NTSB Recommends Cell Phone Ban For Drivers 938
ducomputergeek writes "According to this AP report, the National Transportation Safety Board says 'States should ban all driver use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices, except in emergencies.' 'The recommendation, unanimously agreed to by the five-member board, applies to both hands-free and hand-held phones and significantly exceeds any existing state laws restricting texting and cellphone use behind the wheel.' So what about all the cars today that come with built-in computers, navigation, internet capabilities, and cell phones?"
Docked Phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree with not allowing non-hands-free talking and especially with texting, but all electronic usage is a bit vague...
Re:Docked Phones? (Score:5, Informative)
Amazingly, due in large part to efforts of the NHTSA, 2010 had the lowest number of fatalities on the road in 60 years [msn.com]. So, yes, a lot positive has come out of their research and recommendations.
And when you say "they didn't think through very much", you're off by a magnitude that you (clearly) wouldn't believe. While perhaps the results going against so-called "common sense", the amount of distraction caused by hands-free vs hand-held cellphones is similar and very high -- there have been dozens of studies over the years, and they all reach this conclusion.
Gross generalizations with no backing data (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing how 2010 had the lowest number of fatalities, and most of the data I've seen has shown a droping trendline of reduced accidents per vehicle mile driven (your link only shows total fatalities, not fatalities per miles driven), wouldn't that be an indicator that current advances are working and what should be done is minor incremental improvement as needed as opposed to sweeping huge changes?
I mean, if we saw a huge spike coming out of the 90's and a trendline pointing north through the 2000's, I'd be fully behind the efforts to ban all cell phone usage in cars.
But what we see is that the vast majority of people using electronics while driving are doing so in a responsible and safe manner. Sure, we should continue to hammer down on people who are not doing so, but I don't see the need for sweeping changes when things are already going in the right direction.
-Rick
Re:Solution in search of a problem (Score:5, Informative)
Since 1994:
Common cars handle (as in: stop and turn, in that order) far better: Brakes are generally much bigger, drum brakes are far less common, OEM tire compounds have improved, and the FWD layout has grown from the pile of mush that it was into something commonly capable of going 'round a corner (or a person, or an out-of-place vehicle, or...) properly and without undue drama.
ABS has become a normal function instead of an extra-cost item.
Stability control systems have become very common, along with traction control.
Airbag systems have shifted from being somewhat optional to overbearingly-complete during that time.
Crumple zones have improved with advances in applied finite element analysis, CAD, and (I dare say) metallurgy.
Side impact beams have become required equipment.
So, there's lots of things that correlate well with the reduction in fatalities in the timeframe you specified. The obvious rise in cell phone usage over that same period is another data point, to be sure, but I feel that it is pretty weak compared to all that I've listed.
Re: (Score:3)
Get headphone control adaptor (Score:3)
You can get an in-line adaptor that give you buttons to pause, skip and reverse. It's basically just the same controls that come on the headphones, they work on the touch.
I have an iPhone and it's OK to use when it's in a mount in front of you on the dash, otherwise I agree holding it and trying to use it is too distracting.
Needed to be done. (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation please (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's so damned dangerous, why do the cops get a permanent exception?
Spare me the "talking on your phone and driving kills people" sophistry. So does anything else that distracts from driving. Shall we next eliminate cupholders in cars because drinking and driving "kills people", too?
Because (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops are above the law, of course.
Re:Citation please (Score:5, Insightful)
Because cops are automatically better than us.
That's why they can constantly record you out in public, but the second you try recording them it, it's 'wiretapping' or 'interfering with police business'.
That's why they can carry loaded guns, but the average citizen just can't be trusted to do the same.
They can speed as much as they damn well please, because they are better drivers than you.
Re:Citation please (Score:5, Insightful)
They can speed as much as they damn well please, because they are better drivers than you.
Given that cops actually get additional driver training for the situations they are in, they are in fact better drivers than most people on the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Same reason they get an exception on driving like an asshole in general: because they can.
Percentage-wise, I'd say I see way more police offers perform unexpected/dangerous maneuvers and nearly cause wrecks than all other drivers on the road. Probably by quite a bit. I always watch them extra carefully because god only knows what stupid shit they might pull, and I doubt they're taking the blame if they do something dumb and our vehicle
Re:Citation please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Citation please (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Insurance companies will charge higher premiums if they can figure out a way to justify it, because you have to buy insurance. There's no downside.
The downside is the insurance company loses customers to a competitor who doesn't penalize for cell phone usage. You have to buy insurance, but there is no law stating that you should pay extra for using a cell phone.
Ray LaHood needs to take a step back (Score:5, Interesting)
Just get us self-driving cars already so that this and a number of related problems go away.
Re:Ray LaHood needs to take a step back (Score:4, Informative)
By the way, I've heard two interviews on NPR featuring Mr. LaHood. In both cases, he was aggressive, dismissive, and generally petulant whenever his position was questioned. He came to the show strictly for the purpose of delivering one message: "Two hands on the wheel, eyes on the road. Always. No exceptions"
Problem was texting, bad brakes, not cell phone (Score:5, Interesting)
Lesson would seem to be not to text while driving, and definitely don't text while driving in front of multiple school buses with bad brakes.
Re:Problem was texting, bad brakes, not cell phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesson would seem to be not to text while driving, and definitely don't text while driving in front of multiple school buses with bad brakes.
Surely the lesson would seem to be: make sure school buses have working brakes?
Re: (Score:3)
You'd be surprised how many school buses in America are poorly taken care of.....
Does NOT ban hands-free deivces (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does NOT ban hands-free devices (Score:5, Informative)
The NTSB website does not say anything about a hands-free exception.
To the 50 states and the District of Columbia:
(1) Ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers; (2) use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration model of high visibility enforcement to support these bans; and (3) implement targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and enforcement, and to warn them of the dangers associated with the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving. (H-11-XX)
Yeah, so, (Score:3)
this is complete BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Drivers should be only punished if there driving is dangerous. Drivers exhibiting signs of impaired driving (like slow reaction), excessively long cushions to the next car, speed lower than traffic.
The amount of preventive punishment: seat belts, speed limits, etc is mind boggling. All in the name of safety.
Punish drivers for the crime, actual accident which was there fault, actual impediment to the traffic, not for the achieving preconditions of what will actually happen. As long as I am concerned the driver could be sleeping on the back seat, if his robotic car manages to drive the car meanwhile.
This is all of course excludes DUI. Those need to be moved to the buses for life, period.
Re:this is complete BS (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all of course excludes DUI. Those need to be moved to the buses for life, period.
Why should it exclude DUI? Unless you're driving dangerously, it's just as safe as talking on the phone. Probably more so, since if you're a little drunk you're concentrating on driving and looking out for cops, rather than fucking around with your phone and being generally oblivious to your surroundings.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that studies show that driving while using one's cell phone are as dangerous as DUI:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html [cnet.com]
Bullshit (Score:3)
Drivers should be only punished if there driving is dangerous. Drivers exhibiting signs of impaired driving (like slow reaction), excessively long cushions to the next car, speed lower than traffic.
The amount of preventive punishment: seat belts, speed limits, etc is mind boggling. All in the name of safety.
Punish drivers for the crime, actual accident which was there fault, actual impediment to the traffic, not for the achieving preconditions of what will actually happen. As long as I am concerned the driver could be sleeping on the back seat, if his robotic car manages to drive the car meanwhile.
This is all of course excludes DUI. Those need to be moved to the buses for life, period.
Drivers should be only punished if there driving is dangerous.
The amount of preventive punishment: seat belts, speed limits, etc is mind boggling. All in the name of safety.
This isn't about pre-crime or expanding the 'nanny state', it's about making statistically valid expansions to the rules on reckless endangerment. The entire point of the article is that cell phone or laptop use while driving is dangerous. You don't wait for someone with a lethal weapon to actually kill someone before you bother to punish them for doing stupid shit with it. By your logic a man with an open carry permit can just stroll down the street with their Glock, safety off and finger in the trigger gu
Other Dangerous Activities while Driving (Score:5, Interesting)
How about we ban other dangerous activities while driving like:
- Changing radio stations
- Putting on makeup
- Reading books or newspapers
- Scolding children in the back seat
- Thumbing through CD wallets looking for CD's
- Eating
Seriously, people have been doing things in their cars that can and have caused accidents, some of them even more utterly ridiculous than using cell phones or texting. Why is this getting so much attention?
Re: (Score:3)
This is it exactly.
You can't legitimately talk about banning cell phones without proposing we ban the millions of fast food drive-thru windows. Saying you can eat a Big Mac but you can't make a hands-free call is idiotic.
Premptive (?) (Score:3)
There are two types of people who use phones and other gadgets while driving: Those who realize that their driving ability is impaired, and those who don't realize that their driving ability is impaired.
BTW, I don't remember the last time I saw a cop driving a car without either talking on the phone or using a laptop mounted on the passenger seat.
Ban all the drivers.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the technology is here to allow for fully autonomous driving. The government just needs to come up with the funding to install all of the sensors and implement regulations that require all manufacturers to include these in ALL vehicles.
Driving is a privelege, not a right. If we want our roads to be truly safe then we should have computers do the driving for us. Again, the technology is here (straight from wikipedia):
Autonomous cars are not in widespread use, but their introduction could produce several direct advantages:
Fewer crashes, due to the autonomous system's increased reliability compared to human drivers[1]
Increased roadway capacity due to reduced need of safety gaps[2] and the ability to better manage traffic flow.[1]
Relief of vehicle occupants from driving and navigation chores.[1]
Removal of constraints on occupant's state - it would not matter if the occupants were too young, too old or if their frame of mind were not suitable to drive a traditional car. Furthermore, disabilities would no longer matter.[3]
Elimination of redundant passengers - humans are not required to take the car anywhere, as the robotic car can drive empty to wherever it is required.[3]
Alleviation of parking scarcity as cars could drop off passengers, park far away where space is not scarce, and return as needed to pick up passengers.
Indirect advantages are anticipated as well. Adoption of robotic cars could reduce the number of vehicles worldwide,[4][5] reduce the amount of space required for vehicle parking,[6] and reduce the need for traffic police and vehicle insurance.
This will not only "eliminate" accidents, but also decrease emmissions, and save money....
Public Transit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed that people are still so passionate about driving themselves to work and so vehemently opposed to public transit. Don't all y'all realize that you could spend your commute time texting and Tweeting and talking and what-not with reckless abandon if you let a professional handle the driving for you?
On top of it, a transit system done right is faster, far cheaper, and much more efficient than one in which single-occupancy multi-passenger vehicles are the norm. Instead of sitting in stop-and-go traffic on the freeway for an hour, you could be in a train doing 100 mph down the median of that same freeway...if only such a train existed.
Don't get me worng. Cars are awesome, and a vital part of any modern transportation system. But the balance of the American transportation system is skewed so far in favor of cars that it's become the most expensive, slowest, most dangerous, most inconvenient, most inefficient transportation system you could design.
Cheers,
b&
Re:Public Transit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed that people are still so passionate about driving themselves to work and so vehemently opposed to public transit.
That's because public transit sucks.
If I take the bus to work I get to stand outside at -40 waiting for it, then it takes half an hour to get to the depot, then I stand in the cold for a few minutes waiting to change to another bus, then it takes an other half hour to get to work. Then I get to do the same on the way back, except for the days when it's really cold and snowy and the bus is half an hour late so I have to wait at the bus stop and hope that it's going to turn up before I get frostbite because if I go inside to warm up then I can be sure that the bus will arrive right then.
Alternatively I can drive and it takes fifteen minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not even the bad part of public transport.
What private vehicles offer that public transport will never have, is that it offers a private mobile storage space. Want to drop off a computer at a friend's house after work? No problem. Want to pick up 150lbs. of groceries (or maybe a ton of construction materials) on the way home? No problem.
That said I would be happy to have a self-driving car.
Re:Public Transit (Score:4, Informative)
Yep, it sucks. My recommended work commute by Denver's Regional Transportation District takes three transfers, 2.5 hours, and is followed by "walk the remaining 3 miles" (yes, really). I can drive the same route in 40 minutes most days, so I do.
I'd love to be able to sit back and let someone else drive for me, but not at that cost.
Necron69
Re: (Score:3)
And public transit sucks because so few people use/demand it.
For public transit not to suck it would have to travel every two minutes between where I live and where I work and not stop along the way. That would mean running about a million times as many buses as we currently have.
Oh, the other thing I forgot about public transit is that it's where I catch most of my coughs, colds and flu. The number of work days lost because of public transit infections must be enormous.
And it would have to brush my teeth for me and.... (Score:3)
For public transit not to suck it would have to travel every two minutes between where I live and where I work and not stop along the way. That would mean running about a million times as many buses as we currently have.
Oh, please. These arguments that public transit self-evidently sucks simply because it takes longer than a car, especially from fools like you who say that without regard to whether it's "two minutes" or three hours longer, are getting really old. Do four-star restaurants suck simply because your food doesn't come for 25 minutes while McDonald's could have given you a Big Mac in 60 seconds? Does code from your in-house developer suck because you could get the project done three weeks earlier and $8,000 che
Re:Public Transit (Score:4, Interesting)
Feel free to check all my figures.
$30,000 is reported multiple places as the average new car purchase price, and ten years is the typical lifetime of a car. That's $3,000 / year.
The average car loan is 70 months -- call it 6 years. A six-year $30,000 loan at 6% will cost you almost $6,000 in interest; that's $600 / year over the life of the car ($1000 / year during the loan, nothing after it's paid off).
10,000 miles / year @ 30 mpg @ $3 / gallon = $1,000 / year.
Insurance varies, but it's about $1,000 / year.
We're at $5,600 already and I haven't added in maintenance, registration, emissions testing -- or, for that matter, the cost of real estate to park the thing.
If anything, my $6,000 / car / year figure is probably conservative.
Yes, it's possible to spend less -- much less. I drive a '68 VW Camper that's been paid for since before I was old enough to drive and only put a few thousand miles on it per year. I doubt I spend $1,000 / year. But if we're going to consider el cheapo anomalies like you and me, we also need to consider all those driving around in BMWs that they trade out every year -- and the carless are equally offset by those with Lamborghinis. And those who only buy used vehicles are offset by those who only buy new ones.
Cheers,
b&
Basic Speed Law (Score:3)
Re:Basic Speed Law (Score:4, Insightful)
They get their driving privileges back because, in the USA, driving is considered essential.
And if they didn't get their driving privileges back, there'd just be a lot more people driving without a valid driver's license.
CB Radios (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was a kid in the 70s, nearly everyone I knew had a CB radio in their cars and trucks (I grew up in a family of truckers in the country). So how are hands-free phones different than CB radios? Actually, CBs aren't even hands free. Is there something different behind the mentality of using a CB radio vs a cellphone? Or was using a CB always dangerous and just not used by as many people? I can't remember any conversations ever about the possible dangers of using a CB radio.
Suppose I put my phone on speaker and then pugged in a mic that had a curly wire and button I pressed to talk, making it basically function like a CB radio. Would the danger level of using it decrease (when compared to using it entirely hands free)?
Re: (Score:3)
If it were just a concern of the pervasiveness of CB radios, then most trucking companies would have already banned their use by their employees. In that case, the percentage of CB users (drivers for the trucking company) would be close to 100%. If the logic of a cellphone ban also applies to talking on any electronic device, then any large trucking company that pays attention to its bottom line (insurance costs, getting the loads there on time, etc.) would have banned them.
My guess is that it comes down to
Will this ban extend to police? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the NTSB is finally recognizing that driving while distracted is a problem, will they ban police from using phones and computers while driving?
Or are police somehow immune to driving while distracted dangers?
Better Idea (Score:3)
Let's just ban stupid people from getting driver's licenses. No, seriously, hear me out on this:
In the 4-5 year span that I was driving as a stupid, arrogant, over confident teenager (who, for the record, did not possess a cell phone), I totaled a car pretty much every six months; once, I wrecked a cherry Buick I had bought a week prior because I was looking at the clock.
Conversely, I have had and used a cell phone for the past 10 years in my auto without incident (knock on wood), in both hands on and hands free configurations. Maybe it's because I've been behind the wheel of some sort of engine-driven vehicle since age 6; maybe it's because I focus more on driving than the conversation at hand (which the party on the other end typically dislikes, but hey, fuck 'em). Regardless, the fact remains that I had an order of magnatude more incidents when I was young and stupid than any time afterwards, and cell phones were not a factor in any of said incidents.
Thus, taking into account the aforementioned subjective observational data, I would contend that the issue is more one of operator competence than the equipment itself... which takes us back to my original point: Ban idiots from the road, and many of the problems associated will solve themselves.
Wow.... nanny state aserts even MORE control! (Score:3)
So this group of 5 people gets to decide what's "safe" for ALL drivers in America when it comes to using their phones?
One would hope their "recommendation" doesn't wind up holding any real legal weight, but given our congressmen and senators who LOVE to police every activity imaginable (even demanding Apple remove various programs from their App Store, like the "make your own fake drivers' license on the iPhone screen" one) -- I don't think this will end too well.
First off, WHY must they constantly lump texting and hands-free use of a cellphone together? It's blatantly obvious to me that texting is NOT a safe activity while operating a motor vehicle. Solutions are out that allow reading and dictating replies to SMS messages verbally, and I think that's workable. But no, you probably can NOT sit there and read a little phone screen AND key in sentences using a virtual keyboard or chicklet-sized slide-out one on the phone AND drive at the same time safely.
I've never had any issues answering an incoming call on my cell by tapping a big button that appears on my car stereo's display though, and talking while driving. Actually, I think live conversations with a passenger are likely to be more distracting or dangerous, since it's human nature that we expect some sort of occasional eye contact while communicating. Watch how often a driver will turn his/her head to briefly look at the passenger when he/she speaks..... For that matter, what about kids in the back seat? Nobody's seriously ready to recommend parents not take their kids anywhere in motor vehicles, right? Yet with the crying and screaming fits they're known to throw randomly, as well as possibly even throwing toys or other objects while in the car -- clearly they're more dangerous than a hands-free phone call!
As a motorcyclist... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with the spirit of the recommendation (Score:3)
I agree with the spirit of the recommendation, but not the way it is suggested.
FACT: People are distracted to varying degrees while performing normal driving.
There are countless reasons why the driver of a car can be distracted in the normal operation of a vehicle: serious conversation with a passenger, yelling at the unruly spawn in the backseat, fishing around in the glove compartment, windshield is dirty and driving during dusk when the sun is shining directly in your eyes, etc etc.
FACT: Personal electronics are an additional distraction while driving.
If I'm using my phone GPS capability while actively navigating an unfamiliar area downtown in a huge city, any point I take my eyes off the road is an opportunity to be in an accident. Best case scenario: The GPS device is completely hands off. Fortunately, my upgraded smartphone has this. Answering a phone is very distracting. You have to find it or fish it out of your pants pocket, look at the device to unlock it, and press the button to answer it. Then talking on the phone is distracting. Some conversations more than others of course. It would be great if a large percentage of people could judge for themselves when they exceed the threshold of not paying attention to the road, but unfortunately, most people are incapable of this judgement call.
Personally, I never answer the phone while driving. If it is important, they'll leave a message and I'll call back later. That's not to suggest everybody should be that way, but I do think a hands off system for answering a call in a car would be best. Instead of a luxury item in a car, I think every car made should have a hands off system the easily integrates with the car sound system. A technical nightmare right now, but with a few mandates to the right companies, it could be a reality in as little as 5 years.
What I literally hate seeing is people who talk on the phone nearly non stop while driving the car. Nearly every one of these people are accidents waiting to happen. I am sorry, but you cannot concentrate on driving while always talking on a phone. If you have to make a phone call or answer it, make it short and sweet. You'll live longer and you can talk longer when you are not driving. Driving is not an afterthought - no matter how long you have been doing it. It requires varying degrees of concentration. Most of the time driving is boring, but you need the mental capacity to respond quickly to bad conditions.
In a my perfect world, talking on the phone while driving would be punishable the same way as driving while under the influence. Ergo, the cop sees you talking on the phone, they get an opportunity to pull you over / ticket you and you get to explain your case to the judge or pay the fine. Repeated infractions get stiffer and stiffer fines until at some point you get your license taken away from you.
For those that absolutely have to talk while driving, get a hands off system for your vehicle.
Did you argue when they demanded hands-free? (Score:4, Interesting)
I did. I fought it. I did so alone. And I lost. I still think it's better to hold the phone, than to be hands-free, and I can clearly explain why. But that's not the point here. Also not the point here is that Mario Andretti can drive just fine while talking on the radio -- remember that we already train people to drive; I don't know why we don't train people to drive while talking: it's a skill like any other.
The point here should be that if you can't drive while talking on a dry road with perfect lighting, you shouldn't be driving in the rain at all, let a alone a blizzard with ice on the road. If you were banning talking while driving in a blizzard, I'd be fine with that. If you were saying that I can't drive without corrective lenses, adn he can't drive while talking, I'd be fine with that too. Each is skill-based. Easily taught and tested.
But that won't be the point here either.
The point here is that I can paint your future. In 5 years, an automated car won't be just a prototype any more. In 10 years, it'll be a standard option on many high-end cars. And it 20 years, it'll be a standard option on most cars. At some point, someone's going to calculate a statistic that the self-driving car is safer than the human-driven car. And it won't matter that the stat includes teenage drivers, and criminals, and human emergencies. And it won't matter whether or not the stat is valid at all, or reliable across geographical, weather, or cultural divides. One day, someone will lobby to require all driving to be automatic. And one day, one of those someones will win.
And it doesn't matter how many lives are saved. Because that too isn't the point. Not driving at all would save lives too. So would being encased in a bubble, or only driving huge trucks.
The only point here is that when that day comes, you'll have said that a safety risk is more important than a recreational freedom. Many people enjoy driving. Many people enjoy driving to work. Many people enjoy controlling the machine, repairing the machine, cleaning the machine, and playing with the machine.
So you'll live in a city where something enjoyable is prohibited. And the irony will be that police cars will be the very last to be automated. So you'll have a human police officer trained to drive to catch a human driver to arrest them for driving. It'll be funny.
And the best part is that you will not have removed all car collisions. Because the automated driving will still not be able to deal with all of the black ice. So you'll have removed the ability for humans to drive, and only saved a few lives. And you'll never have the stats to prove it. But you'll still have air bags, seat belts, road signs, crumple zones, automatic driving, and ejection seats.
That's the point. And that's the problem.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving the driver the opportunity to pull over and answer a call would also be unacceptable.
Reminds me of the difference between Reasons and Excuse. Humans are, beyond the use of mere tools, distinguished from animals by their ability to rationalise.
Reason: "I was unable to avoid hitting the car in front of me because they suddenly pulled into my lane and slammed on their brakes."
Excuse: "I was unable to avoid hitting the car [I had been following for the past mile] because they suddenly hit their brakes [which I didn't see, because I was in a conversation on my phone] and stopped too fast for me to react."
See the difference? One beyond means to avoid, one within means to avoid. People talk to LEOs, after accidents, like these two are interchangeable.
Re: (Score:3)
The system encourages people to give excuses. If you say "I didn't see him" after running over and killing a pedestrian or cyclist, you will get off scot-free. If you say "I was paying no attention to my surroundings and driving like a self-absorbed jerk with no consideration for my fellow man" you can expect a ticket for a few hundred dollars.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Update Trapster about a cop and radar you just passed (not illegal to do)
2. Changing the station on Pandora or switching to a new album to play
Hmm...will it now be illegal for me to use my CB radio? I have a unit that is not handheld, but it isn't mounted so as to be easier to take from car to car as needed...so, is it now a 'portable' electronic device?
Look, we already have perfectly good laws on the books....if you're driving in an impared or reckless manner, they have the ability to pull you over for that.
If you're driving badly, it shouldn't matter what you're doing...and if you're driving ok...leave me the fuck alone.
Re:It does if you kill them for it (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of liberals will say that thougher sentences don't stop repeat offenders, it shows all liberals are liars or just not very good at logic. No person put to death has ever offended again.
Anyway, why make murder illegal then? It doesn't stop people so might as well legalize it.
Actually, life in prison and those put to death have the same recidivism rate as to repeat offenders. If your goal is to stop repeat offenders, then life in prison is definitely more cost effective compared to the appeal process involved with executing people. In addition, at the outside chance that the wrong person is convicted, one of those methods is easier to reverse than the other. So, even though I am a conservative, the liberal logic seems spot on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Informative)
Giving the driver the opportunity to pull over and answer a call would also be unacceptable.
The main thing I noticed after Britain introduced a cell phone ban while driivng was that the idiots who used to talk on their phone while driving now stopped wherever they were on the road in order to answer the call, even when that meant that all the cars behind them now had to pass them on a blind bend.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Funny)
This will never fly in the US, where there is always massive cultural resistance to people being kept from doing absolutely any hare-brained, dumbassed thing they can conceive. What good is having freedom if you can't do massively stupid shit?!
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny you should mention buses because by the sounds of things in TFA it was shared negligence on the part of bus drivers that caused the accident used to justify this recommendation:
The board made the recommendation in connection with a deadly highway pileup in Missouri last year. The board said the initial collision in the accident near Gray Summit, Mo., was caused by the inattention of a 19 year-old-pickup driver who sent or received 11 texts in the 11 minutes immediately before the crash.
The pickup, traveling at 55 mph, collided into the back of a tractor truck that had slowed for highway construction. The pickup was rear-ended by a school bus that overrode the smaller vehicle. A second school bus rammed into the back of the first bus.
Sounds to me like the bus drivers were following too closely, not paying attention or the school districts failed to properly maintain the braking systems on the buses. Perhaps a combination of all three. The initial accident may well have been the fault of texting but the subsequent involvement of the school buses could easily have been avoided. Properly attentive drivers maintain sufficient following distance to avoid becoming involved in an accident that happens ahead of them.
The three second rule [smartmotorist.com] would likely have prevented the buses from becoming involved in this accident. Why are there not any suggestions for improved school bus driver training attached to this recommendation?
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
We're one step closer to a (very) short range cell phone jammer in cars that jam all cell phone signals inside the car whenever the car is moving at, say, more than 10mph.
Tried to buy one of these, years ago. They're banned. Every time a site pops up selling them assembled or in kit, they vanish shortly afterward. Some funny old FCC thing baring them.
Probably more likely to cause an accident anyway, as the driver on the phone looks at their phone which has lost connection and/or attempts to redial, when they should be watching the road ahead.
I hear so many anecdotal stories about how drivers are perfectly functional and alert when driving and blathering (about what urgent matter, exactly?), but most accidents I see a driver was distracted. Even seen a three vehicle accident in bumper-to-bumper crawl, where the two following drivers were clearly not paying attention.
Banned in California, but I still see a lot of drivers with that slab of plastic pressed to the side of their head as they go down the road. Fines not high enough? Insurance not high enough? Maybe when they put cameras on overpasses to photograph the offending drivers and mail them the tickets. (We already have cameras on intersections for red-light runners.)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Some funny old FCC thing baring them.
Actually, that funny old law is essentially why the FRC (Federal Radio Commission) was formed in 1912, which eventually became the FCC.
See, for you to receive radio transmissions from a tower far away, you need cooperation from all your neighbors. They have to silence any machinery that would cause interference on channels designated for radio.
Cell phone jammers are illegal because they interfere with designated channels for radio transmission. If they were legal, then you would have no way to deal with a neighbor that runs one near your house. That neighbor would legally be able to interfere with your radio, television, wi-fi, cell phone, etc.
I'm not completely sure whether you were being sarcastic or not, but this regulation, honestly, is very important. Without it, we'd pretty much have to rely on wired communication.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
Some funny old FCC thing baring them.
Actually, that funny old law is essentially why the FRC (Federal Radio Commission) was formed in 1912, which eventually became the FCC.
See, for you to receive radio transmissions from a tower far away, you need cooperation from all your neighbors. They have to silence any machinery that would cause interference on channels designated for radio.
Cell phone jammers are illegal because they interfere with designated channels for radio transmission. If they were legal, then you would have no way to deal with a neighbor that runs one near your house. That neighbor would legally be able to interfere with your radio, television, wi-fi, cell phone, etc.
I'm not completely sure whether you were being sarcastic or not, but this regulation, honestly, is very important. Without it, we'd pretty much have to rely on wired communication.
The argument is that public safety trumps nonexclusive access to the medium. That's what the NTSB and other state laws intend by outlawing phone use. However, just making handhelds illegal isn't doing the job. Either the fines aren't high enough, drivers don't understand the risks, or both. Legalizing jammers on highways probably isn't a good idea either since people who live nearby or have to make emergency calls will be affected.
Interestingly, if you do operate such a jammer and are caught by the FCC, I believe they can impose up to a $10,000 fine. If the fine for using your phone while driving was this expensive, it might cause drivers to think twice. Or, at least someone could compute an estimated cost in terms of life and property loss caused by phone-related crashes and set a fine accordingly. I'm sure it would be higher than the $20-50 in most states.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
When my son was born, I specifically went out an bought a pickup truck without a back seat. They were the only vehicles that could be purchased where you could turn off the passenger air bags. I have yet to see a parent, and that includes me, that doesn't check on their infant when the child is crying. They are even MORE likely to check on the infant when they are NOT crying. I also have yet to see any human that can safely drive while facing backwards in their car. Those with the Rube Goldberg mirror systems are even worse as they stare intently at the front mirror trying to focus across to small giggling mirrors to see if the baby is OK.
Point being, before deciding to be an anti-social ass by trying to break other peoples things, you should consider whether you are helping the situation, or making it worse.
Besides the fact that bored drivers (although more PC) are just as bad as distracted drivers, I can't take any calls for reduction in distracted driving seriously until they ban the car stereo.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually remember an ad that would air AGES ago about not driving while distracted. That's right, just opposed to allowing yourself to be distracted. It was a radio ad and in it, it described a young woman who ended up rear ending someone because they were too busy fiddling with the radio knob. Another one where someone dropped their cassette in the floorboard and reached down to fish it up again.
I see no practical difference between having a conversation with someone sitting next to me in the passenger seat vs having an earpiece in and having a conversation over my phone or even through one of those cab-audible bluetooth arrangements. And there may be some who oppose having any conversation in the car whatsoever but then that brings up parent's point about bored drivers. Bored drivers are dangerous drivers too. The fact is, driving is dangerous. Quit nannying me and let's just teach the concept of personal responsibility.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Informative)
Link to a Study (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you can provide a link, I haven't seen any evidence that talking to someone on a cell phone is different than in person because "your brain is devoted to paying attention to the 'other world.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Comparisons_with_passenger_conversation [wikipedia.org]
They reference a study done in the UK: (PDF)
http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/dec/references/inpress.pdf [nottingham.ac.uk]
Here's the relevant part. It's not that talking is inherently less distracting, but that someone in the car with you will understand if you're suddenly very quietly intent on driving safely, whereas we are ingrained with a much greater sense of urgency when talking to someone on the phone.
We suggest that during normal in-car conversation, both the driver and passenger will suppress conversation when the demands of the road become too great. However, a remote speaker on a mobile
telephone has no access to the same visual input as the driver, and will be less likelyto pace the conversation according to roadway demands
The results are interesting. The number of words spoken in an urban area was almost double for a phone conversation versus with someone in the car. There was also more talking on the phone while on a highway ("dual carriageway"), though by a smaller margin. When driving in an urban area, the remote conversation partner asked MANY more questions than an in-car partner. The amount of conversation was very dependent on the type of road, too, which seems (to me) to support the hypothesis that in-car passengers are aware of (and temper their conversation to reflect) driving conditions, whereas remote conversation partners do not.
Re: (Score:3)
However, if the other side of the conversation is riding in the car with you, at least they can say 'Hey! Look out for that elephant in the road!'. Hopefully before you hit it. They can also help you with keeping the radio sorted out, navigation and collecting that cassette that was dropped. In aviation terms, it called cockpit load management - and it really works.
This never happens in a car. What does happen is that people perform the natural act of looking at the person they are talking too. They dig in their purse for a napkin because their kid spilled a drink in the back seat. They watch their kids in the rear view mirror as they yell at them for being too rowdy. They get in fights. They try to hold hands. They do all sorts of things that distract the driver, not just attention wise, but physically as well. What doesn't happen is that the passenger acting
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, claiming that passengers will sit quietly if there is a danger in the road is ridiculous. As a rule passengers are not even aware of the danger before it is too late. They are also like
Re: (Score:3)
You can already make such a system. There are tons of sites for importing short-range jammers, and from there it's just a matter of hooking it up to a speedometer system.
And not using it all the time so you get caught. The fine for using such a device is rather high.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
Talking on the phone and talking to a passenger do not have the same impact on driver attention.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Funny)
If someone's in your front seat, they can see that traffic conditions have changed and know to STFU for a moment, without you having to tell them. Unless they're my ex, then they don't know what STFU means, nor how or when to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
With a passenger their voice is clearer and you can glance at them briefly.
Even the best cell phones however area lossy medium and you can't get any visual clues at all, you brain allocates more resources to compensate, resources that should be focused on driving.
And as others have pointed out passengers can add extra awareness to the environment shut up wh
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. First of all, people are not very good at identifying how distracted they are. Secondly, your brain has to devote much more attention to processing language from a very low quality source (the phone) than to a very high quality source (the person next to you), leaving the driver paying less attention to driving.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.las.illinois.edu/news/2010/phones/ [illinois.edu]
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home05/jun05/yantis.html [jhu.edu]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12710835 [nih.gov]
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
Talking to passengers might be a problem if people actually drove with passengers with any sort of regularity, the carpool lanes on the 110 are empty all the time for a reason.
Passengers, like airline pilots with regard to their passengers, have an incentive to survive and are unlikely to distract the driver when he needs his focus, and are able to evaluate the driver's attention span with body language and by seeing the driving conditions.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
You (and the folks responding with "yeah, and...") haven't glanced at the data, have you? Talking on a cell phone is NOT like talking to a passenger or listening to the radio or thinking about food. When you're on the phone you're less aware of your surroundings than if you were shitfaced drunk (again, look at the studies).
If you get poor cell phone reception in your office building you've seen the mindless dolts with phones to their ears walking into you, completely oblivious to everything around them. Well, they're affected even more badly when driving.
If you're on the interstate and there's no traffic, yeah, answer your phone, say "I'm driving, what do you want?" and make it short. In town and in traffic? That call will wait; when you park, just call whoever wanted to talk back. There's no excuse for you to threaten my life because you're too god damned impatient to wait five minutes for a phone call.
Odd how an anti-science comment like yours gets a "1, insightful" at a nerd site. The studies say you're not only wrong, but stupidly wrong.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
...or listening to the radio, needing to use the bathroom, or being an asshole in the near vicinity of a car. Of course, this -really- punishes those who have always used hands-free technologies, used their phones responsibly, and drive safely every day. They HAVE to be a problem - because the NTSB says so...
Fines aren't high enough. Make them proportional to income, like they do in Germany. Ha! Imagine Bill Gates III going down I-5 on his phone while at the wheel and receiving a fine for $10 Billion.
Re: (Score:3)
Fines aren't high enough. Make them proportional to income, like they do in Germany. Ha! Imagine Bill Gates III going down I-5 on his phone while at the wheel and receiving a fine for $10 Billion.
The real question is what kind of smartphone is BGIII using?
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
Um... already happened, dude. Google "cell phone accident manslaughter". First page even had on involving a cell phone and a boating accident.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
Studies show that talking on a hands free cell phone is about the same dangerous as holding one in your hand.
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we give everyone a CB radio like long haul truckers use? Because apparently that's never been as dangerous as talking on a cell phone.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference was CB radios weren't used constanbtly; a thirty second conversation isn't all that dangerous if you're on the highway. Most people didn't use CBs in traffic. With phones, some people seem to not be able to put the damned things down at all for any reason.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
The "one hand on the wheel" isn't what makes phones dangerous. The danger is when you're talking on the phone, all you're thinking about is the telephone conversation. It's how the brain is wired.
Do you really think you need two hands on the wheel of a car with power steering? Hell, back when I was a kid 75% of drivers only had one hand on the (non-power steering) wheel, because a cigarette was in the other hand.
Re: (Score:3)
What if you need to honk at someone who's moving into your lane? Sure, you can drop your cell phone or use your hand with the cell phone in it, but I doubt most people do that.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
Using a cell phone responsibly means NOT while driving.
Every study I've heard of shows cell phone conversations while driving to be ball park as dangerous as driving intoxicated. Except of course drunks tend to get hurt less than cell users in an accident.
Mycroft
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but is it in fact, as you say, "good science?" I'm pretty skeptical.
Some facts (Score:5, Informative)
OK, I'm going to insert this here, since it's always disappointing to see the delusions in threads like this one and it's about time we had some actual data.
Here's a report (PDF) [rospa.com] from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) in the UK, published a few years ago around the time we started banning handheld mobile phone use while driving. It cites numerous formal studies. Not all of them reported statistically significant results in all scenarios, but many did and the overall picture is clear. Below are some choice quotations.
Firstly, the bottom line:
Many studies, using a variety of different research techniques, have reached the same conclusions. Using a mobile phone while driving adversely affects driver performance in a number of different ways. It impairs:
Much of the research has assessed using hands-free phones and demonstrates that these still distract drivers and impair safe driving ability, even when driving automatic cars, which are arguably easier to drive than the manual transmission cars predominantly used in the UK.
There is also evidence that using a mobile phone while driving causes greater problems for those drivers who already have a higher accident risk, namely young, novice drivers and elderly drivers.
Next, an example on the subject of denial:
Interviews with nine people who regularly used a hands-free mobile phone for work-related calls while driving revealed that they did not believe that using the phone affected their driving performance because they could adapt their speed or end the call if necessary. However, when they participated in simulated driving tasks of varying complexity on a computer (not a driving simulator) and had to respond to mobile phone calls, their performance was significantly worse during both simple and more complex phone conversations. So, although they did not believe using the phone affected their driving, in reality it did.
It turns out that not all calls are equally distracting, but the difference is not huge:
In another study, 150 subjects observed a video of driving sequences containing situations to which drivers would be expected to respond. Each situation occurred when the subjects were placing a mobile phone call, conducting a simple conversation on a mobile phone, conducting a complex conversation, tuning a radio, and with no distraction. All the distractions led to significant increases in both the number of situations to which the subjects failed to respond and the time it took to respond to them. Complex phone conversations created the greatest distraction and simple conversations the least. The likelihood of a driver failing to notice and respond to a highway-traffic situation ranged from 20% when placing a call or holding a simple phone conversation to 29% for holding a complex phone conversation. Subjects over 50 years old were significantly more likely to fail to respond than younger (17-25 years) subjects.
So how bad is performance while distracted by using a mobile phone? Almost twice as bad as being on the legal drink-drive limit, it seems:
Before the drives, the subjects consumed either an alcoholic drink to take them up to the UK legal drink drive limit of 80 mg/100 ml or a similar looking and tasting placebo drink. During each drive the drivers answered a standard set of questions and conversed over a mobile phone.
On average, drivers’ reaction times were 50% slower when using a hand-held mobile phone than under normal driving conditions, and 30% slower than when under the in
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Research has shown that, for most people, talking on cell phones is far more distracting than those other activities. Let's follow the science: if good science says it's dangerous, then let's take the appropriate action.
Good science should be pretty easy. How much did accident rates drop when cellphone bans were imposed?
Oddly, I hear a lot about the evils of cellphone use while driving, but I've never seen a story about how many fewer accidents there are now cellphone use has been banned.
I don't have a problem with expecting drivers to concentrate on driving while... you know... driving, but I'd like to know whether these bans actually work before imposing yet more.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not good science at all. You don't even have a control group.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure the bans work, but the reverse certainly works to kill more young drivers (not just car drivers: also pedestrians, bikers and motorists). In the UK the number of traffic casualties increased by 16% in 15 years (uncited newsreport). Not sure that that would be due solely to more equipment usage though.
Another study I found (http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2010-05.pdf - it's in Dutch though) cites the following items for bikers:
- an increase of 40% in traffic accidents when comparing people who never us
Re: (Score:3)
Good science should be pretty easy. How much did accident rates drop when cellphone bans were imposed?
That's a good idea, but it's not a very simple question. How many people are now driving while using a phone in their lap rather than up where everyone can see it? The laws might have made things worse...
Also, just a few years back the proponents of some dubious new traffic law cited reduced accidents to "prove" that they were right, but they cherrypicked the data, relying on years when gas prices or the economic meltdown reduced the overall amount of driving, rather than reporting on the entire period si
Re: (Score:3)
Good science does not rely on post hoc fallacies.
So you're saying that cellphone use is so dangerous that it must be banned, yet accident rates don't actually drop after it's banned?
Re: (Score:3)
Accident rates (and especially fatalities) have been dropping (per capita) for decades. However, there is no science that can explain how much reduced drunk driving, cell phone outlawing, safer cars, etc each contribute to the drop.
The studies had people driving on controlled course with and without phones. The results were conclusive; there is no room for debate. Talking on a phone while driving is dangerous.
Re:Great idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, most research has been very poor science geared toward unfair comparisons.
When a claim is made that talking on a cell is as dangerous as driving drunk. You can almost immediately dismiss the study as junk science. If the premise were true, based on the giant multitude we have talking on cell phones, and the occurrence of accidents amongst drunk drivers, we should all be dead.
When a premise is impossible, or does not live out to reality. Than the science behind it is junk.
A few good research experiments came up with surprisingly different and surprisingly similar results. I recall reading one which had much more realistic results.
1. Driving on a cell phone did prove to be an impairment but with great variation.
2. Simply talking conversationaly bore a very minimal increase over talking to a passenger in the vehicle.
3. Conversing while engaged in complex thoughts (recalling figures, date/times, etc) proved extremely distracting.
4. The effect of phone use varied from person to person. Some found even conversational use to be distracting and have a profound negative influence. Others showed little affect beyond taking to passengers within a vehicle. But all showed profound affects when engaged in complex thought and response.
That study, more than any other I had read, seemed to bear true to my own personal experiences.
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Mostly I was writing to the people who always come out of the woodwork saying "I am a good driver, and I can handle being on the phone." No you aren't, and no you can't. If you were a good driver you would know better than to talk on the phone.
Re:Applies to hands-free phones, are you sure? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't get to the referenced ntsb.gov page [ntsb.gov] but the CNN article [cnn.com] states just the opposite. The last line in CNN's article reads: "It would not apply to hand-free devices or to passengers."
The CNN article is simply wrong. The original report and the vastly more detailed CBS article [cbsnews.com] state clearly that the ban would cover all communications uses of electronics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
there are already commercial cell phone signal jamming devices that could be retrofitted to work inside the area of a typical civilian(non police) vehicle cabin. this could be required to be put into new vehicles or for a partial Faraday cage built into the cabin space of new vehicles to deal with this.
And preventing passengers from using a phone? As for the Faraday cage, what about the need to call 911 after an accident and you can't get out of the vehicle?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
95% of drivers think they are above average.
It's actually 80% [sciencedirect.com], and that's meaningless by itself since it doesn't tell us whether the sample was representative, what the baseline for "average" is, or what the extremes are. Hypothetically, if 90 percent of drivers could navigate 100% of situations and accidents, then I wouldn't care that 30% are wrong when they say they're above average. Without knowing what constitutes an average driver, or at what point below (or above) average they constitute a high risk