Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is where I believe your argument, or the science, to be flawed, a conversation is a conversation. If anything, I get more involved when the person is present because I will talk with my hands and glance over at them.

READ the links provided in the thread before you jump to your own conclusions, one of them clearly states they are different processes.
 
This is where I believe your argument, or the science, to be flawed, a conversation is a conversation. If anything, I get more involved when the person is present because I will talk with my hands and glance over at them.

"Talking on a cell phone has a special social demand, such that not attending to the cell conversation can be interpreted as rude, insulting behavior," he noted. A passenger, by contrast, is likely to recognize increased demands on the driver's attention and stop talking.

from http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml
 
Governments are too lazy to enforce the laws they have so they try to ban the object that they blame for the unacceptable behavior that they've already made illegal and failed to enforce.

Every state in the U.S. and probably every country in the world has laws against reckless driving, not to mention a zillion laws against specific traffic violations. I say enforce all of those laws and there won't be a problem.
 
This is where I believe your argument, or the science, to be flawed, a conversation is a conversation. If anything, I get more involved when the person is present because I will talk with my hands and glance over at them.
To be fair, the scientific literature is mixed. However, the majority of the studies found significant differences. As to the reason, most scientists have attributed the conversational flow as the major difference. In other words, passengers are able to regulate their conversation according to the current driving conditions, whereas the phone cannot.

There's undoubtedly truth to this notion, but the conditions to which this hypothesis apply may not be relevant to the conversations that lead to accidents (i.e. conditions leading to collisions may not be noticeable by passengers).
 
READ the links provided in the thread before you jump to your own conclusions, one of them clearly states they are different processes.

"Talking on a cell phone has a special social demand, such that not attending to the cell conversation can be interpreted as rude, insulting behavior," he noted. A passenger, by contrast, is likely to recognize increased demands on the driver's attention and stop talking.

from http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/March/march5_drivingwhilelistening.shtml

If you read the article, it says that it is not known how talking to a passenger compares. Regardless of the one person's opinion quoted in the article, they may have the same effect. We don't know.
 
Can't the argument be made for kids in the back seat, I wonder what the studies are on that vs somebody in the front.
 
What are the studies on talking on a cell phone vs listening to the radio, are the distractions similar. Both have your mind listening to something else.
 
What are the studies on talking on a cell phone vs listening to the radio, are the distractions similar. Both have your mind listening to something else.
"In two different experiments, associate professor of psychology Dr. Amit Almor found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening." Link
 
"In two different experiments, associate professor of psychology Dr. Amit Almor found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening." Link
I would think it would be more to listen and process what you are hearing.

So listening to a cell phone is not the problem it is the talking part?

How is that not different from talking to a passenger if it is the same brain power?

That study looks to me to say that any conversation is a distraction, not just cell phones.
A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, provides a better understanding of why language – talking and listening, including on a cell phone – interferes with visual tasks, such as driving. Measurement of attention levels showed that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening.
 
If you read the article, it says that it is not known how talking to a passenger compares. Regardless of the one person's opinion quoted in the article, they may have the same effect. We don't know.
Now that study says listening is bad, and it is using a simulator so I don't consider that a real baseline test.
 
Of course not. But if they see you on your phone driving, you're gonna get it. We have a cell phone ban here, and I'm glad. I can't count the times I've almost been hit by a driver on their phone. Just about everyone I know has said the same has happened to them several times in the past. I haven't heard too many stories like that since the ban went into effect. Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.

yet it been proven hands free headset does jack in making some one a better driver. Studies have shown there is little if any difference between the 2.

I think the ban should go in place in cities. not such a huge fan of it for countries roads.

I can think of times when cell phones are very helpful while driving and that is for given directions.
 
I would think it would be more to listen and process what you are hearing.

So listening to a cell phone is not the problem it is the talking part?

How is that not different from talking to a passenger if it is the same brain power?

That study looks to me to say that any conversation is a distraction, not just cell phones.


The part with the passenger is aware of their what is going on around them. the studies shows the passenger will tend to adjust the conversation based on current traffic. In the cell phone the person on the other end of the line is not aware of what is currently going on it the car so they do not adjust to it.
Which is why the the passenger part does not come into play in the cell phone ban.
 
Well FAA requires communication by law with planes. These calls are concerning the flight, not your kids problems at school. See the difference? One distracts from flying and one encourages more attention to it. Not to mention that communication in no way is needed to operate a car, while it is for a plane....

Me thinks the requirements to be a pilot and to drive a car are just an itsy bitsy different, as are the regulations and area density of other vehcles around

My point is that there are people talking and operating motor vehicles all the time. And the density near an airport can be high, yet that's when pilots end up doing even more communicating than the rest of the flight. There are no laws requiring communications with/from airplanes by the FAA. You can hop in a plane and make an entire flight without uttering a single word. There are requirements to communicate before entering certain types of airspace or land at larger airports or fly in certain types of weather, but not a blanket rule that you must communicate while flying. Ironically, communication requirements only kick in when there is MORE traffic around meaning more distractions. Notice the lack of a one size fits all, total requirement rule here?

Who says all phone conversations are about the kids problems at school? Some of us don't even have kids, are we exempt from the law? Since this law just makes a blanket rule without leaving any leeway for law enforcement to see if the vehicle is still being handled safely, it will either never get passed or never get enforced unless there is an accident and then it will be added to the reckless/distracted driving charges that will already be given.

I'm sorry you don't feel safe driving on your motorcycle due to people having the right to use phones. I don't feel safe driving when there are motorcycles around, because I have seen enough of them going well above the speed limit and weaving in and out of traffic. Or driving between the rows of traffic when there is a stoppage on the highway, or making their own lane next to the right lane at a light with a long line of traffic in the city and almost causing an accident when a car then makes a right turn or tries to parallel park. Since there is a potential for that kind of behavior, maybe we should ban motorcycles on the road as well?

People are good at looking at a proposed law and saying "that won't affect me" and then not doing anything about it. I hate talking on the phone while driving and won't do it, but I still think outright banning it is the wrong way to go. Punish the resulting behavior not the device that might lead to that behavior, but can be used safely if done properly.
 
Of course not. But if they see you on your phone driving, you're gonna get it. We have a cell phone ban here, and I'm glad. I can't count the times I've almost been hit by a driver on their phone. Just about everyone I know has said the same has happened to them several times in the past. I haven't heard too many stories like that since the ban went into effect. Get a hands free headset if you really need to make a call.

Just yesterday I had some idiot on the motorway slow down to 50 mph in front of me for no apparent reason. When I passed him, my wife noticed that the driver was texting while driving.

I don't think this should go through. My dad really needs to use a cell phone while driving, to talk to customers, the office, employees, etc.. Basically, he is consistently on his phone throughout the entire day. If he had to pull over every time he got a phone call, he wouldn't leave our driveway, and wouldn't be able to get any work done.

I'm sorry, but talking and driving is a necessity for some people. I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, it's just that for some people, their line of work requires it.

No, it doesn't. When your dad kills someone while talking on the phone, will you tell that to the relatives of the victim?
 
But is it ok for somebody to kill someone because they were eating a burger or putting on makeup or smoking? You know how many cars I have seen weave because they were lighting a cigarette.
 
But is it ok for somebody to kill someone because they were eating a burger or putting on makeup or smoking? You know how many cars I have seen weave because they were lighting a cigarette.

Cars lighting a cigarette -- now that's something I'd pay to see!
 
Countless times I have seen people light a cigarette and almost lose control of their car. I wonder how many people that are against cell phones don't mind smoking.
 
Countless times I have seen people light a cigarette and almost lose control of their car. I wonder how many people that are against cell phones don't mind smoking.
Then why not propose your own law to ban smoking while driving? This thread, however, is about cellphones.
 
Then why not propose your own law to ban smoking while driving? This thread, however, is about cellphones.
No this thread is about the hypocrisy that just cell phones are a distraction. My whole point has been why are we just focusing on cell phones.
 
Isn't killing someone because they are eating a burger taking vigilantism just a little too far? :eek:
Not if it is a distraction to other people on the road. A distraction is a distraction it doesn't matter what it is.

Cell phones, eating, smoking, the result is the same. You are not focusing on the road.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.