Advocacy & Safety - How about this suggestion

Some of the most dangerous motorist on the roads these days are cell phone users. They are especially dangerous to cyclist.

So I propose this. Almost all new cell phones have a GPS chip. I suggest they be programed to shut down the cell phone if the phone is moving faster than 10 mph. Some may think that is extreme, but think of the lives and crashes it would prevent. If it your call is that important, pull over, make the call and then continue on your way!!!

So passengers in cars, buses, trains, and subways cannot use their phones? Non-starter.

Yeah. Be careful what you wish for. How does a cell phone know if you are a driver of a motor vehicle?

No.

So passengers in cars, buses, trains, and subways cannot use their phones? Non-starter.

Bingo. And what about hands-free cell phones? It's been shown to cause no more of an issue than talking with a passenger.

Bingo. And what about hands-free cell phones? It's been shown to cause no more of an issue than talking with a passenger.

The research I've seen about cell phones and driving suggests that hands-free cell phones are not any safer than hand-held. Some studies suggest they may even be more dangerous.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject:

Are Hands Free Cell Phones Any Safer (Science Daily)
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707142838.htm)
Do Hands-Free Cell Phones Make Driving Safer? Not So Fast (PC World) (http://www.pcworld.com/article/235266/do_hands_free_cell_phones_make_driving_safer_not_so_fast.html)

We struggle with these issues of public safety versus individual freedoms. Issues like helmets, seat belts and using cell phones while driving are highly controversial. When individual liberties bump up against societal goods and bads, it seems we are forced to navigate without a common sense of direction. We are poorer for that.

how would one notify the police if youre driving a toyota with a stuck gas pedal?

honestly, re:trains, busses etc... i hate people that are talking on a phone on said object because the simple motion is generally enough that they feel the need to talk loud enough for everyone in a 50' radius to hear.

Some of the most dangerous motorist on the roads these days are cell phone users. They are especially dangerous to cyclist.

So I propose this. Almost all new cell phones have a GPS chip. I suggest they be programed to shut down the cell phone if the phone is moving faster than 10 mph. Some may think that is extreme, but think of the lives and crashes it would prevent. If it your call is that important, pull over, make the call and then continue on your way!!!

Non starter as a solution to the alleged "problem,"as pointed out by other posters.

Before coming up with drastic solutions maybe you should establish the seriousness of the alleged problem. Besides being common knowledge/conventional wisdom, what solid evidence is there for your premise that cell phone users ARE in fact (accident data, not theories) more dangerous than other motorists on the road, or are "especially dangerous to cyclists?"

Bingo. And what about hands-free cell phones? It's been shown to cause no more of an issue than talking with a passenger.

Really? I find that hard to believe. I've found hands free users still to be pretty distracted (although not as bad as those that use the handset).

Better would be stiff penalites for cell phone use on the road (like Germany)

While it's been shown that cell phone using MV drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers, automatic cell phone shut down is not the solution. Just like most cars don't come with breathalizer immobilization devices...

Non starter as a solution to the alleged "problem,"as pointed out by other posters.

Before coming up with drastic solutions maybe you should establish the seriousness of the alleged problem. Besides being common knowledge/conventional wisdom, what solid evidence is there for your premise that cell phone users ARE in fact (accident data, not theories) more dangerous than other motorists on the road, or are "especially dangerous to cyclists?"

Not cyclist specific, but I think impairment is pretty solidly proven. For Example:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf

Bingo. And what about hands-free cell phones? It's been shown to cause no more of an issue than talking with a passenger.

Incorrect. Hands free has been shown to be every bit distracting as talking into a handset. The problem is that the person on the other end of the line is not aware of the traffic the driver is in. If the person you're talking to is in the car, they can see complex traffic patterns and can shut the hell up (or even shout a warning) if things are getting dicey. Someone on a cell phone connection won't know that.

Not cyclist specific, but I think impairment is pretty solidly proven. For Example:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf

I'd love to see that study done but comparing hands-free cell phone users with people talking to passengers, or with kids screaming in the backseat, or changing a CD, or drinking a coffee, applying makeup, shaving, reading the newspaper, etc., etc..

Distracted driving is the problem, not cell phones.

I'd love to see that study done but comparing hands-free cell phone users with people talking to passengers, or with kids screaming in the backseat, or changing a CD, or drinking a coffee, applying makeup, shaving, reading the newspaper, etc., etc..

Distracted driving is the problem, not cell phones.

...with cell phones being one of the biggest distractions. I've never seen people become so oblivious to what's going on around them as cell phone users. There's something special about phones- and not in a good way.

If you ever see someone driving erratically, even money they're on a phone.

Talking on cells is distracting. Texting is much worse. The other day I was passed by a guy who had a laptop open on the passenger seat and was using it as he drove. At 60 mph. He veered off into the bike lane about 100 yards past me. Not sure if he ever realized I existed. We can, and should, have laws covering distracted driving, but with all the devices available today it won't cease to be a problem.

If you ever see someone driving erratically, even money they're on a phone.
My even money guess is if you see anyone driving they're on a cell phone. So whatz your point?

The rest may be looking for it, or they're smokes, eating or unwrapping a sandwich, chatting with a passenger, or scolding the kids, or adjusting the radio.

Actually, hands-free doesn't help that much. It's still significantly more dangerous than talking to a passenger.

Citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device

"Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[19][20] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[9] and meta-analysis.[11][12] The increased cognitive workload involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[21][22][23] For example, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that merely listening to somebody speak on a phone caused a 37% drop in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are managed.[24]"

Our most recent car is pretty much keyless. No big deal there, but it also has a feature that makes it all but inpossible to lock your keys in the trunk. It can tell where the keys are.

In 10-20 years I expect we could have something doing a forced shutoff or police notification when a phone is being used in the drivers seat and the vehicle is in motion.

Or we could go in ht eother direction and have the stupidity of replaceing buttons with touch screens that some car companies are pushing.

My even money guess is if you see anyone driving they're on a cell phone. So whatz your point?

The rest may be looking for it, or they're smokes, eating or unwrapping a sandwich, chatting with a passenger, or scolding the kids, or adjusting the radio.

No, there's a noticable difference if they're on the phone. That's the point. And no, not everyone is on the phone so extrapolations to include the whole class don't fly.

Some of the most dangerous motorist on the roads these days are cell phone users. They are especially dangerous to cyclist.

So I propose this. Almost all new cell phones have a GPS chip. I suggest they be programmed to shut down the cell phone if the phone is moving faster than 10 mph. Some may think that is extreme, but think of the lives and crashes it would prevent. If it your call is that important, pull over, make the call and then continue on your way!!!

I second that, but with one amendment to it. The phone shuts down, except for still being able to call Fire/EMS

Like most issues involving life/injury versus convenience and money, this one will not be resolved legislatively. However, there is a chance that the courts might step in and slap the service providers for not shutting down the phones when they are moving at traffic speeds. It's only going to take one victim successfully going after the provider to make this standard.

For all those who are so concerned about a passenger's ability to use the phone: what is the median number of occupants of a motor vehicle in the U.S.? One! Okay, I cheated a bit. Since the majority of cars have one person in them but some have more than one, the average is slightly larger, but is still damned near one. I just don't see the convenience of the rare passengers' use of phones as outweighing basic public safety.

We instituted vehicle codes and licenses for motorists in response to the CARnage of motorists in the early days of the automobile in the interest of public safety at great inconvenience to motorists. It's time to inconvenience motorists again since they won't behave responsibly without assistance.

If I sound a bit hot under the collar at what I consider to be a narcissistic attitude towards driving while distracted by electronic toys, it's because I have had to take extreme evasive action to avoid being killed by these phone zombies numerous times in the past month. I honestly can't believe anyone who actually rides in areas with cell phone reception hasn't had similar close calls at the hands of the phone zombies. Oh yeah, I forgot. This is A&S where (almost) no one rides.

I think the following is true:
it's not illegal for an adult to talk on a cell phone while driving.
it is illegal for a junior drivert to talk on a cell while driving.
it is illegal for anyone to text while driving, and the car doesn't have to be moving at the time, for example at a red light, or pulled over on the side of the road

...or you could go the illegal-in-the-USA route and ride with a cell-phone jammer...

I think the following is true:
it's not illegal for an adult to talk on a cell phone while driving.
it is illegal for a junior drivert to talk on a cell while driving.
it is illegal for anyone to text while driving, and the car doesn't have to be moving at the time, for example at a red light, or pulled over on the side of the road

Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/cell-phones-texting-driving-state-laws-29774.html

Handheld phones. Seven states have enacted laws banning the use of handheld cell phones while driving: California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington (as well as Washington D.C. and the Virgin Islands).

Novice or juvenile drivers. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted special cell phone driving laws for novice drivers (for example, those with a learner's permit) or young drivers (such as those under the age of 18).

Texting. Twenty-nine states, Washington D.C., and Guam have banned text messaging for all drivers.

Distracted driving. Several additional states -- such as Maine, New Hampshire, and Utah -- don't specifically ban cell phone use, but instead lump it into a larger ban on distracted driving.

I think the following is true:
it's not illegal for an adult to talk on a cell phone while driving.
it is illegal for a junior drivert to talk on a cell while driving.
it is illegal for anyone to text while driving, and the car doesn't have to be moving at the time, for example at a red light, or pulled over on the side of the road

It is illegal in some states for an adult (or anybody) to hold a cell phone while driving... so while it may not be illegal to talk on a cell phone, holding the cell phone IS illegal.

Pulled over at the side of the road while parked in a car, and texting... how in the world is that illegal? Now at a stop light... that may be a different thing.

Non starter as a solution to the alleged "problem,"as pointed out by other posters.

Before coming up with drastic solutions maybe you should establish the seriousness of the alleged problem. Besides being common knowledge/conventional wisdom, what solid evidence is there for your premise that cell phone users ARE in fact (accident data, not theories) more dangerous than other motorists on the road, or are "especially dangerous to cyclists?"

Was such accident data derived before it was determined that drunken motorists were dangerous to the rest of us? Or were just a few situations analyzed and extrapolated that lead to the no drinking and driving ban.

The reason I cite drunken driving is because some of the studies of cell phone users equate cell phone use to the same sort of delayed reaction times shown by drunken drivers.

No, there's a noticable difference if they're on the phone. That's the point. And no, not everyone is on the phone so extrapolations to include the whole class don't fly.

I stand corrected. How about combining our guesses and bet even money that 50% of drivers seen by you and me are using a cell phone, whether the driver is driving erratically or not.

All the "noticeable differences" and "study comparisons" with reactions of drunk drivers being reported appear to be based on tests and simulations. Haven't seen anyone cite actual traffic accident statistics that indicate the drivers using cell phones have accidents at any greater rate than drivers who were not using cell phones; i.e. if 50% of drivers are listening to the radio/CD it would be expected that at least 50% of the accidents reported would involve a radio/CD using driver. It would not indicate anything about the "danger" of those devices.

Actually, hands-free doesn't help that much. It's still significantly more dangerous than talking to a passenger.

Citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device

"Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies.[19][20] epidemiological,[1][2] simulation,[9] and meta-analysis.[11][12] The increased cognitive workload involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[21][22][23] For example, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that merely listening to somebody speak on a phone caused a 37% drop in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are managed.[24]"

Again, the study had no control i.e. a passenger conversation. Distracted driving is distracted driving, regardless of cause. We will never legislate it out of existence.

We need better driver education and increased penalties when distracted driving is determined to be the cause of the traffic violation or collision.

I stand corrected. How about combining our guesses and bet even money that 50% of drivers seen by you and me are using a cell phone, whether the driver is driving erratically or not.

All the "noticeable differences" and "study comparisons" with reactions of drunk drivers being reported appear to be based on tests and simulations. Haven't seen anyone cite actual traffic accident statistics that indicate the drivers using cell phones have accidents at any greater rate than drivers who were not using cell phones; i.e. if 50% of drivers are listening to the radio/CD it would be expected that at least 50% of the accidents reported would involve a radio/CD using driver. It would not indicate anything about the "danger" of those devices.

You're leaving out a very important variable- some devices are inherently more distracting than others. So maybe 80% are listening to the radio but only 5% of accidents are caused by radio use.
I don't know why you insist on accident statistics if simulations show that cell phone usage results in as much reaction delay as driving drunk. In any event, I'm sure you could find such if you try.

Again, the study had no control i.e. a passenger conversation. Distracted driving is distracted driving, regardless of cause. We will never legislate it out of existence.

I wouldn't equate a general: "distracted driving"; with a specific: "cell phone use". Sure, we'll never eliminate a general cause but it's pretty straightforward to eliminate a specific one.


We need better driver education and increased penalties when distracted driving is determined to be the cause of the traffic violation or collision.

That's always true, but in this case it's pretty easy to prevent accidents rather than trying to determine fault afterwards.

Bingo. And what about hands-free cell phones? It's been shown to cause no more of an issue than talking with a passenger.

Would you please provide more information, including sources if available? I'm far from expert on the subject but have heard and read reports of rather large studies suggesting that hands-free talk is about as big an issue as driving with phone in hand.

...We struggle with these issues of public safety versus individual freedoms. Issues like helmets, seat belts and using cell phones while driving are highly controversial. When individual liberties bump up against societal goods and bads, it seems we are forced to navigate without a common sense of direction. We are poorer for that.

When you say "we are poorer for that", it implies that there is some sort of "common sense of direction" that you feel is correct. What is that?

My personal belief is that freedom can be unhealthy and dangerous at times. Big deal, good things have a price. Just some examples of where I personally draw the line: I think smoking is a disgusting and stupid habit, but I am against the current witch hunt against smokers. I wear a bicycle helmet, mainly because there's virtually no downside and a little bit of upside - but I don't believe they're essential for a reasonable amount of safety, and I totally respect, even applaud, people who choose not to wear them (because it's a small indication they haven't bought into the irrational dangerizing of cycling). I think most recreational drugs should be legalized even though I have no personal desire to use them (any more).

I stand corrected. How about combining our guesses and bet even money that 50% of drivers seen by you and me are using a cell phone, whether the driver is driving erratically or not.

All the "noticeable differences" and "study comparisons" with reactions of drunk drivers being reported appear to be based on tests and simulations. Haven't seen anyone cite actual traffic accident statistics that indicate the drivers using cell phones have accidents at any greater rate than drivers who were not using cell phones; i.e. if 50% of drivers are listening to the radio/CD it would be expected that at least 50% of the accidents reported would involve a radio/CD using driver. It would not indicate anything about the "danger" of those devices.

The NHTSA estimates that 1/3 of all crashes are due to "distraction," but the last time I checked they did not break it out to whether the distraction was a BJ, or reaching for a Big Gulp, or using the cell phone.

Also since few crashes lead to criminal prosecution, it is not as if the cell phone records are pulled and then reported to any agency that might accumulate such data. The only agencies that gather such data might be civil attorneys and insurance companies... and they don't seem to be giving up the facts.

Drunk driving data on the other hand is easy to access as drunk driving in of itself is a criminal offense, and thus the condition is readily tested for and the data is collected.

So the reality is that you asking for such data, that is not normally collected is on par with Forester asking for data of intersection conflicts for cyclists and motorists due to new bike lane designs... there is NO SUCH DATA...

So do we then turn a blind eye and ignore the lab tests that show that motorists are heavily distracted by cell phones... simply because we cannot give direct correlation for such things?

So the reality is that you asking for such data, that is not normally collected is on par with Forester asking for data of intersection conflicts for cyclists and motorists due to new bike lane designs... there is NO SUCH DATA...
Ya got it backward, Genec. The reality is that people, like the OP making all sorts of claims about the special and intolerable danger to cyclists from cell phone wielding motorists is just so much supposition and guesswork not supported by any accident data. It may be true, it might not; but for right now claims that cell phone users are more dangerous than other motorists on the road, or are "especially dangerous to cyclists" are just so much hot air and whining supported only by selective anecdotes and theories based on lab simulations.

You are partially correct about the similarity to Forester technique, but again ya got it backwards. It is Forester making all sorts of quantitative claims without or ignoring sufficient data, and then demanding others go find the data to disprove his guesswork.

Ya got it backward, Genec. The reality is that people, like the OP making all sorts of claims about the special and intolerable danger to cyclists from cell phone wielding motorists is just so much supposition and guesswork not supported by any accident data. It may be true, it might not; but for right now claims that cell phone users are more dangerous than other motorists on the road, or are "especially dangerous to cyclists" are just so much hot air and whining supported only by selective anecdotes and theories based on lab simulations.

You are partially correct about the similarity to Forester technique, but again ya got it backwards. It is Forester making all sorts of quantitative claims without or ignoring sufficient data, and then demanding others go find the data to disprove his guesswork.

But in the case of cellphones there is lab data using simulated conditions and that motorists reactions to such are poor... the only way real accident data would exist is if cell phone records were pulled for each and every collision on the road. We don't need to do that, as lab simulations can be shown to apply for other areas (such as use in drivers ed and in flight training) so why can't the same simulations that are used for training that show poor performance with the addition of the cell phone variable also be accepted?

BTW Forester is demanding data on bike lanes... in the VC thread... when it is well known that such data does not exist. You are referencing his claim that his form of VC training, based on his extrapolation of his cherry picked data yields fewer conflicts... and again such data do not exist... but can you see the differences of his vacuous claims verses lab simulations that have been run countless times and by various agencies?

I think the following is true:
it's not illegal for an adult to talk on a cell phone while driving.
it is illegal for a junior drivert to talk on a cell while driving.
it is illegal for anyone to text while driving, and the car doesn't have to be moving at the time, for example at a red light, or pulled over on the side of the road

In Maryland, anyone talking on a cell phone while driving, is violating the law. The loophole in the law is, for a person to actually be able to report it, they need to be a member of law enforcement, and they need to see it happening.

...but can you see the differences of his vacuous claims verses lab simulations that have been run countless times and by various agencies?
I can see the differences and really don't doubt that cell phone chatter is not conducive to best driving technique, but doubt that it is as serious as the Safety Clown Cassandras make it out to be. That possibility hardly justifies the yowling and howling from know nothings exaggerating the impact on traffic safety and calling for hare-brained "solutions."

BTW I suspect that every one of the various agencies got the results that they anticipated from the lab simulations that they set up. I would be surprised to see anything else.

I can see the differences and really don't doubt that cell phone chatter is not conducive to best driving technique, but doubt that it is as serious as the Safety Clown Cassandras make it out to be. That possibility hardly justifies the yowling and howling from know nothings exaggerating the impact on traffic safety and calling for hare-brained "solutions."

BTW I suspect that every one of the various agencies got the results that they anticipated from the lab simulations that they set up. I would be surprised to see anything else.

So you acknowledge the possibility of distraction by cell phone, but are simply haggling over extent of the effect. OK.

BTW regarding your reluctance to accept the data of "various agencies..." I wonder if any of said testing agencies were sponsored by cell phone companies?

Bingo. And what about hands-free cell phones? It's been shown to cause no more of an issue than talking with a passenger.
There is a difference. I think that somehow talking on the phone distracts a person far more than talking with a passenger. I have seen people almost in a trance, oblivious to lights and just following the vehicle in front at a close distance as if they are being towed. They pass thru red lights when the vehicle ahead just makes it. Also, I have seen people slowing down or completely stopping anywhere including high traffic lanes, just because they are calling someone to get directions or some other info.

So you acknowledge the possibility of distraction by cell phone, but are simply haggling over extent of the effect. OK.

BTW regarding your reluctance to accept the data of "various agencies..." I wonder if any of said testing agencies were sponsored by cell phone companies?
Don't know, but you referred to "various agencies". Do you know who any of them are or who sponsored any of their tests?

Bingo. And what about hands-free cell phones? It's been shown to cause no more of an issue than talking with a passenger.

Not true.

Hands-free mobile devices do not improve road safety, according to a study.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012393/Distracting-hands-free-devices-dangerous-mobile.html#ixzz29CkOoUEI)

Don't know, but you referred to "various agencies". Do you know who any of them are or who sponsored any of their tests?

Not off hand, as the studies have been done by a wide number of agencies... in fact in the link provided in the post just above, there is a quote that states...


The report by the U.S. Governors Highway Safety Association was based on analysis of more than 350 scientific papers on ‘distracted’ driving.

Further that same paper indicates...

In the U.S. in 2009, nearly 5,500 deaths and about half a million injuries resulted from crashes involving a distracted driver.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012393/Distracting-hands-free-devices-dangerous-mobile.html#ixzz29D4g586P


These reports come up periodically... I have yet to see one that states... driving with a cell phone causes no distraction what so ever.

Doing quick google search I find: About 44,400,000 results... the first few are from places like the University of Utah, and Harvard School of Public Health. Yeah, probably shouldn't trust those places, eh? Then there is the National Safety Council... no doubt a bunch of nannies. Oh and there is a study from AAA... no doubt motivated by wanting you to drive more... oops, they suggest using cell phones may be dangerous too. They state...
In summary, it is clear that driver distraction is a serious traffic safety problem, and that driver cell phone use represents a particularly salient form of distraction. But heck what do they know... I mean they probably cherry picked their data too, right? http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/CellPhonesandDrivingReport.pdf

Yeah, this no doubt is a bunch of nanny nonsense, and all those reports basically confirming one another just don't mean a thing, right?

Yeah, this no doubt is a bunch of nanny nonsense, and all those reports basically confirming one another just don't mean a thing, right?
Could be, when people "suggest" that "cell phone use" represent any/every type of distracted driving/non-alert driving.

One report confirming another no matter how off-base/vague the original reports? Sounds like some of the oh-so-many overwrought helmet reports/guidance from "authorities" always referring to one of the original bogus studies by Thompson. Happens all the time when there is an agenda to be supported.

Could be, when people "suggest" that "cell phone use" represent any/every type of distracted driving/non-alert driving.


Who's done that here?

May I remind everyone so damned wedded to their cell phones that 30 years ago civilization managed to run quite ok WITHOUT their cell phones.

If there is a phone call so damned important that just has to be made -----------pull over and stop!! That includes drivers or passengers. It is a simple choice keep driving or pull over and make that "important" call!!!!!

Who's done that here?

Genec in the post to which I responded, http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/851994-How-about-this-suggestion?p=14837725&viewfull=1#post14837725 :

Not off hand, as the studies have been done by a wide number of agencies... in fact in the link provided in the post just above, there is a quote that states...

The report by the U.S. Governors Highway Safety Association was based on analysis of more than 350 scientific papers on ‘distracted’ driving.


Further that same paper indicates...
In the U.S. in 2009, nearly 5,500 deaths and about half a million injuries resulted from crashes involving a distracted driver.

Genec in the post to which I responded, http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/851994-How-about-this-suggestion?p=14837725&viewfull=1#post14837725 :

Not off hand, as the studies have been done by a wide number of agencies... in fact in the link provided in the post just above, there is a quote that states...

The report by the U.S. Governors Highway Safety Association was based on analysis of more than 350 scientific papers on ‘distracted’ driving.


Further that same paper indicates...
In the U.S. in 2009, nearly 5,500 deaths and about half a million injuries resulted from crashes involving a distracted driver.


As I stated earlier, since police don't pull cell phone records with every crash or injury... there really is no way to know how often a cell phone plays a part in said collisions.

But various simulations sure show that cell phone use IS distracting....

So if you want to come to the conclusion that cell phones are not part of the problem, I suppose that is your misguided choice.

So while you may consider me a bit of a nanny... for wanting to listen to these reports.... you yourself come off like a head buried luddide for ignoring the evidence.

So if you want to come to the conclusion that cell phones are not part of the problem, I suppose that is your misguided choice.

So while you may consider me a bit of a nanny... for wanting to listen to these reports.... you yourself come off like a head buried luddide for ignoring the evidence.

That is not my "conclusion." I am skeptical of conventional wisdom based on simulation studies that have no apparent validation or correlation with statistical evidence from real world.

My point is opposition to dingy suggestions based on scare mongering/safety nanny-ism as evidenced in the OP's suggestion. Numerous other posts on BF about especially dangerous activity are similar though not always as simpleminded, and assume that cell phone use (or some other wicked activity, not practiced by the poster) is a special kind of "dangerous" activity requiring over the top legislation/restrictions/harassment from the good people.

For example, one could look at the conventional wisdom and its relationship to studies about the allegedly especially dangerous activity of cycling without a specific piece of headgear. Same wingy discourse and suggestions.

That is not my "conclusion." I am skeptical of conventional wisdom based on simulation studies that have no apparent validation or correlation with statistical evidence from real world.

My point is opposition to dingy suggestions based on scare mongering/safety nanny-ism as evidenced in the OP's suggestion. Numerous other posts on BF about especially dangerous activity are similar though not always as simpleminded, and assume that cell phone use (or some other wicked activity, not practiced by the poster) is a special kind of "dangerous" activity requiring over the top legislation/restrictions/harassment from the good people.

For example, one could look at the conventional wisdom and its relationship to studies about the allegedly especially dangerous activity of cycling without a specific piece of headgear. Same wingy discourse and suggestions.

So in effect the only data you would accept would be statistics from collisions that show that a cell phone was in use at the time. Oddly such a stat is not likely to ever be gathered since the majority of the states do not limit the use of cell phones by law and if they take your "approach" they are not likely to gather stats on collisions either. Something of a head in the sand approach. "well we don't believe it, so we'll just deny it."

What other proof might satisfy the likes of yourself?

Do you believe first that cell phone use may distract a motorist?

Do you believe that distracted motorists can cause collisions?

So in effect the only data you would accept would be statistics from collisions that show that a cell phone was in use at the time. Oddly such a stat is not likely to ever be gathered since the majority of the states do not limit the use of cell phones by law and if they take your "approach" they are not likely to gather stats on collisions either. Something of a head in the sand approach. "well we don't believe it, so we'll just deny it."

What other proof might satisfy the likes of yourself?

Do you believe first that cell phone use may distract a motorist?

Do you believe that distracted motorists can cause collisions?
I'm done with this. You keep asking again and again the questions I already have answered.

Get over it. You and the OP and others believe that something is extra special dangerous, so it MUST be true. Continue to wail and gnash your teeth about it. If it makes you feel all good and self righteous, use your beliefs as justification to suggest some more dumbbell "solutions" that are not likely to have the slightest effect on reducing cycling risk.