* Eric Zorn is not impressed with a proposed ban on mobile phone calls while driving without using a handsfree device. As Zorn points out, the data shows that any calling while driving is dangerous, hands-free or not…
The available research indicates that cell phone use while driving, whether it is a hands-free or hand-held device, degrades a driver’s performance. The driver is more likely to miss key visual and audio cues needed to avoid a crash. Hand-held devices may be slightly worse, but hands-free devices are not risk-free…..National Highway Traffic Safety Association
Even if you keep your eyes on the road and hands on the wheel, phone conversation results in a fourfold increase in crash risk and a level of impairment comparable to drunk driving. This leads researchers to conclude that the distraction of phones stems not from holding the device with one hand, but from having a conversation with someone not present in the car….Slate
A study of Australian drivers found that those using cellphones were four times as likely to be involved in a serious crash regardless of whether they used hands-free devices like earpieces or speaker phones that have been perceived as making talking while driving safer….(It is the first study) to conclude definitively outside of a laboratory setting that holding a phone to the ear or talking through a hands-free device pose the same risks….New York Times
Discuss.
LIVE session coverage...
- Out Here In The Middle - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:19 am:
Does this mean I have to stop shouting at the radio when the newscaster talks about the sequester? ;-)
- Esquire - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:26 am:
If you want to make a call, pull over and park the car and make the call. No texting and calling while the car is in traffic or in motion.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:29 am:
“significantly”… “four times more likely…”
From the Feds:
“Most crashes involve a relatively unique set of circumstances that make precise calculations of risk for engaging in different behaviors very difficult.”
So, what we are saying is that cell phone use causes a distraction which we cannot quantify and really have no idea if french fries are just as dangerous.
Can this bill…
- MrJM - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:33 am:
“But I wasn’t texting, officer. This is a laptop — I was emailing.”
– MrJM
- Zaftigmumzer - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:37 am:
I agree with Zorn and many of the comments from his post. This issue has always been about all distractions, not just cell phones. Local police have always had the ability to pull over drivers for improper lane usage amongst other violations caused by distractions. Are there going to be bills banning coffee, food, cosmetics, hair care products, children, talking, and singing in cars? And the car companies don’t seem to help with the installation of DVD players, satellite radios and other accessories.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:37 am:
We are far from having auto-driven cars, maybe within the next decade. I think technology will solve this problem before laws make much difference.
On the other hand, I watched a lot of Jetsons cartoons in my day, and I was promised flying cars by now. Maybe we should try the new law just in case the tech saviors drop the ball. Again.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:38 am:
*aren’t* far. Sorry.
- Irish - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:51 am:
I believe Chicago already has a ban on talking and texting on cell phones. Yet I see quite a few people on their phones when I am in the city. So are there any statistics on whether accidents caused by cell phones have dropped in Chicago?
I also believe there are other distractions that are equal to or worse than cell phone talking. Applying make up is one. Another is reading a book. That one completely blows me away. Who thinks that they can drive and read at the same time? Why can’t the law be distracted driving period and let the cops make the case.
Can’t people make the decision not to do these things when they are driving? My fear is we will end up not able to have a conversation or sing in the car while driving.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:54 am:
As a pedestrian I would love to see the police actively enforce the ban on talking/texting/reading a book/watching a movie while driving.
- mid-level - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:56 am:
Then you need to also ban talking to anyone else in the car. Sometimes I look at the person in the passenger seat when I talk so that has to be more dangerous than talking on a hands-free phone.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:58 am:
===Sometimes I look at the person in the passenger seat when I talk so that has to be more dangerous than talking on a hands-free phone. ===
Actually, no.
- Dan Shields, Springfield - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:58 am:
If you cannot give all of you attention to the most important task at hand when behind the wheel then don’t get behind the wheel. Call a cab.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
When Apple introduces their wrist watch thing, will all the rules again need to be rewritten?
My problem stems more from missing my turns when I start daydreaming. Drives my wife batty. Fortunately there isn’t a law for that . . . yet!
- Kevin Highland - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:09 pm:
So if you get caught talking on your handset you have contact with the police. If you pull over they will stop and ask you if everything is okay and may they please see your drivers license & papers.
damned if you do….
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:18 pm:
People need to stop making the argument that driving with a cell phone is comparable to driving while eating/listening to the radio/etc. It’s not, and the research bears this out! What we need is the insurance companies to start having clauses in their policies that say if you get into an accident while on a cell phone the insurance company can refuse to pay for your repair and can recover any damages they pay to the victim. If enough horror stories of people losing their homes/kids’ futures/etc. made it to the news that might have an impact.
- siriusly - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:26 pm:
The research clearly shows that talking is the distraction, but try driving with a hands free and then try it while holding the phone to your head. Zorn is kidding himself if he thinks this isn’t an improvement, it is.
A total ban on any cellphone use while driving would of course be even safer, but not practical in terms of public willing to adopt to the new rules. I think the hands-free ban is an improvement, and one that is enforceable.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:28 pm:
I often drive with several small children in my car. Talking on the phone distracts me from my ability to reach behind the drivers seat and smack them. I also have great difficulties using my phone when I cannot hear the caller over the screams, fights, uncontrolled diaper filling, Goldfish wrangling, juice box launches, movie soundtracks, and marital spats while on the road.
I think a couple of my kids were conceived in my car, and I don’t remember being pulled over once when I found myself speeding in the wrong lanes while accomplishing that. I won’t even mention where my belt ended up that one time.
We freaking live in our cars, and have been for a freaking century, you kill joys! These laws are written and supported by folks who don’t think anyone is capable of driving and doing anything else at the same time, think the police have nothing better to do but be armed nannies, and believe they are needed to tell everyone else what to do, when to do it, and how.
Get out of my car, or I’ll make you guys taxi my kids! Those beers are mine!
- Kasich Walker, Jr. - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:32 pm:
So The Trib columnists address hand held devices once again.
The last column I read by Mary Schmich included the suggestion that guests go for the side of the bowl to avoid so much splashing noise.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:36 pm:
=I think a couple of my kids were conceived in my car, and I don’t remember being pulled over once when I found myself speeding in the wrong lanes while accomplishing that.=
So that was you I noticed cutting cars off on the expressway that day?!!! Honor is due.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:43 pm:
Since the Feds admit we can not quantify the number of accidents attributable to cell phone use, we’re doing this for what reason?
More feel-good legislation by the folks who brought you the pension/budget mess.
Oh, look, SQUIRREL!
- Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:03 pm:
- More feel-good legislation by the folks who brought you the pension/budget mess. -
Kind of like that feel-good pension reform we got from Edgar? Who was his chief of staff?
- iThink - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:04 pm:
VM - Well said.
They might as well ban having children in the car with you because as any parent can attest, there is no bigger distraction.
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:07 pm:
I’d appreciate if they’d reinstated the law banning cell phones in schools.
- Quarter in my Shoe - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:04 pm:
When did we become so self-centric that we think “Gee, I’m not doing anything but flying down the road in a 3000lb bullet, I might as well call someone to keep me from getting bored”.What we need is some type of communication system that would force people to pull off the road and use a device that is incapable of moving more that a foot or so. A company could even charge money for a system like that.
- LisleMike - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
call my cynical..(Ok there you did) but the horse is out of the barn on this. People will continue to use their phones, hands free or hand held. This law would allow culpability in auto accidents and help the lawyers. The legislature has a few of them in it, the last I looked. It gives police just cause opportunity to pull over whomever they want when they think they saw a phone. the law won’t win against a popular and now entitled technology and they know it in the GA.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 3:06 pm:
Gee, when did we get so self-centric that we started seeing motorists driving bullets in order to justify a self-centric need to become the world’s worst back seat drivers?
And the communication device you would like for us to start using was called a telephone booth, circa 1919.
- Judgment Day - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 3:27 pm:
“What we need is some type of communication system that would force people to pull off the road and use a device that is incapable of moving more that a foot or so.”
How’s this ‘technology’ going to tell if there is a person in the vehicle or not? Checking “Passenger Seatbelt” signs won’t work, it could just be that you are transporting a heavy object in the front seat. So we would end up encouraging people to drive around with heavy objects on their seats so they could still talk on their cell phone…..
What are you going to do when HUD (Heads Up Displays) become prevalent - such as being embedded as part of front windshields?
Or wearable HUD technology - such as where Google Glass is headed. Or the much rumored iWatch?
Or when cell phone ports are built right into cars, so when you get into the car, you can just (easily) put your phone right into the slot/carrier built into the car dash, and by doing so, the phone is automatically integrated into the vehicle’s sound system? Along with text messaging.
This law is going to quickly (over the next 5 years) be proven to be utterly unworkable.
It’s a case of the State of Illinois doing their best ‘Don Quixote’ imitation against technology.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 4:43 pm:
VM makes a good point in his unique way, lol!
There have been distractions since automobiles evolved to carry passengers, and the always eager to shift risk insurance guys will go after cell phones because they can’t ban kids or Big Macs.
I have been driving since 1989 (really) with hands free cellphones and have never even had a near miss. I don’t like holding the phone at all, but I don’t need the GA to nanny me there. As far as technology, there are a number of OEM and some pretty good aftermarket systems (besides the headset option) that offer very good hands free calling.
As I understand the bill, this would not be a “primary offense,” meaning law enforcement would have to observe another violation before they could stop you for the cellphone-do I have that right? IIRC, that was how seatbelt tickets started out, then that law was amended.
- Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 4:51 pm:
That was meant to read, in Paragraph 2 above, “And for ANY type of behavior…”
- reformer - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 6:10 pm:
== More feel-good legislation by the folks who brought you the pension/budget mess. ==
That would be David Harris, MacAuliffe, Osmond, Pritchard and Sacia. Right?
siriously
I find that I talk longer when I use an earpiece than when holding the phone. There’s no tired arm yakking hands-free.
- Freeze up - Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 8:21 pm:
Stopping on the shoulder of the interstate highway is illegal except in the case of emergencies.
Anybody see where these two laws would “collide”?
Seriously, stopping on the side of the interstate is not a great idea and would be an unintended consequence of this law.