Wrong,wrong, wrong... the impairment begins the second you enter the car.

1) if you are like most drivers the first thing you do is... make sure its turned on.
2) then you must find a place thats within easy reach.. most are so stupid that they actually hold it in the event that someone will call because??? they know its even MORE unsafe to go reaching for a phone.
3) they mount it, via some sort of a bracket on the dash.. these people are far more worried about its location that the cars.
4) no conversation, whether normal, with people in the car, or via phone is totally benign, BUT conversations with a phone tend to be more focused because people unconsciously realize the person is not there and project themselves. either going to the person, or bring them to them..
5) failing that, they center their attention to the single ear. humans do not do well with only one for some reason, their brains tend to draw to that ear to collect all the input.. look beside you when driving.. see that "glassy, unfocused" driver next to you? they are thinking of something besides driving. it doesn't matter if they currently have a phone or not, they are looking to have an accident.
6) it is impossible to talk on a phone and drive without some level of distraction. perhaps you are god, and you can do 10 or 15 things at once, but there are as many things outside the car, as there are things that you pass each second you move forward.
7) if you think that there is no impairment while talking on a phone and driving.. YOU are the problem on the roads. the people who realize it are the ones less likely to have a wreck.
8} people who have not had an accident while driving and talking on the phone have done so ONLY because every other driver has so far avoided contacting with you. THEY are paying attention to the things you are missing. The wreck occurs when you finally screw up enough that you either hit someone else doing the same thing (being distracted, not necessarily on the phone) or you yourself drive into something stationary.

you want to truly scare yourself, d this.
1) ride passenger and watch someone in YOUR car doing this.. you, if you are really observant will be scared s**tless within minutes.
2) ride passenger and just make note of each car near you. truly watch them.. pay attention to things they fail to do. like no signals, swerving, constant brake action,inconsistent speeds, following to close, hogging the center lane in traffic, speeding continuously.. all these things and more are warning signs. EVEN IF you disagree with me, avoid people doing this because they may be the dumb asses NickelPlate is referring to.

My observations are not some half baked rant, they are from YEARS of driving and noticing things. Avoiding an accident is as much your responsibility as the person being a prick on the roads.

I am working on a million miles i suppose, maybe a bit more, and have had only 2 accidents in all that time. neither were avoidable from my point, yet i was involved. still thats a pretty good record.

My comment was ONLY about phones because the topic is only about one or the other.

people are suggesting that because other actions cause accidents that this renders phones moot in the discussion. this may be to some degree, but you cannot use a stupid act to justify another stupid act.

according to Webster, invariably does not seem to apply. i thought it did to

One entry found for invariable. Main Entry: in?vari?able Pronunciation: (")in-'ver-E-&-b&l, -'var- Function: adjective : not changing or capable of change : CONSTANT - in?vari?abil?i?ty /-"ver-E-&-'bi-l&-tE, -"var-/ noun - invariable noun - in?vari?ably /-blE/ adverb

and to answer your statement, the answer is "Yes" to a degree we all are at fault. most in ways we are not even discussing yet, like "lack of preventative measures" and " education" people just cannot understand how dangerous it is.

but the bottomline is, the impairment does begin the moment you enter the car, baring in mind that the discussion is about "Phones" and "alcohol" ONLY!!

when you insert other variables, no matter how related or prudent, they dilute the topic to a point to where it becomes moot.

if you carry a conversation to a point where all variables conceivable are inserted, we could blame the very sand on the beaches for the silica, or the solar radiation for creating mutant strains of bacteria..

and, my apologies. driving for swift is... you have my sympathies.

This is the conventional thinking. Sad but true. "It has to be the drunk because, blah,blah,blah."

The issue truly is, "at the moment of impact, or just before actually, who is at fault"

now i know that with swift you took either defensive driving, or the smith system so you know that in an accident ALL PARTIES are at fault. the problem is deciding degree.

in this case, i say the drunk most likely "caused" the accident somehow by doing the typically drunk/swervy thing and drifted into oncoming traffic. BUT i still hold that if the phone was not in use that the other drive "may have" avoided it.. the problem is deciding if the phone user could have avoided it without the phone being in use.. most drivers killed by drunks are not on a phone anyways.. sadly, many are children not driving at all

my condolences to the wife, swift should have been more professional.

Sure ( http://www.swifttruckingjobs.com/ ) Swift is an American Trucking Company. They ship all sorts of freight across the country, and into Canada..