CNN: Multitasking Triples Car Crash Risk, Study Finds

[Raphael Salgado]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/driving.study/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/dr...tudy/index.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Multitasking drivers are three times as likely to be involved in a crash as more attentive motorists who don't dab on makeup, eat breakfast, or chat on cell phones, a new study reveals. Almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes happen within three seconds of some form of driver distraction, according to the report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/salgado_auto_multitasking.jpg" /><br /><br />I'm glad that the NHTSA and VTTI were able to perform and report this study, as it's obvious that more people (especially the younger generation) are equipped with mobile devices from iPods to Sidekicks to Pocket PCs to GPS Navigators, which makes it even more dangerous. Of course, the article has to sport a picture of a Samsung MITS Pocket PC phone. :oops: I've been guilty of it myself, especially when I had my HTC Universal, Wizard, and Apache devices, each of which required two hands to operate, leaving the steering wheel to the control of my knees. And don't even get me started about keyboardless-devices and using the stylus! At least my Treo 700w offers real one-handedness and Voice Command, but after reading this report, having a family with two precious kids and another on the way, I'm not even sure a Bluetooth headset is enough preventative medicine anymore. Perhaps we all need to pull over or have better self-control as to not multitask so much, especially in situations where our lives and others depend on it, or when it... just... can... wait. What do you think? Have you been in situations where you found yourself multitasking in the wrong place at the wrong time? Have you ever been a victim or nearly one because of someone else doing that?

[Damion Chaplin]

Every freakin' day.

I don't drive; I walk or bike everywhere I go. Every day I am faced with people who run red lights, don't look at the crosswalk or even the lane next to them before they change lanes. I have to be constantly vigilant if I want to make it to work and back alive.

It's as though the drivers' attention has been taken from them and forced onto me. Instead of them paying attention to where they're going, I have to. In the SF Bay area (at least in the areas I travel) it seems like at least 50% of everyone is on the phone while driving. I hope hope hope they outlaw it soon before more pedestrians (who have the right-of-way, by the way) die. Statistically speaking it could very well be me next. :evil:

[SteveHoward999]

Every day. I drive,and ride a motorcycle. I've had more near-misses than I could ever count. It seems even worse here in Mississippi than in my native Britain (before phones were banned unless hands-free in the UK). The roads here are dead straight, so that encourages people to eat, drink, smoke and use their phones all while driving. They appear to think that a straight road requires no concentration.

With the number of head-on crashes I see (at least 3 a week) and cars leaving the road and travelling on the media on the verge, if only breifly, (at least 4 or 5 daily) and the number of near-misses, slow drivers in the 'fast' lane, fast drivers taking no cautious measures at all, all while holding the phone, a cigarette etc. I am shocked that I have never been in an accident yet.

But the police round here don't care. I regularly see them on the phone as they drive about, with an arm hanging out of the car window at the same time. The best yet is a cop driving, reading a map, smoking and pn the phone all at the same time!!!!

[bbarker]

I think almost every driver will agree it's too dangerous to use a cell phone while driving. Of course each of those drivers is an exception to that rule.

[bobbert]

Everyone wants to make phone usage illegal.

On the one hand, I'm a little more concerned about distracted drivers. I just bought a new car about three days ago. I've almost been wrecked into by phone-using drivers half a dozen times, and many more times have had drivers wandering well into my lane. Three times I consider myself lucky to have avoided an accident. I may be more aware because I'm naturally more protective of a brand new car, but still it's been rediculous and dangerous.

But on the other hand, does it really make sense to make phone usage illegal. I know a lot of people that use common sense about phone calls. They don't do it if they can't control the car or see traffic signals. It's the idiots that do it even though they lose complete awareness of the cars around them, and start wandering out of their lane, or not moving appropriately with the traffic flow, sometimes completely ignorant of slowing traffic.

Yes, that's dangerous. But it's not really the phone that should be the legal issue. You should be ticketing people for dangerous driving, not phone use. How do you legislate every kind of distraction? Or do you just pick on phones and leave everyone else alone? I say that you should focus on the behavior and leave it up to the driver to figure out how to manage. Not a $200 fine and points that raise insurance, because then it becomes something police will probably avoid issuing except in the worst cases, and where police depts want revenue, they might take advantage. But some small warnings (it's a pain and embarrassment to be pulled over even if it's just a warning), or some kind of escalating scale for repeat offenses.

I don't know if there's a good solution (I hate the idea of more ticketing). But I really don't think it's the cell phone. It's the bad driving we need to focus on!

Just my 2 cents. I don't mind if others disagree. We all have our own perspectives, even about touchy subjects. :)

[SteveHoward999]

Anything that takes the mind and one (or both!!) hands from the control of the car is potentially distracting and potentially will cause dangerous driving. In Britain, there is a charge "driving without due care and attention" or similar, which covers about anything you could think of. Doesn't seem like there is much to match that in the US.

[j0dan]

In Britain, there is a charge "driving without due care and attention" or similar, which covers about anything you could think of. Doesn't seem like there is much to match that in the US.

Here in Canada and I'd assume the US has similar laws too. It's just that they're not enforced. Whether it's difficult to enforce, I'm not sure. But it drives me nuts too seeing people on the phone. BAN THEM ALREADY!

[DaleReeck]

I'm sorry, but this is their big finding - that doing something else while you drive makes you drive worse? And now, from the pages of "Duh" magazine...Also this month: The sky is blue.

[dlangton]

But it drives me nuts too seeing people on the phone. BAN THEM ALREADY!

I don't think that all cell phones are bad drivers when they're talking on the phone. OTOH (and IMHO), it isn't the people smoking, drinking, or eating who are the ones who fail to see the red lights, run stop signs, change lanes at a whim, or seem oblivious to the rest of the world - it's people using cell phones. I guess it's best if we all suffer for the stupidity of a few.

[TheMouseMan]

But on the other hand, does it really make sense to make phone usage illegal. I know a lot of people that use common sense about phone calls. They don't do it if they can't control the car or see traffic signals. It's the idiots that do it even though they lose complete awareness of the cars around them, and start wandering out of their lane, or not moving appropriately with the traffic flow, sometimes completely ignorant of slowing traffic.
So, a law that only prohibits 'idiots' using cell phones while driving...?!? Interesting :wink: Should we just be letting it up to people themselves to judge whether or not they are able to 'use common sense'? I'm afraid that a lot of the 'idiots' would tend to think that they are excellent drivers, and that it is the others that are idiots...

Yes, that's dangerous. But it's not really the phone that should be the legal issue. You should be ticketing people for dangerous driving, not phone use.
So, are you also supporting the "It is not the guns that kill - it is the people using them" - i.e. don't limit the free access to firearms but just wait until someone gets killed and then we will take them to court?!?

Ticketing people for 'dangerous driving' is probably subject to many controversies, as it will be a somewhat subjective call by the individual police officer. Banning cell phones while driving would make it a lot easier and clear cut.

And by the way, cell phone use while driving = dangerous driving. A study (from the UK i think) showed that the reaction time while on the cell phone is worse than if the person is drunk. And everybody agrees that drunk driving is bad... I bet that you will be able to find drunk drivers that drive carefully and therefore are not dangerous, but that just doesn't make it OK...

How do you legislate every kind of distraction? Or do you just pick on phones and leave everyone else alone?
Obviously you can't legislate every kind of distraction. But when it's possible and easy to do (and the impact is known), by all means legislate!

I say that you should focus on the behavior and leave it up to the driver to figure out how to manage.
Leaving it up to people themselves obviously isn't working... The problem is, as also mentioned by others in this thread, that people tend to believe that other people are worse than themselves... It goes for driving, sense of humour etc... The problem of dangerous driving is potentially affecting not only the driver (and any of his/her passengers) but also the 'innocent public'. The main scope of legislation should here be seen as protecting the community and not as 'yet another restriction'.

And taking about restrictions - using a 'hands-free' solution isn't to my knowledge banned anywhere. It still is a distraction though, but at least your hands will be on the steering wheel... Some might even argue that even a hands-free solution should be banned, but that's another discussion.

Just my 2 cents. I don't mind if others disagree. We all have our own perspectives, even about touchy subjects. :)
I would say: particularly on touchy subjects! :wink: My post should not be taken as just picking on you, bobbert!!! We just happen to be of different opinions, so I thought I might as well use your arguments to illustrate my point of view.

- TheMouseMan

P.S. I currently live in a place where having our own driver/chauffeur is 150 USD/month - so I do actually talk on the phone while in the car on my way to work (as well as reading the newspaper and playing with my lovely Loox 720). :wink:
When I in a few months from now will return to my home country all this will sadly come to an end, though. So I guess I should be starting to look for that bluetooth headset... :roll:

[gibson042]

Was this study inclusive or exclusive of people following their GPS directions into rivers (http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/20/uk-drivers-trust-gps-more-than-their-own-eyes/)? :wink:

But in all honesty, even if multitasking made crashes 100 times more likely I would still be against a ban. I support everyone's right to engage in foolish behavior, albeit with strong punishment when that behavior harms or directly threatens anyone else.

[gibson042]

And everybody agrees that drunk driving is bad... I bet that you will be able to find drunk drivers that drive carefully and therefore are not dangerous, but that just doesn't make it OK...
What is bad about drunk driving is not the alcohol, it is the impairment. I would have no problem whatsoever with a non-dangerous drunk driver (which would, admittedly, be difficult given the increased reaction time). Can you honestly say that you would? If so, why?

[griph]

it isn't the people smoking, drinking, or eating who are the ones who fail to see the red lights, run stop signs, change lanes at a whim, or seem oblivious to the rest of the world - it's people using cell phones. I guess it's best if we all suffer for the stupidity of a few.
I dont think I agree that it is ONLY the cell phone users. Women driving whilst using the rearview mirror to put on make-up, people eating - taking their eyes off the road to find the sandwich on the passenger seat, smokers who drop a ciggy into their lap and then lose control whilst franticly looking for it! All these things happen regularly. Anything you do behind the wheel other than driving runs the riusk of becoming a distraction at that critical moment. The police here in the UK agree and there have been several prosecutions reported in the press where some poor dupe has been caught eating a chocolate bar whilst driving!

[squeeze]

a before more pedestrians (who have the right-of-way, by the way)

I said the same thing in traffic school and said that unfortunately pedestrians rarely have the right of way...if ever. Technically if they are not within the crosswalk lanes...their rights are reduced. If you cross streets and get stuck in traffic zone...your rights are screwed.

But you are right...courteous driving is gone.

[TheMouseMan]

Was this study inclusive or exclusive of people following their GPS directions into rivers (http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/20/uk-drivers-trust-gps-more-than-their-own-eyes/)? :wink:This is a great example of the stupidity of man - the blind (excuse the pun) trust in technology. :roll:

But in all honesty, even if multitasking made crashes 100 times more likely I would still be against a ban. I support everyone's right to engage in foolish behavior, albeit with strong punishment when that behavior harms or directly threatens anyone else.Paradox:
1) You are against a ban.
2) You support strong punishment for behaviours that harm or directly threaten anyone.
3) Using cell phones while driving is proven to be associated with a higher risk of traffic accident [let's not start a debate on this]. And thus, it IS directly threatening other people.

Let's use the analogy of speeding - yes, most of the times there are no accidents. But it is still illegal (banned) to speed because of the higher risk of accidents (but of course, you might also be against speed limits?).

I'm generally also not in favour of bans and restrictions. But a ban in this particular case (speeding as whell as using cell phones) is valid and justifiable in my opinion...

- TheMouseMan

P.S. In Bangkok I once was in a taxi where the driver was watching TV (Thai kick boxing on a 7" lcd screen attached to the dashboard) while driving!!! Now, how is that for a distraction?!? 8O

[TheMouseMan]

What is bad about drunk driving is not the alcohol, it is the impairment. I would have no problem whatsoever with a non-dangerous drunk driver (which would, admittedly, be difficult given the increased reaction time). Can you honestly say that you would? If so, why?
OK, increased reaction time set aside... Yes, I would still have a problem!

I just don't believe that we can base our legal system on the principle of 'no harm, no foul'... If so, then the following should also be OK:
- Speeding (as long as no accident happended)
- Bringing weapons and explosives on an airplane (as long as they are not used)
- Having weapons of mass destruction without agreeing to inspections or complying with international regulations (as long as the weapons are not used)
...OK, I better stop now :wink:

My point is just that the potential of harm to other people should be weighed against the inconvenience caused by the restrictions. I agree that talking on the cell phone while driving, speeding, 'driving under the influence' (or even eating chocolate!) should not result in the death penalty! But just consider the huge loss of not being able to talk on the phone (using 'hands-free' you still can, though!) compared to the loss of lives due to traffic accidents. Just to put it into perspective...

But hey, I think I might be getting a little carried away here... :roll:

- TheMouseMan

P.S. It would be interesting to see how the debate would have been if this was not a tech forum - how would a lawyer's forum debate be on this issue (besides reciting old cases and legal mumbo-jumbo); how would ER doctors debate this; how would bluetooth headset manufacturers debate this...

[PDANEWBIE]

I say we find a way to make all cars be remanufactured to include Faraday cages when turned on!

Imagine the shock of it all when your cell no longer gets a signal....

As far as myself is concerned I HATE and abohor cell phone use as most EVERYONE that uses one thinks they are so high and mighty and important they can ruin MY life doing it.

Examples -
Loud cell phone talkers in resturaunts - Unacceptible
Cell phone users in theaters - Just plain rude
Cell phone users in places you are FORCED to wait in line - Just because your waiting for something doesn't mean its free reign to force me to listen to how you had to lance a boil on your boyfriends back. (YUCK)
Cell phone users in cars - Dangerous

I come across this almost daily and each time I get a rather mean vision of wanting to grab the phone out of their obnoxious hands and toss it on the ground and jump on it over and over.

Yet somehow my actions would not "acceptible" and theirs is?

I was watching a show a few months ago (not sure which major station ABC, NBC, CBS it was one of those 20/20, Dateline shows) where this woman literally never shut her cell phone off. She was talking about how she has 2 phones puts them on the table at resturants, how she has lost friends who now won't meet her for dinners, and all other kinds of things.

I hate to say it but cell phone use has to be capped and limited somewhere. I mean its illegal for me to start piling trash on my lawn even if its my property I am just distrubing the neighbors but whats the difference about the cell phone user that is disturbing their neighbors at the time they are on the cell phone.

You ask how I use a cell phone? I put it on vibrate if I HAVE to carry it where I iwll be in public. I then excuse myself from the table/facility and I then find an out of the way place and I call back the caller. That is if I want to. See I was raised with a little something called manners.

Whew sorry for the rant but these stories REALLY get to me. BTW noone knows me from Adam but a close friend was killed in a Cell phone induced car crash (both drivers were on them and the friend was an admitted cell-aholic).

[SteveHoward999]

And taking about restrictions - using a 'hands-free' solution isn't to my knowledge banned anywhere. It still is a distraction though, but at least your hands will be on the steering wheel... Some might even argue that even a hands-free solution should be banned, but that's another discussion.

Speaking purely of my own experience, if I have a phone held to my ear, my entire concentration goes to the phone ... therefore I cannot concentrate safely on driving. So I use speakerphone or handsfree on the rare occasions I get a call I need to answer while driving.

When I do that, I do the same as when I have a conversation with someone in the car ... I drop out of the conversation the moment anything on the road needs my attention. I cannot concentrate on a roundabout, busy intersection or an ******* pulling out in front of me and talk with passengers too. In other words my focus is on driving when I have a 'normal' conversation, or when I use hands-free, but my focus is on the phone when I hold the phone to my head.

It seems clear to me from watching the mess many peolpe make of driving while they are on the phone that they also focus more on the phone than on the driving. Funny, though, that I've never heard or seen anyone admit to it.

Anyway - if thoughts turn to banning handsfree phone use in the car, that begs the question, "should the driver be able to converse with the passengers at all?" After all they are a dangerous distraction too ...

[ddhsoftware]

Great discussion!

I will preface by saying that I don't have conversations on my cell phone in public unless very brief (I'll call you back, have to go type conversations) but I do make calls while driving.

While I don't talk in public, I think it's funny how frustrated most of us get when others do talk in public. If I were in line at a store and the person in front of me was talking on the phone, why is that more rude or bothersome to me than two people in front of me having a conversation with eachother? In either case, I am not part of the conversation, nor to I have any right to their attention, so why does it bother us so?

WRT driving, I'd hate it if I were unable to make my calls while driving- just like I enjoy talking to someone while I'm driving with them, I also enjoy calling my wife or my Mom to have someone to talk to while driving, when not listening to some good tunes. To me it's not the talking on the phone that distracts one bit- it's the dialing and searching for their name in the contacts list that does. Even using voice dial, I find I'm looking at the screen to verify whether it got it right. I think the future of that software should be to optionally not show anything in the display but rather read back who it thinks it's calling. If we were to use technology to fine tune the experience, I think it could be made much safer to dial and talk on the phone with a headset.

Just my opinions!

[PDANEWBIE]

If I were in line at a store and the person in front of me was talking on the phone, why is that more rude or bothersome to me than two people in front of me having a conversation with eachother?

The problem isn't with 2 people having a conversation the problem is with what the conversation matter is about IMHO. I try not to listen but when someone is yelling into their phone about a subject that is something that really should be talked about in private... well that's where I have my issue. There isn't a public phone supplied in that waiting line for a reason so don't make me listen to your nasty gross stories.

I also note that people tend to talk ALOT more freely about private things in public on a cell phone as though they WERE in private.

And those of you who say don't listen thats ubsurd. You all know if your right next to someone and standing there you can't help but to hear it.

Really my gripes are again about manners and safety two things that seem to be thrown out the window when using a cell phone.

I have to hope its the minority and I just notice ALOT of what just a few do but I really have to wonder sometimes if this is more prevolent elsewhere than just what I notice.

[SteveHoward999]

I have to hope its the minority and I just notice ALOT of what just a few do but I really have to wonder sometimes if this is more prevolent elsewhere than just what I notice.

Of course we all find different things appropriate, inappropriate, or plain annoying.

Like the mis-spelling of "a lot" as "alot" that has become so prevalent on the internet and in email ;-)

[gibson042]

This runs the risk of veering off-topic, but I will still try to address your points.

Paradox:
1) You are against a ban.
2) You support strong punishment for behaviours that harm or directly threaten anyone.
3) Using cell phones while driving is proven to be associated with a higher risk of traffic accident [let's not start a debate on this]. And thus, it IS directly threatening other people.
A direct threat would be a situation requiring action on your part to avoid an accident. The "higher risk" is an INdirect threat, and thus should not be punished. If higher risk of harm is justification enough for banning an activity, then say goodbye to driving altogether.

I just don't believe that we can base our legal system on the principle of 'no harm, no foul'
I don't know where you live, but the guiding principle of Common Law is "no harm, no foul". Common Law is the only system that recognizes such unalienable rights as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

... If so, then the following should also be OK:
- Speeding (as long as no accident happended)
Absolutely. Note that only a vanishingly small minority of people actually obey speed limit laws, indicating that most do consider speeding to be OK.

- Bringing weapons and explosives on an airplane (as long as they are not used)
Well, an armed society is a polite society (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html)... but airlines should have their own rules about what is and is not allowed.

- Having weapons of mass destruction without agreeing to inspections or complying with international regulations (as long as the weapons are not used)
Okay, you got me. However, I will point out that the reason why such weapons are not okay is their large and indiscriminating radius, which makes their very existence a direct threat. If someone had a bomb in the middle of hundreds of square miles of their property, or on their isolated island in the Pacific, I would be very nervous but I would not advocate taking it away from them.

To bring everything back home, I will point out that the American Revolution was fought in part because King George "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our [American] people". What do you think the real consequence of banning phone conversation while driving will be?

[Steve Jordan]

I think that, if you can't put 55mph governers on a car to prevent speeding, you can't BAN cell phone use. So, it comes down to ticketing dangerous driving. That means cops use video cameras to record your use of a cell phone while driving badly, to substantiate their ticket... just like a radar-supported speeding ticket.

If it's considered by all to be a legitimate danger (and I think we all agree that bad driving, at today's speeds and congestion, is highly dangerous), law and the industry should be encouraging hands-free cell phone equipment use, including making some kind of universal equipment standard in all vehicles, to minimize the danger.

Either that, or give everybody OnStar, let them use only that, and have it billed through their cellphone account.

[manaboulsi]

Driver distraction is a problem I experienced when my 71 olds had an FM adaptor located way too low and each time I reached it my steering wheel was moved in one direction or another as a result of normal bio-feedback reflex, yep a mouthful.

After few years in college and as a result of other traffic frustrations, I came up with a solution that I refined ever since 1985.
Basically, the solution consist of a PC in a car with "THREE HOT BUTTONS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES", (Sounds familiar?), and two controls on the steering wheels (At 10:02 where the hands should be), to control everything in the car, including HVAC/RADIO, POWERSEATS Navigation and yes, car phone as it was called at the time.
My first prototype was built the same year and I refined it ever since and recently received one patent and still awaiting the second patent. The patent covers unscheduled communication interrupting driver at a bad time as well as the controls noted above.

In 2004 I contacted everyone at NHTSA I thought may have an interest in my project, but I was not a PhD or well published, so that went no where. In a letter to NHTSA Director Dr. Runge,in 2004, I asked them to evaluate the product but their Chief engineer refused stating that NHTSA does not evaluate propriety technologies!! BUT if you go to http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-12/pubs_rev.html, you'll see that they evaluated Nissan Laser Collision Avoidance System. The same guy refused to hear about my video library and my research stating that NHTSA does not do business with small companies.

Well, NHTSA: Let more people die while you and your buddies play video games and Candid Camera. Oh, and let's not forget to keep blaming the conversations on the cell phone for the accidents, the Insurance Companies love that so they can hike rates on all drivers, safe drivers that use hands free or reckless drivers that still use handheld.

We have a solution ready to go with 88% of surveyed said it is safer then aything on the market and 87% are willing to purchase for a price ranging from $15 to $2,200. Our solution will only cost about $250 per car with seperate cost for each additional phone/MP3 player, PDA etc. We are seeking a partner to bring it to market and out functional prototype literally blows away all those who see it. We can be contacted on www.actplace.net.

[TheMouseMan]

Greetings Gibson - I like this discussion... :wink:

A direct threat would be a situation requiring action on your part to avoid an accident. The "higher risk" is an INdirect threat, and thus should not be punished. If higher risk of harm is justification enough for banning an activity, then say goodbye to driving altogether.I'm not sure I completely can follow your distinctions of direct and INdirect threats (it might be because English is not my first language! :oops: ). Banning driving is of course neither desirable nor realistic. But my view on banning phone use (not hands-free use) is based on that it is an avoidable and unnecessary added risk. Of course, I might be biased towards putting greater emphasis on public health concerns as I work for the WHO (talk about company brainwashing and mainstreaming... :roll: ). I believe that the reasoning of this ban has the similarities with the issue of drunk driving:
1) It has a proven association with higher risk of road accidents.
2) Due to the very nature of driving, it puts others ('innocents') at risk and not just the individual driver (as with the issue of wearing a helmet when driving a motorcycle).
3) It is a situation that is easily measurable (thus, relatively easy to make laws and regulations).
...And I guess there is a general consensus that drunk driving should not be allowed?!? Most (if not all) countries punish drunk driving even though it probably would 'only' be an INdirect threat according to you - again, apologies if I did not understand your distinction correctly.

I don't know where you live, but the guiding principle of Common Law is "no harm, no foul". Common Law is the only system that recognizes such unalienable rights as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".I'll refrain from entering into a debate on law and principles - both my knowledge (and limited interest) in law as well my English skills would not be a good mix! :wink: BTW, I am a Danish citizen currently living/working in India - both Denmark and India has a ban on mobile phone use while driving. Hands-free use of mobile phones is allowed, though!

Note that only a vanishingly small minority of people actually obey speed limit laws, indicating that most do consider speeding to be OK.Agreed, I also do not always follow the speed limits (does anyone?). But I still think it would be OK to get a ticket, as I am in fact putting others at risk by speeding. And following this, I would also think it would be OK to get a ticket for using my mobile phone (without a hands-free solution) while driving as I am adding a risk to other peoples lives.

To bring everything back home, I will point out that the American Revolution was fought in part because King George "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our [American] people". What do you think the real consequence of banning phone conversation while driving will be?Possible consequences...:
1) Many wouldn't bother and just continue as usual :devilboy:
2) Hopefully, a lot would comply, thus reducing the risk for themselves and others :)
3) Increased awareness - as many people probably do not recognize this as being a risk at all :idea:
3b) Increased awareness => change in behaviour!?! :?
4) A lot of joy in the marketing and sales departments of the mobile phone accessories industry :lol:

I guess this will probably be my last entry to this thread - thanks for the discussion!

- TheMouseMan

[Steve Jordan]

A few other cars have experimented with steering-wheel-based controls (my Mom's Taurus had wheel-based radio controls). A universal hands-free phone system could also use steering-wheel controls. I agree that kind of designing could go a long way toward making cars safer.