviously too stupid or selfish to care. I don't know what laws are in place that regulate this but I think there should be stiff penalties (i.e. loss of driving privelidges, big fines) for drivers who have a TV mounted in the front.


comment   drivers should be driving, not actively viewing anything other than road   7/8/00 10:17:54 AM
peter   rosenbluth
Private Citizen

Refering to: TV on board.

It is dangerous enough driving a car . No distractions that require visual attention should be allowed. We have made an effort to have all car controls so that the driver does not take their eyes off the road. It should be a penalty like drunk driving to be doing any visual activity other than driving. I have almost been hit by a car on several occasions while riding my bike and while driving because the driver was doing something other than driving. this includes cell phones, talking to the other occupants of the car, and watching anything but the job of driving. make illegal any visual device that the driver must focus full attention on ( like cell phone, navigation system, etc) that the driver can see while driving. road rallies have drivers and navigators for this reason. if you have better things to do while driving, stop driving and do them.



comment   Cell phones don't cause accidents, people do!   7/8/00 7:39:10 PM
Michael   Rudmin
Private Citizen
It occurs to me that we do have to be aware that driver stupidity can extend beyond technology. The most shocking case I can think of was where I was in a car, and the 19-year-old driver found a sci-fi novel to be too good to put down, and was on the interstate with a book on the wheel, "catching a sentence" whenever he could. Fortunately, there was nobody in the car besides the driver, and he was properly shocked at his own behavior and stopped it before someone got killed (since he's 30 now, I guess he learned his lesson the easy way.) Of course, that doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done about driving under the influence of infotech. But it does, perhaps, mean that it would be as inappropriate to ban all technology as it would be to ignore those who read their newspapers and such on the interstate (Washington DC morning traffic excepted). Rather, there should be a tie between the riskiness of the activity and whether it is banned. For example, outgoing voice email might be perfectly fine, while hands-free cell phones might still be a problem.


comment   That annoying noise   7/9/00 9:45:57 AM
Ron   Arfons
Private Citizen

Refering to: Stereo systems with wheels

I get really upset when one of these mobile annoyance vehicles gets in range of my vehicle. There are times when I would like to pull them over and jerk out their speakers! The thing that most upsets me is the fact that you dont hear or see them first, you feel them first, you get the sensation that your stomach is growling then as they get closer it moves upward into your chest cavity vibrating your heart and lungs viciously. I am in total belief that there is a time and place for everything, this is not the time and the place lies way out there in space somewhere...... somewhere that no man has been before.



comment   Cell phones (and other distractions) HELP people cause accidents   7/12/00 10:26:30 AM
Tom   Johnson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Cell phones don't cause accidents, people do!

I think taking the gun lobby's slogan in this issue is misleading -- of course cell phones don't cause accidents by themselves, but they certainly seem to be a serious contributing cause. The text of your comment is much more to the point -- anything that causes drivers to divert their attention from the serious and potentially dangerous business of driving is bad. It seems to me that cell phones and the like do this more than activities such as eating or grooming, which are fairly mindless, but, as you rightly point out, probably less than reading, which is the ultimate stupidity. We don't outlaw eating because it is probably not a big cause of accidents, but we certainly should outlaw reading and should seriously consider outlawing electronic distractions. As a note, I cannot believe the NHSTB would even consider allowing things like night vision, maps, and TV to be provided as installed options in authomobiles -- the obvious dangers are much greater than the dangers of faulty airbags that the board has spent so much time and effort on.



comment   Audio-ONLY can be used safely by the person with good judgement   7/15/00 1:09:59 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Anything that involves video/display for the driver is just plain dangerous. People with judgement can pick their music out and put it in BEFORE they start to drive, and thereby not endanger their fellow human being. I know, I do it ALL the time. However, if there are too many of the cell-phone/navigation/e-mail/internet-while-u-drive users out there who are also using their stereo systems in the same irresponsible and inconsiderate manner, then at some point there will probably be enough deaths because of it to make us have to wonder again if the personal freedoms enjoyed and respected by some of us will have to be legislated in order to keep us from being killed or crippled by those without the respect and consideration to be able to handle personal freedoms. It's really very sad.


comment   Annoying/Distracting Car Stereos are unsafe   7/15/00 11:15:40 AM
Mike   Voytko
Private Citizen

Refering to: Stereo systems with wheels

Though car stereos can be used safely and responsibly by some people, I agree that car audio gear, both OEM and especially aftermarket, has become so excessively powerful as to impair the driver's hearing (permanently) *and* pose a distraction/annoyance to other drivers, and anyone else in the surrounding area--indoors or out. I find this a major contributor to driving related stress, which in turn makes me less focused on the road. Since we require cars to be factory equipped with mufflers & emission controls to protect the peace and the environment, imposing objective wattage/equipment limitations _and_ more subjective usage restrictions on car audio systems should be a logical next step. Manufacturers should certainly not be able to ship cars with OEM systems that are advertised as being as powerful as a dance club's. Laws need to be written or revised so that law enforcement need not carry expensive commerical noise meters to be able to issue a violation; right now, some jurisdictions with laws on the books can't effectively enforce them, because they are written around specific decibel limits. Let's face it: if someone has a 12" subwoofer installed in their car, it's probably not there for decoration purposes. And if a stereo can be heard outside the vehicle, that should be sufficient for issuing a violation, in the same way that witnessing any other traffic violation is. Stiff fines should be imposed, but these can still be ignored by the most determined scofflaw. Confiscating offending equipment or even impounding vehicles would be a strong deterrent for repeat offenders; Certain states that ban radar detectors already permit confiscation. The original poster's statement that mostly young males behave in this manner suggests another important task: preventing these behavior patterns from developing, and carrying into adulthood. Young people have been finding ways to make cars noisy and distracting for years, but it seems fewer and fewer are growing out of it. Parents and educators need to be strong, attentive role models so that their charges learn to grow up to be considerate, and have things to occupy their time besides deafening and endangering themselves and others on the road.



comment   Cell Telephones   7/17/00 3:18:27 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Even cell phones with speakers are a deadly distraction. I believe we need to restrict the use of cell phones.


comment   Car Stereos worse than Cellphones   7/18/00 6:51:35 PM
I still have no idea why people insist on driving with stereos and reverb blaring so loudly that vibrations from the vehicle can be felt up to 1/4 mile away. Not only is it distracting for the DRIVER of the car, but it distracts others driving in the vicinity, being forced to listen to that booming bass. I could care less if the drivers wish to lose their hearing by age 25 (most are well on the way to that now...thankfully!) but why do we have to put up with it? I hear that some cities are banning loud car stereos, but I wonder if it is enforced. I witnessed such a car yesterday: stereo blaring and driver also talking on a cellphone! Imagine his poor connection...


comment   "Earthquake Sound" In Cars Has To GO!   7/18/00 7:42:03 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
By far the most prevalent and most major distraction in cars today is sound systems, both OEM and aftermarket. The problems are several. First, the sound level generated by some equipment is so loud and has so much bass that drivers of vehicles so equipped cannot hear emergency vehicle sirens, no matter how loud or piercing. Second, sound waves from these vehicles are capable of causing extreme discomfort for other nearby drivers, both auditory and emotional. I have witnessed incidents of rage directed at drivers of vehicles with these sound systems. I have also witnessed- on several occasions- vehicles so equipped setting off the motion-sensitive anti-theft alarms on nearby cars in parking lots. The capabilities of these systems far surpass anything needed for clarity of sound in an automobile. Local law enforcement is evidently incapable of handling the problem; even in a jurisdiction where ordinances exist, like my native Atlanta, it is next-to-impossible to obtain enforcement. As I see it, the only real solution is Federal regulation of automotive sound systems. I would like to see regulations emcompassing the following restrictions: 1) Restriction on the size (in overall surface area) of speakers, and the depth of speaker cones, as well as the allowable weight of speaker magnets, applicable to all OEM and aftermarket equipment. 2) A restriction on the number of speakers allowed in a vehicle, with the restriction applicable to every class of vehicle extant. 3) A restriction on the power of amplifiers, both OEM and aftermarket; my suggestion here would be to examine the wattage of lower-end OEM systems and restrict wattages to a level somewhere in the range of wattages found in such systems. 4) A complete ban on pre-amplifiers. 5) A complete ban on sub-woofers. 6) A complete ban on the installation of additional batteries in automobiles; only the OEM battery setup should be permitted. 7) A requirement that all sound system equipment designs, whether OEM or aftermarket, be submitted for Federal approval before being permitted for sale or distribution. I would also like to see a class of Federal violation created for drivers who violate such regulations, with a system of Federal enforcement; local jurisdiction enforcement is a complete joke. I would also want to see regulations concerning such sound systems enacted with NO "grandfathering" whatever; drivers of vehicles in violation of new regulations should be required to remove the equipment completely. Again, these systems are dangerous to both the drivers of the vehicles so equipped, and to the public at large. PLEASE help stop this horrendous auditory assault!


comment   Action Needed to Outlaw BOOM Cars   7/19/00 10:30:13 AM
Bob   Parsons
Private Citizen
Drivers traveling down the road who are listening to 500+ watt stereo systems can not hear a bicycle bell. Or a child scream. Or a car horn. In fact, they can not hear anything except their music, which has been amplified to the 140+ db level of a jet engine which causes permanent, non-reversible hearing loss. Why on earth is this permitted in moving vehicles, and why are there not laws against this? Aside from the fact that drivers of BOOM cars can not hear anything, they cause a distraction to other drivers who, by the way, have a right not to be forced to listen to BOOM music. I take small pleasure in the absolute, provable, scientific knowledge that these drivers will need hearing aids before they are 30. I am very concerned that these drivers are immune to warnings from other drivers because they can not hear a car horn- the one warning that avoids many accidents. BTW- people who wear stereo earphones can also not hear anything else. The use of stereo earphones should likewise be outlawed.


comment   BAN TV's in vehicles!!!!   7/19/00 11:07:50 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: TV on board.

You're absolutely right - put a TV set in a vehicle and the driver WILL try to watch it. BAN them. Whatever happened to the days when you had your kids playing games to occupy their time? Simple, easy games, like the ones where you look for certain license plates, or certain makes and models of cars, or certain colors, etc.? That's what we did when I was a child. I wouldn't have a car or van with a TV in it. That is an accident looking for a place to happen.



comment   Prime-Time on the Dashboard   7/19/00 5:47:13 PM
Mel   Barnhart
Private Citizen

Refering to: TV on board.

I also saw an accident on the way to happening. I was following a late-model sedan with disabled plates. An elderly-looking man was driving with a child in the front passenger seat. I noticed a small TV up on the dash between them and assumed it was off. However, when we drove into a shaded stretch of road, I was shocked to discover the TV on. The driver was intently watching, and occasionally would glance over to check the road! They turned off into a housing development and I can only hope made it home without running over someone. I cannot imagine what this person would have done if something unexpected had happened; maybe they'd respond at the next comercial break.



comment   See Consumer Electronics Association statement   7/20/00 11:54:02 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Government

Refering to: BAN TV's in vehicles!!!!

In the other resources page, see the statement by the CEA re TVs in cars



comment   rolling temper tantrums   7/21/00 7:35:16 PM
These obnoxious "boom cars" are probably a bigger distraction than cell phones. While cell phones distract one person, "boom cars" distract everyone in the surrounding area. They also disrupt the peace and civility of the area for absolutely no reason other than to satisfy the pitiful ego of some insecure youth. In addition to distracting drivers, they also drown out the sirens of emergency vehicles, making them a threat to public safety, in addition to the obvious hearing damage they cause. While it's great that the cell phone problem is finally being addressed, the "boom car" epidemic should not be ignored in this discussion.


comment   Car stereo designs are jokes   7/31/00 2:02:16 AM
trip   allen
Private Citizen
I've been shopping for a new radio/CD player for our car. I'm a industrial designer, and I'm astounded by the lack of human factor and operational considerations in the design of most of these units. Tiny buttons placed all about with little logic. Graphic light shows and all sorts of goo-gah. Tilting faces. The stuff is so goofy, I'm insulted, and have put off my purchase until I see something with some safety factors and ease-of-use come to market. I dare one of the brands to step up with some intelligent product that seperates itself from the 12-18 yr old homogeneous marketing demographic target of the Panasony-Kenwoo-Alpineer-JVCpunkt toy boys. Hint -- knobs rule over buttons for volume and station search!


comment   Loud Audio Systems    8/2/00 2:43:50 PM

Refering to: "Earthquake Sound" In Cars Has To GO!

I agree many young people play their music too loud, but where are the facts that this is dangerous. Please show me some statistics that show accidents caused by drivers with loud stereos. These are only your oppinions. Placing restrictions on watts or equipment is not the answer. A stereo does not need to be 200 watts to be loud. So get your facts straight before you make incorrect statements.



comment   RE: Loud Audio Systems   8/2/00 9:26:19 PM

Refering to: Loud Audio Systems

I'm inclined to agree with your statement. Yes, loud sound systems. However, I have a 40 watt stereo which I can turn up loud enough to distract other drivers and drown out horns and sirens. (No, I don't do it...) Enacting more laws to restrict a) personal freedom and b) commerce is not the answer, particularly in light of hard facts showing that loud stereos are causing accidents/safety hazards. What I would like to see is legislation that expands the reckless driving laws in existance. If someone is talking on a cell phone and driving normally fine; if they're all over the road, it's reckless driving - punishable in most states by suspension of license. If someone is listening to a loud stereo, and is paying attention to the road and responding to danger, fine. If not, it's reckless driving. There are people who ARE capable of having in-car distractions such as cell phones and loud stereos. For example, I will talk hands-free on my cell phone (voice-dialing). On the other hand, some people are NOT capable. For example, I will not check my e-mail while driving, nor will I dial my phone by hand, because I know that I'm not capable of driving within my comfort level when doing so. This does not mean that I think that nobody is capable of it, so nobody should be allowed to do it - it simply means that I am not capable. As we've all heard, you cannot legislate common sense. In this case, however, you can take those drivers who do not practice it off of the road.



comment   True Americans   8/3/00 11:47:09 PM
Ronald   Doyle
Other

Refering to: "Earthquake Sound" In Cars Has To GO!

It really suprises me, in a day and age where people speak of how corrupt the government is, how high their taxes are, and how much control the government has already, for someone to speak of regulations. How many of you people, who have posted your comments, have vehicles that can travel faster than 65 mph? I ask this simply because the national average speed limit is 65 mph, so why need to go faster? If that is the law, then how can we dare allow automobile manufacturers to continue producing vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? If it were up to you people, American supercars such as the Corvette would be extinct, right? Not understand where I'm going with this? Let me explain. I am the manager of a hi-end custom car stereo specialty store. I like millions of other Americans, have a job and provide a service. But before I go any further, let me make one thing clear. I do understand these loud stereo systems are annoying. I agree that something should be done, but I believe you are going about it all wrong. Make a law so that someone in the vehicle cannot hear the sounds produced from another vehicle. I can live with that. Impose major monetary fines. Again, fine by me. Punish those who break the law, but by no means make a law that would put a hard working, TAX-PAYING American like myself out of work because you don't like loud music. Just remember, have it your way and you will have no right to personal freedoms such as individuality. We will all be forced to drive slow vehicles that will cut-off upon reaching the speed limit, and we will also not be allowed to delight our ears and enjoy music the way we as individuals think it should be reproduced.



comment   STEREO ON WHEELS   8/10/00 7:01:50 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Government

Refering to: Stereo systems with wheels

I agree there should be decibel limits on the thumpers. The subwoofers are the main source of the destracting sound/noise. But one has to ask themselves- what about the hearing impaired. I wear hearing aids and like to drive with my windows down, so in order to be able to hear the radio the volume needs to be high to compensate the level of the road noise. I do however turn my radio down when within city limits or exiting the highway. Being hearing impaired increase my awareness of what is going on outside of the vehicle. I check all my mirrors I know more often than most people. Volume limits need to be set but to an extent. Time limits should also be considered. There are times when I have been awaken in the middle of the night because of a Thumper three blocks away. No I'm not a lite sleeper. Everyone should however consider an individuals First Amendment rights. Music? is an expression of free voice. I do believe each city/town should have the right to set volume/time limit with the government setting an example of the national max level. I think this is a fad or trend that will slowly fade away. I believe I need to buy stock into the various hearing aid companies for the wave of young adults that will find their hearing has gone bad. The main solution to the problem for now is public announcements and local govenment control.


Other
                 
comment   To My Kids   7/5/00 12:46:08 PM
Bill   Rees
Private Citizen
William H. Rees 5652 N. Pike Lake Rd. Duluth, MN 55811 (218)729-5852/whrees@aol.com 7/5/2000 To NHTSA Re. Comments on driver distraction. I sent the article “Distracted drivers cause up to half of traffic mishaps, safety group says,” in the June 28 issue of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, to my three teen-age drivers, and with it sent the following comments. I pass the comments along in response to your request for comments about the distracted driver problem. I add that holding manufacturers and vendors responsible for driver distractions is an appallingly bad idea, one with limitless legal implications. Teach safe attitudes by all means, but never sue a manufacturer for stupid use of a product. Sincerely, William H, Rees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rees Drivers, (7/4/00 Driving Distractions) This article brings up a point that simply cannot be over-emphasized; never, ever, allow distractions to affect your driving. Always, under all circumstances, maintain control of your vehicle. This means that if a bee lands on your hand, and is merrily stinging the hand, first above all else control your vehicle, for stings will heal and death will not. Needless to say, a bee flying around inside the vehicle is even less cause for concern, for he just wants to get out. It is of course therefore hardly necessary to mention that stupid and rude drivers, and those who give you the finger, never justify distraction. Don’t ever forget this! That said, I have some problems with the article. The 15% in the poll is probably more like 1% (a lot of people lie to pollsters). Everybody does some of the mentioned things. I do them all, but always with vehicle control first in mind. When I need to do something distracting I first pick my place and time. I pour coffee only when the road is wide, straight and clear. I don’t eat things in the car that may drop a mess in my lap. If there is no safe place and time, I pull over and stop the vehicle. If I drop something on the floor, I know It will stay there until I can safely get it. If I drop a lit cigarette in my lap, I knock it to the floor and leave it there until I find a safe place and pull over. In short, one can do all the listed distracting things, but NEVER do them in a distracting way. It’s really a matter of attitude. The accident in which pedestrian Steven King was run down deserves a comment. You are never safe just because you have the right-of-way. King had a perfect right to walk alongside the road but a stupid driver still put him in the hospital. Thoughtless use of crosswalks is perhaps less safe than careful jaywalking. Whenever a vehicle is in a position where it can get you, make sure it doesn’t. All accidents are unexpected. I shudder to read the words, “Manufacturers and vendors have a responsibility...” They tell me that this advocacy group would favor lawsuits against people who produce or sell things that somebody can blame for their distraction. Bad drivers can thus become victims rather than perpetrators, a very bad idea. People become distracted only because they allow themselves to become distracted. Don’t let it happen to you! Love, Dad


comment   Kids, etc.   7/9/00 8:13:29 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: To My Kids

Can anything be more distracting than a rear-facing infant in the back seat, alone in a car with the driver/care-taker? How about when such infant is distressed in traffic?



comment   Children may be the root of All Evil   7/14/00 7:10:42 AM
Ed   Kissel
Private Citizen

Refering to: Kids, etc.

Having the opportunity to read the article on driving distractions in this morning's USA Today, I have the want to add my two cents (although I only get a penny for my thoughts.) Cell phones, portable e-mail and Internet access, mobile fax machines and navigation systems all provide some sort of distraction that helps contribute to 25% of motor vehicle accidents. Should they be banned? Why not? While we're at it, I also propose that we ban children under the age of 15 years of age and impose passenger permits for those over the age of 15. Has there ever been any research on the distraction impact of children? I remember with fondness the days with my brother and sister and the near hits we seemed to have caused by our unrulely behavior. As a young father, I can relive my untamed youth through my childrens' shananagins (sp?). Let them walk if they want to go to grandma, soccer or the beach - they can borrow my cell phone (since I can't use it) to use if they happen to get lost. Of course, I will only verbally intruct them on how to get out of the situation because I "legally" cannot pick them up. In the meantime - since it may take years to pass my resolution - can we just ban from our highways the stupid, irresponsible drivers that contribute to the other 75% of accidents. That would seem to have a bigger impact on the safety of our citizens. And while you're providing the virtual soapbox - can we sue the auto manufacturers for not providing rubber cars to protect us from our stupidity and our inability to take responisibility for our own actions?



comment   Left lane slow drivers   7/14/00 7:20:06 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
I feel one of my most frequent distractions and irritation is when people cruise 45 miles an hour in the left lane. This can and does create a bottle neck effect which causes frustration. I also feel drivers have become much more aggressive, rude and selfish since the law was passed that you can "pass" on the right. I believe this was the beginning of road rage.


comment   How do you know they are slow in the left lane??   7/14/00 5:42:15 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Left lane slow drivers

In response to your comment (45 mph in the left lane)., is your speedometer calibrated and certified to measure EXACTLY the speed you are going? Do you have a certificate that states this? What I suspect is that the driver in front of you is going slower than you are, regardless of the posted speed. (Remember, minimum speed is 45 on major interstates and 55 or 65 or 70 is maximum. Do you ALWAYS have to travel at the max???) We need to enforce our current laws like the one in the state of Washington that says, "Stay to the right except to pass". How many people obey that law? (About 5%) SLOW DOWN, you will enjoy the ride much more.



comment   Women and mirrors   7/14/00 5:45:30 PM
ken   plumb
Private Citizen

Refering to: Left lane slow drivers

Left lane slow drivers: Right very exasperating. But a woman driving in the left lane while fixing her eyes and putting on makeup is probably as dangerour as it gets. I don't think someone talking on the telephone or checking his beeper can ever remotely compare with this.



comment   Bright Running Lights   7/14/00 9:12:04 PM
Leonard   Edro
Private Citizen
Daytime running lights are a visual distraction and sensory overload! They cause an approaching driver to look away from oncoming cars to avoid the glare. They're visual garbage worse than booming sound systems are auditory trash.


comment   Question those statistics!   7/14/00 11:12:07 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Today, I heard that 25% of accidents were caused by driver distraction. I question that because of a wreck I once had. I was busy lighting a cigarette when I crashed into someone. Of course, I chucked the cigarette immediately and when the police came, I told them I "just didn't see the guy." If the same thing happened when I was fiddling with GPS device or whatever, I probably wouldn't admit that either. I think the statistics about accident causes should be viewed with some suspicion.


comment   people overly distracted by their children    7/15/00 1:00:36 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
This is just as dangerous as cell-phones and maps and the internet. Maybe what's really going on here is that people in general are exhibiting very poor judgement and very much inconsideration for their fellow human beings, and there are always going to be manufacturers willing to make money on (and thereby encourage) that type of disfunctional behavior.


comment   Your speedometer is an indicator of your speed.   7/15/00 4:01:02 AM
Russ   Emerine
Private Citizen

Refering to: How do you know they are slow in the left lane??

Granted, the speedometer may not be certified by certification officials, however when a vehicle driver purposely impedes the flow of traffic (especially in the left lane) then a determination may be made that they are slow. I appreciate your view of stay to the right except to pass. Missouri has signs posted indicating that vehicle drivers stay to the right except to pass. I am not an "expert" in this field, but I have driven Route 66 (I-40) more than six times round-trip from OK to CA. I-5 from LA, CA to Vancouver, WA round-trip 7 times. Each trip has had more than its share of left-lane drivers impeding the flow of traffic. Point bing, stay right except to pass (safely).



comment   Kids not necessarily the root of All Evil   7/15/00 4:15:37 AM
Russ   Emerine
Private Citizen

Refering to: Children may be the root of All Evil

I enjoyed reading and agree with your position. Oh, how joyous the bliss of not having the children in the car/truck anymore. They have their own problems now. Both boys have children, whom Granmama and I enjoy immensly, and we can only hope that we reared the boys right. I early on instructed the boys to, "Keep you head above the dash." This has worked for me for over 46 driving years. Mind on the road and all that, eh what.



comment   Is it just me, or what?   7/15/00 4:21:16 AM
Russ   Emerine
Private Citizen

Refering to: Women and mirrors

I get so mad at those automobile commercials on the tele that show the Lex.. driver going down the busy road with a DOG in her lap; the guy eating his breakfast; the woman putting on makeup and the commercial making the statement, "Because they're out there." None of these drivers have their hands on the wheel or their minds on the importance of safe driving.



comment   If it's illegal to have a TV within view of the driver, why should cell-phones be any different?   7/15/00 11:33:58 AM
Bob   Perman
Private Citizen

Refering to: Is it just me, or what?

Now more than ever the technology exists to have a mini-LCD television installed right there in the dash of your car, yet it's considered illegal. And for good reason! It's too high-risk a distraction. No one disputes or questions that. Well, guess what? Cell phones are just as dangerous as a TV! They cause you to take your eyes off the road, they cause you to take your hands off the wheel, and they cause your thoughts to be taken off of the focus needed to drive responsibly. Cell phones, just like TV's, are high-risk distractions. And a distraction is a distraction.



comment   The Speed Limit is slow in the left lane   7/15/00 12:17:09 PM
Roy   Thompson
Private Citizen

Refering to: How do you know they are slow in the left lane??

One time many years ago when I was still in high school I decided just as a hoot to actually obey the speed limit. Now it doesn't take a genius to realize that the "speed limit" would be the maximum (read fastest) speed one could legally travel. So I stayed in the left lane from Cheyenne to Denver going 55 the whole way on cruise control. People seemingly got very perturbed at me as I was passing another car that was going 54 in the right lane. There was a stack of 8 or 10 cars behind me waiting to get by me. As they all passed by they just shot me the dirtiest of looks. Now, in the year 2000, they still have the 55 mph speed limit through the City of Denver and to save on gas last week I went through town (in the right lane this time) at 55 and was constantly being passed by cars that had to have been going in excess of 75. Now, even though I was going the speed limit I was endangering myself by not going with the traffic flow, as I was nearly rear-ended twice ... and they weren't even distracted by cell phones or whatnot ... as far as I could tell anyway. I guess they just fall in that category of 75% of those who are just plain stupid or something.



comment   Daytime running lights   7/15/00 5:05:19 PM
Paul   Richardson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Bright Running Lights

Driver distraction is one the greatest cause of accidents. One of the newer distractions is this abomination called daytime running lights. Why anyone needs this distraction is beyond me. This ill advised innovation should be banned from use along with cel phones.



comment   Billboards, mobile billboards, and "autowraps" and other advertising   7/16/00 12:08:51 PM
Michael   Halberstadt
Private Citizen
A major problem has crept up on us in the last couple years here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Huge billboards have engulfed several areas of the city, some of which can be not just seen, but litterally read miles away. Then there are also the mobile billboards towed behind large pickup trucks. Two or three of them will circle Moscone Convention center all day. They are too large to actually turn within the lanes leagally, and take up an enormous amount of space. They are also too large to park legally anywhere downtown. Also seen around was a towtruck that circled the convention center with a Porsche that you could win. On several occations I have even seen a mobile billboard that was BACKLIT driving around at night. The traditional blimps and banners behind aircraft are also out working their distractions. As they add to the visual clutter, they are also adding to the air and noise pollution problem, as well as our heavily congested airports and skies above the Bay Area. One other new trend is to have private cars “wraped” in advertising. These cars are meant to distract just like any other billboard. What to me is particullarly frustrating is in these times of the worst traffic congestion ever, and serious air quality problems Autowraps.com requires their drivers to drive a minimum amount per month. There is no option to post images in this forum, but you can view some of the examples on a web page I set up. Please check out: http://www.jps.net/halberst/pedsafety/


comment   OUTDOOR ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING   7/17/00 5:44:03 PM
John   Corbin
Government

Refering to: Billboards, mobile billboards, and "autowraps" and other advertising

In-vehicle devices are typically a willful indulgence of the driver. Outdoor electronic advertising, however, is an unavoidable distraction typically imposed by commercial property owners. Outdoor electronic advertising includes billboards with LED or light-bulb matrix panels, as well as similar displays outside business establishments. The operation of these devices often includes flashing messages, scrolling messages, and multiple phase messages that require the passing drivers redirected attention for several seconds. The adverse impacts of these devices can be particularly pronounced when visible from freeways and expressways. A 1980's study in Milwaukee revealed a directional increase in crashes of nearly 40% after the installation of a large bulb-matrix display near a congested freeway interchange. Reportedly, American Airlines was successfully sued over a distracting outdoor ad sign on an airport circulator roadway which contributed to a serious crash. While in-vehicle distractions are a relevant concern, the longer-standing intrusion of outdoor electronic advertising also needs to be addressed.



comment   Not Just Electronic Equipment!   7/18/00 3:05:19 PM
Just this morning I was following a person driving a convertible sports car. He was looking all around, not paying attention to the road. We all stopped for a red light, the sports car was the fourth car. The driver bent over, I assume to light his cigarette, and not looking up - hit the gas. Of course he smashed into the stopped car in front of him. With all the distractions we ALREADY have, do we need any more?


comment   Vacant and Careless Drivers   7/18/00 5:39:31 PM
Nicole   Baker
Commercial Driver

Refering to: The Speed Limit is slow in the left lane

I am a professional driver(in my opinion), I spend approximately 20 hours a week on the road for my job(as a school bus driver). I have observed many bad driving behaviors that we could create different forums for each, but they all add up to one thing. People feel as if their car is an extension of themself when someone does something "near their car" (read to _them_) and get ticked. But when they are 'doing it to' the other person, It is not a person they are attacking it is the automobile. Our society has gotten so many new ways of communication, but we have left the people an their feelings out of the equation. We drive down the road, not thinking about _what_ we are doing, but everything else. Not the people in our car, not the people in other cars, not the motorcyclist, nor the bicyclist, nor the pedestrian...Just ME ME ME. I'm going to be late, oh no...I might lose my job over 5 whole minutes...so I'm going to speed to get there 2 minutes sooner...rush rush rush. We don't plan our days well enough to spend any time with our families, so we make up for it in the car. Calling people, eating, grooming, correcting our children...anything else but thinking about the most important, possibly most life threatening activity...DRIVING. And then we get mad when someone else, who is just as careless as we are, cuts us off because they missed their turn, when we would do the same in their shoes. As a school bus driver, I have had to learn to drive while ignoring 60 screaming kids, concentrating on hearing the radio and watching everyone else on the road not pay attention so I have to do it for them. All of this with the weight of those 60 precious lives(all shouting and pulling eachothers hair) on my head. If all drivers could drive as though they had the world's most precious cargo in their vehicle....



comment   Billboards are intended to be distracting.   7/18/00 8:02:56 PM
Michael   Moore
Private Citizen

Refering to: OUTDOOR ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING

When I was earning my Marketing degree in the late 1980's I was taught that a billboard message could not be longer than seven (7) words. That is all that the eye and mind can adsorb as the person goes past such a sign while on a highway. Flashing billboards therefore are not likely to be any different in the ability to distract a driver because they are limited to the same short time interval of a seven word recognition. However, the flashing causes the eye to SELECT those seven words, instead of other competing signs. Is this more dangerous than traditional billboards? I do not know of any studies to determine this issue, however, it is unlikely that we will ever find out because of the special interests involved. That begs the question, Is the government intending to ban traditional or electronic billboards? That is unlikely, because the major contributers to the Republican and Democratic campaign parties are "big business" and they are the advertisers who put up the billboards. So, in my opinion, this whole thing is a political ploy touted to be in the interest of public safety. The political parties cannot afford to lose campaign funds, so it appears that the government may be going after cell phone companies because they are not powerful... yet. Therefore, it is my position that the government needs to either ban ALL distractions including car radios, advertising, and eletronic gear, or leave things alone and make each individual driver RESPONSIBLE for his or her own actions. Funny that concept... individual responsibility.



comment   saab night panel (illumination)   7/18/00 8:48:57 PM
bart   moore
Other
the saab night panel feature turns off all displays (eg. fuel guage, rmp, etc.) except for speedometer. If any of the other systems enter critical zones (eg. fuel gets low, rpms enter red zone) their instruments become illuminated. I think this is a great idea, it _helps_ me_concentrate_ on the road. they got the idea from their jets. I think it would help alleviate driver distraction at night. to the officials monitoring this thread: look into it!!!


comment   Personal grooming   7/18/00 11:40:00 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Living in Southern California, one sees all kinds of bizarre behavior on the freeways. Cell phone use seems nearly universal. Among the most egregious is personal grooming; men shaving or women putting on makeup. One also sees drivers reading maps, newspapers or books. A public education campaign similiar to that of the 60's which focused on following distances and defensive driving, but this time on attention to the road, is called for. Let's get the big 4 networks and cable behind such a safety campaign....please!


comment   Electronic advertising in Portland, Oregon   7/18/00 11:50:47 PM
Robert   Rubenstein
Private Citizen

Refering to: OUTDOOR ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING

In my city, the local government has been unable to stop the proliferation of these annoying, distracting outdoor signs. On a rainy night, their reflections on the street can be disorienting. Personally, I boycott every business that advertises on these devices. I write or call and let them know their advertising is counterproductive. Since the companies that operate these signs solely defend their business on First Amendment grounds, NTSB should address the public safety risk aspect, so that courts can take a more measured approach to their regulation.



comment   Bright lights day and night, a.k.a., DRLs, "highway lights", brights, etc.   7/19/00 6:29:48 AM
Ron   Jay
Private Citizen

Refering to: Daytime running lights

I have driven since 1961 and have seen the amount of light hitting the oncoming driver go up by a factor of 10 or more. With use of more lights, greater strength of the lights, tighter focusing of the lights, and blue-white spectrum lights instead of yellow spectrum lights, the result is momentary blindness, day, dusk or night. Further momentarily turning your head to try to get away from them is a clear safety problem. There needs to be a legal limit placed on manufacturers for the total amount a light a vechical can cast into the eyes of the oncoming driver, a limit that is much lower than what is happening today. Prime offenders are 1) Pontiac Grand AM with "Highway Lights" that are brighter than the headlights on 1970 cars, 2) Ford F-x50 trucks with ultra wide headlights plus "Highway Lights" all raised higher that I sit in a car, and 3) new Audi and BMW vechicles with blue-white spectrum headlights (a spectrum long since dropped from use for shopping center illumination due to adverse effect on the eye, but now being brought back in cars). This very real driving distraction affects every single driver, not just the ones with cell phones or other electronic toys, but it is being allowed to run wild.



comment   Driver Fatigue biggest problem on the roads   7/19/00 6:37:29 AM
Karen   Ehringer
Private Citizen

Refering to: Bright lights day and night, a.k.a., DRLs, "highway lights", brights, etc.

I work as a traffic reporter for a local tv statin. I have seen accidents in all different kinds of conditions and at various times of the day. Recently, the ones that have actually killed people have been from driver fatigue. Granted, I am monitoring traffic early morning, this is a major problem in our community. We also have accidents caused by people doing stupid things...trying to get airborne by hitting a hill at high speeds just killed 3 local teenagers, but ya know... those things will happen. Driver fatigue causes the same type accidents as drunk driving, and should be just as illegal. Drivers swerving over medians into oncoming traffic doesn't happen by taking your eyes off the road for mili-seconds to answer the phone. It comes from just not paying attention, and how can you pay attention when you're asleep! The government or whomever, should work on getting this as punhishable as drunk driving, and quit worrying about cell phones! \



comment   Sign of the Times-Live With It   7/19/00 8:23:23 PM
Terry   McCall
Private Citizen
We have raised a generation that has no discipline,regard for rules and authority.People speed because they do not want to obey authority. People cut others off in traffic because they have no edict, manners or concern for other people. Do not blame cell phones for the poor driving of a rebellious generation. Mob mentality on the road then sucks you up with the traffic and you must speed and change lanes to survive or you will be run over or side swiped. The few law enforcement officers we have just clean up the wrecks and fill out paperwork.Lets not blame technology for a lawless society. We raised them, We educated them. Live with it! Its a Sign of the Times.


comment   Develop a driver alarm system to warn of pedestrians/bicycles also using roadway nearby   7/19/00 10:16:40 PM
Dave   Noyes
Private Citizen
One way to increase a driver's awareness and prevent severe accidents is to develop a system that would alert drivers to pedestrians or bicyclists also traveling on the road/shoulder in the car's vicinity. It should be rather simple to develop. Pedestrians / bicyclists that want the added protection would wear a small transmitter. Cars would be equipped with a receiver and alarm/light that would alert the driver when the pedestrian/bicyclist was within a certain distance. This system has the benefit of working where visibility is limited (such as around curves) so I think it would work better than heads-up displays. Pedestrians/bicyclists do not have seat belts or air bags or the protection of hundreds of pounds of sheet metal so most vehicle/pedestrian accidents involve loss of life. Pedestrians/bicyclists really need the added protection this type of system could provide.


comment   READING BOOKS AND NEWSPAPERS!   7/20/00 11:01:56 AM
Jennifer   Gibson
Industry Trade Association/Society

Refering to: Not Just Electronic Equipment!

I was in bumper to bumper traffic this morning on the way to work, and the man behind me had a book propped up on his steering wheel that he was reading while also smoking a cigarette. This is not the first time I have seen such activities during my morning commute. Someone should tell these people that if they want to read, they should take the bus or the Metro. That way, they will not pose a hazard to others!



comment   It's what you make as your main focus that is important; distractions are nothing new   7/20/00 3:44:44 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Automotive Industry OEM/Supplier
I have read a lot of comments about the distraction associated with new high-tech in-vehicle electronics such as cell phones and navigation systems but people forget about low-tech distractions that have been around for years. I'm sure that while driving, many people have read a map, looked at an attractive person outside, talked to somebody in the back seat while looking at the person, looked at a new building while driving by, rubbernecked to see what happened in an accident, or taken their eyes off the road while adjusting the car radio. All these types of activities have caused accidents before and always will. What matters is the main activity that the driver is focusing on. It should always be driving that takes precedence in your mind as the most important task at hand. I compare it to a person holding a child in one arm and an egg in the other. If the person slips and begins falling for some reason, she or he should not worry about the egg breaking but make sure that the child is protected from hitting the ground. In the case of drving while doing something else, it is obvious what your mind should prioritize just in case something unexpected happens on the road. Distractions are inevitable but they should not be our prime concern while driving. A lot of it does depend on an individual's ability to "multi-task" too. With all that being said, the safest thing to do is to minimize distractions that you can control.


comment   It's called the PASSING lane for a reason   7/23/00 2:00:55 PM

Refering to: How do you know they are slow in the left lane??

It's not about speed or calibration or any of that baloney. It's about control of the road. Any one who drives slow (def: somebody is behind wanting by) in the left lane on a 4 or 6 lane highway is on a control trip plain and simple. They are selfish drivers trying to impose their will on someone else by deliberately blocking them on the highway. The ironic thing is at least half of them are also breaking the law by speeding in addition to failing to yeild in the passing lane. Hey maybe that's why they call it the passing lane. Apparently breaking 2 laws to stop someone from breaking 1 law is supposed to be their justification. Go figure. If you've got a control problem, go see a shrink. He/she can probably help help. Meanwhile move right, enjoy the drive, and let the faster drivers by.



comment   Slow in left lane   7/23/00 2:06:50 PM

Refering to: The Speed Limit is slow in the left lane

Sounds like you were practicing to be a jerk at a young age. Hopefully you've grown up a little by now. Let's keep things safe out there. Keep right unless your're passing. That's why they call it the passing lane.



comment   Daytime running lights   7/23/00 2:20:39 PM

Refering to: Daytime running lights

I can see your point on this to a degree but on the flip side of the argument. I can't understand why anyone on a country 2 lane road wouldn't turn their headlight on if it's dreary or raining. Visibility while passing on 2 lane roads when it's raining is marginal. Saving your headlight bulb at the risk of a head on collision is just plain dumb. Turning on your headlights helps the on coming driver see you 2 or 3 times farther away. It's pretty spooky to pass a slow farm vehicle and the lane looks clear only to get out beside him and WHOA out of the grey backgound comes somebody saving his headlights. Then when you can barely get back in they honk at you. What dummies. Don't they realize that the reason they weren't seen was because they didn't want to be seen. PS: parking lights don't have the same effect as headlights. By the time you see their parking light you've already seen the car/truck.



comment   WHY IS THE NHSTA TAKING SO LONG?   7/25/00 11:02:45 AM
BRENDAN   STEPIC
Private Citizen

Refering to: Daytime running lights

The NHSTA was supposed to make a decision on the daytime running lights back in March. They postponed the vote till July. Yet I still have not heard any word, WHY? Does Gimick Motors have something on the NHSTA, from what I have read on the docket #4124, the vote should be to kill DRL's immediately! I ask that everyone continue to send letters to the NHSTA docket4124. And hopefully the NHSTA will speed up their ruling AGAINST "I AM STUPID LIGHTS". I thank you for your time.....brendan



comment   Daytime Running Lights   7/26/00 7:16:46 AM
Ben   Price
Private Citizen

Refering to: Bright Running Lights

I agree. DRLs are perhaps the most distracting element on the road today. A lot of talk centers around the use of cell phones while driving. I submit that blinding lights, whether in front of or behind you are worse, and more likely to cause an acccident than prevent one. DRLs should be outlawed!



comment   I HATE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS   7/26/00 7:56:15 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Bright Running Lights

I am going blind whats with all these people driving with their headlights on. I look in the rearview mirror and I am blinded I look forward and I am blinded. I am in my 20's and my parents and everyone else I know is going crazy. These obnoxious suvs, volkswagons and super cars and their bright headlights suck. Why don't you do something - pass a law outlawing dlrs - they are dangerous hazardous and extremely annoying. If you can't see a car coming at you or behind you in the middle of the day you not only should not be driving you are 100% blind. Lights are meant for the night not day. Wake up and start listening to the citizens and what they want not what a company tells you. WE DO NOT WANT DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS!



comment   Daytime Running Lights are the worst hazard on the road   7/26/00 8:11:50 AM
Samantha   Love
Private Citizen

Refering to: Bright Running Lights

When you drive today especially in the city you are hit with all these headlights glaring at you. Often I even have to turn my rearview mirror down and away from me the lights behind me are so bright and painfully glaring. You tend to focus on the lights and not anything else which is also dangerous. They should pass a law saying lights can only be turned on at night or special driving situations, not in the city where you are in bumper to bumper traffic and there are tons of glaring headlights all around you. Who is the moron that started this and who is the moron that lets it continue and is their anyone smart enough to say what the heck have we done here and put an end to it.



comment   Who initiated Daytime running lights?   7/27/00 3:32:04 AM
Roy   Milnes
Other

Refering to: Daytime Running Lights are the worst hazard on the road

Volvo started daytime running lights, people should boycott buying these dangerous vehicles. Unfortunately the NHTSA thins they are wonderful



comment   Lights on during the day very disturbing   7/27/00 11:34:41 AM
Paul   Cassel
Private Citizen
Look, this is simple. Shining a bright light in other drivers' eyes doesn't do anything for safety or add to the enjoyment of auto travel. Worse, we're going to enter an escalation as these things become more common. Today some obviously think the brighter the better not only in DRL's, but in night time lights which might make sense for rural driving, but which are a misery in the city. I figured it was only a matter of time until we got as bright as we could and then we'd start to get strobes. Gosh, if I haven't seen this already on a motorcycle who might have felt his unique lights on during the daytime territory was now invaded so he upped the ante. Soon we'll get the cars arming themselves with strobes, and then what - rotating beacons? This is an area where the mfg's are caught up in the escalation and need an outside force (read government) to bail them (and US!!) out of this by outlawing these things and also enacting strong regs about the brightness of headlights in general. This has gone too far and the government hasn't done anything when the problem was small. Now that we have these things built into many vehicles, the problem is no longer small, but delay will only make things worse.


comment   why is the nhsta taking so long?   7/27/00 11:38:34 AM
Paul   Cassel
Private Citizen

Refering to: WHY IS THE NHSTA TAKING SO LONG?

There must be strong political forces holding the NHSTA back here. I understand that GM wants these odious things on US cars because they have to have them on Canadian models. Thus they save $$ if they can make them universal. For some reason, the NHSTA and this admin is on GM's side but against the citizens of the US.



comment   Too many big trucks   7/27/00 3:01:24 PM

Refering to: Personal grooming

Ever since the Govt. deregulated the trucking industry there has been a climb in the number of Semi-tractor trailer trucks on the highways. It has now reached the point where traffic is constantly congested by "big rigs" cruising in the passing lane. They won't pass, and they won't let you pass. We need to severely fine truckers who obstruct traffic. Make the fine based on how many cars they have trapped behind them when they're cruising the passing lane. Let's say $100.00 per car that they are holding back. The money could go to offset the destruction they do to the highways. I'll bet they'd stop being jerks within a matter days when the word got out. As an added benefit, traffic flowing better on the existing roads means that less money will have to be spent on more new highways. Why should tax payers pay to have highways they can't get around on. Let's make those who want to control the highways buy the highways.



comment   Question your own ethics   7/27/00 3:35:48 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: Question those statistics!

Not everyone is dishonest enough to hide a significant contributing factor that caused an accident like you are. Regardless, most of the time it is either obvious that the driver was distracted (spilled coffee, uncapped lipstick, cell phone opened) or witnesses see it...or the act of dishonesty of trying to cover it up (like what you did).



comment   Yeah, right   7/27/00 3:45:24 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: Develop a driver alarm system to warn of pedestrians/bicycles also using roadway nearby

I ride my mountain bike to work everyday, five miles total and an average of three to four close-calls with cars a week. Driver alarm system? Yeah, right. People would either whine about "big brother" government now in their cars or just find a way to turn them off. What would do more good is enforcement of laws that are already on the books...and to prosecute drivers to the full extent of the law who injure bicyclists and pedestrians due to breaking traffic law or inattention. A young woman wiped out a group of four bicyclists here in the south SF Bay Area about fifteen years ago because she was reaching into the backseat of her borrowed SUV to find a cassette tape. She was convicted of manslaughter and severely punished. That was and should be a huge deterrent for motorist to be careful around bicyclists and pedestrians. What would be more of a deterrent would be jail time for severely injuring or killing a bicyclist/pedestrian due to inattentive driving or violation of traffic law. If we can put non-violent drug possessors in the slam and not lose any sleep over it, we can certainly see doing it to motorists who kill or maim.



comment   America home of the stupid laws!   7/29/00 9:08:11 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
In the US it seems as if we are becoming "victims" of technology anymore. We are forced to endure daytime running lights which offer no safety benefit, may likely cause accidents, and cause increased fuel consumption. The only reason we have them is because Canada wants them. So our automakers in an attempt to make the quick buck want them to streamline production. NHTSA refuses to make a DRL ruling since their ultimate goal is to appease GM and the other automakers by postponing a ruling long enough for the market to be flooded with DRL's. By that time people will accept them, they hope, and this will go away. Why I'm going here how do you like the new blue headlights? Then we also have the problem of setting speed limits too low and trying to enforce them. How much money has been extorted from drivers with that over the years? How many accidents were caused by drivers of all different speeds on the road? I would much rather look at the road then my speedometer, heh? Once again we can't address this, because the money will disappear and the senior citizens will moan and complain. I can go on, but these annoy me the most.


comment   Who pushed Canada    7/29/00 10:18:40 PM
BRENDAN   STEPIC
Private Citizen

Refering to: America home of the stupid laws!

I wonder why Canada is the only country in the world to have made DRLs law? Gimick Motors has more plants in Canada than any other automaker, hum? Did Canada listen to GM idiots, I mean reseachers. And where did GM's researchers get their information? To my knowledge, there is no real scientific research. I think the closest there is, is in Sweden, and the result have varied everytime. I think the Swedes have done five tests. And the first test proved to be an increase in accidents. So NHSTA, if you continue to delay your vote, be ready for nastier letters. Because WE, the people, are not going to put up with it!



comment   DRLs = Biggest Classaction Lawsuit Coming in History   7/30/00 12:58:36 PM

Refering to: Who pushed Canada

As an MD, PhD, and world renowned eye specialist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear I can assure you that I can see the futire and that future is a multi billion dollar class action lawsuit against the auto companies and the NHSTA. Intense glare cause eye strain, degeneration and ultimately disease. I can now prove after having examined over 200 patients complaining of glare problems associated with DRL's that there are indeed medically verifiable problems directly associated with DRL's. I plan on initiating a nationwide research project which will prove these effects and peole whose eyes have been damaged will collect hundreds of billions of dollars in damages dwarfing tobacco settlements in the years to come.



comment   Who pushed Canada?   7/30/00 11:17:56 PM
Richard   Tyndall
Private Citizen

Refering to: Who pushed Canada

The reason they were pushed in Canada, is because of the location. In those parts of northern Canada where there is only a small amount of daylight for much of the year (same thing in Norway), they need the extra lights to make it easier to spot cars. Of course DRLs will cause more accidents then they prevent when used in areas where there is penty of bright daylight most of the time. It's so bright in Texas, they would be of very little use most of the time. Most likely, they would keep drivers from signaling other drivers that they were driving after dark without regular headlights. I can picture very large jury awards being made by the familes of people killed by someone driving at night with 'almost headlight'.



comment   DRLs - A Different Perspective   7/31/00 12:18:14 AM
Ned   Hune
Private Citizen

Refering to: DRLs = Biggest Classaction Lawsuit Coming in History

Having read the comments about the obnoxious glare, I'm left with the memory of my latest sojourn onto the interstate ... and where I wasn't particularly wiped out by anyone's DRLs. I know that'll irritate a lot of you, but I didn't find it too bad. However, I think a lot of people are missing a bigger safety issue that (to me) deserves much more thought and quick action to boot. I've been driving since the 60's and for lo these many years a vehicle approaching me with headlights on signified some sort of emergency vehicle. For decades, patrol cars and ambulances have used headlights during the day to garner the attention of travelers. Today that advantage has been taken away ... much to the chagrin of squad drivers and law enforcement officials. We've hampered those people who are sworn to protect and serve, simply so the auto manufacturers can tout a new safety device (one with very dubious benefits). In summary, yes - headlight glare is irritating, but lights on during the day makes emergency vehicles less visible and thus can be deadly!



comment   DRLs Indeed are a hazard   7/31/00 9:52:31 AM

Refering to: DRLs - A Different Perspective

I was most happy to find this message board as for a long time I have wanted to talk about this. DRls are a nusance, unnecessary and worst of all they do hurt my eyes. I have spoken to many people who feel the same and it seems like the majority always keep quiet and are ignored. It is a damn shame when a country is ruined by a few who think they know what is best for us. Also some of the lights now are extremely irritating, extremely bright, almost blue that go right through you. I literally have to look away from all these lights which is very dangerous when driving. While there may be some special places in the world where they need these but not here in the US. Is there anyway we can stop this before it gets any worse.



comment   Indiana Tri-Level Study of Traffic Accident Causation   8/1/00 7:11:46 AM
JOHN   TREAT
Other
The "Indiana Study" of Traffic Accident Causation, completed in 1977 and based only on accidents investigated in Monroe County, Indiana (site of Indiana University), has obvious limitations (as to currency, representativeness, and methodology), but remains an interesting source of information on the role played by driver inattention and distraction (both internal to the vehicle and external). Few of the current in-vehicle technologies were common when it was conducted, but it provides a sort of baseline from an earlier, less complicated time -- albiet one where driver inattention and distraction played a major role in causing traffic accidents nonetheless. John Treat TX 734-662-7936.


comment   READING BOOKS AND NEWSPAPERS!   8/1/00 2:13:58 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Other

Refering to: READING BOOKS AND NEWSPAPERS!

Without a doubt, reading while driving in traffic can not be defeneded in the least. The worst example of this is in the Washington DC area where I have seen drivers on I95 reading the Sunday newspaper. This should be considered criminal and driving privledges suspended when observed and severe penalities established when an accident occurs.



comment   Drivers over 70   8/1/00 8:44:41 PM
Jason   Campbell
Private Citizen
I think there needs to be a federal law that requires a state to mandate persons over(Example)70 y/o take a written and practical driving test at their local DMV annually/semi-annually. Also provide the testing agency a written medical evaluation/document from their doctor stating they are medically sound and fit to operate a motor vehicle. What are your veiws?


comment   RE: Drivers over 70    8/2/00 6:42:04 AM

Refering to: Drivers over 70

Excellent idea but try getting it past the AARP! We are all going to be there someday and probably won't like it when our turn comes, but too many elderly drivers are being killed and are killing due to physical impairments that the Drivers License depts. aren't unaware of. Actually it wouldn't hurt to have all drivers tested at least every ten years or so. If not an actual driving test then maybe a written test and eye exam. At the very least they would be updated on current laws and any changes they weren't aware of during that time. Might even have some bad drivers fail and have to learn how to drive right. Re-training for bad drivers. What a novel concept.



comment   RE: READING BOOKS AND NEWSPAPERS   8/2/00 7:15:31 AM

Refering to: READING BOOKS AND NEWSPAPERS!

All the police need to do is get out of the "speed kills" rut they're in and enforce the law against this also. A pair of high powered binoculars/video camera and an awareness of how unbelievably dangerous this is would be all that is required. Give them a fine that will make them stop and think. A couple hundred dollars for a minmum. Put heavy points against their drivers license also so their insurance goes up too. Might as well, cause it's only a matter of time before they slam into someone and have to file a claim.



comment   NHTSA activities re DRLs   8/2/00 10:45:37 AM
Mike   Perel
Government
In as much as a number of people are commenting on the glare problems of DRL's and wondering about NHTSA's activities in this area, I thought I should post some relevant information. NHTSA does not mandate DRLs. Some motor vehicle manufacturers have voluntarily installed them. NHSTA does have a regulation that sets the maximum glare level that DRLs can have. Because of the many complaints we have received and the data from research studies on driver discomfort from certain DRL intensities, we are currently reassessing that maximum intensity level with the intent of drastically reducing it. Hopefully, we will make a decision on a final rule by the end of the year. We have a docket that describes the notice of this proposed rulemaking and that is also a place for people to send their comments on the proposal. The docket number is NHTSA-98-4124. The docket can be found at http://dms.dot.gov/ I will send any comments posted here to that docket. But people who have not already commented here about DRL's may wish to post their comments directly to that docket, rather than here. I recommend it, but it's up to you. Some people may also be interested in reading the recent NHTSA report titled, "A Preliminary Assessment of the Crash Reducing Benefits of DRLs" which can be found at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/DRL7_RPT.pdf


comment   Agree, plus target young driver as well   8/2/00 7:46:35 PM
Jason   Campbell
Private Citizen

Refering to: RE: Drivers over 70

I see your point and agree with you 100%. I feel something needs to be done. I also feel that states are letting kids drive too early. I also suggest that after the year probation on the provisional license they should be re-evaluated to maintain that state license and show proficiency in all areas, and even go as far as re-evaluating, like you said, every 5 or 10 years.



comment   Kids too young?   8/3/00 1:01:03 AM
BRENDAN   STEPIC
Private Citizen

Refering to: Agree, plus target young driver as well

OK, fifteen years olds are too young. But to no let 16 year olds drive? Are you nuts? I was 16 when I got my license. And I see nothing wrong with it today. I agree with many states that a certain GPA has to be maintain to get and keep a license. I know a few elderly people who depend on their grandchildren to drive them around. Lets not take that away. I would rather have a young inexperinced drive with reflexes that and older very slow reflex person behind the wheel. Thank you



comment   Re; Drivers over 70   8/3/00 8:57:16 AM
Paul   Richardson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Drivers over 70

As a driver who is 3 years short of the magic "70", I am sure the problem is not one of the realitive age of a driver. I believe our driver licensing system is totally inadequate. The initial driver's test is a joke as are the renewals. A much more thorough system is needed . Reaction time is never tested and it should be--If ALL drivers were tested in this manner, we would eliminate a lot of bad drivers in all age groups including teenagers, 20-45, 45-70, and the over 70 crowd.



comment   HELP ME SOMEONE!!! DRL's Are Out of Control!   8/3/00 10:27:48 AM

Refering to: NHTSA activities re DRLs

Just took the kids on a family vacation, the first driving one in many years. What the hell is going on. All the cars have their headlights on in the middle of the day and I'm going blind. Excuse my language, but we literally had to pull off the road a few times because I could not take it. I had no idea it was this bad. This was a drive from Ohio to the New Jersey shore with lots of stops along the way. It is brutal to have all these glaring headlights hitting hour from the front and rear on a bright summer day. Often I turned down the rear view mirror because the lights behind me were so bright they were extremely annoying. How does this make driving any safer. In my opinion it has never been more hazardous and I have been driving for 30 years.



comment   For the MANY who find DRLs DANGEROUS please visit www.lightsout.org   8/3/00 12:23:45 PM
Roy   Milnes
Other

Refering to: HELP ME SOMEONE!!! DRL's Are Out of Control!

Drivers Against Daytime Running Lights are actively opposing DRLs. Besides commenting here and on the www.dot.gov (click on DOT Dockets) (click on search, type 4124) docket which proposes to reduce the intensity (not ban DRLs)you can lend your support to a total ban by visiting www.lightsout.org.



comment   DRLs & "In Your Face" Drivers   8/3/00 4:53:25 PM
Bill   Kraft
Private Citizen

Refering to: I HATE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS

Daytime Running Lights are THE most abhorrent obstacle to driving safety I have ever seen in my life! The millions of moments of driver distraction they create every day is cause for real concern. In years past, a driver with his/her high beams on in daylight would have been labeled inconsiderate or stupid. Today, it is only a sign that you bought a recent GM car. Put Saturns in that category, for they are the absolute worst. Every purchaser of such a vehicle is unknowingly placed in the category of an "In Your Face Driver", displaying the worst kind of contempt for other drivers' rights and safety! There are many reasons validating the stupidity of DRLs. Driver training conducted by such notables as Skip Barber teach that in an emergency, you should look at where you want your car to end up because that is where it will typically end up. Do Not look at the thing you want to avoid! Yet DRLs attract our attention, actually increasing the chance of that driver becoming a target of a collision. Emergency vehicles have always attracted attention via their safety lighting. Ditto funeral processions and hard-to-see motorcyclists. I can no longer be sure I will not interrupt a funeral procession because they do not stand out. Pedestrians and bikers can be concealed by DRL glare. Drivers look away from this glare, creating unsafe conditions for everyone. Rear view mirrors are dipped, eliminating another avenue for clear vision. Just the other day I encountered 3 Saturns in a row on a 2-lane road and my gut tightened as I realized that this is what ALL our roads will look like if nobody acts to stop this! Who allowed Chevrolet, Pontiac, Toyota, Volvo, Volkswagen, Lexus, GMC, BMW, Buick, Cadillac, and others to inflict these monstrosities on the driving public!? Stop them, PLEASE! Bill



comment   DAYTIME HEADLIGHTS ARE THE WORST DISTRACTION   8/3/00 9:50:18 PM
david   coe
Private Citizen

Refering to: WHY IS THE NHSTA TAKING SO LONG?

cell phones may have some hazards and responsible use is needed. They have their place in emergencies. But daytime headlights, known as DRLs, are far and away the worst distraction ever fostered upon us. I hav gone thru red lighs because of them, and the only reason I have not rear ended someone is because my passengar has alerted me. Different people are affected in different ways. DRLs should be banned.



comment   DRLs from a motorcyclist point of view   8/4/00 7:55:16 AM
Jay   Franks
Private Citizen

Refering to: Daytime running lights

As a life long motorcyclist, (45 years) I must register my objection to the mandated usage of Daytime Running Lights (DRL) for automobiles, as they presently exist or are proposed in the future. Since 1980 I have been forced to operate my motorcycles with the headlight on in the daytime to supposedly increase my “conspicuity” to motorists. I am not entirely convinced that having them hard-wired on permanently is the best way to accomplish this. It takes away my ability to flash my headlight to signal a non-attentive motorist of my presence. I feel also that DRLs in a car have a similar handicap. There are numerous instances where the ability to flash one's headlights, on and off, are important. Flashing from low beam to high beam does not offer the same attention input as going from off to on. I also feel that any small advantage I may have in running my headlight in the daytime, on my motorcycles, will be completely cancelled out by DRLs on automobiles. The added visibility of a single headlight of a motorcycle is completely cancelled with a multitude of automotive headlights in the background. I also feel that there are no *proven* benefits to DRLs on cars and that they should stop being promoted as a “safety feature.” I think that the time and energy being expended on the DRL issue could be better spent on improving driving skills in the form of better teaching practices and more stringent licensing requirements for motorists.



comment   Agree - Left Lane Bandits started road rage!   8/4/00 8:03:05 AM
Charles   Alt
Private Citizen

Refering to: Left lane slow drivers

Passing on the right should be illegal and so should BEING passed on the right. I have seen some people come up an entrance ramp and jump immediately to the left lane (across two) just to drive there. Nobody was in the two right lanes. Then later down the road they just stay there while people pass on the right. It is impossible to keep traffic flowing properly during heavy times if slow people stay in the left lane. When I feel like or need to drive slow, I go to the right land and let people pass. I get real nervous when people pass me on the right.



comment   DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (DRL'S)   8/4/00 8:08:02 AM
PEYTON   MATHIS
Private Citizen
HAVE READ MOST, IF NOT ALL COMMENTS REGARDING DRL'S POSTED HERE. IN SOMEWHAT VARYING DEGREES, ALL ARE NEGATIVE CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF DRL'S. DOESN'T THAT SAY SOMETHING? I HAVE EXERIENCED MOMENTARY BLINDNESS FROM THE GLARE OF ONCOMING DRL'S AND HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY THEM, AND THEN I GET ANNOYED BECAUSE THE BUREAUCRATS THAT HAVE LEGISLATED THEM INTO EXISTENCE DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE REAL WORLD AND HOW THIS AFFECTS PEOPLE WHO SPEND A MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME ON THE HIGHWAY TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING. THEY HAVE COWED TO THE AUTO MAKERS WHO HAVE TOUTED THIS AS A SAFETY STEP, WHEN IN REALITY, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE A BIGGER PROFIT. DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS ARE A FARCE, THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE EXCEPT TO PROPOGATE "LIGHT POLLUTION".


comment   Daytime Running Lights - WHY?   8/4/00 8:28:27 AM
Charles   Alt
Private Citizen
I just can't see a benefit for Daytime Running lights as they currently exist. Their safety benefit does not exceed the hazards they create: Pros: Can see someone coming on a foggy two lane road more easily. Cons: Gives me headache from looking at all the bright lights all day long. Causes me to look away from the road to avoid getting blinded. Generally increases driver fatigue by increased visual confusion. Can't see motorcycles any more as the cars look the same. Uses up more fossil fuel because of increased load on alternator. If you agree with my pros and cons above it is clear DRL's should be eliminated. I imagine the reason touted for putting these things on cars in the first place was that people didn't turn their lights on in adverse weather so, lets just turn them on permanently! Oh by the way, bonus for automakers, who now don't need to segregate production for Canada vs. US! No wonder they like it. As another bonus, they can tout "safety" and fool the soccer moms into thinking they are buying a "safer" car! When in reality there are just as many reports showing the DRL's CAUSE accidents as those that show they reduce accidents. If we lived in Scandanavia where the lighting is low, perhaps we would need permanently wired lights on our car, but even they don't permanently hard wire super bright lights in the HIGH BEAM position like those on Saturns and GM SUV's! I would love to ?#%@ the brain trust who decided to put HIGH beams on as the DRL feature. DRL's are bad enough without the HIGH beam configurations that I think only GM is using. I will never buy another GM car until they stop this ridiculous practice. If we are a nation that can't remember to turn our lights in adverse conditions, why doesn't the government require permanently hardwired photo cells that turn the lights on when the lighting gets below a certain level and save us all a lot of headaches (and gas). Even better, you could have variable intensity headlights that get brighter as it gets darker. I remember in Europe the old concept of "city" lights. A headlight intensity lower than used on the open road to reduce glare while driving in the city at night. If we must have DRL's, at least make sure their intensity is a maximum of half that of normal headlights and also make sure they are in the LOW beam position.


comment   live with it?   8/4/00 12:14:09 PM
eric   england
Private Citizen

Refering to: Sign of the Times-Live With It

sounds like a lemming intellect. might as well slam a few brewskis behind the wheel & toss the empties out the window too, because it's the pack mentality. yes, we've created the situation, but that does not bar us from correcting it. technology isn't the only problem, but it is one we can address along with the others. It also may be the easiest...



comment   Running lights from the rear.   8/4/00 12:32:10 PM
John   Pearson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Bright Running Lights

While approaching bright running lights may sometimes be dazzling, my beef is with runninglights from the rear. Specially buses, trucks and SUVs where the lights are high off the ground. When they get close one has either to shit one's head or flip the rearview mirror to the night-time mode to avoid the glare. Safety? I think not! The DRLs are NOT needed. John Pearson.



comment   Please! Give us some relief from DRLs!   8/4/00 5:49:55 PM
Why the delay?
I appreciate the efforts of NHTSA in dealing with DRLs, and it's recognition of the glare problem. I also understand that there's a heavy workload for the Safety Performance Standards group. However, it's been over two years since NHTSA proposed changes to FMVSS 108 and nothing has been done. It appears that we're now looking at October or December as a target date for the final rule. Given that these target dates tend to slip, can't we get some immediate relief from high beam DRLs? Then work on getting the intensity down on the low beam DRLs and dedicated DRLs. Perhaps a series of supplemental rule changes would work. However, we'll still arrive at the question, "Should we even have DRLs?" Thus far, the DRL experiment in the US has been an utter failure, so it's hard to answer that question in the affirmative.

Had the original proposed changes been implemented, even with their inadequacies in controlling low beam DRL intensities (needs to apply to the entire beam pattern, not just the top half), high beam DRLs would have been gone by now. Unfortunately, each delay for the final rule means hundreds of thousands of vehicles hitting the road with DRLs producing unacceptable levels of glare. If the "satisfactory" intensity for DRLs is somewhere between 500 and 1000 cd (according the the Kirkpatrick study cited in NHTSA's proposed rule change), why are drivers still forced to endure 7000+ cd on so many vehicles?

Effectiveness?
Regarding NHTSA's preliminary assessment of DRL effectiveness, I've read the report and I'll reserve my comments for either another post here or to the docket.

DRLs are a distraction!
Now, for my own personal experience with DRLs and their distraction effect. On a four-lane road with a left turn lane shared by both directions of traffic, I was entering the left turn lane while approaching a street intersection. A recent model BMW sedan was on the opposite side of the intersection also making a left turn. When I entered the turn lane, the BMW's high glare, high beam DRLs hit my eyes and startled me for a few seconds. This momentarily took my attention away from oncoming traffic in the two lanes I was about to cross. Because I could no longer accurately determine the distance and closing speed of the oncoming traffic, I quickly aborted my left turn. Fortunately, a trailing car also making a left turn was sufficiently far behind me to come to a stop before hitting me. The bottom line: if the BMW did not have highly offensive DRLs blasting through my windshield, I could have safely made the turn, and the potential for disaster could have been avoided. If this isn't a dangerous example of distraction, I don't know what is.

The benefits are DRLs are questionable.
The hazards of DRLs are clear.
It's time for DRLs to be eliminated.




comment   DRLs are a stupid idea.   8/4/00 6:57:08 PM
tom   lane
Other

Refering to: Bright Running Lights

We do not live in a high latitude area where noon looks like sunset. Motorcyclists have been forced to run their lights all the time in the supposed interest of safety to make them more visible. Daytime running lights remove any possibility of a motorcyclist's mandatory headlight doing him any good at all. Thirty years of DRLs on both cars and motorcycles show no benefit. Glaring lights in your mirror during the day, mainly from the stupid useless vehicles (SUV) are both a distraction and an annoyance.



comment   DRLs and risk to motorcyclists   8/4/00 11:03:22 PM
Bill   Kraft
Private Citizen

Refering to: DRLs from a motorcyclist point of view

I totally agree! Having ridden motorcycles for thirty some years and always being on the alert for aggressive automobile drivers it seems that everyone using DRLs is "pushing" you down the road or about to do something erratic. Riding a motorcycle requires a great deal more "focus" than driving an automobile. The distraction to a motorcyclist caused by DRLs is potentially far more dangerous than to the driver of an automobile. Turn the damn things off! Bob



comment   Why does GM get away with it?   8/5/00 2:28:22 PM
ROBERT   HENRY
Private Citizen

Refering to: Daytime running lights

The GM cars with high beam DRL systems that go full power when the parking lights are on! GM should have to recall these dangerous vehicles. A good example of a bureaucratic idea completely gone bag...almost as bad as air bags!



comment   Big Trucks On The Interstate   8/5/00 2:33:57 PM
ROBERT   HENRY
Private Citizen

Refering to: Too many big trucks

These over-long, over-weight rigs should be limited to 60MPH, kept in the right lane and made to maintain an interval of 300 feet!



comment   DRL causes driver distractions on roadways   8/7/00 1:42:15 PM
Robert   Bailey
Private Citizen
As more cars are getting daytime running lights, one can see that the intensity of the daytime running lights are getting brighter and brighter. Which creates major distractions for the other drivers on the road. This will only cause more accidents. The best solution is to stop using DRL, except for emergency vehicles. This will create a safer driving roadway.


comment   Sign of the Times--Live With It   8/8/00 10:53:26 AM
Brenda   Bronner
Private Citizen

Refering to: Sign of the Times-Live With It

Live with it or die with it! Part of what Terry says is true--there is an entire generation or more out there with little or no regard for anyone but themselves. However, that's a social ill that is not completely indicative of drivers. The technology has had a big impact. The next time you are a passenger count how many drivers have a phone while making at attempt at driving. At best, it is an attempt. They think they are doing a great job, and they are, in their little world. I choose not to be a part of thier carelessness. What did we do all those years without phones in our cars. Got by. Just like not having a TV to entertain the kids in the Big Van or SUV--get a book! Unless you drive an emergency vehicle or are out saving lives--very few, if any of us, need a phone in the car. I have one. Is it necessary? Probably not. Is it nice? Sometimes. I try to never talk and drive, unless I'm the passenger.



comment   Yes, but...   8/8/00 10:31:05 PM
Ned   Hune
Private Citizen

Refering to: NHTSA activities re DRLs

After perusing the DOT article (A Preliminary Assessment of the Crash-Reducing Effectiveness of Passenger Car Daytime Running Lights) and examining the extensive bibliography, I'm struck by the fact that no apparent research has been taken to document the effect of DRLs on the visibility of emergency vehicles. Accidents continue to increase on a yearly basis to fire, paramedic, and police equipment due to driver distraction caused by cell phones, radios, crossword puzzles, and DRLs. I feel there is merit in "lights on" during low visibility situations (dusk, heavy rain or snow, etc.), but the public is becoming inured to a plethora of lights during the daytime ... which hinders the effectiveness of emergency vehicle lighting. THIS IS A RISK WHICH IS NOT BEING EVALUATED!



comment   DRLs, headlights, and highway lights using high powered, focused beams   8/9/00 6:12:21 AM
Ron   Jay
Private Citizen
Too few people realize the biggest change in the last 30 years in the area of vehicular lights has been the power of the lights and the degree to which they can be focused. Todays headlights, DRLs, "highway lights", etc., can produce a columinated beam capable of projecting a mile. This was not possible in the 1960/70s to any real degree. The result on other drivers is incredible. To sit across the intersection from a vechicle with headlights or DRLs while both of you are making a left turn is blinding in the middle of the day. To meet 2 or more vechicles coming on the inside of a curve while your are on the outside of a curve results in night blindness while you are trying to complete the curve safely. Any doubt of the effect that this has on driving today can be tested simply: at night try picking out 3 oncoming cars with old headlights and three with new headlights. The difference in incredible and a real hazard if you meet them in a construction area. No amount of refocusing or alignment can fix this problem. There must be a limit on these beams and a total limit on the vehicle.


comment   NHTSA- -Preliminary Assessment- - - -DRLs   8/9/00 12:24:19 PM
Paul   Richardson
Private Citizen

Refering to: Yes, but...

I read this very detailed document and have an observation to make. I did not see any analysis or comment regarding accidents caused by DRLs. Specifically if the driver of a non DRL equipped car is blinded/distracted by a DRL equipped car and has an accident as a result of this distraction, the accident is counted as "non DRL equipped car accident", and that statistic is used to justify the use DRLs, as the DRL equipped car was not in the accident.



comment   Headlight glare getting out of control   8/9/00 9:31:53 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Without question, the most widespread distraction on American highways is the overuse (and abuse) of new headlight technology. From blinding blue HID lights to annoyingly bright “highway” lamps (i.e. BMW,) the roads have become awash in glare. I’m sure that these trendy lamps are profitable to automakers, but they are not without a cost to the driving public. The NHTSA has already documented that glare affects drivers more and more as they age. So with the “baby-boom” population growing mature, this is clearly the wrong trend at the wrong time. Add to this the issues of SUV height and grand-scale headlight misalignment and we have a recipe for disaster. I personally think that congress should review the decisions made to date on these issues to see if there has been any questionable industry influence.


comment   DRLs in accident reports?   8/10/00 11:54:59 AM
BRENDAN   STEPIC
Private Citizen

Refering to: NHTSA- -Preliminary Assessment- - - -DRLs

Question, how often do police include the fact that someone claims they were blinded by DRLs? Or do police just put driver was distracted? I did not think police include how the driver causing the accident was distract. If they did we would have a greater knowledge of how accidents are caused. And how many of the new Chevy fullsize vans have been rearend? Yet the person rearending this person is at fault, enough though the new van's tail lights are higher than those of a semi?



comment   Ban DRL's - the NHSTA Should Be Ashamed   8/10/00 4:12:38 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Academia/ Research Firm

Refering to: DRLs in accident reports?

It is easy to see where this road rage and damn the other driver mentality comes from with these obnoxious DRLS, double row headlights, ultra bright mid beams, high beam fog lights etc, all on, all the time. Headlights in the middle of the day are annoying, dangerous, distracting, and create a driving nightmare. I can site many studies that show glare is one of the main factors in increasing panic receptors. It is also a major cause of eye damage. It is taking a physical and psychological toll out on all of us to be hit with so much arrogant glare. What a shame that driving has become so unpleasant.



comment   Effectiveness of DRL in Canada   8/11/00 9:15:32 AM
Deborah   Collard
Government
Hello everyone. I’ve read with great interest the posts in this forum, particularly the ones pertaining to DRL. For the record, here is a summary of the Canadian research that was done by the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate (Transport Canada) Working Group on the effectiveness of the Canadian DRL regulation in reducing daytime two-vehicle different-direction (i.e. "target") collisions involving light-duty vehicles (cars, light trucks and vans). It is not practical in a forum such as this to explain fully the method we used, but the basic logic of the research design was to compare target collision involvement for models fitted and not fitted with DRL: 1991s with 1990s (both models fitted with DRL); 1990 with 1989 (one fitted, one not fitted) and 1989 with 1988 (neither model fitted). If DRL were effective, there should be: (1) a reduction in target collisions for 1990 (DRL-fitted) models relative to 1989 (non-DRL-fitted) models; and (2) only those. Equivalent comparisons between two non-DRL-fitted models and two fitted models should yield ratios of about 1 (if DRL is the key) since neither model in those pairs differs with respect to DRL fitment. As predicted, the analysis did demonstrate a proportional reduction in target collisions for the DRL-fitted vehicles, calculated to be 8.3% (statistically significant at .05) for 1990 models relative to 1989 models - and only those. Supplementary analyses, for 1990 models versus 1988s; and 1990s versus 1987s (again, the key difference being that of DRL fitment) yielded similar (and significant) reductions for the DRL fitted vehicles. Moreover, an analysis of all equivalent model-year pairs in all eight years yielded no differences. As the extended analysis showed, when the definition of "daylight" conditions was restricted only to dawn/dusk, a (statistically significant) 16.6% reduction was observed for target collisions for the DRL-fitted vehicles. A very valid question has been raised in this forum regarding the measurement of "only" DRL fitted vehicles - that the reductions reported for DRL-fitted vehicles may be artifacts of (or offset by) a possible increase in collisions for non-fitted vehicles. This is a question the team considered at the time of the research (and is in fact "built in" to the ratio of odds ratios method) and I am able to report that this simply did not happen, as an examination of the absolute numbers (along with the relative ones) showed. Information on the effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada is available in publications TP 12298 (70-page report) or Leaflet # CL 9805 (5-page summary which includes the findings of the analysis of DRL by angle of collision and light condition) . Both are obtainable by calling Transport Canada (1-800-333-0371) or by emailing RoadSafetyWebMail@tc.gc.ca.


comment   Police officers should not be exempt from any new regulation   8/11/00 10:03:49 AM
Submitted Anonymously
Other
Having worked in radio broadcasting and telecommunications, I think my ability to juggle multiple tasks is better than the average person's. At one point in my life, I was able to listen to Morse code at 30 words per minute, transcribing it on a typewriter, while carrying on a conversation with someone in the room. In my broadcast work, each hour I was required to juggle as many as 100 commercial and public service announcement tapes, keep two written logs, select and play records, read copy from a copy book, and be entertaining, all while watching the second hand on the clock to make sure everything smoothly linked up with the network news on the half-hour and hour. YET I DO NOT CONSIDER MYSELF CAPABLE OF TALKING ON A CELL PHONE AND DRIVING ! As an experiment, I made a call while driving a familiar route. The call was fairly routine, yet I lost my way on the road. That has convinced me. I also see some of the sloppiest driving on the highways perpetrated by police officers on duty. Following a cruiser for two blocks, I can generally see a handful of occurrences for which you or I could get a traffic ticket. I have ridden along in a police car, and watched the driver try to juggle a radio, portable computer, radar system, lights and siren while driving faster than prevailing traffic, weaving in and out, looking for drivers to cite for violations. I have never felt so unsafe in a vehicle in my life, including during my experience as a military driver. Police officers are not selected for their superior driving abilities, or for their ability to juggle multiple tasks, and there are real limits to how many things anyone can do while driving. With the possible exception of fighter pilots. The amount of technology installed in the average police car is staggering, and increases every year. Yet police officers are increasingly younger people, with less real-world driving experience, and with all the judgemental limitations of young people. Accordingly, any regulation of driver activity while behind the wheel should equally apply to police officers. This suggests strongly that cops in all jurisdictions ought to ride two to a car, dividing the driving and non-driving tasks between them.


comment   Response to Transport Canada posting re DRLs   8/11/00 3:25:31 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Effectiveness of DRL in Canada

Transport Canada (TC) just doesn't get it. The only point they recognize is, "A very valid question has been raised in this forum regarding the measurement of 'only' DRL fitted vehicles ..." That's not the point. Let me make it crystal clear: the point is that DRLs in the US and Canada produce unacceptable levels of glare that is distracting and discomforting to other road users. Period. Do you understand? If not, please read the comments again. Unlike in Canada, US drivers are not going to put up, shut up, and give up when it comes to opposing this ill-conceived safety gimic. Stop trying to ram your ideas of safety via high glare DRLs down our throats.

Next, a look at your numbers. It should be noted that these are not independent numbers. They were compiled by TC for the purpose of justifying TC's mandate of DRLs. Government agencies and individuals in general do not like to be shown that their ideas may not work, so we have to seriously question how much of the data was "massaged" to give the desired results. Was the report externally reviewed by experts in safety and statistical analysis?

Regarding year-to-year comparisons, it is not clear whether the degradation of the older vehicles is taken into account. I.e., are older vehicles involved in more daytime collisions due to worn brakes, tires, and suspension? Also, the odds-ratio technique may be questionable since it compares the ratio of multi-vehicle to single-vehicle collisions in the daytime to the same ratio at night. It may provide a satisfactory measure of DRL effectiveness if the ratio of multi-vehicle to single-vehicle collisions were constant through daytime and nighttime. However, this is not necessarily the case, as the ratio rises and falls with changes in traffic density (Prower, 2000). Further, TC reports that a substantial decrease in multi-vehicle collisions in dusk/dawn conditions. What are the corresponding numbers in good daylight and why weren't these reported? Answer, because they did not look as dramatic, and this report is all about drama, isn't it?

And there are more questions. . . Has TC considered the long term effects of DRLs? Once everyone has them, does the supposed effect wear off? That is, why did TC notice a decrease in multi-vehicle collisions for one year old cars built the first year after the mandate, followed by less of a decrease for brand new cars built in the second year after the mandate?

Has road rage increased in Canada? Could increased driver anxiety be attributed to drivers facing bright lights at all times? What about collisions involving more than two vehicles? Have they increased or remained constant as was found in Sweden (Theeuwes and Riemersma, 1995)? Are motorcycle collisions on the rise? What about masking issues of other road users?

These are all questions that are unanswered by TC's report as well as NHTSA's preliminary assessment, indicating a heavy bias in favor of DRLs to support their own mistaken rulings.

It's pretty clear that NHTSA is in cahoots with TC. Did someone from NHTSA's Safety Performance Standards group invite TC to comment here? Will we need to make a FOIA request to find out?




comment   DRL, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS   8/11/00 4:03:20 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen
Subj: DRLs Mr. Bill Howkins, I read your Web page and concur with your opinion. These are ideas I have pondered for some time: 1 - If Canada claims (un-sopported by evidence) that 100 - 200 lives are saved each year with headlights on, maybe someone can estimate how many people die each year for the same reason. Canada is one of the several northerly (cold and icy/snowy) countries with that law. I ask: How many people could have driven to safety but a weak charging system or battery left them to die of hypothermia each winter because their headlights had to remain on by law? With the headlights on, lights drain a battery more rapidly to a level that would not support ignition. To determine an answer, one could turn to the makers and re-manufacturers of auto repair parts. They know the approximate number of voltage regulators, alternators, batteries, and power cables sold in their industry each year. Compare this against police reports of stranded motorists' deaths from hypothermia (exposure,) and some idea of the lethality of such laws can be determined base upon FACTS instead of political correctness. 2 - During conditions of daytime snow, or fog at anytime, how many accidents occur because the headlights' glow was both reflected and refracted by water (or ice) particles making the accurate position of other vehicles less easily determined or causing on-coming drivers to squint or blink to avoid the glare (thus making them less able to control their vehicles)? Such probelms are especially accute for persons with astigmatism. Please excuse the "Nom de Plume" and this virtually anonymous email. I use it because I am in the transportation industry. Although I'm not a ranking individual, anonymity may prove to be prudent, over time. More power to you, Amel


comment   DRLs a menace and anyone who believes they are not is very misguided   8/11/00 4:08:42 PM
Susan   McKenna
Government

Refering to: Effectiveness of DRL in Canada

I was so happy to find this board as I have been trying to voice my fustration to anyone that will listen. It seems I am not alone as finally others here also find glaring headlights in the middle of the day the dumbest and most dangerous creation I have ever witnessed. I suggest all GM et all and governement employees go and watch what is considered the most famous of all corporate training videos - The Abileen Paradox. In this video someone comes up with what they think is a bright idea and they try to convince others to think so also. However the more they get into it they begin to realize hey maybe this was a dumb idea after all. But by then it is too late. So they begin making up all kinds of reasons and "studies" "proving" why it is a good idea. But, of course in the end everyone must admit that it was the darn stupidest idea there ever was and in fact going down this path of the wrong decision has now caused a host of problems that were not there in the first place. I believe this is exactly what has happened here. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that a parade of blinding headlights in the middle of the day is not a benefit to safety. I don't need a "study" where the "results" are already in the can to tell me they are of any benefit - except of course to some greedy auto manufacturer and whoever they paid off. So we the American driver must endure eye strain, increased possiblility of accidents from having our rear mirrors drawn up to avoid the glare. And, worst, having our eyes drawn to the bright lights like some helpless dear while not seeing anything else - this has happened to both me and my husband. Now we have some imbicile with a "study" telling me it is for your own good. Well for your own good why don't you admit the truth that it was a dumb idea, that you created a monster, that you were in cahoots with the big auto campanies and that yes, we should end this insanity. If you do not you will go the way of Phillip Morris et al who for years laughed off any suggestion that cigarettes were dangerous and who would dare sue us over something as silly as smoking and if they did, why, they would be laughed out of court. Well they sure aren't laughing now and neither will the NHTSA and the auto companies when someday their day of reckoning comes.



comment   Very Informative Posts Regarding DRLS   8/11/00 4:34:40 PM
J   J
Other

Refering to: DRLs a menace and anyone who believes they are not is very misguided

I enjoyed reading the posts at this site but I found the ones on DRLs the most interesting. It seems this is a hot issue. I do not like them myself. I just wanted to say that I recently rented a car and not used to having DRLs kept trying to figure out how to shut the lights off! Anyway later fining out you could not shut them off I felt like a total idiot. But I did not like having the option of turning them off and if I buy a new car I will be sure to get one where you can turn the headlights off.



comment   Transport Canada rebuttal   8/11/00 4:56:14 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Effectiveness of DRL in Canada

The problem with the studies you guys post on the benefits of DRLs has been spoken of numerous times yet you never care to address that issue . Essentially all the studies use aggregate data and assumptions in the odds ratio test which disqualifies the results from being any guide to the truth . I enclose an anonymous e-mail I received a while ago from someone who purports to work for Transport Canada and is skeptical of the methods used to support DRLs . It is a shame that this person is afraid to make his opinion known to the Canadian authorities for fear of reprisals for his being against the party line . I wonder how many others in Canada feel the same way but are too afraid to speak up . Thank goodness there are still people in the world who want freedom ,truth and are not afraid to speak their minds . To follow is the letter :

I read your web page and concur with your opinion. These are ideas I have pondered for some time : 1 - If Canada claims( un-supported by evidence) that 100-200 lives are saved each year with headlights on , maybe someone can estimate how many people die each year for the same reason. Canada is one of several northerly ( cold and icy/snowy ) countries with that law .I ask : how many people could have driven to safety but a weak charging system or battery left them to die of hypothermia each winter because their headlights had to remain on by law ? With the headlights on , lights drain a battery more rapidly to a level that would not support ignition. To determine an answer , one could turn to the makers and re-manufacturers of auto repair parts . They know the approximate number of voltage regulators , alternators, batteries and power cables sold in their industry each year .Compare this against police reports of stranded motorists ' deaths from hypothermia and some idea of the lethality of such laws can be determined based upon the FACTS instead of political correctness.

2 - During conditions of daytime snow or fog at anytime , how many accidents occur because the headlights glow was both reflected and refracted by water ( ice ) particles making the accurate position of other vehicles less easily determined or causing on-coming drivers to squint or blink to avoid the glare ( thus making them less able to control their vehicles)? Such problems are especially accute for persons with astigmatism.

Please excuse the nom de plume and this virtually anonymous e-mail . I use it because I am in the transportation industry . Although I'm not a ranking individual , anonymity may prove to be prudent , over time .

Too bad this individual is not a ranking member of Transport Canada




comment   Keep Your Stupid Drls in Canada Then   8/11/00 5:38:36 PM
Bob   Orlanda
Private Citizen

Refering to: Transport Canada rebuttal

I live in Houston, Texas and was happy to see some discussion on these day time lights. When did this all start. I can remember not too long ago if I saw someone driving with their lights on in the day I would blink my lights and the other drive would be thankful and shut them off. It is bright enough here in the day without some jackass with his high beams on in the middle of the day. I'm always squinting and rubbing my yes now because the glare hurts my eyes. I think I am now more likely to have an accident now because of the drls than I was before. This is foolishness. If they want to have them in Canada I don't care but they are an outright nusance for me here.



comment   It's the GLARE   8/11/00 6:51:18 PM
Submitted Anonymously
Private Citizen

Refering to: Effectiveness of DRL in Canada

I can’t help but question the overall significance of the Canadian DRL study that Ms. Collard has put forth. That particular research looked at reducing daytime two-vehicle “different-direction” collisions at a time before DRLs were commonplace. It may be true that the human eye will “fix” on bright light, and therefore be attracted to a vehicle that is DRL-equipped, but is this a reaction on which we want drivers to depend? I’ve noticed that some new motorcycles now have flashing strobe-like headlamps. What’s next? When the highway is replete with DRL-equipped vehicles will a driver’s eyes be saturated by “light pollution?” At that point, shall we consider putting running lights on pedestrians and bicycles to keep them from disappearing in the glare? How will emergency vehicles stand out in this beaming maze? Please stop this trend now! Anything that inhibits the driver’s eyes from performing their natural scanning process is an impediment to safety. This applies to excessive luminescence from HID lamps, “auxiliary” highway lamps or any other glaring distraction. The many voices of concern sampled in this forum are not listed by coincidence. I hope that individuals in our own government will hear them.



comment   SLOW DOWN, REDUCE FUEL CONSUMPTION & POLLUTION, INCREASE SAFETY   8/12/00 12:44:40 AM
Gregory   Wright
Academia/ Research Firm
Slower driving will reduce the dangers of driver distraction, while also accomplishing an increase in fuel efficiency and economy and reducing local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. A lower speed limit, and limitation to the right-hand lane or pair of right-hand lanes, should be required for any driver using a cell phone or other in-vehicle electronic device/distraction. For example, in 65-mph zones, such drivers should be limited to 55 mph, and the right lane(s). Beyond this, the right-hand pair of lanes of urban freeways should be designated for a strict 55-mph speed limit. Driving this nearly most-fuel-efficient speed will get those drivers at least 15% further on the same amount of gas, while lowering pollution they cause and their fuel expense (something drivers like to complain about), and will make freeway entrance and exit lanes safer and easier to use. ("Eco-driving" will not only make our roadways more safe, it will accomplish an instant increase in automotive fuel efficiency while the auto manufacturers take another decade or three to make the vehicles they produce reasonably more fuel-efficient and earth-friendly -- especially pertinent in the age of the SUV, when too many of us have become carbon dioxide factories on wheels. We need "car calming" as much as we need "traffic calming" and "road calming!") Addressing the matter of driver distraction can also address the severe environmental externalities of our heavy automotive use. Gregory Wright Sherman Oaks, California


comment   DRLs Damaged My Eyes    8/13/00 4:00:40 PM
Mike   Galinaro
Private Citizen

Refering to: It's the GLARE

Wow, nice to find some discussion of these dumb Drls. I have been trying to voice concern for some time over this and have even called local politicians and auto companies to try and figure out how to stop this. I can tell you that on a few occasions I know for a fact that I have suffered eye damage as a result of these bright daytime headlights. While driving on a two lane road in daylight several months ago three cars right in a row coming in the opposite direction all had very bright headlights on in the middle of the day. This is along straight road so I had to watch these approaching lights for what seemed like several minutes though is was probably more like a minute. Anyway, the lights really hurt my eyes and afterwards I saw spots, my eyes were red, and they have not felt right since. They still bother me and I have never had problems with my eyes before and have excellent vision, I am mad as hell over this. I did nothing to deserve this. Since that time there have been other incidents where bright headlights hurt my eyes either by coming towards the lights on opposing lane roads where cars drive in opposite directions or glare coming from my rear view mirror. In fact I have taken to turning my rear view mirror down and away from me because I can't stand the glare in my eyes. Doing this has almost cased me to have an accident on one occasion. I am really upset over what is going on with all these headlights. What can we do NOW to stop it. If there is any kind of protest or class action lawsuit I can join let me know. I also think there should be an investigation as to why this all started and I guarantee it has nothing to do with safety and has everything to do with the almighty dollar. Another case of millions of people suffering and having less safe roadways because of corporate greed. Also I guarantee an UNBIASED study - you hear that unbiased - that means funded by a nonpartial group with NO affiliation to auto or government - they will find that drls do not improve safety and in fact are dangerous and impair safety. Lets stop this insanity before it gets any worse.



comment   Just found - If Not Too Late - please submit comment re strong disapproval of drls   8/13/00 5:58:58 PM
Colonel William Dumar   Dumar
Police/Enforcement Agency
As a veteran and a long career in law enforcement I would like to draw your attention to a peculiar irony in the use of dlrs. As a way of extracting information from enemies and criminals we used to put people in a bright room and then shine a harsh light on them! And that was the most effective technique we could find to cause the most discomfort in a person, in effect it was torture. The reason it worked so well is that bright glare increases stress level, produces intense discomfort, and is in fact unbearable for any length of time. The technique is now considered inhumane and is no longer allowed. The effect of daytime running lights on a driver is the exact same thing. You have turned the American roadways into a torture chamber where the driver is forced to endure glaring lights in front and behind him with no way to escape. I think we are now beginning to see the effects of this as I read these comments. Every year it seems their are more and more cars with drls and they seem to be getting even harsher and brighter. I would strogly urge whoever is making the rules here to put an immediate end to the use of all daytime running lights.