Slashdot Mirror
Why the NTSB Is Wrong About Cellphones
YIAAL writes "After a multi-car pileup involving two school buses, the NTSB is urging states to ban all cellphones and personal electronic devices in cars, even hands-free phones. But on looking at the NTSB report, it appears that the big problem was a school bus driver who was following too closely, and another school bus driver who wasn't watching the road. Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?"
About 1% of the population is capable of multitasking. Only they can focus on their gadget and the road. The rest should stay as far away from that as possible.
This is exactly what I thought when I saw pictures. The buses ran over the kid who was texting. Not one but two of them.
How did he cause that?
Now had the kid been on the phone (hand held or hands free) instead of texting even his accident would not have happened,
because he would have had his eyes on the road.
Its my contention that forcing cell phone out of the hands (some states even forbid hands free phoning) represents a cure
worse than the disease. Too many people fear a ticket for talking, and they compensate by texting from their lap (or below
the level of window). Texting out of sight takes your eyes off the road. Talking on the phone, while still a distraction, allows
your eyes to be on the road.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If cell phones are allowed on the road, I'd like it to be legal to allow a 1000ft cell jammer in my car.
Cellphones are easy to name, human error is hard to quantify and hard to address.
But "CELLPHONE DID IT" is easy, and even fits in the title.
It's easier to say "ZOUNDS, we must BAN this THING" than it is to say "Our driver training is not up to scratch, we don't review our training at regular intervals and we don't have mandatory retests for the people we entrust our children to" because that would sound like they've not done their job.
Sadly this isn't restricted to driving buses either.
I am a leaf on the wind
I sure wouldn't want to fly in a plane where the pilot were allowed to have their cell phone switched on. The same applied to other professional driving industries such as train drivers. I just wish Taxi drivers could let go of their cell phones and start acting as professional as they used to be.
They are targeting cell phone users because when something bad happens constituents expect a government response. While it is impossible to legislate (or enact regulations) to "be a good driver", it is possible to legislate or regulate cell phone usage. Just another regulation that will be arbitrarily enforced...
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because using cellphones statistically seems to downgrade everyone a bit, so an excellent driver becomes a good driver, a good driver an ok driver, an ok driver a bad driver, and... a bad "barely got my license" driver a motor powered angry bird
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Because somebody who was paying attention would have had a higher chance of avoiding the accident? Duh.
As a motorcycist, I would encourage people to not talk or text on their phones while driving. Whenever someone tries to kill me, it's always the same: a woman fiddling with her phone. However, I'm sure this ban would be enforced sporadically, with no reduction in traffic accidents caused by distracted driving...it will just become another excuse for the cops to pull you over and smell your breath.
No one should be saying that cell phones are magical attention draining devices. I would posit, however, that using a cell phone, even a hands free setup, constitutes not paying enough attention to your driving, and ergo the people who do it are by definition bad drivers.
I think we're at the point we can agree that DIALING a cell phone or looking at a phone screen is dangerous. We've all had near misses ( or worse ). I think the NTSB is overreaching on an outright ban, but I like the direction it's taking. Talking on a phone is no worse than talking to someone in the passenger seat. Using voice activated dialing systems in a car seems like a reasonable line to me.
All the talk about banning cell phones while driving is pretty dumb since it would be more or less unenforceable until after the accident. If they want to fix this, they could do it without a law. All they would need to do is have the FCC mandate that phones done work if they are moving faster than say, 20mph. Pretty easy to do even without GPS or an accelerometer, the phones own software should be able to do that off the towers.
Seriously, eating a Big Mac from the drive thru takes more concentration from the road than talking on the cell phone. This is just ignorance by the NTSB. I don't see them trying to ban drive thrus!
His reporting is about as trustworthy as a toothless crack ho.
When you are distracted while driving you are not using your full attention to focus on the task at hand, which is guiding about a ton or so at high speed where merely the errant twitch can kill or permanently injure someone.
There are many, many studies in cognitive science that have shown that any distraction while driving reduces your ability to react, your reaction time, and the quality of your judgement. Your brain has a finite amount of resources and you are expending them on paying attention to the phone. In any case, cell phones are currently one of the most avoidable distractions out there. It stands to reason they'd be the first targeted for "banning."
Turn your phone off while driving. It could save a life.
After a multi-car pileup involving two school buses, the NTSB is urging states to ban all cellphones and personal electronic devices in cars, even hands-free phones.
This particular accident is not the reason why the NTSB is proposing this. The NTSB is proposing this because there is a huge amount of incontrovertible evidence that when people talk on their cell phones while driving (regardless of whether the phone is hands-free), the become distracted and drive badly.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
The NTSB isn't targeting gadges. The NTSB is targeting bad drivers. You can put your cell phone in your car while driving, and nobody will target it. But if you talk on your cell phone while driving, you are a bad driver, and you should be targeted.
Find free books.
It's easy. Politicians love to look busy by passing new laws rather than prodding the executive branch into enforcing laws already on the books. If any of the following were to be enforced regularly, the problem would solve itself by either teaching inattentive drivers to change their ways, or remove them from the roads:
* reckless driving
* Driving below minimum legal speed (usually 10mph below speed limit)
* hindering the flow of traffic
* improper lane changes
* failure to use indicators when required
* failure to yield the right of way
* failure to maintain control of the vehicle
* following too closely
* driving left of center
* traveling in the passing lane
* failure to obey traffic signals
. . . and so on
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Yes, texting while driving is inherently dangerous: It takes your eyes off the road and your hands off the wheel. That is presumably why texting while driving is already illegal in Missouri for drivers under 21. But there’s a big leap from the Missouri accident to the NTSB’s suggestion for a broad, new national ban.
So you would agree that texting while driving decreases your reaction time and decreases how alert you are to the road? Okay so what else does that? Well, being drunk and driving is pretty much a death sentence in most states. I drove a friend to and from work every day for a year adding over 1 hour to my daily commute. Because he was pass the legal limit when he was pulled over. After that he had an interlock system that he had to pay to have installed in his car that wouldn't let him drink and drive. All of this because he was doing something that impaired his reaction time and alertness.
Now you fight the NTSB about banning cell phones while driving? What happens now when you're pulled over while texting (if you even are)? $200? A slap on the wrist? Are you forced to pay to have a Faraday cage installed in your automobile? Is your driver's license revoked for a year? Why not?
I'm reminded of the car talk episode where a guy was calling into a radio station while driving and you hear him hit a car and one of the hosts of Car Talk says "Good, ya jerk!"
My work here is dung.
from TFA:
4. The absence of a timely brake application, the cellular provider records indicating frequent texting while driving, the temporal proximity of the last incoming text message to the collision, and the witness statement regarding the driver's actions indicate that the GMC pickup driver was most likely distracted from the driving task by a text messaging conversation at or near the time of the accident.
9 The GMC pickup driver was fatigued at the time of the accident due to cumulative sleep debt and acute sleep loss, which could have resulted in impaired cognitive processing or other performance decrements.
And that's why texting while driving is bad, boys and girls. And not getting enough sleep will, apparently, make you stupid enough to do it.
If cell phones are allowed on the road, I'd like it to be legal to allow a 1000ft cell jammer in my car.
That's fine. Since we are granting requests then, I would like to be able to house a jammer-seeking missile in my car. This would have two benefits:
1) Would allow my cell phone based GPS to continue working.
2) Removes an asshole from the planetary gene pool. Now THAT's green!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Listen, most of the people who you talk to think they're one of the "good drivers," who can talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time. It's not like this argument hasn't been used before. I'm sure most of the people you would ask would also respond that they're "smarter than the average person" or "better at X than the average person." NO ONE wants to think of themselves as deficient or average in any manner.
I work at a driving simulator. We've done quite a few studies on distracted driving (including two studies specifically targeting cell phones). These studies have sampled a few hundred different drivers, from all age ranges, technical abilities, genders, etc. ALL of them show (VERY clearly) that EVERYONE is bad at driving while being congnitively distracted. Hands-on, hands-free, whatever--the facts show that if you're concentrating on something other than the task at hand, EVERYONE has problems.
Am I concerned about not legally being able to talk while I drive? Hell no. It's about time.
Do people honestly have doubt that distracted driving such as operating cell phones is not a risk to traffic safety? Seriously? Sure, every accident has a multitude of factors involved and how they count the number of accidents where something is 'a factor' is shameful (if you get in an accident and a bottle of wine in your trunk breaks, suddenly your accident was 'alcohol related'), but come on people, having a conversation with someone not in the vehicle is not something a significant proportion of the population should be attempting to do. Trying to type and read off of a screen is a liability to yourself and others in your vicinity. I know we are all above average drivers, but they aren't and we sure as hell don't trust them.
About 1% of the population is capable of multitasking. Only they can focus on their gadget and the road. The rest should stay as far away from that as possible.
According to published studies, those who are actually good at multitasking generally consider themselves bad at it, and tend to avoid it. On the other hand, those who consider themselves good at multitasking are rather bad at it. Yet another manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Why not ban both cell phones and bad drivers?
I have no idea if the research suggests that using a cell phone while driving is inherently distracting or not, and whether or not people have a good metacognitive awareness of how distracted they are, but if the research does suggest it's distracting, why not ban it? Is there really such an imperative that someone be permitted to use a cell phone while driving on public roads? We also disallow driving while drunk, while under the influence of certain drugs or medications, for people who are at risk of seizures, etc. In all of these cases, we do these bans despite the fact that some drivers are better than others, and that swerving over the road or drifting into another lane is already illegal if you do it while sober and alert. We ban it because those behaviours increase the chance of accidents, and more importantly, because people are notoriously bad judges of whether or not their behaviour is dangerous or not. The bright line distinction in those cases has reduced accidents and injuries.
I can't tell if the submitter is arguing that we shouldn't ban specifically bad driving behaviours because bad driving is already illegal, or if he's arguing that using a cell phone doesn't distract drivers, just shitty drivers? Either way, it seems like a generalized "don't tread on me" objection to what sounds like a fine policy.
I live in a jurisdiction that has banned cell phones for drivers, although not hands-free devices. I have no idea what the policy merits of exempting or including hands-free devices are. But provided that research indicates the behaviour is distracting, I'm not sure what the problem is with banning it. I think that applies just as much for trained, specialized drivers as random drivers off the road. *shrugs*
By their nature, bad drivers can't self-identify. It's the other driver, not them, right?
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
Yes, those examples cite bad driving while on a cellphone, not just driving while on a cellphone, as the cause of the collisions. But driving while talking on a cellphone doesn't reduce the rate at which people do the bad driving. In fact it seems obvious that distraction by the phone makes it more likely to do more bad driving.
Just talking on the phone isn't colliding with someone. But talking on the phone doesn't make anyone a better driver. It's obvious to everyone on the road how very often it makes many people worse drivers.
Handsfree phones should be required; anything else should be prohibited. And any collision or moving violation should cause subpoena of the phone records (phone#s redacted) to see whether the driver was on the phone at the time. If so, they should be found guilty of distracted driving (and perhaps negligent homicide, if they killed someone). And their insurance policy shouldn't cover the event.
--
make install -not war
Look the driver of any vehicle (or pilot) should be focused on driving not on communicating. Whining about the government or nit picking the study denies what everyone sees on the road every day - people who use their cell phone while driving are inattentive drivers and scares the hell out of pedestrians/bicyclists/other drivers all the time.
Let's try to have an honest conversation on why the hell everyone has their panties in a bunch over taking away something that did not exist 15 years ago. You do NOT need to text while driving, you do NOT need to talk on the phone while driving, you DO need to get there in one piece without causing an accident.
I am just sayin....
A: They are just stupid - gov always is. Tailgating caused that. It's never enforced except by Darwin, and sometimes you can't avoid doing it. Leaving enough room means some fuckwad just puts himself in it.
B: Phones are distracting. There's an obvious reason. If the person you're talking to is in the car, they realize when you're entering a dangerous situation, and shut up, even help look for problems. On the phone, you're pretending to be doing something useful, probably pretending not to be in a car at all. Thus you don't get the critical pauses at times when it's dangerous. The other guy, unaware of your situation, might be driving home his crucial point just as you're turning left across traffic into a multi-lane zoo with someone changing lanes into your path. No time to be either listening or talking, IMO.
C: While I love my new Chevy Volt, all that animation on the multiple screens is MUCH MORE DISTRACTING than the phone is. Period. I use the phone to order pizza on the way to get it, that's about it. Never a problem, I pick my spot, and it's short and over with. But if you adust the cruise control, it takes time for that popup window to pop up, show the data, then go away - and your eyes are off the road the whole time. Ditto the center stack. I just know that several times while driving this car, I've noticed myself not paying enough attention, and it's been that, never the phone. Lucky this has only happened so far when it was just drifting out of lane on a road with no traffic...but I'm going to have to get discipline about not looking at the eye candy fer sure.
D: All you idiots out there for whom the only possible application of the word smart applies to something you're holding, not you. If they let you have this shit, you'll be texting and playing games...no way that's good - and it's so addicitve people already lie about it - they say it's dangerous when others do it, but not when they do - pure vain rationalization.
I think you're half insane to even have a cel phone. Gosh, that means everyone with my number who gets bored thinks they own my time - and you give into that because you're so damn insecure you think it gets you friends, sucker. If that's what it takes, they ain't your friends, they're parasites on your time.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
The reason to kill off cell phones while driving has nothing to do with this event. For some reason it grabbed screen time and the attentions of many people. However, the reason for banning phones has more to do with the fact that every time I go driving the driver of pretty much every other car I drive by is chatting on their phone. Studies have proven that when we multitask our IQ for each task drops significantly. Hell even the myth busters showed how much this can affect your driving and they didn't even have to do that much testing to show that talking on the phone was a problem. Compile a decade of reports from wrecks and I'm sure the point is obvious. I heard people constantly saying "oh but it will be so hard to enforce." This is simply lies. If its illegal to be on your phone at all while driving then any cop who sees a phone in a drivers hands has cause to immediately ticket the driver. Just as if they drive by me and they notice my seat belt is off. Fact is, this law would save lives at the cost of a slight convenience the human race didn't even have over 20 years ago. We made due then, and we can make due now.
Following too closely will result in a ticket.
Also cell phones are linked to more than one accident. There is plenty of evidence that cell phones are a major cause of driver inattentiveness and accidents.
The proposal against banning all cell phones could be excessive, but there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because it is always easier to come up with a technological solution (even if it doesn't work) than it is to address the real (usually human) problem.
even hands-free phones
This really illustrates the absurdity of the claim that phones are to blame for the problem.
If you're using a hands-free device, you're just basically having a conversation with someone who isn't actually in the car. It's not going to be any more inherently distracting than having a conversation with somebody who is in the car. So if hands-free phones are a problem... So is talking to a passenger.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
You don't want to forget droppable oil, spikes and other traps either. Takes out people behind you much easier than missiles.
It may be the case that the NTSB is exploiting a dramatic (and potentially unrelated) incident in order to drive forward the argument against gadgets while driving. However, this shouldn't distract us from the general fact: cell phone use (hands-on and hands-free) while driving causes distraction that leads to the impairment of drivers. (I won't even bother citing any studies; Google pulled up sufficient summaries of studies that I didn't bother picking one.) If the science indicates that this causes problems (it does), and if making it illegal will reduce the incidence of accidents (some here think it won't; I'm not sure that I buy that), then we should make it illegal, just as with alcohol/drug use, headphone use, and other driver impairing activities.
I know people love their tech gadgets, and everyone thinks they're capable of adding just one more "little" thing they can do while they're driving, but once you've had an incident that DOES involve a driver drinking, texting, whatever (and I know that's not necessarily the case here, I'm talking in general), you'll probably understand why we don't need ANY extra POTENTIAL distraction when piloting a ton-plus weapon anywhere near where someone else can get hurt.
I believe that unlicensed drivers (read illegal aliens) cause more deaths than cell phones (not including texting). Why doesn't someone do something about them?
Because everyone is a bad driver when they're too busy talking on the phone to pay attention to what they're doing, dumbass. This isn't some new thing. It's been known for a very long time that most accidents are caused by distractions, and that talking on a phone (and even more so with texting) are significant distractions.
The NTSB is pointing out what is blindingly obvious to anybody who pays attention, rather then thinking that driving is a great time to be doing other stuff.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
How about we ban the posting of inflammatory, trollish summaries on /. and return the site to a place for bloody nerds, if any are left these days?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
You all seem to be commented as if it's only bad drivers who are the problem. If you think that you're good enough at yakking and driving to be able to do it safely, you're wrong. You're not.
Every other goddam day I pass someone wondering, "What the hell are they doing?" And the answer is always - ALWAYS - yakking on their goddam phone.
HANG UP AND DRIVE.
> Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because driving is a necessity where there's no mass transit coverage? (aka - you can't make the bad drivers go away. Awful ones, yes; bad ones, no...)
Because the majority of drivers have an inflated estimation of their multi-tasking capability and think the problem is "the other guy"?
Killing the process which is hogging the CPU is making the best use of limited multi-tasking ability for what should be higher priority tasks. Much better than letting that process kill innocent bystanders in my estimation.
The recommendation comes from a study of accident statistics and patterns over 10+ years, not a single school bus incident. 3,000 deaths and 800,000 collisions per year from distracted drivers combined with research showing how much more distracting it is to dial a number, talk to somebody, read or write a text, etc. Regardless of what can be enforced or other remedies pursued cell phone use in cars is killing people and causing many millions of dollars in medical, insurance, car repair, lost income and other costs.
I'm for a ban against texting while driving and talking on a cell phone while driving unless a hands free device is being used. Even using a hands free device is still a distraction to driving. My car has it built in and I can admit that when I'm talking to someone it does take away some attention to the road. It's not nearly as bad as holding the phone to my ear.
Too many times have I almost been in an accident due to a person talking on their phone not paying full attention to the road. On the highway it's not a big issue, driving through town while going through stop signs, lights, watching for pedestrians, making turns.. it's just too much to do with one hand occupied by a phone.
I'm only 32 but I can remember a time before everyone had cell phones when a person could drive 10 minutes without having to make/receive a call.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
This will no doubt pass, and the TSA will enforce it.
Since almost everyone has a cell phone this emergency is perfect for giving the Government carte blanche to pull anyone over.
This "Emergency" is too perfect not to exploit.
There is always laws in place in NY banning electronic devices when the car is in motion. The problem is the police do not enforce it. I know people who have gotten a ticket for talking on the phone which the state said is automatic 2 points and $150 fine however, the person went to court and settled for a $50 ticket and no points. That is no deterrent for cell phone use. Until they up the enforcement and start making it a big offence, the bans will do nothing.
In recent weeks driving along some interstates I have witnessed numerous people driving below the speed limit, weaving from side to side within their lane and obviously looking down instead of straight ahead. The common element in all of these cases is that the drivers were doing something on their cell phones.
The crash with the school bus may or may not have been due to the driver following to closely, but I am sure as hell sick of seeing impaired drivers on the road and look forward to people being forced to pay attention to navigating a metal death missile at high speed.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
This isn't a one-study thing. Over the past five years a bunch of studies have come out saying, basically "cell phones increase your likelihood of crashing as much as drinking" and "hands free headsets do not lower this risk significantly".
Focusing on the phones makes sense. No one drives as well with the phone as without. Lots of people think that the headset helps, even though there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't. It does not MATTER if it keeps your hands on the wheel or your eyes on the road, the issue is attention in general. People's feelings on this don't match up with the actual evidence, so we're forced to legislate, since it impacts other people as much or more than the driver.
You make it illegal so that someone who's always riding around without paying attention to what they're doing doesn't have to kill someone before we get them off the road.
Missiles are cooler than the other traps. Especially when they are shot from the headlights.
Fight Spammers!
Don't worry, we'll create another device to monitor that device so that person using the original device won't make mistakes...
Instead of doing a flawed study, I think the NTSB should have on their website a link pointing to the Mythbuster's episode where they test who is more dangerous:The idiot behind the wheel speaking on a cell phone, or a very nearly drunk driver.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGN1pLI4ZaM
Thus 1% of the world population is smart?
I'm Ron Burgundy?
I do not understand the logic here. Because other driving habits are dangerous too, the use of cell phones while your driving is OK? You are so wrong. Using the cell phone while your driving is not safe. And it doesn't matter if you are using a headset either. I see it every day and there are studies to prove this. And because people are usually too stupid to make good decisions on their own, they have to be told what not to do. That's why DUI is illegal too, even if there are more things which you shouldn't do while driving. -H
hfoo
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?"
Because the gadgets are involved in, and the cause of, a very large number of accidents. You can cherry pick the accident stats all you'd like in a failed attempt to dodge the issue, but the fact is that the car's driver seat is becoming more like the comfy chair in the living room instead of a driver seat.
.
Should cell phones be singled out? I'd say no. But the problem remains, how do you determine the "bad" driver who thinks it is OK not to pay attention to what is occurring on the road around him/her?
How do you find and remove from the road the drivers who are simply not paying attention?
Personally I prefer Red Shells.
Because most people don't know how to drive (in the U.S. at least)... Can't go blaming everyone now can we? A gadget is easier - it can't defend itself. ;)
And not only will you avoid the temptation to text, but you won't be eating junk food.
If they were not using their cell phone, they would have been able to focus better on hitting you.
Cab drivers in Boston have pictures of little motorcycles, crossed out, under the driver's window.
Fight Spammers!
I agree, people who cross multiple lanes at a time while going 70MPH should be taken out before they hit me.
Rather than single out one thing let's punish people who do stupid shit. People who do things like play on their phone and don't pay attention should just lose their licence for a few years same if you rather eat food than pay attention to the road. Too many people treat driving as if its a right and the government rather let you drive and take your money but instead they should be taking bad drivers off the road.
Texting while driving is obviously a serious killer.
Legislation might not be the answer: I favor a technical solution. Say, devices automatically disconnect at a certain speed from IM/ voice, except for 911, something like that.
But to suggest that texting while driving is not a problem, even if this SPECIFIC story might have unclear details, is ignorant and dangerous FUD. Yes, this specific story's details might not directly support the idea that texting kills, but texting obviously kills, and to suggest that, since this ONE story doesn't support the specifics, then therefore, let's not worry about texting... that is irresponsible and ignorant.
Horrible story summary.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Distraction (and drunkenness too, now that I think of it) is a modifying disadvantage, in that's it's not all that bad on its own, but when stacked up against another danger (which may or may not be under the driver's control), makes everything much worse. Potentially dangerous situations that an on-the-ball driver can handle, become serious risks if the driver isn't "with it."
Phone talkers and drunks aren't with it, and not just because they changed what it is. What phone talkers and drunks are with was never it, and what's it isn't very weird and scary to an attentive and sober driver.
Following closely? Speeding? Someone pulled out into the street? A motorcycle is approaching on a cross street? A pedestrian had the unmitigated gall to exist? These things are deal-with-able, assuming you haven't decided to make yourself suck by placing a phone call or having that 3rd IPA.
Are these the same school buses that the same NTSB gives authority to bypass seat belt laws? I say its time to strap those kids down.
Because you're supposed to be driving.
Since people have decided this doesnt apply to them, only others, and will not accept common sense things like focusing on a task... they yet again have to be coaxed with a good albeit disingenuous effort to save lives instead of volunteering TO STOP DRIVING DISTRACTED.
Good day.
So we're banning smoking in cars, manual transmissions, and the handicapped now?
I think that's the mentality that's missing from this whole argument. A risk / benefit analysis. I think LaHood said that 3000 people a year die due to distracted driving. Out of 300 million. Or around 1 in 100,000 . Everybody would be safer if they stayed in their basement, rather than getting out. But there's a whole world out there that's worth exploring, and it's worth the risk to leave your basement. Being able to communicate with other people while traveling makes your life better. That's worth something. Listening to the car radio is worth something. Reading the newspaper while driving makes the ride more fun, and is worth something. Each of these items has risk. Some risks are worth the benefit. Others aren't.
In the end, we're all going to die of something. The challenge is not to make every moment its best, nor to live the longest possible. It's somewhere in the product of these two.
Anyone that can pass a safe driver exam as well as a reaction time test *while* texting or talking on a cell phone should get an exemption. Exactly ZERO people would have exemptions.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
If the goal was to reduce distractions while driving, laws would have been passed to address other distractions--like eating--years ago. Laws were passed about generic distracted driving, but never anything specific to an individual act. Why? Could it be that this has nothing to do with distractions and everything to do with the devices being a new technology? The laws regarding general distracted driving should be enforced. We don't need a new law. If someone is on the phone and not allowing it to distract them, they are safer than the person who just went through the local fast food window, picked up a burger, and is more concerned about the mustard that is dripping from the burger. If the person is on the phone and driving erratically, stop them for distracted driving. We don't need laws that address cell phones.
NTSB is saying something I disagree with, so it must be wrong.
I also heard if you talk on the cell phone while pregant, your kids will get Austism unless you have a vaccine or live hear high tension power lines!
Just SOME people have difficulty concentrating on the road. School bus drivers distracted by kids and soccer moms distracted by ... kids (again). Just ban kids in the car! Problem solved!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I can't drive and use a phone at the same time. I used to think I could but then I started paying attention and noticed that my speed was varying more. So I started using cruise control. But then I noticed that the truck was drifting more even after I had the steering checked and the wheels aligned. Finally, I remembered that when I used to do telephone technical support I was really good at it because I could visualize what was happening on the other end of the line so well that I wouldn't notice things happening at the next desk. The same thing was happening when I used the phone in the car -- I began to focus on the person I was talking to instead of driving. Yes, the bus was following too closely -- don't think that had anything to do with the driver's mind being occupied with something else? I used to ride a motorcycle and I learned to drive it as if everyone else on the road was consciously trying to kill me. That's how I drive the car now -- with the phone safely ensconced in the backpack in the back seat. Often it's turned off because when I'm on the road it uses a whole lot of battery trying to find a signal when I'm in between towers. You want to use the phone, fine. Now if you don't have any kids, haven't bred, and want to cull your defective genes that's your choice. But I hope you're in your own lane separated from me by Jersey Barriers because I don't want your car pulling in front of my truck. I don't want your blood on my conscience.
The result of such studies is much less likely to involve further restrictions on drivers, and much more likely to provide a further push towards autonomous vehicles that allow users to be even more distracted.
YIAAL must not drive on streets and highways. It seems that most drivers suddenly slowing or drifting out of their lanes seem to have a cellphone in their hand. Maybe it should be incorporated into the driving test to identify "bad" drivers (at least that is what YIAAL might be implying.) I
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The NTSB is comprised of government idiots. If they don't SEEM important then they won't have a job. So they decide to impose on your life to remind you who needs who. If being an idiot was the problem and the solution was execution then the NTSB would have ZERO employees. That goes for a lot of beurocratic organizations including Congress.
No electronic devices on take off or landing. No electronic devices while driving.. Next they will fabricate how walking with an iPod is offensive to others which would only require some other backward thought process and subsequent rule...
Why is government important?
It isn't... -- well said
> Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?"
Because it makes... oh, I already said that.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
[[Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?]]
What would happen if the NTSB said states should ban bad drivers? Next thing you know, the justice department would recommend laws prohibiting the use of guns to shoot people.
Nope, it's the phones' fault.
Just require the driver in the driving test to talk on a phone, navigating a voice menu, eating french fries with dipping sauce, and selecting music from an ipod.
Renewal test every 4 years.
Just about every time I have almost been run over by a car, it's been by some damned fool talking on the phone driving. Half the time they didn't even notice they almost hit me.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Because if poor drivers were targeted, nobody would be allowed to drive.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
You can play that game all day. If not but for oxygen the arsonist wouldn't have been able to create a fire, but it's still the arsonists fault. If not but for automobiles there would have been no accident at all, that doesn't absolve the bus drivers of following too close and/or being inattentive.
They get to make suggestions to other government agencies, congress and the states. They can't enact anything. The FAA often ignores them completely.
If you use their logic with cellphones then the state should outlaw talking to passengers especially children. I'd be willing to bet that the number of accidents cause by drivers interacting with their kids have caused an order of magnitude more accidents over the same period of time.
Now I would have no problem at all if the states had an add on fine if investigation found that the accident was caused by the driver using a cell phone....or the car radio....or talking to their passenger.
But just saying X lives will be saved is silly unless you are willing to also publish the X number of lives that would be saved by doing some other regulatory action.
I want a government not a nanny.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
The NTSB isn't targeting eating, or car stereos (with fancy graphic equalizers that allow you to remix the songs while you are driving), or talkative passengers, so I can come to only one conclusion: Allowing the driver to talk is apparently what makes cell phones so dangerous.
It is reasonable then to suggest that, rather than banning cell phones, we should require ball-gags as standard equipment in a motor vehicles. Police should the enforce the use of these new devices, and issue tickets to drivers that fail to use them.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
In addition, most current laws banning cell phone use (California's for example) exempt certain classes of vehicles like police, big rig trucks, and... wait for it... SCHOOL BUSES!
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123.htm
This will increase dramatically the number of times some friend or relative gets irrationally pissed off at you for ignoring their phone call or screening them because you are not immediately answering your cell phone. :D
I think that the problem is with WHEN people decide to use their phones while driving. It's not dangerous at all to glance at your phone at a stoplight, and I think that it's minimally dangerous to use your phone on a familiar road while driving straight in light traffic. The problem is with people who are talking on their phones while trying to aggressively change lanes in rush hour or with people who are looking at their phone to text or dial in stop-and-go traffic. I think that if you are reasonable about when you choose to use your phone, it negates most of the danger. The problem with the studies is that subjects are tested in situations where they shouldn't be using their phones anyway under normal circumstances. You don't have to worry about missing an exit or crashing into a car in front of you when you know the area and you aren't following closely to begin with... ie: situations where it's safe to use your phone.
That would work... I'll let you take care of the people jamming stuff needlessly....
Personally, I just want a 1000W fresnel spot to point at the people behind me who forget how to turn their high beams off, or cruise around with their fog lights on at night....
Personally I try to avoid texting, but I talk all the time while in the car, and will occasionally read a text while driving...
But I've been in way more close calls due to eating while driving than anything related to my cell phone or satnav devices. If you're going to ban Cell phones I think you have to outlaw drive through fast food as well. That would at least have the added bonus of possibly reducing the consumption of food that is known to be horrible for people... We could live longer by not crashing, and live longer because we aren't eating crap.
I don't think the use of cell phones,food,drinks, or even drunk driving should be banned or illegal.
I think they should all fall under a multi-stage ticket approach to impaired driving.
I mean is the point of such laws to give tickets or to stop people who are a hazard to the rest of us.
I feel its the latter, that being the case I don't care how many texts they are sending or how drunk they are, if you can't tell they are impaired then does it really matter what they are doing?
The opposite of this of course is, when some women is doing her makeup, or someone is checking on their child or eating their big mac and they are all over the road or cutting me off and being dangerous in general they should be getting a ticket. Simply banning cell phones won't fix any of that, nor will it stop people from using their cell phones.
This approach could also help with drivers who are just poor drivers in general, repeat offenses in a given time period could have repercussions such as losing your license for longer and longer periods of time.
Some much scoff at this approach and say well once the drunk driver has hit someone its to late.
To that I would say, people need to start taking personal responsibility again, and is allowing some one to make the choice about how they control their car knowing it can be deadly any different then allow whoever to own as many firearms as they want?
I would say NO.
Anon
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because that would be antithetical to the current social paradigm in the US, to wit: You can't hold people personally responsible, you must either blame society, a group or organization, or simply "too much freedom".
That last one is popular, and the NTSB has decided that "too much freedom" is the problem this time. Since there are some people too irresponsible to be trusted with a cell phone and a driver's license, you must punish everyone by imposing restrictions on the entire populace.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Yes they were following too closely. Why? Because they had cellphones on. Saying they were driving too closely is like saying "The bullet didn't kill him, blood loss did.". Driving while on the phone is a huge distraction - far more than talking to someone in the back seat. The guy in the back seat shuts up when things get dangerous - while the person on the phone keeps on talking and no, your brain can't ignore him while the truck is slamming on it's brakes.
Scientists studied accident reports and discovered they were caused by 1) drunk driving and 2) cellphones. They investigated again and found that both alcohol and cellphone use slowed down reaction time.
For a long time, we had an alcohol accepting culture. People that used alcohol laughed and said "I can drive drunk", and idiots believed them. But we have always had anti-alcohol sub groups (Prohibition for example), in part because alcohol has many other bad features besides affecting driving. Slowly anti-alcohol groups lobbied for years till it ceased to become socially acceptable to drink alcohol. Eventually the anecdotal evidence became exposed for the ridiculous arugment it was
But more people use cellphones than drive drunk. There are no intelligent anti-cellphone groups like we had against alcohol. The majority of people do something stupid and dangerous and falsely believe the anecdotal evidence that it is safe. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SAFE. Your argument about "I have done it safely" is as moronic as the drunkards claim that they drove safely. WHat counts is not if you personally have in the past done it, but stasticially, is it safe.
And the answer - whether it is from studies in Utah, studies by Harvard, Studies by Britain's "Car and Driver", studies in Australia, or any of the many many other places that did studies is: Driving while using a cell phone - even if it is hands free - is just as dangerous as driving while drunk.
It is going to take a long time to outlaw. We are going to need a "MACD" to pop up and do what Mothers Against Drunk Driving did.
But it IS dangerous despite what all you arrogant "I can drive safely while texting/calling" believers think. Just as driving while drunk is dangerous despite what all the drunkard morons think (Ever try to take their keys? - you sound the same.) Eventually it WILL be illegal, just like drunk driving. The only question is, how many innocent people will you murder before you admit you are wrong - no, you can't drive safely while using a cellphone.
There are already laws that address motor vehicle accidents, proper operation, etc. If there's a wreck, it shouldn't matter why. We're past the point of splitting hairs over what's safe enough to do on the road. More laws are just about more revenue: it gives the cops yet another mundane thing they can stop and ticket you for.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Because without bad drivers, NTSB would be out a job.
They need something to blame; something that is unlikely to affect their continued operation. Ergo, they lobby for removal of distractions (sensible, I guess) but I'm thinking, as I'm sure many others are, why aren't they targetting bad drivers?
Incidentally, the Driving Standards Agency in the UK, along with several other agencies including the Police, are considering a separate motorway portion of the standard driving test. Damn good idea; currently the standard driving test does not include three lane highways, which apart from directly outside schools is the site of the most terrible incidents involving cars and fatalities, and it's mainly down to people who don't know what the fuck they're doing on fast roads.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I can't help with the fog lights ... but my standard procedure for high beams behind me is to simply "adjust" my center rear-view mirror.
After you shine the light back at them a few times, they tend to drop their brights.
Now, if only I could do something about those people who insist on driving with their hazard lights on when it's pouring down raining at night, not realizing that it (1) means that either their turn signals or brake lights are effectively disabled and (2) screws up your night vision even worse so you can't see the difficult to see lane striping (3) gives people massive headaches which can slow down their reaction time driving. If you feel unsafe driving in the rain ... pull over and stop. (but make sure you pull really far over, as some other idiot might have his hazard lights off, and the person behind him won't see you pulled over, or the lane markings)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
* both school buses had problems with their hydraulic brake systems, which led to reduce braking capabilities
... and failed eight of the 20 remaining buses serving the school district
... that was sent to the hospital that day to pick up students suffered a brake failure in the hospital parking lot and hit three cars.
* NTSB did its own inspection
* also noted that a third bus
http://threeriverspublishing.com/TRP/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9620:texting-and-driving-caused-bus-wreck&catid=66&Itemid=264/
Yeah, sounds like the only problem was texting. (sarc)
Oh, by the way, it's *already* illegal for drivers younger than 21 to text while driving in Missouri.
It is unacceptable that the iPhone can find you bars, avoid police checkpoints and tell you the weather using voice, but it cannot read text messages or e-mails out loud. Voice technology is ubiquitous and technologically accessible. Enabling better voice functionality can end car crashes caused by distracted drivers.
Handset manufacturers, not the users of cellphones or governments which struggle to ban phone use in cars, are responsible for improving the safety of their devices.
First you fix what you can. Imagine somebody is having a lot of trouble catching a baseball, and it turns out they have the glove on the wrong hand. First, you tell them to put the glove on the correct hand (something anybody can achieve). You don't start by telling them they should "get better" (which is not something that everybody can just do).
1. Twin 20mm Frontal Assault cannons with Eye Tracking aim.
2. Bumper mounted wreckage shovel.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Why say "not to take sides" immediatly before taking sides?
Does anyone else freak out like I do at the possibility of laws like this?
For example, let's imagine Stacy (fictional person) has a 30 minute commute to work. 5 days each week, she spends the time driving home from work on the phone, talking with friends.
After the NTSB recommendations are applied, she drives home in silence. Then when she gets home, she spends 30 minutes talking on the phone with friends. Everything else in her evening is pushed back 30 minutes, and now she goes to bed 30 minutes later each night.
Now, Stacy is missing out on 2.5 hours of sleep each week. After a couple weeks, this mounts up to a substantial amount, and it begins impairing her driving!
I honestly feel safer with Stacy being able to choose how she spends her time each day. She might not always make the right choices, but I trust her choices more than the ones the government would like to force on her.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
I already do that, but it's hard to shoot someone from my moving car while they're in their moving car while trying to not run into other people :(
One part that I think contributes is the rise of smart phones, touch screens, and full querty keyboards. You can't touch-type on them one handed. I can (and pretty regularly do), for example, type a txt on my good-old standard phone using T9 or standard mutli-press (cycling thru the letters) without taking my eyes off the road. But it still definitely takes away a good bit of your attention, and I only do it when there's alot of sight distance, little traffic, and no intersections to worry about. "Quick Texting" querty phones require both hands to use well or you have to stare at them. Same with touch screens.
The difference between cell phone useage and drunk driving, is that at any time I choose to set down the phone and give driving my full attention, I can. I can't do that while drunk. I have been able to combine years of cell phone and car driving without a single incident. I don't see what the difference is between that and talking to someone in the phone with you. I use my phone as my GPS as well. I see this as yet another government intrusion. Texting while driving is silly. But hands-free phone useage? I don't see why that should be banned. The vast majority can accomplish that without any issue whatsoever. And for me, phone useage adds to my quality of life. My wife can call me for directions, I can help people get to my house, I can ask my wife which store I need to get to. Its a huge convenience. And I think its safer to call as your driving than to pull over and attempt a merge back onto the highway. Especially in heavier traffic.
I'm shocked that all these slashdot poster are going on and on about how cell phone use should be banned. I'm sure almost every single poster does it on a regular basis.
I am completely in favor of a technology solution to the distracted driving problem. The cellular system can detect when a phone is in motion and all activity to such a phone can be deactivated by the tower. Let the smarts in the phone system resolve the problem correctly. Trying to make this illegal will not fix the problem since people will still do it even though it is illegal. The technology fix is 100 percent.
The cellular companies have had a way to prevent their customers from being killed or killing others for several years now but they do not want to disrupt their revenue stream.
I would expect a multi-billion dollar class action suit would speed up the transition.
Bottom line is that phone calls in a moving car equals a very bad idea that technology can easily fix these days.
Gadgets (especially cellphones) are a menace. Plenty of studies show that drivers who drive while using cellphones are impaired to a similar extent as legally-intoxicated drunk drivers.
See this and this and this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sorry, but the article linked is flat out wrong. They're missing the point. Yes, two bus drivers did things that were wrong that contributed to the accent. But what really matters is proximate causation. Their actions did not cause the accident. But for what they had done, it would not have been as bad. What caused the accident was a distracted driver in a pick-up truck, sending texts, not paying attention, and rear-ending another vehicle. Had that not happened, there would not have been a pileup. Period. Even if the school bus drivers could have avoided making it worse, no matter how much attention was paid, there still would have been an accident. They did not cause it. While I feel that the NTSB is overstepping by trying to put a national ban on all cell phone usage while driving, it doesn't change the fact that this accident was not caused by the scapegoats that the article tries to present, nor was it caused by the scapegoat that the NTSB is trying to present (people who talk on cell phones while driving, a SIGNIFICANTLY safer activity than texting while driving).
The NTSB/NHTSA know that "bad driving" is already illegal everywhere. But it's unenforcable. People are not convicted of careless driving unless it's given along with another reason (such as a DUI, red light ticket, or as part of a crash investigation). You can't just have someone blow in a hole and get a "beep" for bad drivers or have a "bad driver" camera at intersections. So you target some traits of the bad drivers, even if they are poorly correlated with crashes and instead will catch mostly good drivers or, in many cases, cause worse driving (I see people trying to stealth text now, hiding the phone, making it worse for their driving than if they just held it up where they could more easily watch the road peripherally, but where others could more easily see what they are doing.
Sadly, the real fix is crowdsourcing reporting of bad driving. I called the police on a car driving 30 mph under the limit and weaving all over the road, and was blown off while I pressed the issue until the statement was "if you pull over now, I can send a car out in the next 6 hours to take your statement." They wouldn't even take the plate or description of the driver. It was too early in the day to trigger the "oooh, may be drunk" action. But she is still out there on the roads. And nothing anyone can do about it unless she pisses off some cop.
Learn to love Alaska
in the UK you can be (and people are) prosecuted for 'driving without due care and attention', and there is no explicit list of activities that can lead to a presumption of that. We don't need laws explicitly banning texting while driving, doing makeup, reading the newspaper, doing the crossword, closing your flies, or any number of other distractions. I once watched someone oblivious *overtake* a CHP officer who was doing the limit; they were mentally miles away. haul them in and prosecute. don't pass 100 laws against the details, because you'll miss 200 more details.
The kid DID cause the initial crash, not the bus drivers. The fact is this accident wouldn't have happened without the kid.
Roads should NOT be used by anybody but professional drivers.
For everyone else, they should take public transportation or use commercial car services/delivery services. 95% of the people on the road should never be allowed to drive.
A drivers license should cost at least $10,000.
This would be the start of a proper transportation infrastructure. Leave driving to professionals, so the general public doesn't waste 2 hours a day on useless labor like driving, when they should be doing something more economically productive like reading or sleeping or programming on a computer.
Really, it's the 21st century, and we force the population to do hours of manual labor per day to even get to work? Make them sit in a car and force them to drive to get to work? They can't read a book or work on their computer while going to work? Really?
Then ban car pools because the people in the car will conversing and the driver will be distracted.
Then ban radios in cars because they will distract the drivers. (but then people will fall asleep at the wheel from boredom)
Then ban drive through lanes in McDonalds because drivers will be distracted while EATING in cars (or die from food poising at the wheel).
Then ban drive though lanes at banks because drivers will be distracted while counting money while driving!
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because the unions will have their ass if they try to make out it was the drivers' fault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekfg_gxFa9I
Because good drivers know that using gadgets while driving is not a good idea?
Because gadgets don't vote for officials who approve budgets for things like the NTSB.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The problem with the study is that it lumps texting (always dangerous) with talking on the phone (something you can learn to do safely.)
I used to follow someone and maintain a low profile on the Interstate while using the phone, but after practicing with the phone, I can now be fully aware of everything going on around me and carry on a conversation too. It just takes practice, and a determination that driving the car is priority #1. I can ask the other person to repeat something, or tell them to "standby" if there is a traffic threat I have to deal with and use both hands, and in a pinch, I can just drop the phone and worry about the call later. But you have to practice this stuff.
Same thing with GPS. 1st GPS I mounted in the car, I crossed the center line while staring at the dang thing. Now I know how to do that and intermittantly look at the road for as long as it takes to change whatever needs changing or reading, etc.
Texting, OTOH, I don't think is possible to do safely, as I don't think there's any way to do it efficiently enough to make it worthwhile without taking your eyes off the road for too-long a time. I'd only use it if it had, say, speech recognition so I could send something without keyboarding.
Welp, by the responses, you can tell who does and does not drive while texting and/or talking on the cell phone. To compare it to eating/smoking/shifting a manual transmission while driving is laughable...at best.
While texting/talking, you are taking your eyes and, more importantly, mind off what you are doing...which...btw...is a driving a deadly 4000+ lb bullet. I can drive on the freeway and tell you who is texting and/or talking on their cell...I cannot do the same for smokers/eaters/etc. They are usually driving at least 10mph slower than everyone else and are drifting out of their lane.
BTW, handsfree devices don't help either. All a handsfree does is free your hand, it does not free your mind or your eyes (while dialing) from whatever engaging conversation you are in.
It's shouldn't matter whether we're good or bad at it or any overly broad number of the people killed or anecdotal evidence of why it doesn't apply to me or you. The question is all things considered how much does it raise the risk of death or serious injury to the average citizen and is that risk acceptable for the value they get from talking on the phone.
Additionally, if they outlaw it you'll have to ask your self the same question though the risk will likely include imprisonment int he event of the death or serious injury of another.
The weeping and gnashing of teeth on both sides gets old. We should just focus on making rational decisions both in public policy and personal actions and move on.
They are banning the USE of them while driving. It's no different than alcohol. You can store it in your car, you just can drink it while you're driving. Ironically, both do the exact same thing when you use them in the car. They cause people to crash. It should be banned, and the fines should be no different than the state DUIs.
Which is the fact that humans shouldn't be allowed to drive. Clearly they are too fallible. I am a professional driver, which does not necessarily make me better than all of you, just the ones who do idiotic things (like pass me on a double yellow and cut me off to take an exit).
Oh, but everyone knows science is nonsense -- let's go with our gut.
Never let a good emergency go to waste. If you can control people by the emergency then it's easier to pass the law.
I think most people should minimize their use of cell phones in moving vehicles. Texting in a moving vehicle should almost never happen. Eating a burger in a moving vehicle also a pretty bad idea. Being drunk or otherwise inebriated in a moving vehicle is an extremely bad idea. So is being very tired, or angry, or otherwise out of your right state of mind for any reason.
But none of these things, per se, should be illegal. The reason why we make these things illegal is to cut back on something that they cause: reckless driving. The strength of the supposed justification for banning them is proportional to their correlation to reckless driving: the more frequently and the more extremely reckless peoples' driving becomes as a result of these things, the more we want to ban them.
But if we just enforce the laws that are already on the books about reckless driving (exceeding the speed of traffic or safe road conditions, following too closely, poor lane control, impeding the flow of traffic, etc), then we will punish people for doing these behaviors exactly in proportion to how frequently and extremely it makes them drive recklessly; and we will spare the people who defy the statistic and drive safely despite partaking in a behavior which has a strong but imperfect correlation with reckless driving.
Lets us say, hypothetically, there was some activity which had a 100% correlation to reckless driving. If people do this thing and then drive, or do this thing while driving, then absolutely 100% of the time their driving will be reckless. In that case, we'd certainly want to punish people who do this; but there would be no need to punish doing that activity per se, because everyone who does that activity would also be driving recklessly, so punishing reckless drivers would punish all of the people who do this activity.
Now lets say an activity has a 50% correlation with reckless driving, and that correlation is along gender lines: if men do this and drive, or do this while driving, then they will drive recklessly, every time; but women can do this and drive perfectly fine. In such a strange case, I imagine we would want to ban men from doing this activity and driving, but not women; but again, that would be unnecessary, because 100% of men (50% of the population) who do this and drive will be driving recklessly, so punishing reckless driving will punish all the men who do this activity.
Now lets say there's an activity which has a 50% correlation to reckless driving, but it's not along such clear lines. Maybe it's along some simple lines that are hard to tell at a glance, like blood type. Would we want to ban all people with a certain blood type from engaging in a certain activity because it might cause them to drive recklessly? And go out and test everybody's blood to tell who is or isn't allowed to do this and drive? Or wouldn't we just ban driving recklessly?
What if it wasn't one simple factor, but some complex combination of factors which 50% of the population happen to exhibit, and if you have this complex combination of factors and you do this activity, you will always drive recklessly; and if not, you won't? Would we ban doing this activity and driving if you have this complex combination of factors, and test for that? Or would we just ban driving recklessly, and let that catch them?
What if we didn't know what combination of factors contributed to it? Just, 50% of the population drive recklessly while/after engaging in this activity. We can't tell who will do it or not in advance, so we can't ban only those people who will be affected. Is 50% high enough to ban it for everybody? Half the people out there can do this and drive perfectly safely; the other half can't; do we punish half the population for doing something harmless just because we can't tell in advance whether or not it will be harmless? Or do we punish the people who end up doing the harmful thing as a result, i.e. driving recklessly, and leave the people who can do it harmlessly alone?
Or maybe it's
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Shifting with a manual transmission (or paddle-shifters and tiptronic-style clutch pedal-less devices) IS PART of the driving.
In fact I absolutely hate automatic transmission because I feel I am missing some control over the vehicle. I also ride enduro bikes where braking is many times just using your clutch/gears. If you drive sporty/dynamic and have a manual car (with hopefully RWD as FF cars are shit for anything but winter driving maybe) then you already are using these techniques.
Automatic is for the people who want to talk on the phone, eat, watch a movie, text etc ... generally people in the Americas. Just compare the cup holder sizes in US/Euro models .. if the Euro model has one at all (My BMW has NONE, my Ford (Euro model) has 4, none of them can hold the smallest Clean Canteen... at best a small cup of coffee paper cup...
Now the question is: should I let the asshole talking on the phone in front of me and then slow down to 10kms/h before every turn, or risk the person behind me letting him/her in and then they might crash me from behind...
Can't comment on this particular accident.
However, we do have data in Canadian provinces regarding hand-held devices (cellphones, texting behaviour, etc) and driving.
In Saskatchewan (pop 1 million) fatal accidents known to have contributing factors of the driver either taking on a cellphone or texting while driving were 60 in 2010 (the last year data was available), with 8500 non-fatal accidents.
This compares to 69 fatalities attributed to impaired driving, with 760 injuries and only 1400 collisions.
Since impaired driving as a cause can be made with much more certainty (blood alcohol readings are taken from drivers either by breath analysis or blood tests at the hospital or by the coroner when road accidents are involved) it remains a possibility that talking/texting while driving has surpassed impaired driving (about 20%) as the major cause of road fatalities in that jurisdiction.
not to mention 3 screaming kids in the backseat with french fries in your lap has probably caused more accidents then a cell phone responsibly used by a driver aware of his surroundings and in full control of his vehicle. am i saying dividers should be installed to soundproof the driver from noisy children? heck if taxi's in nyc can have bullet proof dividers and SUV's can have DVD's to entertain kids in the backseat....then cell phones are the LEAST of the issues out there on the road. be aware. be safe as you can. but remember that a vehicle is a machine that can kill . and drive like it aint a toy and youre not on a racetrack with asbestos gear on
The problem here is the "Banning" mentality. We've discovered something that people do which is a danger to other people.
The knee-jerk reaction is "Ban that action!" "Make it illegal!"
This type of logic has several problems, as anyone who has taken even a moment's consideration will see.
First of all, we shouldn't be banning anything and everything we find that makes life more dangerous. There has to be some sort of risk/reward analysis that considers the total value. Banning smoking in restaurants, banning salt packets in restaurants, banning body-mass-index over a certain value, banning high cholesterol in people, banning having no health insurance... where does it end?
Given: Texting causes accidents. Question: How many accidents are caused by texting? Is it worth putting in any effort, or are the efforts better spent investigating other aspects of driving, such as road hazards, traffic light timing, or automobile construction?
Second, even if we have good reason to we shouldn't be banning something unless doing so is effective. Will banning stop the practice? Historically, consider other bans of the past that are also dangerous: speeding, running red lights, DWI, and so on. Also, consider the bans against drugs, guns, prostitution, and alcohol.
Thirdly, we need to consider unforeseen consequences of the ban. Banning texting forces people to hide their texting by placing the phone on their lap - which is more dangerous than letting people text in the open. Banning drugs, guns, prostitution, and other things has caused a rise of violent crime. How does one detect texting? Will it be a policeman's word against that of the driver? Will the police be able to use texting as a pretense for stop and search? Will the police have a device like a breathalyzer that scans a person's phone? Will we need to abolish peoples' rights to privacy to implement?
And finally, we absolutely need to consider alternatives. Is education more effective than enforcement? (This happens to be true for drugs, for instance.) Will this be an issue in 10 years with self-driving cars, and can we just ignore it until then? Are there other solutions, such as a special "driving keyboard" which make texting a little safer but not completely safe?
The obvious analogy is to ban hunting, because people occasionally get shot. Or ban any dangerous profession (such as machinist) because people occasionally get killed.
There are real things to fear in the world, but small groups will use your fear as a way to increase their control over your behaviour. Try not to give in to the fear - think it through in a clear and logical manner.
I'm not forgetting about them, but if you give me missiles, it will fulfill a daily fantasy of mine.
Yeah, fame, wealth, attractiveness... all good but what I really want is some missiles!
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
i passed a lady who had an entire make up bag on her dash had the visor flipped down doing makeup. i seen a guy the other day unbuckle his seat belt when doing 70 grab the wheel with one hand and turn around to mess with his child rather then stop driving seen a lady and her mother get t-boned by a semi because she was talking to a passenger when leaving a gas station rather then looking to see if a car was coming i drive a truck for a living right now iv seen less accidents from cellphones then the news and media let on and you all worry about a cell phone some people just shouldn't have a license .. on another thought to your cellphone jammers how am i supposed to listen to Pandora radio when driving then its easier to stay focused with music when driving 11 hours a day then road noise that just makes you tired.....
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Because cell phones are actually a distraction (though, personally, I still don't think they should be outlawed), and because the NTSB wants to look like it is doing something to justify its share of your paycheck.
Answering that question was really easy. I suspect you intended that question to induce some other reaction. Perhaps in the future you can be less obtuse.
Pardon my vent, I'm just tired of all the weasel-wording, flippant self-righteousness, and general poncery in public commentary. Say what you mean. If your position really does have such inescapable merit, let it stand on its own -- don't browbeat the listener. Show some respect for your audience.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Let's ask a similarly stupid question: "Why are we targeting drunk drivers instead of bad drivers?" When you can answer that question, you should be able to form a pretty good answer to the question above.
That's how things work here in America. Don't attack the problem, assume the first correlation you come to is the causation and attack that. Bonus points if it's already a controversial topic such as a violent video games.
What next? NTSB bans listening to music and people talking in cars?
Seriously, We need an end to the ridiculous nanny state. Stop judging me already guilty based on how you think I might act.
It's true! Safest solution is to keep automobiles in the garage. But that's not what automobiles are for.
mfwright@batnet.com
According to the US National Transit Database (record of every public transit system in the US), the average light rail system costs $5.66 per passenger mile. This compares with $1.41 per mile for driving a car. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTran#Cost_comparison_with_other_public_transit_systems
So I check the Wikipedia source for that $1.41 per mile cost and look at http://commutesolutions.org/external/calc.html. (The site currently lists a cost of $1.36, but close enough.) They give only $0.01 per mile as the cost for State and Local Construction, Improvements and Repair, and only $0.006 for State and Local Highway Maintenance and Operations, for what looks like a total capital cost of $0.016 per mile. I tried looking at the source for the $5.66 per mile cost for light rail over at http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm, but frankly I don't have time to dig through all the links on that page. The Wikipedia article gives a capital cost figure of $1.78 per mile for light rail.
I have trouble reconciling this $0.016 per mile capital cost for roads against the $1.78 per mile capital cost for light rail as listed at the Wikipedia article.
This looks a lot like certain capital costs for roads are not being accounted for.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
You can bundle up little kids pretty effectively. The very old is the real problem--the ideal solution would seem to be some form of casual on-demand travel. Sized between a minivan and a passenger van, cheaper than calling a taxi because it would cover a given area and just pick up people needing a ride from the shelter to their dwelling.
Did anyone look at the overall study or are you just looking at the one accident. There is a study on spacial concentration and if you are talking on the phone(yes that includes hands free devices) your brain tries to enter the conversation. Think of it like this, if you just answer the phone, are you concentrating on anything else? Those of you who think they can are sadly mistaken and are the ones the NTSB is really focusing on. One bad apple and all pay the price!
The problem with those are that they are less discriminating, you may get someone other than the asshole you are targeting.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Handsfree phones should be required; anything else should be prohibited.
Hands-free doesn't help: http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone
There are other studies to point to. Point is, it's not the distraction of the hands that's the really big problem, it's the distraction of the brain.
Maybe you mis-copied, but that second link is to a study from 1991. Hands-free cellphone devices hadn't really taken off yet, unless you count the classic image of someone with a phone duct-taped to their head. If you missed the 1991 date at the top of the study, one giveaway is right there in the second paragraph (emphasis mine):
What CB radios were to the '70s, cellular phones were to the '80s. From early 1984, when the first complete systems became operational, the number of cellular phone users has grown to over two million. By the mid-'90s, when cellular service will be available throughout most population centers in the United States, the number of subscribers is expected to grow to between ten and twenty million.
The first link is to a study from 2006. I got my first hands-free Bluetooth headset in 2007, and it was bit balky to use. My wife's new Fiat comes standard with a voice-activated cellphone interface, so there are no fiddly buttons to mess with. Technology has progressed a bit.
I'd really like to see a more recent study that looks at hands-free cellphone use and explicitly lays out variables such as 1) how much button-fiddling is required, 2) how much the driver has to look away from the road to operate the hands-free unit, 3) how much the driver has to look away from the road to operate the phone itself, and 4) a description of any instructions given to the driver during the test (to weed out the Mythbusters scenario described further up the page, where the drivers apparently prioritized conversing over driving).
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Hey if i want to masterbate while driving its my god given right
They recently banned talking on a cell (or texting) while driving here in Ontario, and leading up to that decision, there was all the same shouting of, "it's just bad drivers! I can text and drive just fine! Don't take my phone away, I'm so important!" Then people started to see the actual research behind it, realized it's probably a good idea that everyone get rid of these distractions on the road, and now everyone's used to it.
Then I see all these same arguments from the US posters, and can't help having a sense of deja-vu. But the fact is, they're pushing this because there's evidence to back it up. Give up the knee-jerk reaction and think about it with an open mind for a bit.
Ive learnt to ignore the phone when it rings and I need maximum attention on the road.
If I think its safe I take the call with hands free but assign maximum attention to the road. I sometimes have to ignore the person on the other end if the traffic demands my attention.
This kind of thing took a while to learn and takes disapline. Building this skill into the driving test is the decent way to address this stuff rather than playing wackamole on technology and irritating the crap out of everyone, driven by fear.
A blog I run for the wealth
the correct answer is to move to the city.
You're somewhat out of touch with reality. Half the world's population lives in rural areas[1]. Moving 3.5 trillion people to cities is not a realistic solution.
Cites also have the problem that, if infrastructure fails, everybody dies. They're not "survivable", in military terms.
And some of us just like the country.
[1] http://esa.un.org/unup/p2k0data.asp
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Cell phones are the low-hanging fruit. Much easier to pass a law against them then to actually make drivers drive any more carefully.
You can have that: move to New York, Boston, Seattle, etc. and you can take your "proper transportation infrastructure" and never need to venture onto the road.
The rest of us will simply continue driving in our unprofessional ways on our unprofessional transportation infrastructure. The fact that we do pretty much doesn't affect you at all as long as you stick to your "professional" ways.
Because bad drivers use gadgets when driving and in doing so risk their own and others' lives.
Athy, athier, athiest.
Moving 3.5 trillion people to cities is not a realistic solution.
Brain fart. That should be "3.5 billion", not "3.5 trillion".
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
A three year old child was killed and the mother is in hospital after a car driven by a young lady hit them. She had received 5 text messages at the time of the incident, and was preoccupied at responding when she killed the child.
Driving and Texting should be treated as driving as DUI and subject to jail time
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Easy. Because bad drivers use gadgets while driving. Duh.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
If you can blame bad things on bannable objects, then hey, you have the power to make your world safer. But if you have to accept that other people can do bad things to you, and there's nothing you can do about it, you feel powerless and vulnerable.
So, which do you pick? For many people, simply the one that makes you feel more warm and fuzzy inside.
Face it. Yuppies are selfish conspicuous over consuming conservative hipocrits. No kids toi speak of, selfish. Totally risk averse. Love State power as they are OK and oppose all change or progress. Have a chauffeur, don't drive anyway.
Hmmmm.. Half the Republican front-runners are threatening to cut funding to all sorts of government jobs, end all sorts of government positions, even entire departments all together... And all of a sudden these schmucks are pulling this kind of baloney out of their asses...
Yeah, I'm sure it's a complete coincidence....
is quite dangerous. It should be banned too.
Conservatives are wrong.
Oh, and religion is totalitarian bullshit meant to manipulate and control people. How exactly is that a conservative value?
Oh, yeah.
Apparently you are only just getting a law preventing holding a phone while driving. I assumed you got one about the same time it was banned in the UK. I have seen a test done on several programs, including Mythbusters, and, while handsfree might be OK, holding the phone is very dangerous!
These types of reports are common and accurately reflect the type of stupidity which is common from the NTSB and especially the FAA. Let me give you an FAA example. An airplane crashes. The pilots had zero visibility which means they could not see anything outside the window. The co-pilot, who wasn't flying or navigating was cited at fault simple because he was color blind; and yet how still meets FAA medical requirements. Factually the pilot was 100% at fault and the co-pilot was never a factor - at all. The FAA cites the co-pilot for failure to visually ID colored lights at the airport to ensure aircraft orientation with the runway. Its also worth noting the aircraft was five miles away from the airport, parallel, and physically not aligned to even allow for visual ID of the airport lights, assuming weather even allowed for visual sighting of the lights; which it didn't. As a result of the pilot's disorientation and flight into ground, the FAA decided that all color blind pilots must now be re-tested for color blindness at every medical, at additional pilot expense, despite the fact that the condition never changes; which is both a medical fact and a point which medical doctors ask, "are you fucking stupid?"
Factually speaking, the NTSB and especially the FAA commonly do things which stupid people are amazed at how incredibly stupid they can be.
Don't forget the FAA is not happy until your not happy. The FAA literally increases danger in the air and makes flying needlessly more expensive. The FAA is another government agency which needs to dramatically reformed.
I ride a motorcycle to work every day weather allows. I have given up keeping count the number of close calls I have had with drivers/texters. In every case I made a point to see what the driver was doing, and in every case they were either talking or texting on the R@#%&@#%@ phone. There is a BIG difference between eating a sandwich, or drinking a cup of coffee versus texting. The amount of your attention it takes to read and reply to a text is far greater. The time it takes is also far greater. I've gotten to where most of the time I can spot a texter going down the road...they're obvious to pick out. Going slower than the flow of traffic, weaving from side to side in their lane, making dangerous lane changes etc. On any given day as I go by cars I glance to see what they are doing, and the numbers of texters seem to grow every day. There was a fatal accident here locally the other day, young girl in a wreck, she survived but the victim didn't. They discovered in the investigation afterwards that she had sent 11 texts in the 10 min previous to the accident. How the FUCK can you have any idea what's going on around you while carrying on a chat session on your phone? It's been proven in almost every test done but people still seem to overestimate their ability to text and drive at the same time. WTF is so important in that text that is worth killing someone for?
I'd like to give this pot a stir and propose that cell phones & texting be allowed while driving, but to automatically add a tax to your monthly phone bill of say $0.01/min for use of those features whenever the phone GPS senses a speed above 5 mph. Engineers could sort out how this would only apply to the drivers seat. People could then decide whether they want the added expense. If you cause an accident, authorities could change it to $0.10/min and increase the rate for each offence. The Feds, States and Local governments would split the money as they all incur an expense when you pile your vehicle into someone elses. This is a users tax such as on alcohol with increases similar to your auto insurance rates after an accident. Awaiting comments and thanks for listening.
It don't take rocket science to see. People drive badly while distracted. It might not be the entire cause of the accident but it probably contributed. Distracted driving certainly causes problems in other cases. I've seen multiple cases of it adding to congestion personally. Grow up. Hang up. Pay attention to the road
I disagree. I have had two cars totalled and one suv damaged by people on cell phones. The first totalling occured when one woman stopped in a turning lane "decided" or rather assumed without visual verification that it is ok to turn while there is a stream of cars going through an intersection for their green light -- she never even looked up to see if cars were still going through the intersection, she was on total auto pilot while jabbering away. It was pretty low speed but due to the angle at which she hit the wheel on my car it was a total loss. Twice I have been rear ended by interstate drivers on the phone (one female, one male). One resulted with a totalling and the other caused significant damage to an SUV I was driving at the time. Each time was due to slow traffic in front and fast traffic behind -- yes and it was rush hour. The following drivers had ample time to stop (they were WAY behind me) but never once looked up from their phones until they were on top of the drivers ahead of them. People are very poor at driving when on mobile phones.
Low Hanging Fruit
"The absence of a timely brake application, the cellular provider records indicating frequent texting while driving, the temporal proximity of the last incoming text message to the collision, and the witness statement regarding the driver's actions indicate that the GMC pickup driver was most likely distracted from the driving task by a text messaging conversation at or near the time of the accident."
What part of "the stupid son of a b*tch in the pickup was texting" did you not understand? He was the first one to hit ANYONE, and everything else followed from that.
You might want to check your units there.
Yah, yah, I caught it after I posted. See my reply to my own post. Posted well before your reply, I might add. ;-)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I have seen way too many people driving on the road using their cell phone; texting or talking. They definitely cannot use a cell and drive. Yes, cell-driving DOES cause accidents.
we're at it. Drunkards unite! Let's stand in solidarity with our calling-while-driving brethren!
;)
Then I can eliminate 6/7ths of all serious accidents tomorrow by not allowing anyone under the age of 25 or over the age of 65 to drive.
employed by those who espouse the right to keep and arm bears
You're not talking about your risk. You're talking about your risk and mine -- I'm on the road too.
I don't care what risks you take with your life.
But if you drink before you get in a car and drive on a road where I am, you are taking a risk with my life.
How about this: I find you in the streets one night and point a revolver at you. Then I shout "Russian Roulette, let's see if you're it!"
Sounds fun?
Do you think I would be f**ing justified in doing that????
Don't take a risk with my life without involving me in the decision process, you jerk.
Yes, I needed to vent that. Seriously, there is no justification for driving after you had alcohol. You know why? Because there is no obligation to drink. Ever.
Someone justifying driving after drinking upsets me a lot more than someone who drives after drinking.
It is not right, it is never okay, you are always gambling unnecessarily, and not just with your own car/health/life. Why? Because you wanted a drink? If you think that's a valid response, get some help.
When media darlings and self appointed nannies of all of the world like that feckless twat Oprah making so much noise. The real cause of the accident mentioned in the article and many more get buried under the weight of people pushing their own agenda. The NTSB and news media have forgotten the fact that correlation does not equal causality. As a matter of fact, these days you can get on the internet and the news and cry that the person responsible for an accident had brown eyes and people with brown eyes have more accidents than people with green eyes, so people with brown eyes are bad drivers and shouldn't be allowed to hold drivers licenses. It's the same faulty logic.
That doesn't mean people should be texting, putting on makeup, shaving, reading magazines, or any of the other hundred moronic things I've seen people do while driving. But the sheer enormity of the NTSB's over reaction is just fucking stunning.
I feel less safe holding the phone down low, when I should be having it be above the steering wheel.
GPS, getting a phone call... not that big of a deal if near field of view.
What no one seems to be talking about (pun intended) is that a blanket ban on hands-free devices would also preclude one from speaking to another person in the car.
... exactly how is that safer?
So, sure, just tweak the law to allow for conversations with persons actually present in the vehicle.
So it'll be OK to take your eyes off the road to respond to conversation with your passenger, but not the disembodied voice in your headpiece
At least your reply was funny. :)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
If they ban all phone usage including hands free devices, how will they ban the hands free device that hooks my phone to the radio in my car and the buttons on my steering wheel. When I'm in the car and get a call I hit a button on my steering wheel and then hold a conversation like the person is in the car with me. When I'm done I hit the same button on my steering wheel. If I want to make a call I hit that same button, say the name of the person I want to call and then it dials it and I talk to the person if they pick up. Unless the cops were to pull my phone record, which would require some pretense like me rear ending someone, they could never know if I was talking on the phone, singing along with the radio, or just crazy and enjoy the sound of my own voice. Honestly, hands free devices are only a problem if people are fumbling with there phone to dial numbers or texting and then it is just bad hands free design and implementation. I never have to take my eyes off the road or my hands off the wheel. F.Y.I I have an android phone, and a Mazda 3 with some modifications I made to the radio to allow the phone to be hooked up to it, that involve a Bluetooth headset being ripped apart and installed into my steering wheel but there is nothing stopping an auto manufacturer from putting a system like this into a car stock. Like in my sisters new Chevy Cruz or what ever they are calling the latest iteration of the sub compact. No, sadly all this is going to be is another excuse for the cops to pull someone over and find a reason. Though I understand this more than I do seat belt laws for adults. I mean come on, if I'm dumb enough to not wear a seat belt and I die in a crash didn't I just reap the just results of my actions. I don't need the government to tell me that a seat belt is a good idea, and anyone who is to proud or ignorant to realize that gets what they deserve.
The suburbs -- and unless you're a farmer, you live in the suburbs, not the country -- are even less "survivable". Think about the goods that you consume on a daily basis (including food, water, oil/gas/other fuel, etc.), and the infrastructure it takes to get them there. Now think about the fact that you need to get those goods not only to your house, but to millions of other houses over a huge, spread-out area.
Cites are more efficient, but they depend more on the technology.
Where I grew up qualified as suburban, by your definition, and likely by some others. But we had our own water well and septic system. We had oil heat, but we also had a wood barrel stove that could keep the place warm. We had a small garden, a large yard. We had wooded lands around us. This was the norm for the town. There were even small farms around.
If civilization collapsed overnight, our way of life would be drastically altered, and a lot of people wouldn't be able to cope, I'm sure. But we would have had a chance. My dad used to hunt deer, we could cut wood for fuel, we could expand the garden, we'd even be able to open the well cover and get water with a bucket and rope after the generator ran out of gas.
In the city, you would have two choices: Leave or die.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Next they will insist that we not talk to other people in the car and then demand that we drive single person vehicles so that talking to others is impossible.
You bet your life its bad drivers for using cell phones and other similar devices. Get it straight both cause accidents. Its like giving a loaded gun to a drunk.
Either the drunk is going to hurt/kill someone or himself. Allowing texting and or cell phones during driving is just like a loaded gun. Its going to go off its a matter of time.