Slashdot Mirror
NTSB Recommends Cell Phone Ban For Drivers
ducomputergeek writes "According to this AP report, the National Transportation Safety Board says 'States should ban all driver use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices, except in emergencies.' 'The recommendation, unanimously agreed to by the five-member board, applies to both hands-free and hand-held phones and significantly exceeds any existing state laws restricting texting and cellphone use behind the wheel.' So what about all the cars today that come with built-in computers, navigation, internet capabilities, and cell phones?"
Let's also ban talking to your passengers and thinking about food while you drive.
You're right, because no passengers should be allowed to talk on the phone either....
What about my docked phone that is playing music? Can I even have it running? Is pressing "next" equal to hitting your in-car stereo's next button?
I completely agree with not allowing non-hands-free talking and especially with texting, but all electronic usage is a bit vague...
-SaNo
I hate to break it to people, techies included, but talking on your phone and driving kills people. Its a pretty well known fact and insurance companies are even charging higher premiums to people who have had a cell phone related accident (more than a normal rate increase). Ultimately this is the states' call, but if it was your kid, significant other, or friend who got killed by someone texting/talking on their phone would you let it go?
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
Giving the driver the opportunity to pull over and answer a call would also be unacceptable.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Eating ... then maybe we can talk.
Smoking
Doing make-up
Driving without seat-belts
Dogs in the front seat.
We're one step closer to a (very) short range cell phone jammer in cars that jam all cell phone signals inside the car whenever the car is moving at, say, more than 10mph.
Tried to buy one of these, years ago. They're banned. Every time a site pops up selling them assembled or in kit, they vanish shortly afterward. Some funny old FCC thing baring them.
Probably more likely to cause an accident anyway, as the driver on the phone looks at their phone which has lost connection and/or attempts to redial, when they should be watching the road ahead.
I hear so many anecdotal stories about how drivers are perfectly functional and alert when driving and blathering (about what urgent matter, exactly?), but most accidents I see a driver was distracted. Even seen a three vehicle accident in bumper-to-bumper crawl, where the two following drivers were clearly not paying attention.
Banned in California, but I still see a lot of drivers with that slab of plastic pressed to the side of their head as they go down the road. Fines not high enough? Insurance not high enough? Maybe when they put cameras on overpasses to photograph the offending drivers and mail them the tickets. (We already have cameras on intersections for red-light runners.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I recognize that someone in Mr. LaHood's position needs to strongly advocate for safety, but his position borders on authoritarian. I listened to an interview with him on Fresh Air (I think) where he basically shouted down anyone who offered a counterpoint to his position and portrayed them all as idiots. The best part was when the final caller claimed to actually be driving while calling and it set him off to the point I thought he was going to ask if they could trace the call.
Just get us self-driving cars already so that this and a number of related problems go away.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
several people should be banned from driving! Unfortunately, passing a test is the extent of competence for most drivers and even with that, some barely make it.
Lesson would seem to be not to text while driving, and definitely don't text while driving in front of multiple school buses with bad brakes.
Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
According to CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/ntsb-cell-phone-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 the proposal would NOT ban the use of hand-free devices, or passenger cell phone usage.
I can't get to the referenced ntsb.gov page but the CNN article states just the opposite. The last line in CNN's article reads: "It would not apply to hand-free devices or to passengers."
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Science, schmience. AT&T plus Verizon can come up with enough money to buy off any legislator foolish enough to try to implement anything as sensible as this. Maybe if it were tied to a tax cut....
guess I can't respond to the calls or automated alerts I get on my phone, the latter of which require keypad entry to acknowledge.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
If it's so damned dangerous, why do the cops get a permanent exception?
Spare me the "talking on your phone and driving kills people" sophistry. So does anything else that distracts from driving. Shall we next eliminate cupholders in cars because drinking and driving "kills people", too?
Dog is my co-pilot.
Drivers should be only punished if there driving is dangerous. Drivers exhibiting signs of impaired driving (like slow reaction), excessively long cushions to the next car, speed lower than traffic.
The amount of preventive punishment: seat belts, speed limits, etc is mind boggling. All in the name of safety.
Punish drivers for the crime, actual accident which was there fault, actual impediment to the traffic, not for the achieving preconditions of what will actually happen. As long as I am concerned the driver could be sleeping on the back seat, if his robotic car manages to drive the car meanwhile.
This is all of course excludes DUI. Those need to be moved to the buses for life, period.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
How about we ban other dangerous activities while driving like:
- Changing radio stations
- Putting on makeup
- Reading books or newspapers
- Scolding children in the back seat
- Thumbing through CD wallets looking for CD's
- Eating
Seriously, people have been doing things in their cars that can and have caused accidents, some of them even more utterly ridiculous than using cell phones or texting. Why is this getting so much attention?
We'll make great pets
there are not enough cops to enforce a ban even though it could increase revenue a lot for many area's. there are already commercial cell phone signal jamming devices that could be retrofitted to work inside the area of a typical civilian(non police) vehicle cabin. this could be required to be put into new vehicles or for a partial Faraday cage built into the cabin space of new vehicles to deal with this. gps's won't be effected by the jamming device as they use a separate frequency and built in gps devices in cars, while not visible to the owner, they have a antenna external to the cabin already as that allows a better signal.
existing vehicle owners would have a choice of either being subject to the ban in which the cop can pull them over if they see a cell phone in the car and on their head or a hands free device on their head. or install a jamming device out of their own cost for possibly a reduced insurance rate. as for cars with built in systems like mentioned in the summery, just extend the law that requires those with dvd play back ability to not play back a dvd while the vehicle is in motion(for dash mounted player screens) to working the device at all. make it so the touch screen won't accept user input other then volume adjustment while the car is in motion and the brakes are not being applied.
There are two types of people who use phones and other gadgets while driving: Those who realize that their driving ability is impaired, and those who don't realize that their driving ability is impaired.
BTW, I don't remember the last time I saw a cop driving a car without either talking on the phone or using a laptop mounted on the passenger seat.
Seriously, the technology is here to allow for fully autonomous driving. The government just needs to come up with the funding to install all of the sensors and implement regulations that require all manufacturers to include these in ALL vehicles.
Driving is a privelege, not a right. If we want our roads to be truly safe then we should have computers do the driving for us. Again, the technology is here (straight from wikipedia):
Autonomous cars are not in widespread use, but their introduction could produce several direct advantages:
Fewer crashes, due to the autonomous system's increased reliability compared to human drivers[1]
Increased roadway capacity due to reduced need of safety gaps[2] and the ability to better manage traffic flow.[1]
Relief of vehicle occupants from driving and navigation chores.[1]
Removal of constraints on occupant's state - it would not matter if the occupants were too young, too old or if their frame of mind were not suitable to drive a traditional car. Furthermore, disabilities would no longer matter.[3]
Elimination of redundant passengers - humans are not required to take the car anywhere, as the robotic car can drive empty to wherever it is required.[3]
Alleviation of parking scarcity as cars could drop off passengers, park far away where space is not scarce, and return as needed to pick up passengers.
Indirect advantages are anticipated as well. Adoption of robotic cars could reduce the number of vehicles worldwide,[4][5] reduce the amount of space required for vehicle parking,[6] and reduce the need for traffic police and vehicle insurance.
This will not only "eliminate" accidents, but also decrease emmissions, and save money....
Previewing comments are for sissies!
I'm amazed that people are still so passionate about driving themselves to work and so vehemently opposed to public transit. Don't all y'all realize that you could spend your commute time texting and Tweeting and talking and what-not with reckless abandon if you let a professional handle the driving for you?
On top of it, a transit system done right is faster, far cheaper, and much more efficient than one in which single-occupancy multi-passenger vehicles are the norm. Instead of sitting in stop-and-go traffic on the freeway for an hour, you could be in a train doing 100 mph down the median of that same freeway...if only such a train existed.
Don't get me worng. Cars are awesome, and a vital part of any modern transportation system. But the balance of the American transportation system is skewed so far in favor of cars that it's become the most expensive, slowest, most dangerous, most inconvenient, most inefficient transportation system you could design.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
As long as they keep their laws off my mobile ham radio.
73 de W7COM/M
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
This is wise ... the brain cannot serve two masters, and it's clear that people are making the wrong choices far too often.
However, that said, there are many kinds of driving scenarios: crowded parking lots, residential streets, freeway ingress/egress, crowded expressways, and long expressway spans.
They all call for different kinds of attention, and long expressway driving really can tolerate split attention.
So, what are we really talking about, and what's the best way to avoid danger?
How about criminalizing various kinds of distracted driving ... like a DUI?
How about making this a state-by-state decision ... why do the feds need to be involved? ... all states do not have the same driving scenarios or sensibilities.
You can already make such a system. There are tons of sites for importing short-range jammers, and from there it's just a matter of hooking it up to a speedometer system.
I'd be OK with having to stop to send texts. It's possible to set the phone up so incoming texts just pop alerts, so I don't have to touch it, and if the message requires more brain effort to parse than I can safely devote to it, again, I can pull over.
But navigation in dense urban areas whose traffic situations may evolve rapidly during the day is considerably more difficult (and requires considerably more concentration on route planning than I feel is safe when I'm driving) without real-time traffic data on a map app. I need a moving-map display with at least near-real-time traffic density info, because if I know a slowdown or a complete backup is ahead before I hit it, I can re-route to avoid it and not get stuck in traffic to begin with. (And possibly avoid a rear-end-collision situation that's put me in danger more than once when traffic abruptly stops.) Sorry, NTSB, but navigation is an entirely different class of interaction with electronic devices than texting or email. It's part of the job of driving. I'll dock the phone if I have to, but I need real-time navigation info anytime I'm not driving on highways between cities.
The majority of accidents I've seen in Canada are because people think that leaving three feet between them and the car in front at night in fresh snow at 60km/h is perfectly safe.
Everything I've heard says that talking on a phone (hands free or not) is more distracting than other things because the person on the other end is actively demanding your attention and can't tell what's going on in the environment around the car.
You can tune out the radio or music when you need attention on the road. Passengers physically in the car can see that the driver is busy driving and wait until things calm down again before continuing the conversation.
Of course there are people that can use communications technology responsibly while driving--but most people can't. I suppose one option would be to cut all insurance coverage if there was a phone active in the vehicle at the time of an accident...
Cops are above the law, of course.
I think this is a good idea. When I have problems with sketchy drivers it seem to break down about like this:
70% - Women on the phone
15% - Men on the phone
10% - Really old people
5% - Other
What exactly is so important that you have to talk about it RIGHT NOW but not too important to pull over and discuss?
So where do you draw the line? You seem conflicted-- that banning texting is a good idea but banning talking is a step toward a nanny state? What about reading texts? What about fumbling with the GPS/mapping function? What about dialing a phone-- that also forces your eyes off the road. Where do you draw the line? Do you let people make up their own limits of what they feel is safe? Keep in mind that 95% of drivers think they are above average.
You need to enforce some rules for what is safe or it becomes a free for all-- let people make up their minds about how fast they want to drive, how bald their tires are, whether they want to use snow chains, etc. If the damage was limited only to the driver and his/her car, I would be fine with that but they drive on congested roads and often have other people in their car.
A ban on all cell phone use is utterly devoid of any form of logic.
Reaching for a dropped cigarette, fumbling for your lighter, dealing with a crying/screaming/misbehaving child, changing the radio, fiddling with your GPS, eating, drinking your morning coffee/tea, shaving, putting on make-up, even talking with your passenger are all PERMISSIBLE distractions, yet they all cause accidents. I am not advocating texting whilst driving - far too much attention has to be placed on the screen and keyboard for anyone to read or send a text safely. But banning _all_ cell phone use is ridiculous unless all other forms of driver distractions are also banned. Talking on a cell phone (hands free, naturally) is no different than speaking to (but not looking at) the passenger next to you. At least when speaking on a cell phone you are less likely to turn your head and speak to someone as you do when they are present in the vehicle.
Over-reaction of this caliber is tantamount to the mind-set that brought us prohibition and other such similar knee-jerk reactions from the government.
Hmmm...I wonder if this will apply to OnStar as well? No more "where's the nearest flower shop? or "call 555-555-5555"?
Or...is this a clever maneuver to restrict all in-vehicle communication to OnStar (or other OnStar-esque services)? Separate cell-phone and vehicle-phone calling accounts, anybody? One-stop-shopping for law enforcement for your phone records (at least for calls while driving...)?
Whoops, gotta go, my next conspiracy theory is about to hatch and I hate missing the look on their little faces as they see the world for the first time...:)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Every non-aftermarket in-car display for the driver I've seen, when you start the car up spouts a warning about how you shouldn't drive and operate it at the same time. So I have no clue what you're asking.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Banning hands-free cell phone usage raises some other interesting questions... should we ban talking to others in the vehicle while driving? Listening to talk radio while driving? Listening to music? (Who else has caught modern music using sirens and cell phone noises as faint background attention getters?)
I suspect the default assumption made about people objecting to a ban would be that those people don't want to lose the convenience of talking to their friends/family while stuck in traffic, and in a lot of cases that's probably a fair assumption. However, personal convenience issues aside, there are a lot of professions (real estate agents come to mind) who do a LOT of their business while between one location and the next. Really clamping down on such a ban would play havoc with them. What about doctors - should they no longer be allowed to be notified about patient emergencies while behind the wheel? Should police cars have to pull over in order to use their communications gear?
Banning texting strikes me as a no brainer (I'm more astonished anyone would actually *try* that...) and hands-on usage banning I agree with, but banning hands OFF communication seems to invite some complications that deserve careful thought. I have heard claims that even hands-off cell phone usage causes a dangerous degree of driver distraction and that might be the case, but does anybody know of actual published peer reviewed studies demonstrating that and what the numbers are compared to radio, in-car discussions and other such distractions?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Every state in the USA has a "basic speed law" which says you should not drive faster than what's safe under the current conditions, no matter what the posted speed limit says. For example, if you can't devote 100% of your attention to the road, then you need to drive more slowly. Therefore, rather than banning cell phones, all we have to do is enforce existing laws against speeding, and possibly raise the penalties. Why do drunk drivers automatically get their driving privileges back after one to two years? It just doesn't make sense to reward poor judgment.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Giving the driver the opportunity to pull over and answer a call would also be unacceptable.
Reminds me of the difference between Reasons and Excuse. Humans are, beyond the use of mere tools, distinguished from animals by their ability to rationalise.
Reason: "I was unable to avoid hitting the car in front of me because they suddenly pulled into my lane and slammed on their brakes."
Excuse: "I was unable to avoid hitting the car [I had been following for the past mile] because they suddenly hit their brakes [which I didn't see, because I was in a conversation on my phone] and stopped too fast for me to react."
See the difference? One beyond means to avoid, one within means to avoid. People talk to LEOs, after accidents, like these two are interchangeable.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You can already make such a system. There are tons of sites for importing short-range jammers, and from there it's just a matter of hooking it up to a speedometer system.
And not using it all the time so you get caught. The fine for using such a device is rather high.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And not to mention, allowing anyone within three feet of a vehicle to contact the emergency services would be simply absurd.
I just don't see how the NTSB can recommend a ban on cell phone use for drivers, but not a ban on male airline customers who wear too much cologne.
I just don't get the priorities of this country any more.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Some funny old FCC thing baring them.
Actually, that funny old law is essentially why the FRC (Federal Radio Commission) was formed in 1912, which eventually became the FCC.
See, for you to receive radio transmissions from a tower far away, you need cooperation from all your neighbors. They have to silence any machinery that would cause interference on channels designated for radio.
Cell phone jammers are illegal because they interfere with designated channels for radio transmission. If they were legal, then you would have no way to deal with a neighbor that runs one near your house. That neighbor would legally be able to interfere with your radio, television, wi-fi, cell phone, etc.
I'm not completely sure whether you were being sarcastic or not, but this regulation, honestly, is very important. Without it, we'd pretty much have to rely on wired communication.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Seeing how 2010 had the lowest number of fatalities, and most of the data I've seen has shown a droping trendline of reduced accidents per vehicle mile driven (your link only shows total fatalities, not fatalities per miles driven), wouldn't that be an indicator that current advances are working and what should be done is minor incremental improvement as needed as opposed to sweeping huge changes?
I mean, if we saw a huge spike coming out of the 90's and a trendline pointing north through the 2000's, I'd be fully behind the efforts to ban all cell phone usage in cars.
But what we see is that the vast majority of people using electronics while driving are doing so in a responsible and safe manner. Sure, we should continue to hammer down on people who are not doing so, but I don't see the need for sweeping changes when things are already going in the right direction.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The thing is that drivers are distracted whether they have a cell phone or not. The studies done on these kids of things are almost always done with an agenda. A good example of this is with children and particularly babies in the back seat. All of the studies point out that in the event of an accident, children and babies are less likly to be injured if they are in the back seat. Not once did I see any of those studies look at the number of accidents that happened with the child in the back seat as compared to the same number of miles driven with the child in the front seat.
When my son was born, I specifically went out an bought a pickup truck without a back seat. They were the only vehicles that could be purchased where you could turn off the passenger air bags. I have yet to see a parent, and that includes me, that doesn't check on their infant when the child is crying. They are even MORE likely to check on the infant when they are NOT crying. I also have yet to see any human that can safely drive while facing backwards in their car. Those with the Rube Goldberg mirror systems are even worse as they stare intently at the front mirror trying to focus across to small giggling mirrors to see if the baby is OK.
Point being, before deciding to be an anti-social ass by trying to break other peoples things, you should consider whether you are helping the situation, or making it worse.
Besides the fact that bored drivers (although more PC) are just as bad as distracted drivers, I can't take any calls for reduction in distracted driving seriously until they ban the car stereo.
When I was a kid in the 70s, nearly everyone I knew had a CB radio in their cars and trucks (I grew up in a family of truckers in the country). So how are hands-free phones different than CB radios? Actually, CBs aren't even hands free. Is there something different behind the mentality of using a CB radio vs a cellphone? Or was using a CB always dangerous and just not used by as many people? I can't remember any conversations ever about the possible dangers of using a CB radio.
Suppose I put my phone on speaker and then pugged in a mic that had a curly wire and button I pressed to talk, making it basically function like a CB radio. Would the danger level of using it decrease (when compared to using it entirely hands free)?
Fortunately we have things like cell phone records as evidence.
No sig today...
If the NTSB is finally recognizing that driving while distracted is a problem, will they ban police from using phones and computers while driving?
Or are police somehow immune to driving while distracted dangers?
Q: So what about all the cars today that come with built-in computers, navigation, internet capabilities, and cell phones?
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
My state has a law against using a cell phone while driving unless you use a hands-free device. This doesn't stop anybody. Every day on my 15-mile commute, I see dozens of people holding phones up to their ears.
I don't see how an outright ban would make any difference, either, unless they actually enforce it.
The system encourages people to give excuses. If you say "I didn't see him" after running over and killing a pedestrian or cyclist, you will get off scot-free. If you say "I was paying no attention to my surroundings and driving like a self-absorbed jerk with no consideration for my fellow man" you can expect a ticket for a few hundred dollars.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Giving the driver the opportunity to pull over and answer a call would also be unacceptable.
The main thing I noticed after Britain introduced a cell phone ban while driivng was that the idiots who used to talk on their phone while driving now stopped wherever they were on the road in order to answer the call, even when that meant that all the cars behind them now had to pass them on a blind bend.
Actually, I'd argue that at that speed, 3 feet is safer than 10. Drivers behind won't avoid hitting cars in front either way, but the speed differential upon impact will likely be worse at 10 feet than at 3.
The difference between talking on a phone and talking to a fellow passenger is your fellow passenger is usually aware of the momentary traffic situation and will adjust accordingly.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Studies be damned, there's a huge difference between talking using a handsfree and holding the phone. Handsfree, it's no different or more distracting than talking to a passenger. But the second that phone and hand goes to the ear, it's like half the brain shuts off. It happens to me, it happens to my wife and it appears to happen to just about everyone else. One of our driving games is to guess whether the person driving 20 mph under traffic flow/having trouble staying in lane/driiiiifting over slowly when changing lanes is on the phone. I wish i'd kept records for the "show me the data" crowd here, but after a few years of this game I can tell you that the hand to ear oblivi-bots are winning. It's getting to the point it's not fun anymore, we could just say "on the phone" and most of the time we'll be right. not much of a game these days.
How about we ban all the bans?
.08 BAC, and setting up checkpoints, free cops to patrol for the dangerous drivers. Police checkpoints, for example, waste hours of time for at least 4-6 cops who are pulling people over in violation of the 4th amendment. It's expensive overtime, and a waste of resources. Let them patrol for the drivers, which has been proven more effective. Besides, checkpoints are just revenue generators. Guess what happens in addition to MAYBE finding a drunk driver at these checkpoints? The cops pull in thousands of dollars worth of minor fines (seatbelt, expired registration, inspection stickers, etc).
Instead of focusing on behavior and individual technologies as they come on, let's instead focus on the driving itself.
If cops focused on the dangerous driving instead of what's causing it, they could be more effective. It's the same rationale behind eliminating drunk driving laws. Instead of arresting people who blow a
You're right, because no passengers should be allowed to talk on the phone either....
Not to mention people in taxis, buses, trains...
Can't have someone checking /. on their morning train commute, now can we?
This has been in effect in California for years. Instead of people talking on their phones held to their ear, they now put them on speakerphone and hold them inches in front of their face. I guess the mentality is that speakerphone counts as 'hands free', even if it's in your hand. I don't want to live in this state anymore!
Actually, "Just get us self-driving cars already so that this and a number of related problems go away." is the REAL answer. The truth is that humans should not be driving cars or anything, if at all possible. We such at it. We kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. We NEED automatic cars, PLEASE. Thank you.
The NTSB website does not say anything about a hands-free exception.
To the 50 states and the District of Columbia:
(1) Ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers; (2) use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration model of high visibility enforcement to support these bans; and (3) implement targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and enforcement, and to warn them of the dangers associated with the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving. (H-11-XX)
blue man group?
Sorry, the world doesn't have to conform to your work practices. Just because you need to check your pager for work doesn't make it safe to do while driving. At 70mph, I'd prefer you keep the pager in your pocket, and I don't care about your supervisor.
I agree that the NTSB's recommendation is too broad, but your reasoning is wrong.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
The whole reason why people feel compelled to answer and make phone calls and texts while driving is because they feel their life is more important then everyone else on the road and everything in their life is emergent.
Also, I find that there is absolutely no ability to enforce this law. We have had it in Ontario, Canada for a year now and I have seen people drive right past the cops while holding a cellphone to their ear. In fact I have seen more then a few cops holding them on their ear as well.
I guess the only thing that can be done is that if you are involved in an accident and witnesses saw you were holding a phone when it happened then you should be charged astronomical fees for car insurance afterwards as you are known abuser of phone technology and largely no law will prevent you from doing it again. Maybe $1000 insurance + $50 phone plan per month might deter you from ever texting on a phone in the car.
The only thing worse then someone talking/texting on a phone in their car is someone that feels compelled to slow down traffic and pull over to take a call.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Some funny old FCC thing baring them.
Actually, that funny old law is essentially why the FRC (Federal Radio Commission) was formed in 1912, which eventually became the FCC.
See, for you to receive radio transmissions from a tower far away, you need cooperation from all your neighbors. They have to silence any machinery that would cause interference on channels designated for radio.
Cell phone jammers are illegal because they interfere with designated channels for radio transmission. If they were legal, then you would have no way to deal with a neighbor that runs one near your house. That neighbor would legally be able to interfere with your radio, television, wi-fi, cell phone, etc.
I'm not completely sure whether you were being sarcastic or not, but this regulation, honestly, is very important. Without it, we'd pretty much have to rely on wired communication.
The argument is that public safety trumps nonexclusive access to the medium. That's what the NTSB and other state laws intend by outlawing phone use. However, just making handhelds illegal isn't doing the job. Either the fines aren't high enough, drivers don't understand the risks, or both. Legalizing jammers on highways probably isn't a good idea either since people who live nearby or have to make emergency calls will be affected.
Interestingly, if you do operate such a jammer and are caught by the FCC, I believe they can impose up to a $10,000 fine. If the fine for using your phone while driving was this expensive, it might cause drivers to think twice. Or, at least someone could compute an estimated cost in terms of life and property loss caused by phone-related crashes and set a fine accordingly. I'm sure it would be higher than the $20-50 in most states.
It would surprise me if a ban of hands-free would pass in Congress. However, I know of at least one study on Scientific American Frontiers (PBS show with Alan Alda) concluded that driving while talking on a HANDS-FREE phone was the equivalent of driving after three drinks. (How they calibrate three drinks I don't know, cause the effects of alcohol vary based on weight, metabolism, and chronic use).
I actually remember an ad that would air AGES ago about not driving while distracted. That's right, just opposed to allowing yourself to be distracted. It was a radio ad and in it, it described a young woman who ended up rear ending someone because they were too busy fiddling with the radio knob. Another one where someone dropped their cassette in the floorboard and reached down to fish it up again.
I see no practical difference between having a conversation with someone sitting next to me in the passenger seat vs having an earpiece in and having a conversation over my phone or even through one of those cab-audible bluetooth arrangements. And there may be some who oppose having any conversation in the car whatsoever but then that brings up parent's point about bored drivers. Bored drivers are dangerous drivers too. The fact is, driving is dangerous. Quit nannying me and let's just teach the concept of personal responsibility.
The danger in cell-phones while driving has mostly to do with the distractions of verbal communication and NOT the technology.
I once ran 2 stop-signs while arguing with a girl-friend in the passenger seat. (Don't date type-A women.)
Are they gonna ban women passengers too?
Table-ized A.I.
Conflicted? Not at all. I don't think these laws should pertain to everyone - only those people who drive badly when talking on a cell phone. Really, it was just a rhetorical kind of statement. Don't take it too seriously.
It's just that I can't understand people who, for whatever reason, seem to zone off into never-never land while talking on a cell phone. They don't seem to do it when talking to an actual passenger, it's just some weird thing that some people can't handle because the conversation is disembodied or something. They zone out of there whereabouts and "into" the conversation.
There's no need to take your eyes off the road just because you're talking, and yet the effect is as if they do. It's not even that having one hand off the wheel makes a difference, they don't even *notice* they're drifting into my lane or cutting me off. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever keeping my attention on the road while maintaining a conversation on a cell phone. Obviously however, some people do.
As to texting however, anything that takes your eyes off the road for any significant amount of time is risky driving, whether it's texting, or putting on makeup, or even twiddling with the GPS too much, if it means you're not paying attention. I think there's a world of difference between texting and talking.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
This is just great! Since you mentioned it someone will try to ban babies onboard for the sake of safety...
Truly the surest way to keep the road safe is to have no one on the road.
I heard people talk to CAPRICORNS the same way.
Proof that the problem is NOT the phones, it's the IDIOTS. Maybe we should stop idiots from driving, that sure would prevent accidents. I say this with 7 years, 100k miles of driving experience. I have never caused an accident, not even close. I have been rear ended while stopped twice. I was run off a road by a police officer who was driving an SUV 80mph in a 35 with snow tires on a clear summer day. I usually speed, txt and answer calls, while playing with my radio. I also make handbrake turns and powerslide on public roads. No idea why so many people have such problems driving. It's pretty easy.
There should be a bluetooth device in every car that deactivates the phone, and causes it to play a message; "Sorry the person you're trying to contact is driving. Please try again when your call won't impact the safety of your recipient and others on the road." There should be an over-ride switch for maybe of a few medical specialties and certain critical management professional (i.e. life and death matters demanding continuous communication.)
Automate, don't legislate. Build the world to work the way you want it to, and eliminate the stupid stuff. People aren't bad, they're just lazy and stupid (its part of the genome.) So until you breed it out, account for the stupidity and make the infrastructure produce the desired results. This is the basic premise of Singapore, and its been working very well there (at least in the sense that people are for the most part, secure, healthy, employed and free to pursue interests that don't impinge on the well being of others.)
I haven't seen anybody post anything about having an endorsement which indicates that the driver can talk on the phone while driving only after they pass a test. They could take an oral version of the written test while taking the driving portion and if they pass, they can talk while driving. They could also switch out all the car license plates with their primary operator's mobile phone number so that you can call them and tell them to get off the phone.
95% of drivers think they are above average.
It's actually 80%, and that's meaningless by itself since it doesn't tell us whether the sample was representative, what the baseline for "average" is, or what the extremes are. Hypothetically, if 90 percent of drivers could navigate 100% of situations and accidents, then I wouldn't care that 30% are wrong when they say they're above average. Without knowing what constitutes an average driver, or at what point below (or above) average they constitute a high risk, or how well skill correlates with actual accidents. All we can take away from that with any certainty is exactly what it says: "80% of drivers surveyed said they were above average," which is no better than saying "80% of people surveyed answered our question."
But anyway, I actually agree that all talking and texting should be prohibited. The person on the phone doesn't have the same situational awareness as a passenger or the same disincentives against being a distraction. He doesn't provide an extra set of eyes, can't tell when it's appropriate to STFU, and can only decrease the amount of attention the driver can devote to his primary task. The requirement for "hands free" talking is ridiculous, as the distraction has almost nothing to do with whether or not one hand is occupied. After all, you can still get a drivers license with one arm.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Drivers should be only punished if there driving is dangerous. Drivers exhibiting signs of impaired driving (like slow reaction), excessively long cushions to the next car, speed lower than traffic.
The amount of preventive punishment: seat belts, speed limits, etc is mind boggling. All in the name of safety.
Punish drivers for the crime, actual accident which was there fault, actual impediment to the traffic, not for the achieving preconditions of what will actually happen. As long as I am concerned the driver could be sleeping on the back seat, if his robotic car manages to drive the car meanwhile.
This is all of course excludes DUI. Those need to be moved to the buses for life, period.
Drivers should be only punished if there driving is dangerous.
The amount of preventive punishment: seat belts, speed limits, etc is mind boggling. All in the name of safety.
This isn't about pre-crime or expanding the 'nanny state', it's about making statistically valid expansions to the rules on reckless endangerment. The entire point of the article is that cell phone or laptop use while driving is dangerous. You don't wait for someone with a lethal weapon to actually kill someone before you bother to punish them for doing stupid shit with it. By your logic a man with an open carry permit can just stroll down the street with their Glock, safety off and finger in the trigger guard at all times, and no one should do anything about it until after someone else gets shot or he accidentally blows his own foot off. Or a licensed pyrotechnics company can drive down the street in unmarked vans and they shouldn't be punished for carrying acids and explosives without a placard until after they have an accident and a dozen firefighters get killed when their van unexpectedly mushroom-clouds. Same environment, same lethal results, same arrogant assumption that if it doesn't obviously and automatically kill someone else the durned guberment better not start tromping on your rights and conveniences.
If a behavior is statistically proven to increase or significantly worsen accidents, and has no compensating qualities other than marginal convenience, we have every right to restrict it. Speed limits may not be very effective, but we were wrong to assume they were before getting solid data (and in any case, speed limits were originally intended to conserve fuel and control rates of consuming fuel as much as to promote safety; the safety part stayed around past the gas crisis as a 'think of the children' fallacy, if I recall correctly) . In the case of cell phones, however, we generally assumed they were safe, and the data are now proving us wrong. It's valid science, not government meddling. Quit transforming patently obvious safety issues into an excuse for libertarian bitching.
Let's just ban stupid people from getting driver's licenses. No, seriously, hear me out on this:
In the 4-5 year span that I was driving as a stupid, arrogant, over confident teenager (who, for the record, did not possess a cell phone), I totaled a car pretty much every six months; once, I wrecked a cherry Buick I had bought a week prior because I was looking at the clock.
Conversely, I have had and used a cell phone for the past 10 years in my auto without incident (knock on wood), in both hands on and hands free configurations. Maybe it's because I've been behind the wheel of some sort of engine-driven vehicle since age 6; maybe it's because I focus more on driving than the conversation at hand (which the party on the other end typically dislikes, but hey, fuck 'em). Regardless, the fact remains that I had an order of magnatude more incidents when I was young and stupid than any time afterwards, and cell phones were not a factor in any of said incidents.
Thus, taking into account the aforementioned subjective observational data, I would contend that the issue is more one of operator competence than the equipment itself... which takes us back to my original point: Ban idiots from the road, and many of the problems associated will solve themselves.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You can get an in-line adaptor that give you buttons to pause, skip and reverse. It's basically just the same controls that come on the headphones, they work on the touch.
I have an iPhone and it's OK to use when it's in a mount in front of you on the dash, otherwise I agree holding it and trying to use it is too distracting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
is a ban on dumbasses. The best device anyone can use while driving is their brain, but there seems to be a lack of that, at least where I live.
Texting, dialing the phone, anything that takes your eyes off the road is what is dangerous. Most people can talk and listen while driving and keeping their attention on the road. Diverting your visual attention elsewhere is what is dangerous. Cell phones that can take voice direction (like Ford's "sync") are one answer. With a bluetooth headset and voice activated controls a phone requires no visual attention from the driver. As a private pilot I know how to operate the controls of a vehicle while talking over a radio (something you HAVE to be able to do while landing an aircraft in an airport control zone, you MUST be in contact with the tower). It isn't rocket science.
while driving.
It's called a class C+ in california. Where I pay attention to the road first and foremost and the phone call a distant second. Using the headset is a must of course.
Contact your state DMV to inquire about their equivalent to California's Class C+ endorsement.
I know, I know. I will admit it. I'm just a better driver than most of the people on the road.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
So this group of 5 people gets to decide what's "safe" for ALL drivers in America when it comes to using their phones?
One would hope their "recommendation" doesn't wind up holding any real legal weight, but given our congressmen and senators who LOVE to police every activity imaginable (even demanding Apple remove various programs from their App Store, like the "make your own fake drivers' license on the iPhone screen" one) -- I don't think this will end too well.
First off, WHY must they constantly lump texting and hands-free use of a cellphone together? It's blatantly obvious to me that texting is NOT a safe activity while operating a motor vehicle. Solutions are out that allow reading and dictating replies to SMS messages verbally, and I think that's workable. But no, you probably can NOT sit there and read a little phone screen AND key in sentences using a virtual keyboard or chicklet-sized slide-out one on the phone AND drive at the same time safely.
I've never had any issues answering an incoming call on my cell by tapping a big button that appears on my car stereo's display though, and talking while driving. Actually, I think live conversations with a passenger are likely to be more distracting or dangerous, since it's human nature that we expect some sort of occasional eye contact while communicating. Watch how often a driver will turn his/her head to briefly look at the passenger when he/she speaks..... For that matter, what about kids in the back seat? Nobody's seriously ready to recommend parents not take their kids anywhere in motor vehicles, right? Yet with the crying and screaming fits they're known to throw randomly, as well as possibly even throwing toys or other objects while in the car -- clearly they're more dangerous than a hands-free phone call!
While I would disagree with texting since it requires you to look away from the road. I see no possible argument for eliminating cell phone usage all together. Are we also going to make it illegal for a driver to talk to anyone in the car? Perhaps we should put them in their own sound proof partition that doesn't allow them to see or hear anyone else in the vehicle. Similar to the previous poster, I have over 11 years of driving experience and probably several hundred thousand miles driven, drive an average of 10 miles an hour over the limit if the speed limit is 55 or higher and 5mph over if it is 20 or more. I have never had anyone impact my car and I have never been the cause of an accident. I have had several times when people tried very hard to hit my car, but I was able to avoid it because I am an attentive driver and maintain awareness of what is around me and drive safely. I have even spun out before at speed due to bad weather and unavoidable conditions (I've had cars that handle very poorly in the snow) and even then have managed to maintain sufficient control to avoid either traffic or obstacles. It takes two people not paying attention to cause an accident unless one person isn't moving and then it takes one really oblivious person or a mechanical failure.
AJ Henderson
OK, I'm going to insert this here, since it's always disappointing to see the delusions in threads like this one and it's about time we had some actual data.
Here's a report (PDF) from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) in the UK, published a few years ago around the time we started banning handheld mobile phone use while driving. It cites numerous formal studies. Not all of them reported statistically significant results in all scenarios, but many did and the overall picture is clear. Below are some choice quotations.
Firstly, the bottom line:
Many studies, using a variety of different research techniques, have reached the same conclusions. Using a mobile phone while driving adversely affects driver performance in a number of different ways. It impairs:
Much of the research has assessed using hands-free phones and demonstrates that these still distract drivers and impair safe driving ability, even when driving automatic cars, which are arguably easier to drive than the manual transmission cars predominantly used in the UK.
There is also evidence that using a mobile phone while driving causes greater problems for those drivers who already have a higher accident risk, namely young, novice drivers and elderly drivers.
Next, an example on the subject of denial:
Interviews with nine people who regularly used a hands-free mobile phone for work-related calls while driving revealed that they did not believe that using the phone affected their driving performance because they could adapt their speed or end the call if necessary. However, when they participated in simulated driving tasks of varying complexity on a computer (not a driving simulator) and had to respond to mobile phone calls, their performance was significantly worse during both simple and more complex phone conversations. So, although they did not believe using the phone affected their driving, in reality it did.
It turns out that not all calls are equally distracting, but the difference is not huge:
In another study, 150 subjects observed a video of driving sequences containing situations to which drivers would be expected to respond. Each situation occurred when the subjects were placing a mobile phone call, conducting a simple conversation on a mobile phone, conducting a complex conversation, tuning a radio, and with no distraction. All the distractions led to significant increases in both the number of situations to which the subjects failed to respond and the time it took to respond to them. Complex phone conversations created the greatest distraction and simple conversations the least. The likelihood of a driver failing to notice and respond to a highway-traffic situation ranged from 20% when placing a call or holding a simple phone conversation to 29% for holding a complex phone conversation. Subjects over 50 years old were significantly more likely to fail to respond than younger (17-25 years) subjects.
So how bad is performance while distracted by using a mobile phone? Almost twice as bad as being on the legal drink-drive limit, it seems:
Before the drives, the subjects consumed either an alcoholic drink to take them up to the UK legal drink drive limit of 80 mg/100 ml or a similar looking and tasting placebo drink. During each drive the drivers answered a standard set of questions and conversed over a mobile phone.
On average, drivers’ reaction times were 50% slower when using a hand-held mobile phone than under normal driving conditions, and 30% slower than when under the in
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But... but... we can't blame people for being stupid.... it has to be something else's fault or we might hurtz their feelingz.
AJ Henderson
Who decided not to pay off the NTSB?
There is actually a difference between you talking to someone next to you in the care, versus talking on the phone. While talking to the person in the car, you're still paying attention to your immediate surroundings, passively speaking to the one next/behind you. When you're talking on a cell phone, a large portion of your brain is devoted to paying attention to the 'other world' on the other side of the cell phone, and concentrating at times on that persons voice to hear or understand them on shitty cell connections. Thus, you are more REMOVED from your immediate surroundings while speaking on a cell phone, anywhere. This translate to a very dangerous situation while doing things that demand concentration and attention, such as driving safely.
It would surprise me if a ban of hands-free would pass in Congress. However, I know of at least one study on Scientific American Frontiers (PBS show with Alan Alda) concluded that driving while talking on a HANDS-FREE phone was the equivalent of driving after three drinks. (How they calibrate three drinks I don't know, cause the effects of alcohol vary based on weight, metabolism, and chronic use).
Reports by 20/20 and Dateline have shown the same things when Hands-Free first came out.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
not to mention you know... how many lives have been saved because someone on the road witnessed an accident and called for an ambulance without having to look for a rest stop.
Well put, AJ. Too bad i got modded troll, cause i believe my point is valid.
That's a nice dichotomy, but it's not what the words actually mean. Your #2 is a reason. They're both reasons. The reason you hit the car in front was because in (1) it suddenly pulled into your lane and hit the brakes and in (2) because you were distracted by your phone.
An excuse is a reason that excuses you, i.e. absolves you of blame, for some behaviour or situation. (1) would be considered a good excuse - the collision wasn't your fault. (2) would be a poor excuse, or no excuse (not an excuse) - the collision was your fault, and talking on the phone doesn't excuse the behaviour.
Chicago does this at toll roads already. I know people that got their picture and their ticket in the mail.
not to mention you know... how many lives have been saved because someone on the road witnessed an accident and called for an ambulance without having to look for a rest stop.
Yeah, that's what I meant. But how many of those calls were because of an accident that was caused by someone on the phone?
$20-$50?
Having a phone or other device in your hand while driving is a $600 fine here (Quebec). Blowing through a crosswalk while someone is trying to cross is a $150 fine.
I actually remember an ad that would air AGES ago about not driving while distracted. That's right, just opposed to allowing yourself to be distracted. It was a radio ad and in it, it described a young woman who ended up rear ending someone because they were too busy fiddling with the radio knob.
I bet a lot of people changed stations on that ad.
The difference between driving while having a conversation on the phone and driving while having a conversation with a passenger is simple:
On the phone the other side of the conversation has no clue about your situation and can not help you in visual scanning of the driving environment. However, if the other side of the conversation is riding in the car with you, at least they can say 'Hey! Look out for that elephant in the road!'. Hopefully before you hit it. They can also help you with keeping the radio sorted out, navigation and collecting that cassette that was dropped. In aviation terms, it called cockpit load management - and it really works.
Even when going 'hands free' a lot of your processing is taken up with sorting out the conversation. Saying otherwise is simply not true.
I do agree that bored or tired drivers are dangerous drivers. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of the drivers out there are quite simply dumb as a fucking box of rocks and should not be driving. It's way too easy to get a drivers license. Driving is a PRIVILEGE people, NOT a right. You have the RIGHT to APPLY for a license, it should not mean that you would automatically get one. The penalties for getting involved in a traffic collision should be pretty stiff, including fines, compulsory remedial driving classes and the suspension and / or loss of driving privileges. And none of this 'no-fault' crap from the insurance companies. The list for so-called 'no fault' incidents is really pretty short and are basically down to 'acts of god' - tree falling on you, hitting a deer or detritus kicked up from a car in an adjoining lane. Everything else is pretty much avoidable - someone was at fault.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Hm. Clearly we need to ban infants in cars.
Drivers should be only punished if there driving is dangerous.
The amount of preventive punishment: seat belts, speed limits, etc is mind boggling. All in the name of safety.
This isn't about pre-crime, it's about statistically valid expansions on the rules of reckless endangerment. Not to mention that driving while on your cell phone is dangerous. Your use of the phrase 'preventive punishment' suggests you disagree with all primary enforcement of safety issues that don't immediately and automatically threaten an accident, and favor instead punishing people only for severe and undeniable problems like running stop lights or actually causing accidents. This position is rather stupid, however. By your logic a demolitions expert could drive around in an unmarked van containing acids and TNT; so long as they don't run red lights there's no cause to question or restrict them until after they have an accident and the explosives kill unsuspecting firefighters - if even then. Or, also by your twisted logic, someone with an open carry permit can carry their Glock down the street with the safety off and their finger in the trigger guard so long as they're careful not to point it at people; the most egregious and obvious threat of accident has been mitigated, so all underlying risks and idiocies are acceptable.
Circumstances and behaviors statistically proven to increase the frequency or severity of accidents - with no redeeming qualities other than marginal convenience and making overconfident twats feel safer, more in control, and/or more badass - can and should be restricted. Seriously, read studies on overconfidence effects: 93% of drivers feel they're better than average, and a vast majority of people think they can safely or efficiently multitask while driving, computing, etc. while also believing most other people cannot. The truth is that less than 10% of the population can truly 'multitask' in the way we commonly use and perceive the word; it's much safer if we all put down the fucking phone and no one is allowed to self-determine their status as the 1 person out of 10 who can (somewhat) safely talk on the phone and eat a challupa while driving.
Not all government intervention represents a creeping nanny state or the protection of idiots; quit perverting scientifically valid public safety recommendations into an excuse for egocentric libertarian bitching.
When my son was born, I specifically went out an bought a pickup truck without a back seat. They were the only vehicles that could be purchased where you could turn off the passenger air bags.
Here in Europe, my el-cheapo Toyota hatchback has a knob to turn off the front passenger air bag, with prominent indication whether it is "unsafe for a baby seat" or "unsafe for a grown-up passenger". Most passenger cars I've driven or been to also have the knob.
I have installed the seat on the back, anyway. I only check up on the toddler in a short glance, and never in a tight spot. Crying kid, shrug. Pull over in a safe (and legal) place and check up on the kids, give them a nice walking about, then you can go.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Um, no. Unless you can provide a link, I haven't seen any evidence that talking to someone on a cell phone is different than in person because "your brain is devoted to paying attention to the 'other world.'"
The idea is that if you're talking to someone in the car, they will react to situations in the car (shut up when you need to concentrate for example) whereas a person on the other side of a cell connection probably won't. But neither will a child, so unless you're going to ban children in cars, the distinction is really moot.
The risk of being caught isn't high enough.
$20-$50?
Having a phone or other device in your hand while driving is a $600 fine here (Quebec). Blowing through a crosswalk while someone is trying to cross is a $150 fine.
That's what I believe it is in California. Does a higher fine work? Do you still see people on phones while driving?
You can make the phone do this itself. If it sees many masts go by in a short time it can conclude it is moving and then stop working. That is killing two birds with one stone: no more phone-related car accidents and no more annoying people in the train who shout in their phones! It's a win/win situation!
-- Cheers!
It's funny you should mention buses because by the sounds of things in TFA it was shared negligence on the part of bus drivers that caused the accident used to justify this recommendation:
The board made the recommendation in connection with a deadly highway pileup in Missouri last year. The board said the initial collision in the accident near Gray Summit, Mo., was caused by the inattention of a 19 year-old-pickup driver who sent or received 11 texts in the 11 minutes immediately before the crash.
The pickup, traveling at 55 mph, collided into the back of a tractor truck that had slowed for highway construction. The pickup was rear-ended by a school bus that overrode the smaller vehicle. A second school bus rammed into the back of the first bus.
Sounds to me like the bus drivers were following too closely, not paying attention or the school districts failed to properly maintain the braking systems on the buses. Perhaps a combination of all three. The initial accident may well have been the fault of texting but the subsequent involvement of the school buses could easily have been avoided. Properly attentive drivers maintain sufficient following distance to avoid becoming involved in an accident that happens ahead of them.
The three second rule would likely have prevented the buses from becoming involved in this accident. Why are there not any suggestions for improved school bus driver training attached to this recommendation?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There's a tremendous difference between chatting with a passenger and having a conversation on the phone (whether you use hands-free or not). The passenger will notice when things are happening around the vehicle and the conversation will quiet down and then resume once it's safe to do so. The person you're talking to the phone doesn't do that. And as others mentioned in other posts, children are just as much of a traffic hazard as cell phones in this regard, but most are willing to accept that it's a necessary risk. Phones, less so.
No, the difference is that the normal human reaction when talking to a live person is to look at them. Passengers in the car are MORE dangerous. Not less.
On Slashdot, LEO should be used in discussions of satellites and such...
you sound like a fed.
For once I'm actually rooting for telecom lobbyists.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
For public transit not to suck it would have to travel every two minutes between where I live and where I work and not stop along the way. That would mean running about a million times as many buses as we currently have.
Oh, please. These arguments that public transit self-evidently sucks simply because it takes longer than a car, especially from fools like you who say that without regard to whether it's "two minutes" or three hours longer, are getting really old. Do four-star restaurants suck simply because your food doesn't come for 25 minutes while McDonald's could have given you a Big Mac in 60 seconds? Does code from your in-house developer suck because you could get the project done three weeks earlier and $8,000 cheaper in India (with 9 times as many bugs and no flexibility at all)?
Different solutions to the same problem have different relative strengths. Americans' moronic default opinion that speed and convenience matter above all else is what sucks, not public transit.
I call first to think of it. Patent here I come!
However, if the other side of the conversation is riding in the car with you, at least they can say 'Hey! Look out for that elephant in the road!'. Hopefully before you hit it. They can also help you with keeping the radio sorted out, navigation and collecting that cassette that was dropped. In aviation terms, it called cockpit load management - and it really works.
This never happens in a car. What does happen is that people perform the natural act of looking at the person they are talking too. They dig in their purse for a napkin because their kid spilled a drink in the back seat. They watch their kids in the rear view mirror as they yell at them for being too rowdy. They get in fights. They try to hold hands. They do all sorts of things that distract the driver, not just attention wise, but physically as well. What doesn't happen is that the passenger acting as a copilot.
1. Update Trapster about a cop and radar you just passed (not illegal to do)
2. Changing the station on Pandora or switching to a new album to play
Hmm...will it now be illegal for me to use my CB radio? I have a unit that is not handheld, but it isn't mounted so as to be easier to take from car to car as needed...so, is it now a 'portable' electronic device?
Look, we already have perfectly good laws on the books....if you're driving in an impared or reckless manner, they have the ability to pull you over for that.
If you're driving badly, it shouldn't matter what you're doing...and if you're driving ok...leave me the fuck alone.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well? In their defense, they were using their hands to hold their phone and coffee, thus allowing them to drive hands-free.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Well, one could grab a GPS device off of Ebay, slap on alongside it and claim the FBI was wholly responsible.
Voluntary, sure..but don't try to mandate this where I live....there's enough nanny state crap like this as it is...and needs to stop.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I used to commute a very long distance, about 70 miles each way, partially between two major cities. I could either drive myself (80 minutes), carpool halfway there (90 minutes), or park and ride a bus between the two cities (2 hours!) The bus took longer because of all the stops it had to make, and because the roadway was generally not congested.
(I still commute this distance, but over the Internet it's much faster.)
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Which is why you leave 50 feet, to give yourself time to stop and NOT get into an accident.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
The system encourages people to give excuses. If you say "I didn't see him" after running over and killing a pedestrian or cyclist, you will get off scot-free. If you say "I was paying no attention to my surroundings and driving like a self-absorbed jerk with no consideration for my fellow man" you can expect a ticket for a few hundred dollars.
Don't know which courts you have been in, but I've heard some judges strip the BS layer from arguments like "I didn't see them" Have to be a bit more convincing because responding officers do record facts and detectives are pretty experienced with lying people. My eldest brother worked in the courts for years, some of the stories he told us ... people usually aren't thinking very clearly when they start lying to police and it all gets written down. Sometimes, when you are at fault it may be selfish, but it's best to just shut up.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
mod parent up.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If this is what you want in your own state...more power too you.
I just hope to hell they don't try legislating every area of my life where I live....
Thankfully for now..I can mod my car (exhaust and all) to my hearts delight....use radar detectors legally, and still smoke in bars/casinos.
Just hope all this is on a state level....and the Feds don't try (yet again) to blackmail the states into complying by withholding our tax monies we gave them.
I like it the way it is here....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not to mention vehicle black boxes, which are becoming more common, and record just about everything that's going on with the car at the time of the accident.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
If they were legal, then you would have no way to deal with a neighbor that runs one near your house.
People have known how to deal with bothersome neighbors for millennia before government regulators showed up.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I always find the mentality that a car makes you independent funny.
Even funnier is the huge number of people who go into fucking hysterics over the $700 million cost of a new train while completely ignoring the multiple billions of dollars people spend driving roughly the route of that train every single year. Americans have this baffling subconscious assumption that roads and cars are effectively free - despite the massive ongoing costs - while public transit represents some unprecedented and inexcusable waste of money on top of the perfectly good and perfectly cheap system we already have. Trains and buses represent, to so many people I know, just a glorified taxi which costs too much and won't ever be convenient.
Yeah, sometimes the fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible option isn't the most convenient. And sometimes people can't do math. Imagine that.
Driving your kid to Chuck E Cheese is no more valid of a risk than calling your wife on the way home from work. The people that consider driving with their kid to be an acceptable risk, but complain about cell phones are simply hypocrites that think their shade of gray is better than everyone else's shade of gray.
Also, claiming that passengers will sit quietly if there is a danger in the road is ridiculous. As a rule passengers are not even aware of the danger before it is too late. They are also likely to make gasping noises when there is no danger that startles the driver, and has them taking their eyes off the road in front of them so that they can find the non-existent danger that they don't see.
Two of the superficial things that I REALLY look out for... Handicap license plates and the old people that generally accompany them... and cell phones, whether texting or at the ear. I can't explain why... but my passenger notices it too... If someone is weaving back and forth in their lane, tail-gating, changing lanes without a turn signal, stopping rapidly, turning suddenly, driving too slowly, generally driving inappropriately for the conditions, or generally not giving other drivers notice of their upcoming actions... a cell phone being used is a REALLY good bet. On a bike, all of your inputs have to be dedicated to not getting squished, so you notice these things a lot more when your life really depends on it. In my truck, I personally turn into a moron when I pick up the phone to say "Can't talk, driving." Even holding the phone while it's on speaker is a distraction. I can't say why. Using bluetooth in the truck CAN be distracting depending on the discussion, but I don't notice it so much. Having a conversation on my motorcycle helmet's bluetooth is definitely not something I do around town / on the twisties. This is enough evidence to tell me that I personally am not able to drive/ride as well when I'm on a phone, or even talking on Bluetooth. And I've seen enough to convince myself that people physically holding phones turn into total morons when driving. Or perhaps that most moron drivers just like to talk on the phone. Sure, some people think their cell phones don't impact their driving, but 95% of drivers think they're above-average drivers too. Hang up and drive. Or get a blue-tooth headset. Or a blue-tooth stereo. Whatever. That might still leave you 25% distracted, but it's way better than the simplified version of driving that cell phone users end up when holding it up to their face. "Follow car in front... follow car in front... follow car in front..."
??
The speed differential on collision with a following distance of 10 feet will be SLOWER than at 3 feet unless the driver behind you hits the gas AFTER he hits you.
If you weren't kidding, stop driving until you get some proper training.
This will never fly in the US, where there is always massive cultural resistance to people being kept from doing absolutely any hare-brained, dumbassed thing they can conceive. What good is having freedom if you can't do massively stupid shit?!
Check out my world simulator thingy.
There is a practical difference: When you're talking to a person in the car, that person understands the context of the conversation. If traffic gets gnarly in front of you, or you have to shift the car, or make a U-Turn, or really anything.....they can see that and understand and respect the fact that it's important to put the conversation on hold until the situation is resolved...it may save both of your lives! A person on the other end of a phone doesn't see the situation, and can't prioritize it nearly as well.
Huge practical difference, IMO.
Quite simply, that's horsepoop. I don't understand your opposition to using mirrors to check on your child. No "Rube Goldberg" about it. For an older child in a forward-facing seat, it's just an additional mirror extension you attach to your rear-view mirror. For an infant in a rear-facing seat, it's another simple mirror on the back seat headrest. There is no jiggling, in both cases the mirrors are fastened securely.
How about the studies using CTDs in controlled impact experiments? Do those count?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
70% - Women on the phone
Absolutely true. In my anecdotal experience, men can be exceptionally dangerous because they're more likely to drive recklessly or aggressively.
But when it comes to distracted driving or simple bad driving - people who clearly suck at the task overall as opposed to lacking focus or objectivity in a given situation - women take the cake. I have no idea who causes more accidents or more fatalities, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's still men, but the crappy lady driver skits from the 50's have a lot of truth in them to this day.
Cell Phones are banned while driving in Ontario Canada
Same is true in many states. The key difference is this ban would cover hands-free phones as well. I really can't see this passing.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I agree with the spirit of the recommendation, but not the way it is suggested.
FACT: People are distracted to varying degrees while performing normal driving.
There are countless reasons why the driver of a car can be distracted in the normal operation of a vehicle: serious conversation with a passenger, yelling at the unruly spawn in the backseat, fishing around in the glove compartment, windshield is dirty and driving during dusk when the sun is shining directly in your eyes, etc etc.
FACT: Personal electronics are an additional distraction while driving.
If I'm using my phone GPS capability while actively navigating an unfamiliar area downtown in a huge city, any point I take my eyes off the road is an opportunity to be in an accident. Best case scenario: The GPS device is completely hands off. Fortunately, my upgraded smartphone has this. Answering a phone is very distracting. You have to find it or fish it out of your pants pocket, look at the device to unlock it, and press the button to answer it. Then talking on the phone is distracting. Some conversations more than others of course. It would be great if a large percentage of people could judge for themselves when they exceed the threshold of not paying attention to the road, but unfortunately, most people are incapable of this judgement call.
Personally, I never answer the phone while driving. If it is important, they'll leave a message and I'll call back later. That's not to suggest everybody should be that way, but I do think a hands off system for answering a call in a car would be best. Instead of a luxury item in a car, I think every car made should have a hands off system the easily integrates with the car sound system. A technical nightmare right now, but with a few mandates to the right companies, it could be a reality in as little as 5 years.
What I literally hate seeing is people who talk on the phone nearly non stop while driving the car. Nearly every one of these people are accidents waiting to happen. I am sorry, but you cannot concentrate on driving while always talking on a phone. If you have to make a phone call or answer it, make it short and sweet. You'll live longer and you can talk longer when you are not driving. Driving is not an afterthought - no matter how long you have been doing it. It requires varying degrees of concentration. Most of the time driving is boring, but you need the mental capacity to respond quickly to bad conditions.
In a my perfect world, talking on the phone while driving would be punishable the same way as driving while under the influence. Ergo, the cop sees you talking on the phone, they get an opportunity to pull you over / ticket you and you get to explain your case to the judge or pay the fine. Repeated infractions get stiffer and stiffer fines until at some point you get your license taken away from you.
For those that absolutely have to talk while driving, get a hands off system for your vehicle.
A nanny state does everything for your own good as the excuse 4 making you "behave." This is to protect the rest of us citizens from fools putting our lives at risk.
I've almost been in a bunch of accidents because some fool on their phone. I don't pity the fool ;-) who smashes their car up -- and they deserve it! The rest of us do not.
A live passenger reacts to trouble as well; this boosts the odds of avoiding trouble significantly. This especially is the case when the other person is also a driver sitting in the front (think about it.)
The closest to death I've been was a woman in a van full of brats try to plow me over on my bike as I crossed in front of her in broad daylight. I think the brats should be muzzled before a hands free phone is banned... However, the GUI for these car devices are HORRIBLE and I have to risk my life to operate the car stereo which looks like its designed to confuse you (it is actually designed to distract you in the store.) We need some regulations on that crap. Bring back the knobs and radio buttons I don't need to SEE to operate. Car interfaces should be regulated as usable by the BLIND!! If a BLIND person can operate my car junk then it should be safe enough for me to use-- when I'm driving I should be considered blind to everything but the road.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
No, you wouldn't get off "scot-free" (a stupid term, go look it up :P) - at best you'd get involuntary manslaughter, I would expect.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
that this is actually a problem, they can shove it,.
The only study that I am aware of, is one where the inferred cell phone use. No actual evidence. No blinded study, nothing. Just an off the cuff inference.
If it true, it's not really that much of a problem.
You might as well remove the radio.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Unless you can provide a link, I haven't seen any evidence that talking to someone on a cell phone is different than in person because "your brain is devoted to paying attention to the 'other world.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Comparisons_with_passenger_conversation
They reference a study done in the UK: (PDF)
http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/dec/references/inpress.pdf
Here's the relevant part. It's not that talking is inherently less distracting, but that someone in the car with you will understand if you're suddenly very quietly intent on driving safely, whereas we are ingrained with a much greater sense of urgency when talking to someone on the phone.
We suggest that during normal in-car conversation, both the driver and passenger will suppress conversation when the demands of the road become too great. However, a remote speaker on a mobile
telephone has no access to the same visual input as the driver, and will be less likelyto pace the conversation according to roadway demands
The results are interesting. The number of words spoken in an urban area was almost double for a phone conversation versus with someone in the car. There was also more talking on the phone while on a highway ("dual carriageway"), though by a smaller margin. When driving in an urban area, the remote conversation partner asked MANY more questions than an in-car partner. The amount of conversation was very dependent on the type of road, too, which seems (to me) to support the hypothesis that in-car passengers are aware of (and temper their conversation to reflect) driving conditions, whereas remote conversation partners do not.
Can I recall the last 3-4 minutes of the road I traveled on in detail?
On the phone, no.
Un-distracted, yes.
That was my scientific test 7-8 years ago, phone is put away where I can't get to it now when I drive.
If they were legal, then you would have no way to deal with a neighbor that runs one near your house.
People have known how to deal with bothersome neighbors for millennia before government regulators showed up.
When a bothersome neighbor refuses to stop being a nuisance, what happens next? We've evolved beyond the Hatfields and McCoys.
Alberta recently passed a very broad, almost draconian anti-distracted driver law. Cell phone use, device of any kind use is strictly prohibited while driving, except hands-free devices and the car's built-in controls. Now instead of distracted drivers talking on cell phones we have distracted drivers trying to work their hands free devices. Even saying "answer" to the hands free device is very distracting. I know as I almost hit someone while saying "answer." Or texting with the phone down low out of sight, which is far far worse for driving.
As with many things, this is terribly misguided legislation. Yes cell phones can and do cause accidents. Yes distracted driving is bad. But if they would have passed a draconian anti-drunk driving law that would save far more lives than any cell phone ban. Judging by the beer cans in the ditch around here, I'd say driving drunk is a problem of epidemic proportions still.
Since cell phones were introduced and their use increased exponentially, you'd think that deaths on the highway would increase at a same rate. The fact is that they haven't. People are dying at about the same rate in traffic accidents proportionally to the number of cars at about the same rate as they always have. Yes it's tragic that your aunt Rosy was killed by a driver texting. Tragic, but statistically less significant than other problems.
I've heard of accidents where it was revealed that the person was texting while driving. That crosses a line obviously. But the best way to deal with this is to instead legislate mandatory penalties if you are involved in an accident and it can be shown you were texting while driving. License suspension, fines, and even jail time, depending on the circumstances.
But to ban "distracted driving" is ineffectual and a waste of money and time.
...why we have all of these electronic items these days, but the accident rate is actually lower than it was 15-20 years ago when we didnt really have anything except a radio, a cheeseburger, a cigarette, a 128oz drink, the kids screaming in the back seat and the hot chick on the sidewalk.
I guess we just replaced some distractions with different ones. And if we take away the electronics devices, we'll just go back to those old ones and still drive like crap.
People were idiots behind the wheel when I learned how to drive in the 70's, and back then the fanciest electronic thing you could fool with was either your AM radio or your cassettes and 8 track players.
I'm also quite amazed at the range of bullshoot that gets thrown around in the excitement of getting rid of driving while using a phone. The study that proves that cell phone usage is worse than drunk driving? If you actually read the farking thing it says that neither actually affects driving response time in a significant manner. How about the state of California insisting on putting a law on the books even though the CHP did a full study that established ZERO correlation between accidents and cell phones?
I find there is substantial difference in a cell conversation and talking with my passenger. First, the passenger is in the same environment and has a stake in us not crashing, and his warnings might even avoid calamity. But more important, listening on a cell seems to require far more concentration then listening to a companion. People in the grocery store can't walk and cell talk at the same time, of course they can't do it and drive. That said, I value my freedom too much to suggest that any law like this should be adopted. Safety isn't everything. And maybe all we need is better sound quality.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Hmmm. Maybe I can use these studies to convince the used car salesmen that in-car phones are safety hazards and give me a discount - and that my ancient VW Passat is a better deal because it doesn't have these safety impairing features.
For an example of how goofy these laws can be (and how heavily influenced by the hands-free-headset lobby), take a moment to peruse my state's cellphone-while-driving law: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.667
Things to take note of:
1) It is ok for me to talk on my cellphone (with it held to my ear), provided it is in speakerphone mode.
2) It is ok for me to talk on my cellphone IN FRONT OF MY FACE as long as it is in speakerphone mode.
3) It is ok for me to operate my amateur radio while driving, because dialing in a faint SSB signal from Japan on 10m while driving down the road, swapping callsigns and signal reports and having a FB QSO is apparently safer than holding a cellphone to my head while driving.
Anyways, if anyone wants to call me while I'm driving, I'll be on 146.52
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
What about when you're using it quickly to:
1. Update Trapster about a cop and radar you just passed (not illegal to do)
2. Changing the station on Pandora or switching to a new album to play
Hmm...will it now be illegal for me to use my CB radio? I have a unit that is not handheld, but it isn't mounted so as to be easier to take from car to car as needed...so, is it now a 'portable' electronic device?
Look, we already have perfectly good laws on the books....if you're driving in an impared or reckless manner, they have the ability to pull you over for that.
If you're driving badly, it shouldn't matter what you're doing...and if you're driving ok...leave me the fuck alone.
Well, if this became law, 1 would be illegal, 2 would not be covered by the law (any more than changing tunes on an ipod).
However, even if it doesn't become law, texting and driving is really, really dangerous (and illegal in many states), so 1 is foolish, 2 isn't a problem. Studies show that using a cell phone (talk or text) while driving causes just as much impairment as drinking and driving, so why would it be a problem to have similar laws against it?
OK, I'll lay it out... if the front car begins braking but has very little traction, 3 feet might make it more likely that the rear car will hit it, but the speed differential will be negligible. 3 feet behind, 10, 50, all are safe, just minor fender benders. If the front car hits a stationary object or brakes on a dry patch, the rear car will not have time for reaction+appreciable braking within 10 feet, but unless the front car comes to a rest instantly, the front car will have slowed more within the time it takes the rear car to travel 10 feet than to travel 3 feet, hence the greater speed differential for 10 feet than 3. The front car decelerates, the rear does not until impact. Yes, 50 or 100 feet is better, but 3 is better than 10. Automated cars traveling in very tight packs are safer than looser groups in case of mechanical failure for the same reasons. They might all bump, but the speed differentials will be negligible. Your physics teacher was the assistant wrestling coach, right?
When a bothersome neighbor refuses to stop being a nuisance, what happens next?
Shunning, trade embargoes, social ostracism - many options beyond violence by neighbors or governments. If the neighbor has a job, that may be at risk too if the employer knows about his behavior.
Most people prefer to live harmoniously with their neighbors at least because they derive value from their society.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Very often the police themselves are the ones doing the lying. Did your elder brother mention all the casual testilying to you as well? Typically police have no sense of ethics themselves and so just assume that everyone else is lying all the time as well. They will typically say things like "everyone lies". You don't have to be a psychologist to figure out why they think that.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
A couple with whom I am friends went to Japan a couple of years ago. They were intrigued to find that the norm there is for people on trains to move to an area of the car where there are no passengers, or to move to the gap between cars, to take/make calls. Politeness is still deeply ingrained in Japanese culture; in the United States, "my rights (meaning 'what I want when I want it') at the expense of all others' " is perhaps the normal mindset.
/. confirm or shoot down my comment?
Our behavior is culturally influenced, ergo your sarcasm would be missed by those from a society where the desire to not offend holds sway over one's actions and behaviors.
Can anyone from Japan here on
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
But we all know two wrongs make it right :)
Non-hands-free devices have been banned in Ontario, and several other provinces, for a while now. This ban has been almost entirely ignored and you can easily spot people on the phone (especially in heavy traffic). The police occasionally go on enforcement blitzes, but this is a jurisdiction where the speed limit and basic rules of the road are often considered merely guidelines. It is hard to take the laws of the road very seriously.
Bluetooth devices are so incredibly difficult to use it is hard to see how they should be legal. It takes more time and driver concentration to connect a bluetooth and reconnection appears to be extremely unreliable even with the latest equipment.
And what about GPS devices? If you really need a GPS to navigate in your own city should you really be driving at all?. A dash-mounted GPS is a huge driver distraction and leads to people ignoring clearly marked signs. While we are at it, ban that as well.
So it is a slippery slope. I wouldn't mind going back to a day when all I had in the car was a radio. But we've made a lot of other assumptions in our society that assume that we are in constant contact (e.g. my kids have to travel around 6km to school, no bus). So, banning anything isn't going to work. It all has to be legal. And organizations like the NTSB are curious anachronisms like the people that say you shouldn't us a cell phone around a gas pump.
Banning 'all' phone use while driving is a reasonable solution in search of a problem.
As the use of cell phones has exploded we are seeing less and less accidents per mile driven.
More cell phones correlates with LESS accidents.
That isn't to say that using cell phones is safe, by any means. But it doesn't correlate to, let alone imply, any between increased cell phone usage and an increase in fatal* accidents. (I haven't seen any non-fatal accident data)
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
In 2009 there were 114 traffic fatalities per million miles driven. In 1994 there were 174 per mil. A 1/3rd reduction at the same time that cell phone use was growing exponentially.
Point being: Distracted drivers are distracted drivers, whether it's cell phones, texting, eating, signing, etc... Some drivers are just going to be bad drivers. And while I'm far from Libertarian, I don't see the value in creating laws as a solution when the problem isn't clearly defined.
IF cell phones presented the huge risk to society that some articles are claiming they do, why is it that the fatality rate is dropping (as I expect the accident trend line is as well, but I haven't found the quality of data to back that up that I would like). And if the fatality/accident rate is dropping, with out the creation of a new law, why create the new law?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
While texting and driving is illegal in many states, studies show that accidents caused by doing so are higher in states where it's illegal because people who do it hold the phone further away to avoid detection.
Making something illegal does not stop people from doing it.
A lot of liberals will say that thougher sentences don't stop repeat offenders, it shows all liberals are liars or just not very good at logic. No person put to death has ever offended again.
Anyway, why make murder illegal then? It doesn't stop people so might as well legalize it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I have had cars hit by people texting while driving three times. Once while at a stop sign i was rear ended and twice they hit my parked car. Each time was a fight with the drivers insurance company. I am glad that texting while driving is not legal here.
1) I don't know where you buy these vibration free cars, but they are not widely available. Perhaps you could share that alien technology, and solve all sorts of the worlds problems.
2) controlled impact experiments are not going to tell you how much more likely it is for someone to get into an accident when driving with their child. So, no. They don't count. They are exactly the opposite of what I said.
Never happens in a car? What planet are you from? All of my passengers have shown very good judgement when in my car - THEY handle the radio. THEY answer MY cell phone if needed. THEY do keep an eye out for potential problems, etc... That is the way it should be done. I know many others who operate the same way. So, yes passengers can and do act as copilots. If your passengers do less, they are idiots. I guess that this is a case where proper TRAINING clearly is the better way to go. Like I said, getting a drivers license should be much more difficult and costly.
As for the other distractions, it's very simple. Don't look for a napkin - the kid (and the back seat) can stay wet. Don't monitor the sproggs in the back seat as much - use common sense and a bit of self control. If they get into fights, tell them to stop and then give them a thrashing when you get home. If you have another adult passenger, they can sort it out. And it's no shame to pull over to do if yourself if you must. I got no problem with holding hands. Anything more in a moving vehicle is probably a bad idea..
However, I have also read some pretty funny (and fatal) aviation reports of people doing stupid things in aircraft. (Yes, some people really do try to have sex in general aviation aircraft. So even succeed to NOT kill themselves, some are less lucky)
What I an trying to say is that there seems to be a complete and utter lack of common sense while driving (and flying).
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
I find it hard to believe that listing to a conference call as I drive (through the bluetooth adapter built into my car) is a danger.
I bet the real danger in coversation is emotionally or intellectually engaging activity, that is, pulling your mental focus away from driving. The exact same problem is likely there with talk radio - dangerous or not depending on how much shouting you're doing.
Texting is always bad, of course, but "look where you're going" is good advice in general.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The proposed law does not ban driving while using cellphones; it only recommends that cellphones be "permanently attached to a single fixed location by a non-removable cable between six and eight feet long".
The text of their recommendation reads "1.(1) Ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers;"
Notice "cell phones" are not mentioned explicitly they just happen to be a subset of "portable electronic devices". TFA seems to have made an assumption which does not in fact exist.
If a portable device is in your pocket and commanded via bluetooth via your car stereo does that count as using it? Your car stereo is not a portable device. You are "using" your stereo not the portable device.
If it still counts what if a cell phone was permanently installed into your vechicle it would no longer be a "portable device" and therefore not subject to the text of their recommendation.
In other words it is pluasable at least to me what NTSB really intended was to say that portable device use should be banned while driving.
Permanently installed hands free communication gear may not actually be the target of their recommendation.
You don't feel like paying to keep the roads in good shape and therefore believe that that entitles you to put everyone else at risk so you can drive unsafely. How about you try to get the roads fixed, pay for the repairs needed and get off your over inflated sense of adequacy. Not everyone is willing to have themselves put at risk just for your convenience.
"Speed is the number one cause of accidents" this is only true because it's hard to have an accident if both cars are stopped. It's not true in an interesting way. Driving outside the flow of traffic - faster or slower - is a danger. Driving too fast where there's no traffic may also be a danger, that's your own lookout.
The number one cuase of accidents is some asshole not paying attention. Going slow or even being stopped won't help when that asshole finds you. Mechanical breakdown used to be quite a large danger as well, but cars are amazingly reliable these days compared to my youth, so I'm not sure that's still a big one.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Very often the police themselves are the ones doing the lying. Did your elder brother mention all the casual testilying to you as well? Typically police have no sense of ethics themselves and so just assume that everyone else is lying all the time as well. They will typically say things like "everyone lies". You don't have to be a psychologist to figure out why they think that.
1. Stereotyping
2. Strawman setup and knocked down
3. Rationalising expert assessment and evaluation
Spend some time in a court. Don't feed your opinion of law enforcement from Television shows. Stop reading sensationalist press.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What good is having freedom if you can't do massively stupid shit?!
I'm sure you were being sarcastic, but that's actually true. The only interesting definition of freedom is my right to do something you disapprove of. Whoever;'s correct about what shit is stupid will be successful in life, the other a failure. Rap music tells me that karma is like a hula-hoop: what goes around comes around. Seems about right.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I see no practical difference between having a conversation with someone sitting next to me in the passenger seat vs having an earpiece in and having a conversation over my phone or even through one of those cab-audible bluetooth arrangements.
And I would fully agree with you. The problem is not those people who have a complete hands-free and attention free way of answering a cell phone. The problem is people who get a call, fumble their phones out of their pockets, look at the screen to see who's calling, then answer holding the phone to their ear, and let go of the steering wheel to change gears because they only have 2 hands. The problem is people think that looking down and typing a text message is a safe thing to do.
The other one I really love is the handsfree kit that comes with most cell phones. You see people driving down the road HOLDING THE MICROPHONE. *faceplam*
False. Driver behavior is the cause of most crashes, and slowing down sufficiently would prevent almost all crashes in which driver behavior is responsible. If you rear end someone while you're yapping on the phone, it means your velocity was too high for your following distance and your reaction time which was reduced by talking on the phone.
And often it is WAY below the posted speed limit, due to weather, visibility, water or ice on the road, etc.
Possibly. But if you're going so fast that you don't notice a broken down car in the middle of the road until it's too late, then you're going too fast.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Driving your kid to Chuck E Cheese is no more valid of a risk than calling your wife on the way home from work.
That depends on just how you do the above actions.
Do you turn around and have a face to face conversation with your kid? Maybe give him a spanking for being noisy?
Do you look down fumble with your phone, search through a menu to find your wife's number, and then let go of the steering wheel whenever you need to change a gear because your hands are full?
I for one happen to agree with you. My phone being voice activated and automatically coming through the speaker when it's docked in my car is zero distraction compared to someone talking to me, or a baby in the back. But the fact is people seem to think everything is completely black and white. I can tell you now that depending on your phone, identifying the caller and answering a call is about the most dangerous thing you can do on the road short of watching a movie. Talking on the phone? Pffft.
While texting and driving is illegal in many states, studies show that accidents caused by doing so are higher in states where it's illegal because people who do it hold the phone further away to avoid detection.
Making something illegal does not stop people from doing it.
Would you cite the source of said studies?
I find it hard to believe that listing to a conference call as I drive (through the bluetooth adapter built into my car) is a danger.
I bet the real danger in coversation is emotionally or intellectually engaging activity, that is, pulling your mental focus away from driving. The exact same problem is likely there with talk radio - dangerous or not depending on how much shouting you're doing.
Texting is always bad, of course, but "look where you're going" is good advice in general.
Listening to a conference isn't more dangerous and is not what the NTSB is wanting to ban. Conversing on the phone and texting is what their recommendation is about. The reason, basically is as you state, pulling mental focus away.
I did. I fought it. I did so alone. And I lost. I still think it's better to hold the phone, than to be hands-free, and I can clearly explain why. But that's not the point here. Also not the point here is that Mario Andretti can drive just fine while talking on the radio -- remember that we already train people to drive; I don't know why we don't train people to drive while talking: it's a skill like any other.
The point here should be that if you can't drive while talking on a dry road with perfect lighting, you shouldn't be driving in the rain at all, let a alone a blizzard with ice on the road. If you were banning talking while driving in a blizzard, I'd be fine with that. If you were saying that I can't drive without corrective lenses, adn he can't drive while talking, I'd be fine with that too. Each is skill-based. Easily taught and tested.
But that won't be the point here either.
The point here is that I can paint your future. In 5 years, an automated car won't be just a prototype any more. In 10 years, it'll be a standard option on many high-end cars. And it 20 years, it'll be a standard option on most cars. At some point, someone's going to calculate a statistic that the self-driving car is safer than the human-driven car. And it won't matter that the stat includes teenage drivers, and criminals, and human emergencies. And it won't matter whether or not the stat is valid at all, or reliable across geographical, weather, or cultural divides. One day, someone will lobby to require all driving to be automatic. And one day, one of those someones will win.
And it doesn't matter how many lives are saved. Because that too isn't the point. Not driving at all would save lives too. So would being encased in a bubble, or only driving huge trucks.
The only point here is that when that day comes, you'll have said that a safety risk is more important than a recreational freedom. Many people enjoy driving. Many people enjoy driving to work. Many people enjoy controlling the machine, repairing the machine, cleaning the machine, and playing with the machine.
So you'll live in a city where something enjoyable is prohibited. And the irony will be that police cars will be the very last to be automated. So you'll have a human police officer trained to drive to catch a human driver to arrest them for driving. It'll be funny.
And the best part is that you will not have removed all car collisions. Because the automated driving will still not be able to deal with all of the black ice. So you'll have removed the ability for humans to drive, and only saved a few lives. And you'll never have the stats to prove it. But you'll still have air bags, seat belts, road signs, crumple zones, automatic driving, and ejection seats.
That's the point. And that's the problem.
My phone being voice activated and automatically coming through the speaker when it's docked in my car is zero distraction
There is a specific scenario where even a very small distraction can be amplified into a big turn of events -- the split second when a traffic light becomes yellow and you need to decide whether it is safer to stop or proceed through the intersection. If your phone rings at the instant you're making that determination I guarantee you'll screw up.
Every time there is some new technology which people can use to distract themselves from driving, it has to be banned. I have a suggestion to stop this Whack-a-Mole reaction: Just outlaw Driving While Dumb. Call it DWD. No matter what technology comes around, if someone can't figure out how to drive safely while doing something else (tuning the radio, drinking coffee, making a call, chewing gum) they are breaking the DWD law and can be arrested.
Fines work, higher fines generally have minimal addition impact*. That's why we see 'fines doubled' in construction work area. they no some people will speed no matter what, so you ight as well turn it into revue generator.
I mean, how hard would temporary speed bumps be?
*basically. It really depends on what is being fined the different fine amount, and if the public is aware of those amount.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here you go:
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/28/5193951-texting-while-driving-bans-dont-reduce-crashes-institute-says
They should ban idiots who can't walk and chew gum at the same time from driving. Texting is altogether different however.. that's just stupid, it forces your eyes off the road.
Okay, I'd really like to know why this was marked "troll", that's not true. You can respond as AC. Was it : A) Mod thought I think all cell usage should be banned by everyone as per the NSTB and disagrees B) Mod thinks everyone should be banned as per the NTSB, and disagrees C) Mod thinks texting and driving is just fine and should be allowed. The point was, rather than banning everyone from talking and driving, it's only some people who can't seem to manage this. It only takes a little self control to not zone out during a conversation and forget you're driving a vehicle. Naturally, such a partial pan is totally infeasible however, so it was a rhetorical rant, not to be taken seriously.
The other point was, mere talking does not (or should not) take your eyes off the road. Texting, however, does.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
and a whoosh to you sir. just a little joke to highlight the fact that many other causes of accidents go relatively unpunished but can be argued to be caused by equally negligent behaviour. lots of accidents occurred prior to the rise of cell phone use in the car. i do not condone cell phone use while driving, nor continuing to drive when exhausted.
Your attention is on the conference call, rather than your driving. Listening to a radio talk show can be equally distracting. Or arguing with your wife about whatever inane thing the two of you find to argue about.
Your full, undivided attention belongs on the road, not on a conversation. Music is permissible, because it is background. Active participation in a conversation, not so much.
In short, you're trying to rationalize exceptions to a damned good rule: NO CELL PHONES FOR DRIVERS!!
Just hang up and drive, alright?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
How many times would you have to personally witness a cop lying, to decide that cops do lie? My sister is a retired state cop. She doesn't trust a cop because he's a cop - she trusts those cops that she knows she can trust, and she distrusts those that she knows deserve distrust. That's a lot like me, and the military. There are sailors whose word I would take if they told me that cats and dogs were raining down from the sky. There are other sailors that I wouldn't trust if they told me that I could expect the sun to shine tomorrow.
GP didn't say that cops always lie, after all. He said "very often" the police are the liars. I can vouch for that statement.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I've been in court several times where the cop lied. Most recently a cop accused me of running a red light on a bicycle, riding on the sidewalk, and nearly running over a pedestrian. Now, he was standing directly under the light and could not see it (nor was any lamp visible from his position), but we can perhaps put that down as an honest mistake. I only rode on the sidewalk after he stepped in front of me and I turned to avoid him (bicycles obey the laws of physics and cannot stop instantaneously), but at least it's true I was on the sidewalk. However, no pedestrian was anywhere around. So why did the cop say there was one?
Answer: The judge for that district is known to be harsh on bicyclists who endanger pedestrians, often sending them to jail.
Unfortunately for that cop, the hanging judge wasn't in on the day of my hearing, so I got off easy.
On another occasion, in a different jurisdiction, a cop wrote that after he had me step out of the car I was "screaming and waving my arms". If you've ever seen a number of court cases you know they say that a lot, and probably wondered why. Well, the answer is they just make it up; it's part of the script they use to obtain convictions. I didn't say, let alone scream, one word to that cop after he had me step out of the car, nor did I wave my arms.
What cops do in court is not so much lying as telling a story to obtain a conviction. A lie has a relationship to the truth; it is its opposite. Cops' testilying has no relationship to the truth, aside from a few real details being thrown in to add verisimilitude. The courts believe (or act as if they believe) the stories unquestioningly, so why should the cops do otherwise?
So with a cell phone law, if the cop wants to give you a hard time, he'll stand up in court and say you were using your cell phone when you were pulled over. Whether you were or not. If you pull up call records, the cop will simply point out that he could have interrupted you before making the call. Just another tool of oppression.
Very true. But the point is that most risks can't be eliminated. The only way to eliminate the chance of a distracted driver is to eliminate the driver altogether.
Life (and engineering mind you) is about risk reduction, not risk elimination. A seat belt increases the likelyhood that I will survive an accident, as does an airbag. ABS and traction control increases the likelyhood that I will remain in control of the vehicle. Careful driving (i.e. maintaining a safe distance) further reduces the risk of crashing.
But I'm under no delusion that the risk can be eliminated, nor do I seek it to be. It all comes down to acceptable risk. The risk must ultimately be low enough that I undertake the task of driving to work every day. Given the several seconds warning I get at intersections in this country it is a risk I'm willing to take.
From the article "A lack of enforcement is "a likely reason texting bans aren't reducing crashes," the institute found, saying that survey results indicate many drivers, "especially younger ones, shrug off these bans."
So it appears that it isn't the ban that is the problem but lack of enforcement. Using drunk driving as an example, if it isn't enforced, then banning drunk driving wouldn't reduce crashes either, it is the enforcement of the ban that causes the ban to be effective.
There's inconvenient, then there's inconvenient. Most people would probably put up with a 50% increase on the length of their commute to take public transportation. That's not what would happen though. It works fine in the city and if sufficiently bought into, in the immediate suburbs. But if you live an hour outside the city, and your job is 45 minutes away by car, but also about the same distance outside the city, the best designed mass transit system is going to take 2+ hours to get you to work (unless for some reason specifically optimized for your particular endpoints). Population density outside of cities is just not high enough in the states to make mass transit viable unless you going to or from the city.
Do four-star restaurants suck simply because your food doesn't come for 25 minutes while McDonald's could have given you a Big Mac in 60 seconds?
If I have to wait for that during my 30 minute lunch break, then yeah, a four star restaurant sucks if it takes that long to bring me my food. But mass transit isn't a four star restaurant. It's vending machine that sells you a $4 wilty premade salad with fixed ingredients and dressing, and you have to wait 30 minutes for it to come out, compared to the salad bar across the street where you put together your own salad with the ingredients you like in the ratios you choose. It costs $1 more, but you get it as quickly as you can make it.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
This is some fallacious reasoning. Distraction isn't a binary quantity, but rather is additive. Let's put this in algebraic terms:
Distraction(driver with phone and no baby) > Distraction(driver with no phone and no baby)
Distraction(driver with phone and baby) > Distraction(driver with no phone and with baby)
Therefore, phone increases distraction.
It's just not relevant if Distraction(driver with phone) is greater or less than Distraction(driver with baby). It's a red herring.
I see this kind of argument often, but it just doesn't make any sense game theory wise.
What is fallacious reasoning is attacking some random distraction that is no worse than dozens of other common distractions, and pretending that it holds some special significance because it is either hip, offends your Neo-Luddite sensibilities, has no utility to you or you are just repeating what people in the other two categories have told you.
Basically, what you and others are saying is "This isn't about safety. This is about cell phones. So stay on topic."
I drove a truck across the United States for 3 years. I would guess that 70 percent of the cars holding traffic up, or driving at 50 MPH in a 65 MPH zone were talking on the phone. I had a birds eye view so it wasn't hard to pick them out. Trouble is, most of them had no idea they were driving too slowly and presenting a hazard to those around them. So citation? No...just an observation from someone who has missed complete exits because they were talking on the phone. Now texting while driving? That's just stupid.
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
Driving is a privelege, not a right.
That's just parroting every bad "Death on the Highway" film clip many of us had to endure in drivers education as kids. Anyone who has served in the military, and placed their life on the line will tell someone spouting that rhetoric to kiss their ass. It is neither one...and the states have brainwashed the "good people" within to mimic these silly words.
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
Too many people in positions of power talk on their cell phones while driving, and like it that way.
if Hollywood and the TV studios didn't keep making films and dramas with actors using cellphones while driving... they should be setting a big example with this behaviour not shown at all, or if it is shown, have the consequences shown in all their gory detail...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Studies be damned, there's a huge difference between talking using a handsfree and holding the phone. Handsfree, it's no different or more distracting than talking to a passenger. But the second that phone and hand goes to the ear, it's like half the brain shuts off. It happens to me, it happens to my wife and it appears to happen to just about everyone else. One of our driving games is to guess whether the person driving 20 mph under traffic flow/having trouble staying in lane/driiiiifting over slowly when changing lanes is on the phone. I wish i'd kept records for the "show me the data" crowd here, but after a few years of this game I can tell you that the hand to ear oblivi-bots are winning. It's getting to the point it's not fun anymore, we could just say "on the phone" and most of the time we'll be right. not much of a game these days.
I disagree. A passenger can also see what's happening on the road, and can change the flow of conversation to adapt to the traffic. A year ago or so a friend of mine was talking handsfree but the conversation distracted her enough to cause her to bump into the car in front of her (luckily no one was physically hurt). Of course hands free is still better than holding it to your ear.
I am ***SO*** glad that I live in a country (Thailand) where you can ride in the back of a pickup truck. "Those who sell their liberty for safety will find that they have neither."
Companies have gotten extremely used to having people on the electronic leash. Not just IT folks (though this is a large part of the population in question), but anyone whose job has been defined such that they need to be reachable within 30 seconds. I'll pick on IT folks just because so many people think of them as the type who have to jump the instant the cell phone rings.
Consider a typical IT team. At some point during the morning, they're all on the road to make it in to the office for the start of the business day. And at some point in the evening, they're all on the road heading home. During those times, none of them would be legally able to answer a call. Before someone says "well, pull off the road or go find a parking space", I'll speak for my own commute and say that there are long stretches of it where there is no shoulder to pull off onto, and when you only have 30 seconds to answer the phone before it kicks to voice mail, getting to a side street or gas station or whatever where you can park isn't often possible.
So what would the company do? Have the staff work staggered shifts so that there's always someone who is either at home or in the office during commute times, and could therefore legally answer the phone? Allow telework for part of the day so that commute times could be staggered without forcing people to adjust their whole day? That second one works fine for the morning, but it wouldn't help for the evening commute, or vice versa. Have a designated telework day for each staffer to keep them off the road? And so on. All decent ideas, but the current climate of "this is our business day and it's when you are to be at your desk" wouldn't want to embrace them.
We can believe in you for 3 minutes, but beyond that, even the King of All Cosmos can't be expected to wait.
Cell Phone Jammer
I say let them run with cell phones blaring and text messages flying. When they cause the inevitable crashes maybe some of em will get weeded out of the gene pool. I mean it is mostly teens which maybe have not bred yet. Except for those Mississippi teens, they drop offspring like hunting dogs drop fleas. Our species is getting dumber and dumber all the time. We need some sort of higher level predator or some way to clean out the stupid among us. I say leave the cell phones alone and also start cloning velociraptors and turn them lose.
Yes, I know I am trolling and inflammatory this morning. Please forgive me but it's true.
IANAL but why is it so hard to hold the registered vehicle owner responsible for all violations committed using the vehicle, with the exception of stolen or duplicated plates? - If someone else was using the car, sue that person for transfer of punishment (demerits, points etc.) on the license and whatever fines were involved. Done and done.
Additionally, someone using stolen plates get triple the punishment that the registered owner would have gotten, plus a conviction for theft. Someone using duplicated plates gets five times the punishment plus a trip to the big house for fraud and attempted transfer of guilt through impersonation using official documents.
Now plaster the cities and countryside with cameras and people will start driving a lot more in accordance with the law. The authorities have to prove of course that you knew you were violating the law, i.e. that you violated clearly posted restrictions. This means that speed limit sign that's overgrown or vandalized doesn't apply, and neither do 'self-evident' rules like "general speed limit in an urban area" because that requires that it is clearly posted that you are in an "urban area".
In some countries - like Denmark - the absence of signs signify the "default" limit for the environment, which takes away your attention from the traffic. You have to check the surroundings and notice the absence of speed limit signs, then you need to judge if you're in an urban area (limit: 50 km/h) or outside one (limit: 80 km/h). If you judge incorrectly (driving 50 km/h in a 80 km/h zone) you're likely to get hit hard from behind, and if you're driving slightly above 80 km/h in a 50 km/h zone and you're caught, you're likely to lose your license in addition to a hefty fine as you're going 30 km/h too fast in a 50 km/h zone, which is 60% or more too fast which will cost you your license. Suspended though, pending a new theoretical and practical driving test (fail one and you lose your license for at least 6 months).
So my opinion is: There should be clear signs everywhere and then there's no excuse for not obeying the rules. Slam violators hard and then they'll either learn or pay dearly for their arrogance.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
That you don't reduce your speed *enough* in poor conditions is what created the "unavoidable conditions"
You make broad presumptions here. I drive quickly ONLY when conditions allow. I am VERY cautious in bad weather. Both times I've had issues with this, I've been going under 15 and in some cases under 10 miles per hour. When I say one of the cars I had handled very badly, I meant VERY badly. As in it has been known to get stuck in less than an inch of snow while going downhill. I've since put blizzex tires on it and it has addressed the problem. The main situation was actually when I was getting on to an on ramp (a very sharp turn from a stopped position) and was accelerating very slowly, however there was enough ice that my car lost traction and caused a spin.
Yes speed is a major contributor to accidents, but it is not a cause in and of itself, it is a contributor. It still requires driver mistakes to be made and a lack of awareness. I adjust my speed according to driving conditions but can generally keep driving conditions acceptable for higher rates of travel. I leave longer than necessary gaps between vehicles, I monitor all traffic for about half a mile in front of me and a fifth of a mile behind me, constantly monitor for any drivers acting in an unpredictable manner, ensure two lanes of clearance if passing someone at more than 10 mph different from their speed and generally drive within 5mph of the average speed of traffic (traffic in general is fast around my area). If any of these conditions can't be met, I adjust my speed down accordingly until conditions improve. The same goes for weather and the mechanical performance of my vehicle. If I even suspect I might have a mechanical issue, then I slow down accordingly and increase margins between me and other vehicles. Driving at reasonable (I'd define as not in excess of 80, though I personally never go in excess of 75) speeds with no cars on the road in good conditions on a straight away with a mechanically sound vehicle is not going to cause any accidents, ever.
Also, as I mentioned, luck has nothing to do with it. I have had other cars do things that should have resulted in an accident, but because I was paying attention and reacted accordingly, I have avoided them. In both cases I was already not traveling at high speed because I saw the situation coming early enough to adjust my speed and position to avoid it and had the situational awareness to know where I could maneuver. Luck had nothing to do with it. Thank you for your concern, but in my case you are incorrect.
AJ Henderson
If you don't want to take my word for it, here is the summary of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. (from Wikipedia) My comments in ()
That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed. (Risk is increased, not caused)
That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed. (I stay near the median speed of traffic in my proximity.)
That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.
That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis.
That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions. (I adjust according to conditions.)
That more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.
AJ Henderson
The only interesting definition of freedom is my right to do something you disapprove of, that only puts me at risk.
FTFY. Be as destructive as you like, as long as it's limited to your body and your property... and your insurance pool... and your homeowners association...
On second thought, you're just going to have to move to deep-woods Montana or Alaska.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Why would this become illegal? Working trapster isn't any more involved than doing Pandora, which you said would not be illegal.
Updating Trapster is just clicking a few buttons...you're not texting or talking to anyone....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Technology in most phones have gps and the ability to know the phone is traveling faster than a humans two legs. A simple change to the code on the phone will make it the phone useless at dangerous speeds. Of course battery life will be next to zero and passengers will be affected as well. --- What truly is the purpose of this ban when there are already penalties for dangerous driving? Could it be that multiple yellow bus crash caused by texting being used by a politician for votes or is it purely to raise fines? The beauty of either is that it divides the population and lets it fight amongst itself instead of fighting to retain freedom from even more half cocked laws. Laws are already in place for reckless driving. --- Just because most text messages have misspellings and grammar problems doesn't mean we need this spelled out for us.
The problem is with attention diversion. You are paying some attention to a conversation, which takes attention off of driving.
Yes, the problem still exists even if you are talking to someone in your car. But that's harder to legislate than just banning cell phones. I'd be in favor of a ban, because it's at least one less way that people can kill me on the road.
STFU and pay attention to the road, people.
Oh, I see what you're getting at. You're taking his hyperbolic following distances literally. Very few regular drivers could maintain a following distance of three feet on a track, never mind in traffic. You're technically right, if you use those distances and assume a panic braking situation, reaction time would probably have you crashing into the driver ahead at both those distances. Of course, the speed differential in either case would be small enough that it's unlikely either of you would be hurt. In the situations where the driver ahead slows down without jamming full on his brakes and holding them there until he's stopped, you'll be able to avoid the collision entirely more often at the greater following distance. Not to mention having more chance to steer to avoid a collision you couldn't by braking alone.
Quit trying to be clever and leave adequate following distance.
Sure, all the time. Fines only work when you get one (or more). So an effective fine has to cost enough that it's unpleasant, and be administered reliably enough that it's a deterrent. There are a lot of conditioning experiments dealing with the required frequency and consistency of reinforcement.
The existing laws are probably pretty much unenforceable at the required level, and no-hands-free laws would certainly be. We'd be much better off to train drivers to recognize and deal with distractions and just enforce existing dangerous driving laws.
Yeah, that's what I was going to post. "Distracted driving" is a danger to everyone else on the road. No, you do not have the freedom to put my life in jeopardy just so you can text your friend Sheila that you're going to be a few minutes late to the dinner party, as you barrel down the highway at 80 miles an hour.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Speaking of decapitation, why don't airbags automatically compensate for how far you are from them?
I come here for the love
"Alcohol deaths" include crashes where a sober driver driving home a drunk sleeping in the back seat is rearended at a stop light by a sober driver with a cell phone texting, hitting them at full speed and killing the two guys in the front car. When "cell deaths" counts as any crash where a cell phone is present, then the numbers will be comperable. But they aren't. Alcohol doesn't kill anymore. The number of drunk drivers who kill someone else is less than the "cell deaths" you list above. But MADD, in their mad campaign to remain relevant have convinced the government that a single empty can of beer left in a car makes the crash alcohol related, even if it were proven that the can was dropped in the car by a passing bum through an open window and no person in the car had anything to drink in the past 10 years, nor had even touched the empty beer can. Or that sober drivers driving drunk people makes the crahs "alcohol related."
I'm not blaming you for using lies. Most people don't know they are. I blame MADD for killing people by their actions to hide the real causes of crashes to make themselves seem relevant.
Learn to love Alaska
It's not a damn good rule, though. The rule should be "be a responisble adult and manage your distractions". Like most things - laws are a poor substitute for judgement, and should not be used as a crutch.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Everything I do has some negative effect on you (and likely some positive effect as well). Everything. The only meaningful freedom is the freedom to do things you think are stupid, especially including those actions which entail some minor risk or downside for you. The upside of personal liberty (when accompanied by individual responsibility) far exceeds to combined downside of everyone doing things that each have a small negative effect on you.
As you say on your second though: you don't actually believe in freedom for anyone around you anywhere.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
My last line was intended to be humorous. Apparently you've lost that ability in your quest to impose on others and call that freedom. :)
Actually I agree with you for the most part. Freedom in a civilization carries with it a requirement to be civil. My point: There is a responsibility to not impose on your neighbor any more than you have to. Your point: Being civil also requires neighbors to allow themselves to be imposed upon to a reasonable degree. Such trespasses have become less tolerated these days as we increasingly avoid our neighbors, a sad trend.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
1) Shock absorbers. They work. Also, I drive on paved roads. Jiggling of the mirrors has never been a problem for me in any of the four cars I or my wife have owned that had child seats in them ('96 Civic, '99 Accord, '05 Camry, '11 Fit). This was true even of the '96 Civic six months ago. Are you basing your argument on any kind of relevant experience, or are you just pissing in the wind?
2) You're right, they won't show that. Instead, they'll show that crashes are much safer when the child is in the rear of the vehicle. However, based on that, the burden should be on you to cite studies showing that parents are less likely to get in accidents when the child is in the front seat. Your inane claims that drivers need to contort themselves to check on kids is not sufficient basis for your conclusion. I could just as easily counter your claim by saying that children in the front seat would be much more generally distracting to drivers.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
100% of people were wearing clothes when involved in a traffic accident. Clearly wearing clothes while driving is a high risk activity and should be banned.
Clearly all children should be bound and gagged for transport. Ideally this would extend to shopping trolleys.
You should meet my wife. Whether I'm talking to her in person or on a cell phone, I still have to imagine that "other world" she's in.
I've logged about 250,000 miles in the car, most of it on the phone with an earbud. I've experienced two accidents but never caused one. One was in 1986, a kid was checking his hair in the mirror and let up on the brake a little and rolled into me, doing about $500 worth of damage. One was in 2009 when a guy wasnt paying attention and couldnt stop in time before bumping me from behind, doing about $50 worth of damage.
That second guy might have had a phone as his distraction. The first guy definitely didnt.
I think the reason for my lack of accidents is that when I'm talking to someone, I'm paying attention. If I'm sitting in the car alone and I'm not on the phone, I get bored, start looking around, daydream. Thats still distraction.