Why hands-free cell phone laws are dumb
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:51amPoliticians must think that if they don't pass a new law every two days then they aren't doing their job. The hands-free cell phone law is a great example of this need to pass legislation that is supported by absolutely zero reasonable thought.
At politician school you learn two things: find a legitimate problem and then create a dumb solution that doesn't address the actual problem. Firearm laws are a great example of this.
The new hands-free cell phone law is also a perfect example. There's two components to talking on a hand held cell phone: holding the phone to the side of your face and carrying out a conversation. The politician looks at this situation and sees two possibilities: make it illegal to hold a phone in your hand while driving or make it illegal to have conversations while driving. If I put my stupid politician hat on I immediately realize that holding a phone to your head drastically increases the risk of an accident and for the sake of public safety it must be stopped.
Removing the stupid politician hat I understand that my knee jerk reaction might not be valid and requires further investigation. Maybe scientists have done research into this problem area?
- Cell Phone Users Drive 'Blind'; Study Explains Why Hands-Free Phones Just As Bad As Hand-held
- Cognitive Psychologists Show Conversations Lower Visual Abilities
- Passengers, Not Just Mobile Phones, Contribute To Road Accidents
Hmmm how about that? It is quite possible that holding a conversation makes up most of the increase of collision risk.
When I look at the situation and use common sense I come to the conclusion that to have any noticeable effect on collisions all activities that distract a driver have to be made illegal, not just using a hand held cell phone. Here's a short list:
- Participating in any conversation
- Listening to the radio/music/talk radio
- Looking at billboards, bumper stickers, license plate frames or any other advertisements
- Consuming food or beverages
- Applying makeup
- Driving with one hand (manual transmission drivers would have a 3 second period between shifts to place both hands back on the wheel)
- Driving while holding any object
- Sneezing/Coughing/Yawning/Sleeping/Farting/Barfing/Laughing/Stretching/Waving/Smiling/Thinking
Okay I'm just kidding. Kind of. To spite the new law I might just drive around with a banana held up to my head blaring "Ring ring ring, banana phone" over my stereo. If it is illegal to talk on a phone in your hand surely I would get pulled over for doing the same with a piece of fresh fruit.



6 Comments Add your own
1. kurtiigeek | June 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Correction, the stupid politicians must pass a law making manual transmissions illegal. :)
2. nathan118 | June 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Not sure how impressed I am with the first study. It was all based on simulations, and only 110 subjects. Not to mention this part:
“Only hands-free cell phones were used in the study so the researchers could avoid any distracting effects from handling phones, and focus on distracting effects of conversation.”
So while they found in their very small study that hands-free can still be distracting (duh) it doesn’t show if it’s any better or worse than an actual phone. Even the old study from ‘01 says the test was done with a joystick…which isn’t driving.
Here’s a study that shows hands-free are better than cell phones.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/cell_hands_free.html
It was commissioned by Plantronics, but they didn’t perform the tests.
I’m not a big proponent of the law by any means, but the law is going into effect, so it’s either headset for me or nothing. I prefer nothing, but sometimes you don’t have a lot of choice.
3. nathan118 | June 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The plantronics test was simulator too by the way.
What I want to know is, where are the real world stats?
4. Andrew | June 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Yup, that’s what I don’t get, they passed a law to solve a problem that doesn’t seem to have any supporting evidence. I haven’t seen anything that makes me think the problem is large enough to require legislation. I would think a law that requires drivers to maintain a 3 second following distance at all times to be a much more effective at preventing collisions and fatalities.
5. Alex Casanova | June 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I just had the same realization yesterday. And I do share your point of view, but the whole studidity of this law makes me think, without sounding like I believe in conspirations,that maybe businesses or other powerful entities are beyond the creation of this frivolous, unnecessary law.
6. Alex Casanova | June 26th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I meant stupidity, of course.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed