There is nothing more irritating than watching someone blab away on their cell phone while driving.
I wonder: how ever did the human race survive without cell phones?
It's bad enough that cell phones ring out in restaurants and movie theaters, but there is a huge difference between discourteous and dangerous.
I've often heard it argued that talking on the phone is no different than talking to a passenger. But that's a bogus argument, as studies show the part of the brain that controls vision becomes less active when people are having a phone conversation. In fact, studies indicate that hands-free cell phones don't really lower the risk of having an accident.
Consider that a person on a phone can't see the body language of the person on the other end of the line. As a result, the brain is already working overtime to fill in the gaps. So when it comes to talking on the phone while driving, the human brain cannot effectively complete both processes at the same time.
Scientists at the University of Kansas showed that observers engaged in a verbal task have a limited spatial attention window, becoming less aware of incoming visual cues. And University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.
But this is old news. These and similar studies go back to 2005.
But despite laws prohibiting the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, many people still feel free to break the rules. And I don't understand why. I mean, what could be so important that it can't wait for you to pull over on the shoulder, or into a parking lot? It boggles my mind.
And since no one seems to be taking the law very seriously, state police will be out in full force this week. “Operation Hang Up: II” is an initiative that police say is absolutely necessary to ensure safe roadways and adherence to a life-saving law. Police will use unmarked vehicles during the four-day period, in addition to regular trooper cars, to enforce a zero-tolerance policy. Anybody caught breaking the law should expect to receive a ticket.
The only downfall is that a ticket for talking on your cell phone runs about $100 - hardly enough bread to intimidate the public. I think the next initiative should be to up the penalty. Maybe then people would start taking the law a little more seriously.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays in The Citizen and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com.
It's bad enough that cell phones ring out in restaurants and movie theaters, but there is a huge difference between discourteous and dangerous.
I've often heard it argued that talking on the phone is no different than talking to a passenger. But that's a bogus argument, as studies show the part of the brain that controls vision becomes less active when people are having a phone conversation. In fact, studies indicate that hands-free cell phones don't really lower the risk of having an accident.
Consider that a person on a phone can't see the body language of the person on the other end of the line. As a result, the brain is already working overtime to fill in the gaps. So when it comes to talking on the phone while driving, the human brain cannot effectively complete both processes at the same time.
Scientists at the University of Kansas showed that observers engaged in a verbal task have a limited spatial attention window, becoming less aware of incoming visual cues. And University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.
But this is old news. These and similar studies go back to 2005.
But despite laws prohibiting the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, many people still feel free to break the rules. And I don't understand why. I mean, what could be so important that it can't wait for you to pull over on the shoulder, or into a parking lot? It boggles my mind.
And since no one seems to be taking the law very seriously, state police will be out in full force this week. “Operation Hang Up: II” is an initiative that police say is absolutely necessary to ensure safe roadways and adherence to a life-saving law. Police will use unmarked vehicles during the four-day period, in addition to regular trooper cars, to enforce a zero-tolerance policy. Anybody caught breaking the law should expect to receive a ticket.
The only downfall is that a ticket for talking on your cell phone runs about $100 - hardly enough bread to intimidate the public. I think the next initiative should be to up the penalty. Maybe then people would start taking the law a little more seriously.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays in The Citizen and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com.
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 14 comment(s)
AUBURN~WOMEN wrote on Nov 2, 2009 9:48 PM:
CVA62 wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:04 PM:
(b)If I was anywhere BUT in the trunk of an automobile, or say my kidnapper stopped for coffee, I coul then use my cell phone to call the A-Team. (c)Why would anyone want to kidnapp ME anyway?(d) You cell/text freaks will do or say anything to rationalize your addiction.
(e)As I said Mark, if you don't want to see this happen, STAY OFF THE DAMN PHONE!(f)There are many - MANY - ambulance chasing attorneys out there who now handle accidents involving distracted driving and they sit in their ivory castles snickering ominously and wringing their hands just waiting for the chance.
And AUBURN-WOMEN? Would that Be SEAN CONNERY? "
mark wrote on Oct 26, 2009 2:39 PM:
AUBURN~WOMEN wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:59 PM:
daydreamer wrote on Oct 24, 2009 8:38 AM:
Tom wrote on Oct 23, 2009 2:48 PM:
So much for equal application of the law. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:51 PM:
AUBURN~WOMEN wrote on Oct 23, 2009 1:58 AM:
cheeko wrote on Oct 16, 2009 3:43 PM:
STUCK~HERE wrote on Oct 14, 2009 10:26 PM:
CVA62 wrote on Oct 13, 2009 9:54 AM:
Yikes wrote on Oct 12, 2009 7:20 PM:
For some, paying the small fine is not an issue so there are no lessons learned. Perhaps the penalty should also include a revocation of driving privileges for 30 days.
That would give the law a little bite. "
Farmer's Gal wrote on Oct 12, 2009 6:15 PM:
mark wrote on Oct 12, 2009 12:07 PM: